C
Cambridge
Guest
What do you think that has to do with the post you replied to?
- Status
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
StTommyMore assumes that you don’t think girls have the right to an education.
P
Pug
Guest
Agreed, marriage is supposed to be until death.
Divorce ought not be common, but it is, clearly. I can’t tell you why, though. I guess one answer is that people who are not prepared to marry are marrying anyway. I think we generally fail as a society to prepare people for marriage. As I think you alluded to somewhere on this thread, it is not like you or I can personally fix society. We can only try to figure out what is broken and do our best to help others.
C
Cambridge
Guest
No doubt, our culture does not prepare people for marriage anymore, I think, because our culture does not value marriage or the moral order, for that matter, anymore. So, you know, why would it botherAgreed, marriage is supposed to be until death.
S
StTommyMore
Guest
So what are you going to do about it? Bemoaning the state of the word does nothing. If you want things to change, you have to actively DO something. What are you going to do?No doubt, our culture does not prepare people for marriage anymore, I think, because our culture does not value marriage or the moral order, for that matter, anymore. So, you know, why would it bother
G
genevievelives
Guest
“God created natural law, not Patricia Ireland.”
No, God may have created natural law, but He certainly created Patricia Ireland.
gen
No, God may have created natural law, but He certainly created Patricia Ireland.
gen
T
Timothy17
Guest
Hello again Kaninchen.
(I see you are still here after many months, and my heart is not a little saddened that you have yet to embrace Christ ; however, I am glad nonetheless that you are still present.)
You said,
“The structure of the economy is entirely different from back in the 1950’s,”
Which is true ; however, seeing as you at least show a genuine interest and partial understanding of economy, I encourage you to deepen your studies and your thinking on this topic, as to arrive at core principles that can serve as guidelines. Consider, for example, that the word “economy,” comes from an old Greek compound translated from that language into Latin and then entering the English vernacular. The relevant compound, loosely translated, is “House Rules.”
Now m’lady, I hope you were raised in a good and loving home, one in which you were given props for your success and a place of shelter for your times of sorrow. If this were the case, you bare with you a model of a good home, one which you could replicate should you choose to have your own family one day, for the benefit of your own children. Now, assuming the above is true, you could say that your family economy is good, and could demonstrate this assertion by providing your own condition or result as evidence. The “Rules of the house” you grew up in were good ones, and had good effects. The “policy” of your parents resulted in positive (happy) outcomes (or so we hope
).Now if the above was not the case, you could likewise assert (and I hope this is not the case) that your family economy was bad, and as a result you suffered somehow for and from it. Let us say the policies of your parents prevented a litany of likely opportunities for you, and prevented you from ever developing properly in an emotional context, which may have resulted in physchological troubles for you and various other troubles and issues. This would be an example of a bad economy in the home, and that bad economy is demonstrable from its end results or products (I speak materialistically, forgive me, certainly you are not some product, but I speak in way of analogy.)
Economies of grander scale are no less different than the ones you experienced of smaller scale, and we see that the ever-important factor at the heart of economy is rules and policies. To demonstrate this, consider that Marxism and socialism, for example, were both “purely economic” theories but nonetheless had immediate consequences in the political and social orders. One cannot speak of economy without, in consequence, refering to or touching upon - at minimum - national policies. Now the simple definition of a nation is a collection of families, usually sharing a similar or the same culture. Even today, we hear people complain of “the economy,” and this sort of complaining is of important interest to leaders and politicians, for they recognize that when the people complain of the economy, it almost certainly means they will take their complaints to the ballot box with them. Now if “economy” were seperate or independent from other factors, as if often erroneously imagined, then a politician couldn’t be bothered to care for people’s complaining about it, anymore than they would care about people’s complaining about the weather. Politicians do not fear that bad or miserable weather will be blamed on them, for the people are not yet so jaded or diluded as to presume politicians are responsible for weather ; however, we do see that economy is considered intrinsically part of their purview.
You also wrote,
“Western economies and these are not the result of feminism, though feminism did a lot of mind-changing…”
Which is partly true, and partly fallacious (though entirely understandable). Your assertion here is jeopardized when we reverse the order of the statement, keeping in mind what I wrote above,
“Feminism did a lot of mind-changing, [and] Western economies are not the result…”
Do you see how that is hard to accept ? For if feminism “did a lot of mind-changing,” as you truly and rightly assert, how could that not result in consequences for the “rules of the house,” the economy ? Feminism had immediate consequences on both the family and national economy (which shouldn’t be surprising, considering the standard definition of nations). Trying to divorce the two, therefore, is almost impossible : for if feminism changed the way we look at “the rules of the house” - and it most certainly did - then how can it be divorced from the consequences of such changes ? Returning to analogy, if your parents practiced a radically - no, revolutionary - different policy than the one they did in your upbringing, would we not expect an equally different result in your own personal outcome ? Surely - and I think we could all agree - we would.
