User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 79

  1. #31
    Senior Member cafe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    INFj None
    Posts
    9,827

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by _eric_ View Post
    So people who want to get married and have children are uncivilized? Got it.
    I thought s/he meant the opposite. I'm not sure I agree because I've seen Idiocracy, but I took it to mean those who were partying were not breeding and therefore their genes would not get passed on.

    I think a lot of those people will breed later and that they are just taking advantage of our culture's extended adolescence and their families' affluence. Not an expert, though.
    “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
    ~ John Rogers

  2. #32
    Senior Member _eric_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1 sp/so
    Socionics
    ENFj
    Posts
    288

    Default

    Yeah, there are PLENTY of people who do think that way. Anyways, I apologize if I was off about that.

  3. #33
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights View Post
    I agree that contemporary culture places less emphasis on the benefits of duty and commitment (though I think it's more effective legally to restrict as opposed to prescribe). It probably has to do with how humans are very good with short-term reward and very bad with long-term reward as well; commitment takes a lot more work and yields less immediately available benefit.


    I think you're on the right track. However, it's not that people can't recognize the benefits of long-term commitments, it's that we live in a transient society where most people never stay in a place long enough to witness or experience the entirety of a long-term commitment. The reason why we live in such a society is because we are driven by materialism and consumerism as Mark T. Mitchell, editor of the blog from the OP, writes in this post inspired by the writings of Simone Weil:

    Modern restlessness is, at least in part, the product of a world where the chain joining all things has been severed and each person finds himself striving to find his own place in a seemingly dis-integrated world.

    Skepticism about transcendent reality tends to lead in the direction of philosophical materialism, and philosophical materialism in our age has opened the door to the more general materialism of consumerism. After all, if we are merely pleasure-seeking creatures who cease to exist with the demise of our physical bodies, then our chief concern will be the enhancement of our personal pleasure, and, to be sure, personal pleasure is greatly enhanced, if only temporarily, by the things money can secure. When members of a society make material gain their central concern, that society will embrace an ethic of mobility, for each person will be quite willing to relocate in pursuit of affluence. Thus, we see “communities” of transient individuals each committed primarily to the acquisition of material gain and the betterment of their immediate family members. Home tends to become merely a launching place for economic and hedonistic endeavors, and individuals tend to lose any abiding concern for the long-term future of the local community. In such a setting, any notion of community membership, which evokes ideas of commitment and loving concern over a lifetime, is replaced by the much narrower concerns for personal affluence and individual pleasure.
    http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/20...-of-community/
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  4. #34
    Senior Member UniqueMixture's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    estj
    Enneagram
    378 sx/so
    Socionics
    esfp
    Posts
    3,038

    Default

    i cAMT BELIEVE U JUST REFERENCED AL BUNDY LOLOLLOLOLOLOL
    For all that we have done, as a civilization, as individuals, the universe is not stable, and nor is any single thing within it. Stars consume themselves, the universe itself rushes apart, and we ourselves are composed of matter in constant flux. Colonies of cells in temporary alliance, replicating and decaying and housed within, an incandescent cloud of electrical impulses. This is reality, this is self knowledge, and the perception of it will, of course, make you dizzy.

  5. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    @Lark

    Yeah, thanks for bringing up Simone Weil. The power to impose duties is a great power and I prefer institutions that have that power not to also have guns. In other words a dual system where the state protects rights with guns and the church inspires a dutiful spirit in the people is ideal. That being said I must say I find even just the title of her book, The Need for Roots: prelude towards a declaration of duties towards mankind, very intriguing. Especially given the circumstances she wrote under given that France was dealing with occupation.
    I kind of favour a charter of rights and responsibilities, so that it is codified were a right exists what the corresponding responsibilities are or what responsibilities are inherent in it, now that itself is open to a kind of abuse I would not support, for instance the state could declare that its citizens have really fantastic rights and entitlements but that there is no statutory or public responsibility corresponding to them, making it pretty much meaningless.

    The way in which debates about human rights in the UK have been handled has been a thinly vailed discussion about how to cut existing public spending even further as it has reached a point at which it is impossible to do so without infringing upon legal duties of the state to provide services from tax revenues to citizens. So telling someone they have a right to something, championing it, may actually mean when its striped down depriving them of the only available resources they have presently or are likely to have.

    Most of the discussions of dependency actually ring hollow to me at this point because while I dont like dependency upon public tax funded benefits there are plenty of other varieties, some with greater destitution and unconscienable exploitation involved in them, which I consider worse which are not on the radar at all. Whats worse most of the dependency debates have slowly moved on from targetting simply those in receipt of benefits to the lowest paid and frontline services providers, such as social workers, nurses and police officers, although not it has to be said the board room and senior officers in those professions. Sometimes the work of these professions, particularly the more therapeutic or community based which evidence supports are socially utilitarian, is depicted pretty much as the unpicking and reweaving of rope or walking on a large wooden wheel was in the old poor house system and not as a professional job of work at all.

    I think that in secular societies the state has garnered to itself some of that role in supporting a dutiful culture, although it has not been entirely conscious of it, at once it also rejects it, sometimes it is the professional bodies themselves but mostly it is the tax cutting politicians. I dont believe that churches or other agencies can step into the breech quite as the state has done in the past and perform that duty, I know that is the vision of the neo-liberal capitalist new world order but the vision is wrong.

    The whole thing about the need for roots is sort of ambiguous, a lot of the left (weil) and right wing (TS Eliot) christian thinkers after the second world war held that diasporia had been a contributing factor to the war and on going crisis afterwards, its not just linked to the anti-semitic idea of the wandering jew, although unfortunately it can be seen that way, but links back to much, much earlier ideas about travelling and migratory peoples. In the UK it relates to ancient parish divisions in which welfare was extremely slight and administered to elders only to those who had been in the parish for generations, the biggest issue at that time was vagrancy, in a modern context it could be called "welfare tourism".

