142 replies to this topic

[Beany]

scowl, on 06 December 2012 - 12:09 AM, said:

Paul made it perfectly clear in 1 Corinthians that women must keep their stupid mouths shut in church. If they're all confused and need help understanding anything they should ask their husbands instead of embarrassing themselves in public. The article sounds like this Christian Union is following exactly what Paul ordered.

Christianity is not that different from Islam if you actually follow it.

Thanks goodness there are few women with stupid mouths. Smart mouths, filthy mouths, mouthy, lippy, voluptuous, but not stupid. My mom was a devout Christian, she took a red ink pen and crossed out that Paul stuff, because she said it was incongruent with the teachings of Jesus and was written by some male chauvinist in an attempt to diminish women. Go, Mom! By the time she was done editing, the bible was a pretty user friendly book.

[Mr Walker]

Arbenol68, on 12 December 2012 - 12:42 AM, said:

So, we agree.

Yes. But when inequality does the same, and produces the same positive outcomes in a society, then inequality is the more favourable model.

Equality is good because/when it produces favourable outcomes. If equality endangered a society, or caused less favourable outomes, then it would not be a good thing.

[Arbenol68]

Mr Walker, on 13 December 2012 - 05:59 AM, said:

Yes. But when inequality does the same, and produces the same positive outcomes in a society, then inequality is the more favourable model.

Got any examples?

[Mr Walker]

Arbenol68, on 13 December 2012 - 06:03 AM, said:

Got any examples?

Hoped you would ask. TAke a slave state where slavery pprovides the economic structure for prosperity. Free the slaves and every one suffers and many peole die when the economy collapses.  All are equal in suffering and death.

The slave  society maintains slaves but feeds them and protects them, regulates their rights and responsibilities. it does not necessarily even mistreat them, except that they are slaves. A close realtive of this is the indentured servant or workman, who does not have the freedom to leave his employer until he has worked off a certain cost eg the cost of travelling to a new land.

The alternative for the slaves in many societies is that they would be killed ,or allowed to die, as non economic and costly burdens on the state, which does not have the financial surplus  or resources to care for them.

In reality women have long been in the same position. Both slaves and women have ever only been freed, and given equality, when it was economically feasible and rational, even desirable, to do so.
Men won some freedoms longer ago but only some men, even then. Take the magna carta or the declaration of independence and american constituion and examine the huge holes in their treatment of  some men. And YET they are celebrated as advances in liberty and freedom. They maintain an inequality, or  many inequalities,  to advance the comonwealth of others.

Often, and even today of course, inequalities support, indeed are the only thing allowing, a  society to survive and prosper. And because every individual's well being is dependent on the well being of their society, we all accept this reality. Otherwise ther would be no unemployed, health care along with a full education would be free for all,  and a minimum living standard would be made available to every person in a society.

Edited by Mr Walker, 13 December 2012 - 06:57 AM.

[Arbenol68]

Mr Walker, on 13 December 2012 - 06:51 AM, said:

Hoped you would ask. TAke a slave state where slavery pprovides the economic structure for prosperity. Free the slaves and every one suffers and many peole die when the economy collapses.  All are equal in suffering and death.

The slave  society maintains slaves but feeds them and protects them, regulates their rights and responsibilities. it does not necessarily even mistreat them, except that they are slaves. A close realtive of this is the indentured servant or workman, who does not have the freedom to leave his employer until he has worked off a certain cost eg the cost of travelling to a new land.

The alternative for the slaves in many societies is that they would be killed ,or allowed to die, as non economic and costly burdens on the state, which does not have the financial surplus  or resources to care for them.

In reality women have long been in the same position. Both slaves and women have ever only been freed, and given equality, when it was economically feasible and rational, even desirable, to do so.
Men won some freedoms longer ago but only some men, even then. Take the magna carta or the declaration of independence and american constituion and examine the huge holes in their treatment of  some men. And YET they are celebrated as advances in liberty and freedom. They maintain an inequality, or  many inequalities,  to advance the comonwealth of others.

Often, and even today of course, inequalities support, indeed are the only thing allowing, a  society to survive and prosper. And because every individual's well being is dependent on the well being of their society, we all accept this reality. Otherwise ther would be no unemployed, health care along with a full education would be free for all,  and a minimum living standard would be made available to every person in a society.

