controversial topics (Discussion)

I, too, do not want to be a mother, so you are not alone. The only mothering I would do is to an orphaned animal.

Spooky wrote:

Yeah it's awful, but it's also a fact of life, and trying to combat the natural pruning of the species by keeping the weak and old alive is actually the most inhumane thing we can do. Because it's making the lives of the stronger and more populated areas harder and harder, because we're carrying the rest. War is a way humans have kept each other in check, up until the creation of total warfare at the dawn of the last century, and now war is always "bad". So how can we make room for the next generations when their getting piled up here like a traffic jam? Sorry ancient, sickly, diseased or destitute; but if your can't get your sh!t together and carry on anymore, the world has to leave you behind. Every other animal with a herd-mentality knows that you let the weak get picked off my the predators, so that the majority can carry on, refusing to do this is going to kill off those who can continue to keep the herd in prominence.

We as a species need to allow the weak to be picked off by the predators, even if that means by fellow humans or geographical issues.

(Spooky, this is not an attack. I'm trying to discuss and understand.) I've thought about this, and I disagree. My beliefs are not in extreme opposition, but I do disagree.

By the above reasoning, I would have been left for dead dozens of times over. (Heh, maybe there are people here who wouldn't have minded that, but I'm not speaking for them now.) Physical weakness: I was frequently and seriously sick when I was younger. Financial weakness: My mom and I would have wound up in a shelter or homeless if my grandparents hadn't taken us in after Mom left her abusive husband. Mom and I spent a long time on welfare during my childhood. And I was able to go to college through enough grant and scholarship money that I only have to pay back one semester (that one semester is over $10K, but it was a very good college, and I'm chipping away at that debt).

And yet, I've been a source of strength for my friends, family, strangers. I've helped people see things from new perspectives, so they could solve the problems they need to solve. Maybe I've even brought some joy. I believe I've been a worthwhile contributor to the fellow humans in my life.

How many people who fit this description can we get by without?

And if we can agree that the brain is a part of the physical body, and that mental illness is caused by a chemical imbalance, then anyone diagnosed with a "disorder" needs to be lumped in with the physically infirm as well. That's a lot of people to not help, to leave behind. I think many of us can vouch for the power of encouragement in overcoming a disability, and then becoming as great or as ordinary as one chooses to be. We're only as limited as we believe we are.

I'm not anti-abortion, or even anti-euthanasia in some cases. I don't think one person, or even a small group, can fix the world. But I think we can improve the lives of the people in our corner of it. There's probably a term for that, and I'll bet it starts with "micro". I have further feelings on this, but I've spoken long enough.

RedAngel wrote:

By the above reasoning, I would have been left for dead dozens of times over. (Heh, maybe there are people here who wouldn't have minded that

I would have.





All this talk reminds me of Logan's Run & Soilent Green.

nsanelilmunky wrote:

(yes, I cut some out) I actually think it's the bad things in life, such as your sicknesses and hard life growing up, that makes people stronger. It's those with the sheltered lives who think the world will hand them everything on a silver plater that are weak.

But this could also be me having lived a similar life and having similar problems.

It's OK that you cut some out. I rambled like a little champion. I agree with you in terms of drawing strength from your weaknesses, and that the sheltered/pampered believe things should just be handed to them. But I'm a little biased there; I'm sure they're not all like that. Well, I hope not.

nsanelilmunky wrote:

....And while I'm at it...

How about a new topic for discussion?

Since I posted a paper on secondary language education....

Topic Secondary language education

I believe that it should be mandatory. In order to be considered a member of society (and to receive the high school diploma) people should be required to be fluent in a minimum of two languages. Very VERY few other places in the world are Monolingual. Being so just limits the people you can interact with in the world, for better or worse.

yays? nays?

Yea. It would be beneficial to us personally and as a nation. But it's awfully hard to find funding for classes that so significantly decrease our nation's level of willful ignorance.

Nsane, I agree with you. Hope I didn't imply otherwise in my last post.

I'm just jaded when it comes to the school boards and the students' parents. These are the people who would say there's no funding for language courses, simply because they don't see them (or art or music courses) as priorities. And these are the same people who will spend money on things we don't see as necessary (McMansions, status cars and handbags, etc.).

