Re:POLITICS: Having Babies

[Guest guest]

Gene,

Zoology studies?

Eastern non dualistic theory?

Reiterating that there may be no evidence there--but it's where I

would begin looking.

B.

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 20:18:46 +0000, implode7@...

<implode7@...> wrote:

>

> I wasn't so much asking whether there was any evidence touted as showing this,

but more the philosphical question of what kind of evidence would we accept as

showing this.

>

>

>

>

> >

> >

> > > I would go even further and challenge any 'evidence' that might be

> > > provided that a male is " more capable of putting emotion aside and

> > > making a hard decision " . What kind of evidence could there possibly be?

> >

> > I was just trying to be nice and put the burden of proof back where it

> > belongs. I haven't a clue about what evidence might exist.

> >

> > Deanna

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

>

> Gene,

> Zoology studies?

> Eastern non dualistic theory?

> Reiterating that there may be no evidence there--but it's where I

> would begin looking.

> B.

>

But, that's the thing - I think that any zoology study could be challenged as

not really showing anything one way or another about complex human behavior. Can

we say that animals make 'hard decisions' in the same sense that humans make

them? Or that they can 'put emotions aside'? Or that their emotions can really

be mapped to human emotions?

And I don't think that you can really speak of finding evidence in theory,

Eastern non dualistic theory, or other theories. Evidence, I think, pretty much

means scientific evidence here, and I just don't think that you could come up

with anything that couldn't be interpreted in a variety of ways to suit the

interpreters preconceived notions.

Although, I'm beginning to wonder, actually, whether the in depth study of the

Peruvian dung beetle might yield some unambiguous results.

>

> On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 20:18:46 +0000, implode7@...

> <implode7@...> wrote:

> >

> > I wasn't so much asking whether there was any evidence touted as showing

this,

> but more the philosphical question of what kind of evidence would we accept as

> showing this.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> > >

> > > > I would go even further and challenge any 'evidence' that might be

> > > > provided that a male is " more capable of putting emotion aside and

> > > > making a hard decision " . What kind of evidence could there possibly be?

> > >

> > > I was just trying to be nice and put the burden of proof back where it

> > > belongs. I haven't a clue about what evidence might exist.

> > >

> > > Deanna

[Guest guest]

>

>>

> So you think every marriage should not be built on the (Orthodox)

Christian

> model, but that they should be flexible depending on the talents

of each

> husband and wife?

>

No, I think each couple needs to do what works for them. I just

don't think the Orthodox Christian model deserves the bad rap that

it has received over the years. I personally believe that it has

been interpreted/manipulated to justify " keeping women in their

place " , when it was not intended to work that way.

[Guest guest]

Gene,

Reiterating that there may be no evidence there--but it's where I

> would begin looking.

> B.

You said you were asking a more philosophical question IIRC.

Feels like...a trap.

B.

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 21:24:32 +0000, implode7@...

<implode7@...> wrote:

>

> >

> > Gene,

> > Zoology studies?

> > Eastern non dualistic theory?

> > Reiterating that there may be no evidence there--but it's where I

> > would begin looking.

> > B.

> >

>

> But, that's the thing - I think that any zoology study could be challenged as

not really showing anything one way or another about complex human behavior. Can

we say that animals make 'hard decisions' in the same sense that humans make

them? Or that they can 'put emotions aside'? Or that their emotions can really

be mapped to human emotions?

>

> And I don't think that you can really speak of finding evidence in theory,

Eastern non dualistic theory, or other theories. Evidence, I think, pretty much

means scientific evidence here, and I just don't think that you could come up

with anything that couldn't be interpreted in a variety of ways to suit the

interpreters preconceived notions.

>

> Although, I'm beginning to wonder, actually, whether the in depth study of the

Peruvian dung beetle might yield some unambiguous results.

>

>

>

> >

> > On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 20:18:46 +0000, implode7@...

> > <implode7@...> wrote:

> > >

> > > I wasn't so much asking whether there was any evidence touted as showing

this,

> > but more the philosphical question of what kind of evidence would we accept

as

> > showing this.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > I would go even further and challenge any 'evidence' that might be

> > > > > provided that a male is " more capable of putting emotion aside and

> > > > > making a hard decision " . What kind of evidence could there possibly

be?

> > > >

> > > > I was just trying to be nice and put the burden of proof back where it

> > > > belongs. I haven't a clue about what evidence might exist.

> > > >

> > > > Deanna

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 10:54:00 -0800

Blazey <teresa.blazey@...> wrote:

> [ says]

> In fact everywhere that Christianity went, the

> relative status of women improved dramatically though certainly not

> perfectly.

>

> , and everyone else,

> I'm curious on your opinions re: whether the arrival of Christianity

> improved the lot of Price's primitives. Esp. the women.

> B.

I don't think so really. IIRC, most of the groups that Price studied

were not Christians (although I could be wrong), and to be honest the

sample is to recent.. And to be even more honest would probably need

some data point other than NAPD.

However, there has been an Orthodox mission to some of the remote

regions of Alaska in the early part of the last century, so I could be

wrong about that.

What I am really talking about is a principle of thought and thinking

whether or not some group or society is self-consciously Christian.

As Rabbi Lapin likes to say, you don't have to be a Christian to

appreciate the benefits of living in a society influenced by such

standards. It is just in America we have become totally unaware of many

aspects of our history, and where the root and foundations of many of

our freedoms come from.

Christianity has ebbed and flowed over the centuries. My comments were

more directed toward the original outflow of the Church. There is much

ugliness in between in all parts of the world.

Until the 17th century most of the world was under the guise of what I

will call the Old Order, a feudal pre-capitalistic kind of world.

However there were many areas of the world, especially away from the

cities, that people operated relatively free if only because of the

geographical limitations.

Then in the 17, 18, and 19 century centuries (I much admire the

feminists of the 19th century, they would put to shame their " modern "

counterparts) there were these revolutionary movements that moved

freedom forward for everyone dramatically. The 20th century, for all

intents and purposes, was a serious retraction on this freedom,

including here in America.

" In The Abolition of Man, C.S.

observed that the modern schoolboy

is conditioned to take one side in

a controversy which he has not learned

to recognize as a controversy at all.

That is, he is trained to assume a

materialist and Darwinian outlook,

without realizing that materialism and

Darwinism have been subject to thoughtful

criticisms from their first appearance. "

Joe Sobran

" Scholarship is essentially confirming your early paranoia through

a deeper factual analysis. "

Murray Rothbard

" Vegetarians, come away from The Dark Side.

Pork is the other white meat; beef is what’s for dinner;

and a day without pepper-crusted venison tenderloin is

like a day without sunshine. "

Brad Edmonds