Your argument is basically that one crappy situation is slightly less crappy than another crappy situation. But neither of them is preferable to a society that is built on equality.

Your examples exist throughout history, and still today. But, as you have pointed out in other discussions, society should strive for the best possible outcomes for the most people. Your arguments here are for the status quo of a society that has been built on exploitation. History is replete with examples of people who have risen up against exploitation. And, you're right, things often got a whole lot worse before they got better.

I would argue that our own societies today are not built on equality, but we have been getting a little better at it - all except financially, which appears to be going the other way.

[Seeker79]

How much easier would life be if I could control my wife like that. OMG, no nagging, no honey dos, go to the pub whenever I want.... Yeah!!!!

oh wait....no paycheck or benifits from her awesome job, no sex from a woman who actually wants to be with me, no interesting discussion with my spouse, oh and  polluteded genes in the the tendency for my own children to meek and controllable.

Did I mention her paycheck?!?!? And good sex?!?!?   

I'd probably be an alcoholic horder without the strength of my wife....... No thanks. Women are the backbone of humanity, the religions that understand this will overtake the others evenchually.

Edited by Seeker79, 13 December 2012 - 05:05 PM.

[Arbenol68]

Seeker79, on 13 December 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

I'd probably be an alcoholic horder without the strength of my wife

I knew you'd find a positive if you thought about it long enough.

[Mr Walker]

Arbenol68, on 13 December 2012 - 11:13 AM, said:

Your argument is basically that one crappy situation is slightly less crappy than another crappy situation. But neither of them is preferable to a society that is built on equality.

Your examples exist throughout history, and still today. But, as you have pointed out in other discussions, society should strive for the best possible outcomes for the most people. Your arguments here are for the status quo of a society that has been built on exploitation. History is replete with examples of people who have risen up against exploitation. And, you're right, things often got a whole lot worse before they got better.

I would argue that our own societies today are not built on equality, but we have been getting a little better at it - all except financially, which appears to be going the other way.

My arguemnt is th t of reality it is not possible for absolute or principled equality in many situatons. It is not about the status quo pe rse, but the actual and realistic alternatives.

My original point was that whatever brings out the best outcomes for a society is more mportant than what brings out the best outcomes for an individual or a group of individuals within a society. It is like a family. To gain the security benefits and survival available fromm the society all must protect the society and work for its betterment. They must sacrifice certainabsolute individual desires and expectations for those of the group.

Now, where it is possible to improve the status quo of groups or individauls without harming the society, that is good, but if giving equality to one group disadvantages the whole group, especially severely, or even threatens its health prosperity or survival,  then the balance must be weighed and a rational decision made.

Again, we do this today in modern societies. In the past life was harsher and less certain  and alternatives more stark and severe.
As in my first post equality is a good thing but not if, on balance, it harms a society and the people in it.

[Mr Walker]

Seeker79, on 13 December 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

How much easier would life be if I could control my wife like that. OMG, no nagging, no honey dos, go to the pub whenever I want.... Yeah!!!!

oh wait....no paycheck or benifits from her awesome job, no sex from a woman who actually wants to be with me, no interesting discussion with my spouse, oh and  polluteded genes in the the tendency for my own children to meek and controllable.

Did I mention her paycheck?!?!? And good sex?!?!?   

I'd probably be an alcoholic horder without the strength of my wife....... No thanks. Women are the backbone of humanity, the religions that understand this will overtake the others evenchually.

I must agree. My wife is my partner and togther we are stronger than either of us as individuals .
When we married in 76, my wife decided to stop working after nearly 20 years of work and concentrated on our home and caring for people . Her belief was that as i could support he,r her job should go to a young single woman who needed the income. She has never done paid work since, although she works  longer hours than me, and when we were caring for her parents could work 18 hour days.