P.S - I understand you are practicing the Sabbath in Europe, so no need to note it. I realize you will be unable to reply until the first of the week, by reckoning of your time.
Pax,
Tim
T
Timothy17
Guest
Continuing…
Now, in my previous post I touched upon those things relating to an understanding of economy and the influence feminism would by default have. In this post, I will touch upon the “structural” (as Kaninchen put it) aspects of the economy that have changed (or rather, progressively advanced), which is sometimes (as in her post) wrongly construed to mean having negative consequences on the economy, whereas (as I alluded) they are in fact beneficial.
Kaninchen wrote,
… it isn’t that ‘Rosie the riviter’ has taken ‘Ronnie the riviter’s’ job, his job is being done by robots. It’s been a period of massive technological change and massive structural change in Western economies and these are not the result of feminism…
The most relevant point has been bolded by me.
Kaninchen asserts that many of the troubles today are owing to improvements in technology. Already, our minds have difficulty reconciling this assertion, for if we take it to its logical conclusion, then it would be no different than saying that man would be happier (or happiest) in an almost Neanderthal setting, wherein he is confined to the most primitive rudiments for survival, at the absolute mercy of nature and weather, and unable to shelter himself from natural turbulence that would even slightly deprive him of his sustenance.
I think we can all agree that with civilization and advancement comes, in general, increased material well-being, or at least certainly the possibility of that potential in general. I will leave this statement as being for granted, and move on now to dissect Kaninchen’s statement more directly in the present economic context.
Kaninchen asserted,
“[H]is job is being done by robots…”
By this she meant that unemployment is not the result of economy so much as the result of advancements in technology. We find this logic also at the beginning of the industrial revolutions, wherein it is imagined by the workmen’s guilds that their traditional labours would be made useless by mass production, and they would - as a result - be left unemployed, and so the majority of people would be doomed to starvation and unemployment. However, today we see that this was not the case, that with the industrial revolution came both an increase in material comforts and furnishings that would afford a larger and more prosperous human population, and as industry advanced (new) jobs were created simoltaneously to employ people ; if we were to quanitfy this, we would certainly conclude that jobs were created in massive quantities, to the point where within a few generations more new jobs were created than there ever were people needing them before.
To sum up the error in saying,
“[H]is job is being done by robots…”
I will only say this : those robots are made, designed, or assembled by men in factories, and then further each and every ingredient requires men in mines to harvest them, men in oil fields and power plants to make this feasible, and men in transport trucks and ships to deliver them, and salesmen to sell them, and presidents and managers to organize all of them, and men in construction to provide the conditions to construct and sell them, farmers to feed all of them, and specially trained and educated men to repair or maintain them. Then, of course, we have retailers of an endless variety to provide those things necessary to sustain all of this, and the industries required to produce those particular niches and furnishings.
Technological advancement increases the productive power of labour on one hand, which makes labour more valuable, and increases efficiencies on another, which makes business more profitable. The former ensures employment of some sort, the latter provides inducement to invest and expand business, and expanding business always requires large parts of the economy to mobilize to furnish the expansion. Increased profitability provides for reinvestment or simple spending, all of which drives employment. Therefore we see that the causes of economic woe are not technological advancement, but rather is a result of something else, and I assert that this “something else” is genuinely more economic (having to do with the rules of the house) than technological (having to do with improvement in technique, which the word technology implies).
Pax,
Tim
Now, in my previous post I touched upon those things relating to an understanding of economy and the influence feminism would by default have. In this post, I will touch upon the “structural” (as Kaninchen put it) aspects of the economy that have changed (or rather, progressively advanced), which is sometimes (as in her post) wrongly construed to mean having negative consequences on the economy, whereas (as I alluded) they are in fact beneficial.
Kaninchen wrote,
… it isn’t that ‘Rosie the riviter’ has taken ‘Ronnie the riviter’s’ job, his job is being done by robots. It’s been a period of massive technological change and massive structural change in Western economies and these are not the result of feminism…
The most relevant point has been bolded by me.
Kaninchen asserts that many of the troubles today are owing to improvements in technology. Already, our minds have difficulty reconciling this assertion, for if we take it to its logical conclusion, then it would be no different than saying that man would be happier (or happiest) in an almost Neanderthal setting, wherein he is confined to the most primitive rudiments for survival, at the absolute mercy of nature and weather, and unable to shelter himself from natural turbulence that would even slightly deprive him of his sustenance.
I think we can all agree that with civilization and advancement comes, in general, increased material well-being, or at least certainly the possibility of that potential in general. I will leave this statement as being for granted, and move on now to dissect Kaninchen’s statement more directly in the present economic context.