It is a priority to develop the mind in as well-rounded a way as possible, especially considering it will increase our ability to communicate. Otherwise, we'll lag behind intelligence-wise. I'd say that's happening already. Your comment about people in your class not being able to read at a 7th grade level reminded me of an article I read about local children having to readjust from text-message slang to actual English once the school year begins. (Wish I could find that article... darn)

Ginger_Snaps wrote:

I, too, do not want to be a mother, so you are not alone. The only mothering I would do is to an orphaned animal.

That is exactly how I am.

I am a step-mother (I'm not implying that being a step-mother isn't a mother, I am as much a mother to my step-son as his own mother. I mean that I have no desire to give birth - to be a birth-mother) and that's plenty of mothering and all I ever wanted or need.

Give me an animal to take care of and I'm happy.

I look forward to being the crazy cat lady living in the spooky looking house at the end of the street.

nsanelilmunky wrote:

I catch a bit of crap for having my major as German... "what job can you get with that?"....

Heh, I got that response from 2 people when I told them I was going to major in art (one was one of my uncles, one was my best friend -- wth?). And while I haven't got the best position in the world, it is an art career. And has been for 9 years. Sounds like the people who make snide comments like the one you quoted just can't think outside the box -- with your major, you can teach, you can be an interpretor, you can be a consultant for German history museums and projects worldwide. You could even work in Germany!

Nsanelilmunky, reading over your posts on this matter, and the paper you posted on the other thread, I feel so blessed to be living here in NYC. Funding for foreign language programs has never been an issue here, at least not for as long as I remember.

You also raise an interesting point about older immigrants/children of immigrants not passing the language to their children. My husband's great grandparents were Jewish immigrants from Russia, and apart from a few words, did not pass either languange to their descendants. I guess back then there was much pressure to assimilate completely, or as you put it, "this is America, we speak English."

I was born in Puerto Rico and speak Spanish (thought not as well as I used to; lack of practice I guess). If my husband and I decide to have children in the future, I would teach them Spanish.

And as far as what to do with a degree in German: it amazes me how ignorant people are about the world of work. There are so many things you can do with foreign languages. What's important is that YOU know what you want to do with it and have a plan in place.

RedAngel wrote:

Spooky wrote:

Yeah it's awful, but it's also a fact of life, and trying to combat the natural pruning of the species by keeping the weak and old alive is actually the most inhumane thing we can do. Because it's making the lives of the stronger and more populated areas harder and harder, because we're carrying the rest. War is a way humans have kept each other in check, up until the creation of total warfare at the dawn of the last century, and now war is always "bad". So how can we make room for the next generations when their getting piled up here like a traffic jam? Sorry ancient, sickly, diseased or destitute; but if your can't get your sh!t together and carry on anymore, the world has to leave you behind. Every other animal with a herd-mentality knows that you let the weak get picked off my the predators, so that the majority can carry on, refusing to do this is going to kill off those who can continue to keep the herd in prominence.

We as a species need to allow the weak to be picked off by the predators, even if that means by fellow humans or geographical issues.

(Spooky, this is not an attack. I'm trying to discuss and understand.) I've thought about this, and I disagree. My beliefs are not in extreme opposition, but I do disagree.

By the above reasoning, I would have been left for dead dozens of times over. (Heh, maybe there are people here who wouldn't have minded that, but I'm not speaking for them now.) Physical weakness: I was frequently and seriously sick when I was younger. Financial weakness: My mom and I would have wound up in a shelter or homeless if my grandparents hadn't taken us in after Mom left her abusive husband. Mom and I spent a long time on welfare during my childhood. And I was able to go to college through enough grant and scholarship money that I only have to pay back one semester (that one semester is over $10K, but it was a very good college, and I'm chipping away at that debt).

And yet, I've been a source of strength for my friends, family, strangers. I've helped people see things from new perspectives, so they could solve the problems they need to solve. Maybe I've even brought some joy. I believe I've been a worthwhile contributor to the fellow humans in my life.

How many people who fit this description can we get by without?

And if we can agree that the brain is a part of the physical body, and that mental illness is caused by a chemical imbalance, then anyone diagnosed with a "disorder" needs to be lumped in with the physically infirm as well. That's a lot of people to not help, to leave behind. I think many of us can vouch for the power of encouragement in overcoming a disability, and then becoming as great or as ordinary as one chooses to be. We're only as limited as we believe we are.

