|
Post by snow on Jul 14, 2015 15:10:29 GMT -5
SharonArnold quote - 'As far as women are concerned, I do believe that if the care of offspring was left up to the male of the species, then humankind, along with many other life forms, would have vanished long ago. As far as “feminism” is concerned, I suspect for the most part, that it is simply teaching women how to better pick partners that would help them care for, and ensure the survival of their young." And if it was left to women to bring home the meat and fend off waring tribes or other human species, we would long ago have been extinct. And feminism does not "ensure the survival of their young" IF you are referring to the single-mother feminist. Children of single mothers do badly on every single metric.
As an aside, one thing which separates us from Homo neanderthal is the specialization of the sexes. Neanderthals, whether men or women, seemed to have both done the same chores (going by hunting injuries on fossils.) Specialization was another advantage that Homo sapiens had over other hominids.Well since it was me that made the money in our family, cared for 2 children alone etc. and today I have 2 great kids that are doing well, one is a nurse and the other a police officer, I think you just might be a tad off the mark in your comments of a single mom and what can be achieved alone. Interestingly enough it's my son that is the nurse and my daughter that's the police officer.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Jul 14, 2015 16:16:40 GMT -5
SharonArnold quote - 'As far as women are concerned, I do believe that if the care of offspring was left up to the male of the species, then humankind, along with many other life forms, would have vanished long ago. As far as “feminism” is concerned, I suspect for the most part, that it is simply teaching women how to better pick partners that would help them care for, and ensure the survival of their young." And if it was left to women to bring home the meat and fend off waring tribes or other human species, we would long ago have been extinct. And feminism does not "ensure the survival of their young" IF you are referring to the single-mother feminist. Children of single mothers do badly on every single metric.
As an aside, one thing which separates us from Homo neanderthal is the specialization of the sexes. Neanderthals, whether men or women, seemed to have both done the same chores (going by hunting injuries on fossils.) Specialization was another advantage that Homo sapiens had over other hominids.I did NOT say that feminism "ensures the survival of their young." I said that "for the most part, that it is simply teaching women how to better pick partners that would help them care for, and ensure the survival of their young." After reading snow's last post, I would re-iterate "As far as women are concerned, I do believe that if the care of offspring was left up to the male of the species, then humankind, along with many other life forms, would have vanished long ago." I do not doubt this. I would also have to question if (minus men) there would have been warring tribes to fend off? (Sperm donor role aside.) As far as meat is concerned, well, that's a whole other discussion...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2015 16:50:22 GMT -5
It makes me hurt inside to see the low regard some have for men, knowing they have fair basis for it. I love(d) my children dearly, knowing also how much we all relied upon their mom. Surely, from a Biblical view, it takes both a good man and a good woman to raise children according to its teachings. Yes, everyone fails, often because of generational family dysfunction. Even more wonderful to see generational family ongoing love.
Just the thought of either having to do it alone, brings tears of genuine sorrow for the family's where I know it had to occur. My new lovely wife was forced into such a situation. She did a marvelous job, in my estimation, much better than the two of us did, and no, I don't know for sure how she did it, except through her "Belief" (translate as "faith.") They are grown now, answer for themselves just as we all do, no matter what way, how, we were raised, taught or indoctrinated.
Now even I enjoy their obvious love for their mom's love. Yes, I know, I am a fortunate man, and would never intentionally hurt their mum!
qq
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Jul 14, 2015 16:59:28 GMT -5
It makes me hurt inside to see the low regard some have for men, knowing they have fair basis for it. I love(d) my children dearly, knowing also how much we all relied upon their mom. Surely, from a Biblical view, it takes both a good man and a good woman to raise children according to its teachings. Yes, everyone fails, often because of generational family dysfunction. Even more wonderful to see generational family ongoing love.
Just the thought of either having to do it alone, brings tears of genuine sorrow for the family's where I know it had to occur. My new lovely wife was forced into such a situation. She did a marvelous job, in my estimation, much better than the two of us did, and no, I don't know for sure how she did it, except through her "Belief" (translate as "faith.") They are grown now, answer for themselves just as we all do, no matter what way, how, we were raised, taught or indoctrinated.