When she gave up work it was the height of the womens lib movement She was verbally abused and harrassed by orther women who told her she was letting woman hood down as it was the responsibilty of all women to work. the idea was tha tat work  wonw could be socialised and politicised, get politicaly aware and become more activist.  Work was seenas a place where this activism and politics could be spread to women and thus increase their outcomes it was argued tha twomen who stayed at home remained relcacitrant conservatives because they lacked this exposure to womens liberation and hence formed a rsistance group to the womens liberation movement.
. My wife disagreed to her a womans prime role was as home maker mother carer etc Only if it was economically necessary should a woman be forced to work although it was any ones choice to work or not. She had worked since she was 15 and  now chose  a new life.
I will admit that this time of abuse helped shape/firm up my own principles and beliefs, as i take my vows to protect, care for, and love, my wife very seriously.

[Arbenol68]

Mr Walker, on 13 December 2012 - 09:42 PM, said:

My arguemnt is th t of reality it is not possible for absolute or principled equality in many situatons. It is not about the status quo pe rse, but the actual and realistic alternatives.

My original point was that whatever brings out the best outcomes for a society is more mportant than what brings out the best outcomes for an individual or a group of individuals within a society. It is like a family. To gain the security benefits and survival available fromm the society all must protect the society and work for its betterment. They must sacrifice certainabsolute individual desires and expectations for those of the group.

Now, where it is possible to improve the status quo of groups or individauls without harming the society, that is good, but if giving equality to one group disadvantages the whole group, especially severely, or even threatens its health prosperity or survival,  then the balance must be weighed and a rational decision made.

Again, we do this today in modern societies. In the past life was harsher and less certain  and alternatives more stark and severe.
As in my first post equality is a good thing but not if, on balance, it harms a society and the people in it.

But, as you said, a society that  values equality of it's individuals is intrinsically preferable to one that doesn't. This isn't a hypothetical scenario. It works in the real world.

When slavery was abolished in the US it would have had significant economic repercussions for all. Was that a bad thing? Were (and are) people worse off because of it. Britain has evolved from feudal states, etc..... There are no end of real world scenarios that illustrate this.

What you're talking about is that the process of change can be a painful one. It's the outcome that's an improvement.

Do you have any examples (not hypothetical) of states that have collapsed into long-term social chaos and famine as a result of a drive for a more equal society? Has giving women equal rights to men ever had a permanent detrimental effect on any nation? (just to get the thread back on track)

Edited by Arbenol68, 14 December 2012 - 04:25 AM.

[Mr Walker]

Arbenol68, on 14 December 2012 - 04:25 AM, said:

But, as you said, a society that  values equality of it's individuals is intrinsically preferable to one that doesn't. This isn't a hypothetical scenario. It works in the real world.

When slavery was abolished in the US it would have had significant economic repercussions for all. Was that a bad thing? Were (and are) people worse off because of it. Britain has evolved from feudal states, etc..... There are no end of real world scenarios that illustrate this.

What you're talking about is that the process of change can be a painful one. It's the outcome that's an improvement.

Do you have any examples (not hypothetical) of states that have collapsed into long-term social chaos and famine as a result of a drive for a more equal society? Has giving women equal rights to men ever had a permanent detrimental effect on any nation? (just to get the thread back on track)

  The highest value for a society is survival, and the maintenance of population viability. Then comes the abilty to create a suprplus of food and other materials which brings some freedom and the chance to trade. Equality comes quite a long way down the list of social priorities.
Yes, if all things are equal equality is a good thing but equailty often messes up a society and endangers it.
No system of slavery has ever been abolished or overthrown until it was no longer economic. No group of people like women have ever gained freedom or equality until it was in a nation's economic and social interest for this to occur.

It was the same with children and universal education this only occured and was paid for by the govt when govts required a disciplined partly educated work force for growing industrialisation.
Of course giving women equal rights has caused detrimental efects on western societies. It has also caused some positive ones But what it has done is  help encourage a materialistic, consumer based, growth society, whihc is totally unsustainable and harming the world. It has also made  western humans, in general less happy, more depressed, and more frustrated, leading to greater violence and the use of drugs and alcohol to feel good.

Of course the evolution of society is a complex one. In general life was better in the last century than this. I never encountered swearing drunkeness violence burglarty car theft etc etc in my early life and neither did my parents or grandparents. There are dozens of measurable social indicators which track the deterioration of society since the liberation of women.That includes violence disrespect and sexual crimes against women. Of course it can be argued tha this is an inherent result of the increased equality and fredom of modern women  who now live as men once did.But that is my point.

