|
Post by dgriffin on May 27, 2009 16:01:38 GMT -5
Well ... it's a better discussion topic than television or many others!
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on May 27, 2009 17:51:03 GMT -5
"Society's goals of peace and tranquility?" Hmmm. My marriages missed that part of the script. I envy those that have been successful and happy in marriage, but I support civil unions because I believe gay people deserve to suffer just as much as the rest of us that did NOT have successful marriages do, not because it will bring peace and tranquility. I just think if they want to make a commitment and have the same benefits, they need to be aware that they are signing up for alimony and child support and all the other responsibility that goes with a committed relationship. It is not all smiles and sunshine as the pictures of Rosey O'Donnell's wedding was. In about a year, it may be the gays that are appealing for repeal of the law.
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on May 27, 2009 21:06:57 GMT -5
I'm sure a male society thought up the "peace and tranquility" aspect. For one thing, the only society back then was male (officially). Also, the intention wasn't to provide peace WITHIN the marriage, but rather among competing males. Marriage allowed one to "capture" the female and have exclusive rights to her. Instead of constant fighting over females, marriage allowed males to concentrate on other important aspects of society, like fishing and hunting, the main source of protein, and the probable principal ingredient that led to our increased brain size. Along with an agriculture done mostly by females, males finally had time to sit back and come up with the big ideas that advanced society and gave us the wonderful state we have today. My tongue is only partly in my cheek.
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on May 27, 2009 21:19:55 GMT -5
Marriage allowed one to "capture" the female and have exclusive rights to her. So true, Dave. That's why a married woman could not be legally raped. There was an affirmative defense that the alleged rapist was the woman's husband, known as husband's privilege or something. And for other issues of importance: - growing national debt that China is buying up like no tomorrow
- our failing education system that is not putting our students on par with students from foreign countries
- our reliance on foreign educated students to drive our technological innovation and our startling loss of technical prowess. Believe it or not, for the better part of 50 years, the world waited for American innovation. That is no longer the case. And major technology firms, e.g. Microsoft, continually lobby Congress to change the VISA laws to allow more foreign college graduates to stay in the country and work for them instead of returning to their home countries.
- solar energy
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on May 27, 2009 21:48:25 GMT -5
Whenever I see a rule or more in society that's considered really important ... and especially when I see one of that significance that is being broken down ... I like to analyze why it was so important. Often, it restricted behaviors that could really tear apart the social fabric by pitting individuals against each other. Sex is a prime example.
I like to visualize 100 or so run-of-the mill folks who get cut off from society (like Lost) and have to come up with rules for their interactions. I think of maybe 5 or 6 square miles of country surrounding my home, for example. How will the inhabitants get the work done? How would they protect themselves from dangers. How will they protect each other from themselves? These are critical endeavors that call for serious consequences to those who will not cooperate, thereby risking the safety of others.
As time goes on, the group enlarges and work gets more complicated. Full time employees are needed to attend to the group chores. Eventually the larger group comes to depend upon this new Elect to keep the peace, and the Elect become quasi royalty. It is at this point that the people begin to ask why they need one rule or another. And they begin to throw out the rules without realizing they no longer need them because they're no longer responsible for themselves. A Group without serious behavior rules is a group without responsibility to itself.
In "The Culture Narcisissm," Lasch said we were becoming (30 years ago) a "therapeutic society," by which he meant we had everything done for us by specialists, from teachers to doctors to dry cleaners. This leaves most of us with less responsibility to act our roles as mature members of our society, a society that is quickly being taken over by elites.
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on May 27, 2009 22:41:21 GMT -5
Take theft as an example. At one time, stealing from another person who had little to live on was a heinous crime, because you deprived a man and his family from the sustenance provided by his labors. You might get your hand cut off and thrown in the ocean for such a transgression of the rules.
As time went by and many people had a little more than they needed to live on, stealing's seriousness was parsed, along with varying degrees of punishment. And eventually, our Elect took over the justice process. Heavy consequences might have kept crime from reaching epidemic proportions at one time. Politics entered the picture then and objectives such as rehabilitation of the criminal became a goal.
Over the past two years in my county, we have had 3 so-called professional women convicted for embezzling funds to the tune of over $100,000 each, in one case way over that amount. Two of the women held accountant jobs and the third was an attorney. In all three cases, the trials brought out that none really needed the money ... they booked international trips, shopped for expensive jewelry, and bought gifts for grandchildren with the stolen funds. Not one of these women served any time in jail.
The larger group of "us" has lost sight of why stealing is so wrong, and besides, arent' the Elect taking care of the problem? We have ceased having a feeling of responsibility for our own protection, and no longer fear criminals as much as at one time, because we think the Elect are doing their jobs, even when the punishment seems to be rather light. But crime is growing, aside from a natural downturn due to a temporary dearth of males aged 18 to 34. In reality, however, the Elect do not appear to be making any headway.
But it gets worse ...
... when the Elect become the criminals, and we're now too irresponsible to vote them out of office.
|
|