Now even I enjoy their obvious love for their mom's love. Yes, I know, I am a fortunate man, and would never intentionally hurt their mum!
qq Dennis, I was reacting to Bert's comments. (Yeah, maybe with a little hyperbole. ) I do not have a low regard for men. I know some stelllar ones, and am in fact, married to one. I think it is probably true that it "takes a village to raise a child". I am glad that Bert is part of this little girl's "village". I hope he sees it as the privilege and honor that it really is, not as a burden. I know that there are women who are not good moms. But I think every "story" is pretty complicated.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 14, 2015 23:19:01 GMT -5
As an aside, one thing which separates us from Homo neanderthal is the specialization of the sexes. Neanderthals, whether men or women, seemed to have both done the same chores (going by hunting injuries on fossils.) Specialization was another advantage that Homo sapiens had over other hominids. Bert, since you haven't made any comment, I am presuming that you haven't seen the series on "First Peoples. How people spread over the earth is also the subject of the newest issue of "Scientific American"
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jul 14, 2015 23:26:02 GMT -5
Let's keep in mind we cannot draw any clear distinction between species lest it consists of our faith in God.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jul 14, 2015 23:26:41 GMT -5
Who are we anyway? Did Rational make the internet?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 14, 2015 23:43:01 GMT -5
Let's keep in mind we cannot draw any clear distinction between species lest it consists of our faith in God. Oh, really?
Maybe you can't but now with the information on genes it becomes much easier to map humankind's movements in the past.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 14, 2015 23:46:26 GMT -5
Who are we anyway? Did Rational make the internet? Rational? make the internet?
Geeze, -I thought it was AL Gore who invented the internet!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2015 0:11:02 GMT -5
Give 'em both barrels, Dmmichgood.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jul 15, 2015 0:19:23 GMT -5
Let's keep in mind we cannot draw any clear distinction between species lest it consists of our faith in God. Oh, really?
Maybe you can't but now with the information on genes it becomes much easier to map humankind's movements in the past.Movements are not the same thing as distinctions. Distinctions require something absolute to measure from. In the same breathe you argue we are nothing more than a movement although we are absolute.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 15, 2015 0:31:33 GMT -5
Oh, really?
Maybe you can't but now with the information on genes it becomes much easier to map humankind's movements in the past. Movements are not the same thing as distinctions. Distinctions require something absolute to measure from. In the same breathe you argue we are nothing more than a movement although we are absolute. Gee! Lee, -YOU may feel like you are "nothing more than a movement!"
However, I don't believe that about myself!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 15, 2015 0:34:01 GMT -5
Give 'em both barrels, Dmmichgood. "Barrels?"
"Barrels" of what, -Bert?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jul 15, 2015 0:47:41 GMT -5
Movements are not the same thing as distinctions. Distinctions require something absolute to measure from. In the same breathe you argue we are nothing more than a movement although we are absolute. Gee! Lee, -YOU may feel like you are "nothing more than a movement!"
However, I don't believe that about myself!
Apart from your feelings, how do you know this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2015 1:10:17 GMT -5
Shotgun might get you there.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 15, 2015 1:17:47 GMT -5
Let's keep in mind we cannot draw any clear distinction between species lest it consists of our faith in God. You mean telling the difference between a crow and a raven eludes you? Or did I miss your point?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 15, 2015 1:19:39 GMT -5
Oh, really?
Maybe you can't but now with the information on genes it becomes much easier to map humankind's movements in the past. Movements are not the same thing as distinctions. Distinctions require something absolute to measure from. In the same breathe you argue we are nothing more than a movement although we are absolute. Wow, Lee, you missed the point on that one!