The only thing which has improved is scientific advances  So, for example i appreciate modrn medicine but don't own a mobile phone and could live totally happily without a tv computer etc.  People have all become wage salves trapped in a society where they have to work just to survive and can never be free or get to a point of indpendence. Kids rarely spend time with their parents or garandparents and the cohesive fabric of family, neighbour hood, and society, which binds a society together and protects its members is breaking down

The reasons societies usually dont totally collapse is that they balance themselves and find a lower point of equilibrium. They withdraw equalities and privileges, and hunker down into survival mode  Otherwise some would have collapsed And indeed some may have. There are many societies in the world we know little about in historicla terms. Also modern societies are more robust. They can survive, but are still often harmed by, some changes in social values. Often a period of social liberation leads to almost anarchy and then a repressive leader steps into give people reassurance. Such leaders often establish dictatorships which last for decades.

To address  the bit i bolded.  Of course. This is often an outcome of revolutionary change based on idealistic notions of equality. The classic examples are the french revolution, the russian revolution, and the chinesse revolution or civil war.

Failed examples include the spanish civil war and also a number of major revolutions in europe during the 1800s.

The religious wars of europe can also be seen in this light, and created a long period of social  chaos and disruption across most of  europe with extrene hardship for people. That period fits your cause and effect precisely. It also totally changed the nature/pattern of states across europe.

Edited by Mr Walker, 14 December 2012 - 06:16 AM.

[Arbenol68]

Mr Walker, on 14 December 2012 - 06:08 AM, said:

Of course giving women equal rights has caused detrimental efects on western societies. It has also caused some positive ones But what it has done is  help encourage a materialistic, consumer based, growth society, whihc is totally unsustainable and harming the world. It has also made  western humans, in general less happy, more depressed, and more frustrated, leading to greater violence and the use of drugs and alcohol to feel good.

Of course the evolution of society is a complex one. In general life was better in the last century than this. I never encountered swearing drunkeness violence burglarty car theft etc etc in my early life and neither did my parents or grandparents. There are dozens of measurable social indicators which track the deterioration of society since the liberation of women.That includes violence disrespect and sexual crimes against women. Of course it can be argued tha this is an inherent result of the increased equality and fredom of modern women  who now live as men once did.But that is my point.

We're going round in circles, but I'll just comment on these two paragraphs because they are more relevant to the thread.

What you have stated is a baseless opinion and sadly typical of a socially conservative viewpoint. I disagree that there are "dozens of measurable social indicators which track the deterioration of society since the liberation of women". However, there are many that contradict your opinion.

I won't labour the point, but I would direct you to read "The Better Angels Of Our Nature" by Steven Pinker who, with buckets of data, comprehensively smashes this myth.

It's understandable. Many (if not most) people have always thought that the next generation is making the world a worse place. It tends to get more pronounced as we get older but is nearly always based on anecdotal evidence rather than real facts. As an example you stated "I never encountered swearing drunkeness violence burglarty car theft etc etc in my early life".

There's a certain amount of comfort in believing that the past was a less violent and better place, but unfortunately it is incorrect.

[Mr Walker]

Arbenol68, on 14 December 2012 - 07:27 AM, said:

We're going round in circles, but I'll just comment on these two paragraphs because they are more relevant to the thread.

What you have stated is a baseless opinion and sadly typical of a socially conservative viewpoint. I disagree that there are "dozens of measurable social indicators which track the deterioration of society since the liberation of women". However, there are many that contradict your opinion.

I won't labour the point, but I would direct you to read "The Better Angels Of Our Nature" by Steven Pinker who, with buckets of data, comprehensively smashes this myth.

It's understandable. Many (if not most) people have always thought that the next generation is making the world a worse place. It tends to get more pronounced as we get older but is nearly always based on anecdotal evidence rather than real facts. As an example you stated "I never encountered swearing drunkeness violence burglarty car theft etc etc in my early life".

There's a certain amount of comfort in believing that the past was a less violent and better place, but unfortunately it is incorrect.