I'm not anti-abortion, or even anti-euthanasia in some cases. I don't think one person, or even a small group, can fix the world. But I think we can improve the lives of the people in our corner of it. There's probably a term for that, and I'll bet it starts with "micro". I have further feelings on this, but I've spoken long enough.

Yeah controversial topics.


Red, you being sick and your family taking care of you and making sacrifices to look after your well being is fine. That is a wonderful thing, and people helping people is beautiful, I try to help anyone who needs it, if they ask for it or not. But I'm referring to more of the social quality, especially in the mindset of the "West". The affluent countries of the West have this parent/guardian aspect over the world, and it's taxing us far too much as a society. We can't be the police/nurse of the planet's human race anymore.

I believe all life is special, but what people chose to do with their lives, determines their overall importance in the world. People should be equals in faith and law, no one should hold another down because of these social foundations. However, there are people who are productive and beneficial members of our human society, and people who are not. If we continuously turn back to help everybody who's falling behind, we get nowhere. Also, there are people who make decision which pretty much make them less relevant in the world.

I look at Africa and the Middle East, and how most of these two geographical locations have been sh*tholes for centuries, even taking into consideration that a lot of factors have gone into making them that way. There are genocides, famines, civil wars, outbreaks of diseases and plagues, droughts, etc; and helping all those people would be great, but how? How do you save countries or continents that are about 250 years behind the rest of the world? And how do you do so while not sucking the rest of us dry? We've walked on the moon and we've split the atom, but people are still running around in sheets chopping each other up with machetes and spreading disease with reckless abandon? How can we help every person in the world?

I know most don't have a choice, but how do you see the rest of the world advance, and just sit in your cesspool for generations and not fight in anyway you can to fix it? People in these awful places have watched the rest of the world just grow and mature for 500 years, and they've just sat there in their violent, close minded and pathetic little Earth-toilets.

Look at the Aboriginals in Australia; they're pretty much fine, they're still doing their thing. They faced a lot of hardships due to European colonists too, granted there's a tendency for drug use by younger tribesmen, but those men and women are banished to the "white" cities. Sort of like what the Amish do to their kids who long for the "western" world.

But have any of you heard of an Aboriginal genocide or jihad lately?

Nope.

If everyone in the world sent money, food, clothing, medical aid, equipment, etc, to all these dusty countries still living in the Dark Ages (aside from acquiring the use of firearms and nuclear weapons soon).... they'd all still be awful disgusting places filled with awful people. Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Haiti, Darfur, Uganda, Iraq; all these places suck, and there's nothing anyone can do to turn them into Canada. They'll never be nice places, the people there don't know how to live any other way but like the people who populated the world during the Dark Ages.

We can't save them all, we need to just let them eliminate themselves with war and disease, but hope that some bright minds out of the millions living in these places can save them from downfall. Because helping the helpless is foolish and meaningless, but aiding those who can normally help themselves is productive. Those who have failed at helping themselves after 500 years, just weren't cut out to play the game everyone else is playing, and we're playing Life.


I'll touch on this language topic later.

Spooky wrote:

Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Haiti, Darfur, Uganda, Iraq; all these places suck, and there's nothing anyone can do to turn them into Canada. They'll never be nice places, the people there don't know how to live any other way but like the people who populated the world during the Dark Ages.

These are also highly religious places where the religions advocate genocide somewhere in their books.

Spooky: I definitely understand your view better now; I think I misinterpreted it before as being more small-scale than big-picture, when the balance seems to be the other way around. Thanks for elaborating, and again, I really wasn't attempting to attack -- I just didn't understand.

One more reason why open discussion rocks. (Is there a remedial class in this that can be offered to right-wingers?)

While our views on this don't entirely match up, they're not in opposition either. I think politics also play a big role in the social stagnation of third-world countries. Best example I can think of at the moment is Iran's so-called "leader", who exhibits all the leadership skills of a bratty two-year-old ("I'll play nice only if you give in" and "I know it didn't happen because I said so").