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jul 15, 2015 21:20:32 GMT -5
Let's keep in mind we cannot draw any clear distinction between species lest it consists of our faith in God. You mean telling the difference between a crow and a raven eludes you? Or did I miss your point? You ignore it, and will continue to. According to naturalism, any permanence or intrinsic quality we might consider the crow or the raven by, or any other species for that matter including ourselves, that quality of permanence must be imputed or assumed. That requires an exercise of faith in a higher order, for it cannot be proven.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 15, 2015 22:41:35 GMT -5
You mean telling the difference between a crow and a raven eludes you? Or did I miss your point? You ignore it, and will continue to. According to naturalism, any permanence or intrinsic quality we might consider the crow or the raven by, or any other species for that matter including ourselves, that quality of permanence must be imputed or assumed. That requires an exercise of faith in a higher order, for it cannot be proven. What makes you think the quality of permanence is considered or important? 99% of all species no longer exist. As animals evolve they, at times, can become new species. And they too may will become extinct, just as Homo sapiens will at some time.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 15, 2015 22:44:31 GMT -5
You ignore it, and will continue to. Classification of species does not depent on nor require a paranormal entity. Before the invention of god species came and went. What makes you think the quality of permanence is considered or important? 99% of all species no longer exist. As animals evolve they, at times, can become new species. And they too may will become extinct, just as Homo sapiens will at some time.
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Jul 15, 2015 23:40:35 GMT -5
ALL!!!2x2s and others looking into Irvine doctorine history,this will give a little insite to what some have seen over the decades... Look up----"jack Trigg-pioneer 2x2"----Pelagius will guide you to open an interesting letter A great example of what the insiders see looking out and the outsiders looking in.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jul 17, 2015 0:19:36 GMT -5
Interesting post by Cindy Owre: I wonder if this goes back to the misused quote about not taking one's brother to the law and settling matters inside the group. There's another possibility that I have been thinking about and that is that it seems that folks inside these high control groups don't seem to see themselves as citizens with legal rights. Instead they seem to think of themselves only as followers of a leader(s) blessed by some divine entity that is above human laws. When something happens such as child sexual abuse - they don't understand it as a crime being committed rather they are devastated by the breach of a moral code or moral ethics. I'm not trying to provide an excuse for folks not following the law and fulfilling their legal obligations - like you I'm just trying to make sense of what to me are shocking actions or rather inaction taken by individuals who seem to be the type that would see these criminal acts as wrong. I honestly don't remember ever thinking about individual human rights while professing it was always about what was best for the kingdom - stands to reason that this way of thinking is still pervasive in the 2s. I'd be interested in hearing what others think. Excellent point, Cindy.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jul 17, 2015 0:20:23 GMT -5
Quote from article sourced under 'jack Trigg-pioneer 2x2'.
"Their parents were aware of the misconduct and were angry about it but seem to have been strangely lax in not taking adequate steps to prevent further contact between Jack Trigg and the boys".
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jul 17, 2015 0:25:12 GMT -5
Bye Cindy!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2015 0:42:58 GMT -5
Quote - 'I honestly don't remember ever thinking about individual human rights while professing it was always about what was best for the kingdom - stands to reason that this way of thinking is still pervasive in the 2s. I'd be interested in hearing what others think.'
You would be correct in that Cindy. Also, issues of "transparency" would be included there, too. We don't think of ourselves as belong to worldly institutions. There are no economic, social or political issues which concern us. And why should they?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jul 17, 2015 0:54:42 GMT -5
Because its God's world after all? Or is it Satan's?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 17, 2015 11:29:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 17, 2015 17:18:56 GMT -5
SharonArnold quote - 'As far as women are concerned, I do believe that if the care of offspring was left up to the male of the species, then humankind, along with many other life forms, would have vanished long ago. As far as “feminism” is concerned, I suspect for the most part, that it is simply teaching women how to better pick partners that would help them care for, and ensure the survival of their young." And if it was left to women to bring home the meat and fend off waring tribes or other human species, we would long ago have been extinct. And feminism does not "ensure the survival of their young" IF you are referring to the single-mother feminist. Children of single mothers do badly on every single metric.
As an aside, one thing which separates us from Homo neanderthal is the specialization of the sexes. Neanderthals, whether men or women, seemed to have both done the same chores (going by hunting injuries on fossils.) Specialization was another advantage that Homo sapiens had over other hominids.Well since it was me that made the money in our family, cared for 2 children alone etc. and today I have 2 great kids that are doing well, one is a nurse and the other a police officer, I think you just might be a tad off the mark in your comments of a single mom and what can be achieved alone. Interestingly enough it's my son that is the nurse and my daughter that's the police officer. Snow ~ I realize that single working Moms sometimes get a bad rap, but in many cases they are the heroes deserving of praise, as this article brings out. www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-single/200901/children-single-mothers-how-do-they-really-fare
|
|