Kaninchen asserted,
“[H]is job is being done by robots…”
By this she meant that unemployment is not the result of economy so much as the result of advancements in technology. We find this logic also at the beginning of the industrial revolutions, wherein it is imagined by the workmen’s guilds that their traditional labours would be made useless by mass production, and they would - as a result - be left unemployed, and so the majority of people would be doomed to starvation and unemployment. However, today we see that this was not the case, that with the industrial revolution came both an increase in material comforts and furnishings that would afford a larger and more prosperous human population, and as industry advanced (new) jobs were created simoltaneously to employ people ; if we were to quanitfy this, we would certainly conclude that jobs were created in massive quantities, to the point where within a few generations more new jobs were created than there ever were people needing them before.
To sum up the error in saying,
“[H]is job is being done by robots…”
I will only say this : those robots are made, designed, or assembled by men in factories, and then further each and every ingredient requires men in mines to harvest them, men in oil fields and power plants to make this feasible, and men in transport trucks and ships to deliver them, and salesmen to sell them, and presidents and managers to organize all of them, and men in construction to provide the conditions to construct and sell them, farmers to feed all of them, and specially trained and educated men to repair or maintain them. Then, of course, we have retailers of an endless variety to provide those things necessary to sustain all of this, and the industries required to produce those particular niches and furnishings.
Technological advancement increases the productive power of labour on one hand, which makes labour more valuable, and increases efficiencies on another, which makes business more profitable. The former ensures employment of some sort, the latter provides inducement to invest and expand business, and expanding business always requires large parts of the economy to mobilize to furnish the expansion. Increased profitability provides for reinvestment or simple spending, all of which drives employment. Therefore we see that the causes of economic woe are not technological advancement, but rather is a result of something else, and I assert that this “something else” is genuinely more economic (having to do with the rules of the house) than technological (having to do with improvement in technique, which the word technology implies).
Pax,
Tim
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Well, I’ve never been a candidate for conversion and I do have to say that, after 15 years of talking to Christians on the Internet, I’m even less of a potential candidate than I was at the beginning.
For the rest of your posts, I have to mention something I’ve learned over the years - it might almost an internet conversation ‘Iron Law’, perhaps - “Less Is Usually More.”
Either you were talking to me, in which case some succinct points would have been in order, or you were delivering a homily, in which case . . . .
S
StTommyMore
Guest
Is this because of the poor witness of Christians, or you have found the teachings to have no merit?
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
I think he was delivering a homily.
Especially thanks to this line:
Hello again Kaninchen.
(I see you are still here after many months, and my heart is not a little saddened that you have yet to embrace Christ ; however, I am glad nonetheless that you are still present.)
K
Kaninchen
Guest
A decade and a half is quite some time - on boards of all kinds - and people have taken all sorts of approaches - some less maladroit than others.
Perhaps the best way of putting it is that, by knowing more about Christianity, I’ve learned more reasons why not.
I’ve met quite a few interesting and engaging people though.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
S
StTommyMore
Guest
The reason I asked is that what we all tend to forget is that evangelization comes more form a life that bears witness to our faith, and less from apologetic debate. I have lost sight of this truth many times myself.A decade and a half is quite some time - on boards of all kinds - and people have taken all sorts of approaches - some less maladroit than others.
Perhaps the best way of putting it is that, by knowing more about Christianity, I’ve learned more reasons why not.
I’ve met quite a few interesting and engaging people though.
T
Timothy17
Guest
I see. Well, then, to put it succinctly,
The first post deals with the error in imagining that while feminism has changed the way people think (“did a long of mind changing,” as you put it), that it nonetheless had no consequence on economy, as if how we think and what we believe has no impact on the policies we develop.
The second post deals with the not-so-little logical error in asserting that robots are stealing peoples jobs.
My homily goes into more detail, but suffice it so say that right-thinking would have benefits for the economy and probably keep people from imagining that Megatron is stealing their job.
As to your conversion, well, I suppose we could wait another 15 years if needs be
After all, what’s 15 years in eternity ?Tim
T
Timothy17
Guest
I don’t know about you, St-Tommy, but I have a feeling we share a similar belief : in practice and daily life, evangelize like St Francis ; on the internet, defend it like St Augustine.
Pax,
Tim
S
StTommyMore
Guest
I am not sure how successful I am at emulating those great saints, but that is definitely the intent.
T
Timothy17
Guest
Immitation is the heart of our religion, and I don’t believe we are ever asked to do more than that.
Afterall, are not we Christians really just relying on our Holy Mother, the Church, to shroud us with Esau’s hair, and prepare for us the meal that is pleasing to the Father ? Our accent may give us away for who we really are, but as for the other two, Holy Mother Church is confident they will suffice to acquire for us His blessing.
Pax,
Tim
K
Kaninchen
Guest
I didn’t say that it had no consequences, I was merely talking about context.
Logical error?
Of course, if you think that the work landscape has remained much the same apart from the results of feminism, then there’s not much of a conversation possible.
- Status