Ginger_Snaps wrote:

Spooky wrote:

Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Haiti, Darfur, Uganda, Iraq; all these places suck, and there's nothing anyone can do to turn them into Canada. They'll never be nice places, the people there don't know how to live any other way but like the people who populated the world during the Dark Ages.

These are also highly religious places where the religions advocate genocide somewhere in their books.

That's pretty much what the Dark Ages were, the mixture of political and religious power making prejudiced and racist men into omnipotent leaders. How can you check the power of people who speak for crown and for god? We as a species mostly moved away from this, aside for these great little corners of the world that display the ugliness of humankind on a day-to-day basis.




Red, don't worry sugar, I know you weren't attacking me. This is the spot for impassioned opinions, and I respect yours'.

I wanted some opinions here

Every couple of months this man named Brother Jed comes to my university and preaches on campus. I go to a public university so this is ok. He is very harsh about his convictions. I understand freedom of speech but I dont think he should be allowed to preach because he harasses the students. If a girl walks by with sorority greek letters Brother Jed calls her a whore for being in a sorority. If 2 gay men are holding hands he damns them to hell. He calls everyone out and says they are all sinners. Do you think he should be allowed on campus?? Here is a brief video. He goes to many schools in the midwest.

This is him, and him singing. He is much ruder than this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEt8JB7xCqM&feature=related

The gay song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msOCz_XEiA8&feature=related

This is his family. The sign she is holding is condemning all the following, rock n rollers, masterbators, feminists, etc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWC7ZtI4s5I

I remember someone else here brought up the subject of this man before. I remember watching the youtube they posted. I'm sorry for forgetting. mm.. It could have been Badart. Anyway's...

Even with your university being a "secular" one, someone overhead of the university had to let him be there other wise I would think he would be escorted off campus for harassment. A college campus isn't truly open to the public I don't think for just anyone to walk on and do what ever.

He should only be allowed on campus if he's been given some reserved place and scheduled time to hold his "preaching" and contains it there in. It should be posted for those that have any desire to go be given fair warning as to what he's about and security should be there incase he were to get out of hand. He feels rather cultish to me. Jim Jones-ish. So allowing him even that much might not be advisable.

I just keep thinking, if he was out to turn people away from religion and "god" what he's doing would sure be a real good way to do it.

^^^Ya, i dont think we have any warning when he comes. Its always a surprise to me. I guess he had to get approval from someone. Its ok if he preaches, i just dont understand how he gets away with harassment.

If anyone--whether it be a religious person, a student, or faculty--is harassing people on a campus (especially if it is a public/secular one) you are to report them. Honestly, I take issue with Gideons passing out little bibles on a campus (wouldn't you think Christians would take issue with Muslim passing out Korans on a campus?).

This dolt Pastor Jed has every right to do and say the silly things he does, as you are guaranteed the right to verbally and intellectually tear him a new a**hole. Granted, someone like him is nearly impossible to debate because they are so stuck in their ways they've closed their mind and eyes to reality and the rest of the world.

I love when people use the whole (penis -> vagina) was designed, so it should only be that way argument. Ignoring the fact that there have been nearly 20 documented species which witness gay-coupling in nature, it's basically these people saying the sex is only for procreation. The next time someone says only men and women were supposed to have sex, ask them if they enjoy sex, or only do it to create a child? If they enjoy it; then it's not just about creating an offspring, but about getting off. Therefore, sex is about what works for you and what doesn't, not about making another generation.

I am so p!ssed. On the bus ride to work, we rode past the high school and, parked across from the high school, was a vehicle covered in huge anti-abortion signs. Pictures of aborted fetuses, pictures of babies, pictures of Jesus -- and the expected slogans on each one. I know I live in the South, but this actually doesn't happen that often in the capital city.

Putting aside the fact that I disagree with their point of view, I've got two issues here. The biggest of the 2: fearmongering. That's what this is. Adults trying to extol the virtue of caring for children -- by scaring 16-year-old girls. If you really want someone to share your point of view, especially children who are learning every day as it is, try talking to them. Not parading propaganda. Adults scaring children, that's all this is.

My second problem is with "moral" groups wielding the Jesus card. Like they knew the guy. But that's a whole different gripe.

I want to say once and for all: Bristol Palin is neither a role model nor a hero. Not that you guys didn't know; I just had to say it out loud.