Unfortuantely the statistics in austrlaia at least confirm my pov in regard to the tie pereiod I am speaking of. This it is difficult, in that such detailed colection of data is a modern trend made possible by computers and also the cahging nature of govt control over society, but social historians can confirm such deterioration from many sources.

And anecdotal/ personal experience is valid NO ONE in my childhood locked their dors or took the keys out of their cars if you found a wallet inhte street you took it to the owner. if you found a five pound note you took it to the police. There was no graffiti and no vandalism, because society controlled and observed young people and families had power over them. Today NO ONE would leave their keys in a car, day or night and few people leave their doors unlovcked even in the day.

In my  late teens if i was on the street after midnight  even sober and with a reasonable purpose i would be stopped by the police and directed home. Today the police lack the powers to do this.

The legal age for drinking was 21 and some of us statred at 18 Today the legal age is 18 and most young teenagers are drinking and binge drinking.

There were no drugs when I was a teenager outside of tobacco, today a majority of teenagers have smoked marijuana and an increasing percentage use hard drugs.

  There was discipline and order in societies and in familys, which does not exist today.  I am old enough to KNOW the difference and have watched the transformations. I also take an interest in the statistical data which  illustrates the growing breakdown in society family and socia order.  I have taught teenagers for 40 years, over 3 generations, and watched the decline in their behaviour. ethics morality and treatment of/respect for, themselves and others.

There are still good kids but words beginning with f and c which i have never used even as an adult are now used in class and shcool yards as everyday language. Kids beat others up and put it on u tube. Girls starting younger than teenagers take naked pictures of themselves and send them to their boyfriends who often post them on social media   The language i hear from young peole today as public language has only begun to occur inmy experience in very recent years because kids no longer know that such language is offensive,  do not care if it is, and believe no one has a right to control their language. In fact, increasingly, young teenagers believe that no one has a right to control their life in any respect.


Apart from homcides most crime records in australia only go back two or three decades making statisticla analysis over a century difficult.  heres a quote from an article which recognises the difficulty of statistical confirmation of changes in crime, but makes this point early on.

recorded assaults and sexual assaults have both increased steadily in the past 10 years by over 40 percent and 20 percent respectively. The rate of aggravated assault appears to have contributed to the marked rise in recorded assault, and for both assault and sexual assault the rate of increase was greater for children aged under 15 years, with increases almost double that of the older age group. Neither population changes among young adult males nor rates of offending seem to explain the trends in recorded violent crime, and indicators of change in reporting to police provide only a partial explanation.


http://aic.gov.au/pu...view paper.html


Here is a snapshot of how crime rates increased over a few years in the 1990's. Note the increase in assaults.
The chart wouldnt copy properly, so i will summarise. From 1993 to 1999, in Australia, assaults rose from 101,000 to133,000 or from 560/100000 pop to 704/100000 pop
Robberies doubled and theft  went up from 490000 cases to 610000 or 2700/100000 pop to 3200/100000 pop.

http://www.aic.gov.a... australia.html

And that is just in 8 years. Extrapolate that back, and across the period from my childhood to the present day and see what results you get.

or look at this graph
There were 176427 victims of asault in australia in 2007 or 840 victims per100000 pop

• The trend in assaults shows an average growth of five percent each year from 1995 to 2007, four times the annual growth of the Australian population in the same period.
  

Assaults from 1995 to 2007 (number per month


Assaults from 1995 to 2007 (number per month)







sadly it is the young who are most vulnerable to assault

Assault victims in 2007, by age group and sex (per 100,000 of that age group and sex)







http://www.aic.gov.a...me/assault.html

Edited by Mr Walker, 14 December 2012 - 11:20 AM.

[spud the mackem]

And Lo,it came to pass that Women were allowed to Vote...All People are equal except some are more equal than others.I acknowledge that some Ladies are more intelligent than men.Go get 'em girls.

[Jinxdom]

spud the mackem, on 14 December 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

And Lo,it came to pass that Women were allowed to Vote...All People are equal except some are more equal than others.I acknowledge that some Ladies are more intelligent than men.Go get 'em girls.

Date more you'll find that to be false  Stupidity is pretty balanced for both sexes.

Edited by Jinxdom, 14 December 2012 - 11:06 AM.