    Its something I've thought about and to be honest I really like the idea of the free movement of people, I always like to travel myself and think about up rooting and going someplace else to begin again even if I dont do it, so I'd be one of the rootless which Weil and Eliot dont like, although I'd no less a sense of duty and obligation or responsibility.

  6. #36
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    As a sort-of 'counterpoint' to the whole 'abortion = women's rights' thing, one of my conservative friends linked to this, on pro-life feminism:
    Pro-life feminism has captivated a new generation of young women who reject the illusion that to be pro-woman is to be pro-choice. Gallup polling showed that among 18-to-29-year-olds, there was a 5% increase in those labeling themselves “pro-life” between 2007–08 and 2009–10.
    Granted, the stats are reaching quite a bit, but divorcing 'feminism' from 'pro-choice' is an interesting viewpoint.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    However, it's not that people can't recognize the benefits of long-term commitments, it's that we live in a transient society where most people never stay in a place long enough to witness or experience the entirety of a long-term commitment.
    I think that both are true and that there's an interplay between the two. People don't stay in a place long enough because they don't see the benefit of it, and people don't see the benefit because they don't actually give it a shot.

    'course, that's just semantics. The takeaway is that, ultimately, we do have a transient society.

  7. #37
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    I think that both are true and that there's an interplay between the two. People don't stay in a place long enough because they don't see the benefit of it, and people don't see the benefit because they don't actually give it a shot.

    'course, that's just semantics. The takeaway is that, ultimately, we do have a transient society.
    Fair enough.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  8. #38
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,544

    Default

    Forget ladies. What we need are gentlewomen, the true counterpart of gentlemen.

    If forming more permanent relationships were not so likely to derail other aspects of women's lives, they might be more willing to do so, just as men have for generations.

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights View Post
    What feminism is really, really selling is a woman's ability to be as (ANYTHING) as a man.

    In a world without legal birth control and abortion, a woman's life can be ruined with one poor decision - and may they amongst us who has never made a poor decision be the first to decry the reluctant mother. It's true that birth control and abortion will never shatter the glass ceiling, but neither will women ever reach equality with men without the ability to escape the biological confines of pregnancy. As time has already shown, "separate but equal" never works because there's no way to quantitatively measure a qualitative difference (ie, there's no objective way to calculate what amount of maternity leave is the right amount).
    The first sentence hits the nail on the head. As for maternity leave, the correct amount is the same offered for paternity leave, plus any time needed for medical recuperation. If parental leave is extended equally to all parents, this will help level the playing field.

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights View Post
    I agree that contemporary culture places less emphasis on the benefits of duty and commitment (though I think it's more effective legally to restrict as opposed to prescribe). It probably has to do with how humans are very good with short-term reward and very bad with long-term reward as well; commitment takes a lot more work and yields less immediately available benefit.
    This is true, but does it not affect both men and women? Are men favoring short-term relationships as well? If not, who is indulging in these relationships with women?

    As for duty and commitment, it is very much the flip side of rights. But women have been excluded from shouldering their share of many important responsibilities, ostensibly to protect their "fragile natures" from the harsh realities of the outside world. This provides a ready if artificial justification for depriving them then of those rights. Bottom line: extend to both women and men the rights and responsibilities historically associated with each.

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    Granted, the stats are reaching quite a bit, but divorcing 'feminism' from 'pro-choice' is an interesting viewpoint.
    Interesting, perhaps, but ultimately untenable. Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. What it acknowledges is the right (and responsibility) of each woman to make her own reproductive choices, in short, to control her own physical body. I'm not sure who else an anti-choice feminist would like to make these decisions for her.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  9. #39
    Wake, See, Sing, Dance Cellmold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,808

    Default

    So it seems the majority of the problem is caused by perceptions and expectations on what gender inherently causes a person to do and be.

    I suppose the idea is to change the perceptions and through this the expectations. But into what? Changing women so as to compare with what men are assumed to be only damages the issue further by making feminine tendencies appear subordinate and lesser to masculine ones.

    But then the society around those traits, (most of which are a product of that society in the first place), defines the status of masculinity and femininity. Meaning that femininity is almost inherently inferior in the view of that society. How then could femininity ever gain the same status as masculinity? You would have to change a core element that has existed for thousands of years, embedding itself into the populous and spreading throughout it in the form of cultural myths about either gender.

    How do you fix a cycle like that?
    'One of (Lucas) Cranach's masterpieces, discussed by (Joseph) Koerner, is in it's self-referentiality the perfect expression of left-hemisphere emptiness and a precursor of post-modernism. There is no longer anything to point to beyond, nothing Other, so it points pointlessly to itself.' - Iain McGilChrist

    Suppose a tree fell down, Pooh, when we were underneath it?"
    "Suppose it didn't," said Pooh, after careful thought.
    Piglet was comforted by this.
    - A.A. Milne.

  10. #40
    Senior Member Tiltyred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    468 sx/sp
    Socionics
    EII None
    Posts
    4,383

    Default

    I don't understand how increasing a woman's options automatically changes her into comparing with what men are assumed to be.

Similar Threads

  1. The Demise of Guys
    By Salomé in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 484
    Last Post: 02-17-2013, 12:41 AM
  2. The Demise of Zergling
    By Haight in forum Official Decrees
    Replies: 444
    Last Post: 10-25-2011, 07:04 PM
  3. How the youth of today refer to the ladies
    By BerberElla in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 134
    Last Post: 06-05-2009, 12:02 PM
  4. [MBTItm] The merit of stuffed animals
    By nightning in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 09-29-2007, 10:49 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO