Tweet
Re: Welcome....*FORTYLEGZ*....F&R Summer Feature!!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: f0rTyLeGz</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS'">And I would like to add that that doesn't mean that children don't need discipline and instruction and "borders." It is just my belief that there are loving solutions to all of these times. And a huge percentage of those moments can be avoided by the parents by just planning ahead. "Child proofing" for your particular kid. Knowing what your child is going to want or need in the near future, and having that whatever at hand, when the time comes.</span> </div></div>
<snip>... treating a child wonderfully, etc., doesn't guarantee that such a child will turn out to become a productive citizen. The total opposite is possible, so it does seem to me that "man's inhumanity to man" goes much deeper than how individuals are treated as children. </div></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS'">The goal, as I see it, of raising children without hitting and yelling, isnt to make kids that are "productive citizens." The goal is to make confident happy and engaged people. I think that if you take a country that has outlawed spanking vs a country that institutionalizes spanking, and perhaps allows the school teachers to hit their pupils, that the results will be obvious... even in the GDPs.
Also, when parents raise their children without hitting and yelling, it implies a great deal about the parents. It implies a whole range of parential behaviour that is out of range of the parents who resort to hitting to maintain their control. To get my meaning, think that hitting is <span style="font-style: italic">never</span> an option. It never crosses that no-hit parent's mind, that THIS situation may be the time to hit. What kind of person is that?</span>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
As someone who accepts Darwinism and it's inherent materialism, do you believe that some individuals are "wired" to be violent, and by extension, predisposing some nations to war? In this world view, are humans meant to keep fighting with each other with only the "fittest ones" surviving? </div></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS'">I have never read even a passage of Darwin. I don't know a thing about DArwinism and it's "inherent materialism." I do believe that the world has evolved over billions of years, and that people like beings have only been around for the last 100,000 probably. I don't believe that "survival of the fittest" means the survival of the most violent.
I believe that what has allowed mankind's accession to it's present height is language. Words are the spark of conciousness, and the meme of language, is an ever growing mamouth dictionary in the sky. There was a time (not so long ago) that there weren't adjectives and adverbs. Where would mankind be without the brand new language of DOS?
When we are born, we are all instantly immersed in our local language. For most of history, those languages were separated by territorial boundries. Mountains, oceans, deserts. And the languages were many and grew slowly. These languages existed no where but in the minds of the speakers, before writing. But they did grow, and some cultures "invented" writing. Those cultures meme of language were able to feed on their own history, and grew faster. Eventually along comes printing, and the meme of language spread more widely amongst the population. Then recently primary education, and the mass production of books... and now there is the world wide web... and an explosion, a blizzard of words.
The fittist men and women in these new times, will have vast vocabularies about their fields of interest. They will hunt with metaphors. They will type fast.</span>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: f0rTyLeGz</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS'">And I would like to add that that doesn't mean that children don't need discipline and instruction and "borders." It is just my belief that there are loving solutions to all of these times. And a huge percentage of those moments can be avoided by the parents by just planning ahead. "Child proofing" for your particular kid. Knowing what your child is going to want or need in the near future, and having that whatever at hand, when the time comes.</span> </div></div>
<snip>... treating a child wonderfully, etc., doesn't guarantee that such a child will turn out to become a productive citizen. The total opposite is possible, so it does seem to me that "man's inhumanity to man" goes much deeper than how individuals are treated as children. </div></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS'">The goal, as I see it, of raising children without hitting and yelling, isnt to make kids that are "productive citizens." The goal is to make confident happy and engaged people. I think that if you take a country that has outlawed spanking vs a country that institutionalizes spanking, and perhaps allows the school teachers to hit their pupils, that the results will be obvious... even in the GDPs.
Also, when parents raise their children without hitting and yelling, it implies a great deal about the parents. It implies a whole range of parential behaviour that is out of range of the parents who resort to hitting to maintain their control. To get my meaning, think that hitting is <span style="font-style: italic">never</span> an option. It never crosses that no-hit parent's mind, that THIS situation may be the time to hit. What kind of person is that?</span>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
As someone who accepts Darwinism and it's inherent materialism, do you believe that some individuals are "wired" to be violent, and by extension, predisposing some nations to war? In this world view, are humans meant to keep fighting with each other with only the "fittest ones" surviving? </div></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS'">I have never read even a passage of Darwin. I don't know a thing about DArwinism and it's "inherent materialism." I do believe that the world has evolved over billions of years, and that people like beings have only been around for the last 100,000 probably. I don't believe that "survival of the fittest" means the survival of the most violent.
I believe that what has allowed mankind's accession to it's present height is language. Words are the spark of conciousness, and the meme of language, is an ever growing mamouth dictionary in the sky. There was a time (not so long ago) that there weren't adjectives and adverbs. Where would mankind be without the brand new language of DOS?
When we are born, we are all instantly immersed in our local language. For most of history, those languages were separated by territorial boundries. Mountains, oceans, deserts. And the languages were many and grew slowly. These languages existed no where but in the minds of the speakers, before writing. But they did grow, and some cultures "invented" writing. Those cultures meme of language were able to feed on their own history, and grew faster. Eventually along comes printing, and the meme of language spread more widely amongst the population. Then recently primary education, and the mass production of books... and now there is the world wide web... and an explosion, a blizzard of words.
The fittist men and women in these new times, will have vast vocabularies about their fields of interest. They will hunt with metaphors. They will type fast.</span>
well said 
Comment