View Full Version : Why has todays society lost total respect for itself?

22nd Jun 2001, 00:19
Read the topics in JB. They are an absolute disgrace. Take for instance the topic stared on 'Noise abatement'. The replies have all been crude and distasteful towards the originator of the thread. Where has mutual respect for each other gone?

There are then more 'joyous' discussions, about issues and acts which are actually destroying todays society. The failure of the family, the openness with which people talk about the lack of monogamy. These issues are going to cause the downfall of our society. What started with people pushing the limits of acceptability, has resulted in every generation expecting more and more, and talking liberties.

Todays youth barely even knows what family values are, let along what is decent and what is not. While you discuss oral sex outside of marriage, teenagers girls are becomming single mothers. While you continue your discussion on it, their boyfriends are dropping out of school, and turning to a life of crime. When the teenage girl became pregnant, the youth responsible realised he could get away with becoming a burden on society. He then thought he could push the limits of what he could get away with, and has now turned to crime too.

Why do so many young people use drugs today? They do it because their life has become immoral through sex outside marriage, and hence becomming a 'little bit more' immoral by using illegal substances does not matter to them.

The humourous discussion on disposing of a body would not be remotly as funny if you knew someone who had been murdered. Why was no-one shocked by this, the way they were about the dog that was murdered in a road rage attack?

This all started when society could no longer be bothered to go to church. Lazyness has caused people to stop listening to the solidly founded teachings of previous generations and go their own way instead.

Well, someday you will be here to see and experience what you have generated.

Send Clowns
22nd Jun 2001, 00:27
But if you have murdered someone the discussion on corporal disposal could be very handy. Now people don't go to church the satanists can be open in their worship, and sacrifices become more hygenic. They can even have fund-raising coffe mornings, like the church.

You must see this from all sides.

Winston Smith
22nd Jun 2001, 01:31
Iceolareanic (what the hell does this mean?),

though your observations in themselves are quite reasonable, I do not think that backing the Church (i.e. Communist party plus spooks) helps to promote your opinions.

Mr moto
22nd Jun 2001, 02:00
We live in a society of accountability. From the top to the bottom a government, agency, company or organization must be prepared to come out with the truth. Rumours and hearsay are quite unacceptable.

On numerous occasions attempts have been made to contact or receive in any other form proof of the existance of God. No response.

Even the other directors (Jesus Christ and the rather less substantial Holy Ghost) have failed to respond.

It must therefore be concluded that this organization has failed its membership and thus society as a whole.

22nd Jun 2001, 02:26

To claim that society has lost all respect for itself is ludicrous. Society has never been perfect, to claim so is an admirable and idealist point of view, but also blinkered and misguided. It must be accepted, however, that the failings of society have simply changed, as has the society in which we live. There have always been, and will always be problems.

You wax lyrical about the wonders of the church, and the fact that our failure to attend is the root of societies problems today. One might ask how many often we hear of the failings of the church.. just think about it for a while.

You condemn the single mother, what exactly is the problem with her? Why is a child conceived outside of marriage (an outdated institution only entered into through tradition some would argue) less loved or cared for than one within marriage. What then of the child who is conceived to 'make a failing marriage work'?

Where do the parents feature in your condemnation of the youth of today? Is it fair just to blame the children? (An altogether different argument).

My request to you wold be to spend more time around JB and not write it off so quickly. Perhaps then you would see the threads about love and marriage and other such stuff I'm sure even you would approve of...

All I'm sure of is that until the day "we see and experience what we have generated" (a more tolerant, less bigoted world) we'll have more fun than you do.


[This message has been edited by Baggy (edited 21 June 2001).]

22nd Jun 2001, 02:49
Hey Icewhatyoumacallit; lighten up dude. I'd hate to be a witness to the first PPRUNE online coronary!

22nd Jun 2001, 02:52
Let us examine JB, first, the disclaimer:

Jet Blast
Where the hot heads with too much spare time or chips on their shoulders can let off steam or crack a few jokes for use on the flight deck.
This forum is unmoderated so...

Sure, there are some subjects that I don't bother to look at, and I shall not go into the look or don't look debate. We did that when I posted the Bonsai Kitty link :)

Shh had the audacity to come here, and create the responses he received, so far he has suggested we should all deviate around him, that trainee pilots are not real pilots (this from a non-pilot) and the typical attitude that if you are by an airport and annoyed, the world should bow to him (BTW he inherited the place, so he's bitching about noise in a free place; don't like it? Hey sell and move, his parents must have liked it while they were there).

One wants respect? It isn't given, it is earned. He certainly did not go out of his way to present his case rationally, I suggest you re-read his first post, unless you ARE Shh in disguise yet again starting another round of arguement.

If his case was presented such as the letter to SPS in "rotorheads" (see topic "Heed this ...") you can see the reply that SPS gave him. I suggest you read that as well.

Someday you shall grow up and see that the discussions here have no bearing on the subjects you mentioned.

If today's youth doesn't know family values it is because their parents did not teach them. A forum topic of oral sex between (supposedly adults) is not the cause of teenage pregnancy.

But they read this you say? Where are the parents ensuring they don't? Hmm ? Or instructing them about contraception?

>Rant mode ON<
I cannot stand pro-lifer's: they want no abortion, but also do not want:
sex education in schools, prevention or any other education for the same kids. You cannot have it both ways. The secret to this issue is education, kids do listen to parents, but again, if you don't do it, and they don't get it in school, there you go.

I don't know what planet you are living on when you make unsubstantiated comments such as how pre-marital sex causes drug use, because they feel immoral. Sorry the immoral label is yours. So are anaimal immoral when performing sex in public? doing what comes natural eh ?

You want to talk about the church, hey let's do. I think in the US EVERY type of religeous demonation must begin paying it's property taxes, they like to make grand sweeping statements about how government is handling things, etc. Well PAY up and then have a say.

Let's not even go to all the children molested by priests that we hear about, or did society cause that too ????? Hmm, that may be one of the failings that Mr. M might be hinting at. The church is not as high standing in morality that you believe, so I wouldn't stand by it to tell everyone else what they are doing wrong in their lives.
>rant mode OFF<

In the end it is accountability, as Mr. M states. but more to the point it is INDIVIDUAL CHOICE.

The difference between me reading Jet Blast and not going out to commit murder than someone who does is entirely done within THAT person, no one else, as much as violent games, internet, porn (uummmm.... porn ... :)) etc.
is going to be used as the scapegoat.

I have seen the worst that people do to each other on a regular basis for over 13 years, and it isn't the wild and wacky discussions here or anywhere else that cause it. to find the answer you need only look in the mirror.

You have a lot to learn friend.


22nd Jun 2001, 02:56
Iceolareanic, coming in here and berating us, based on a total misunderstanding of the function of JB, allied with a rather humourless and puritanical attitude will not alter society one jot. Nor will the fact that you appear completely unable to differentiate between reality and fantasy.

Are these the former generations who managed to destroy society in two devastating wars within a 50 year span.

Bet you're a bundle of laughs on an evening out.

RW1 - I applaud everything you said - my sentiments exactly. BTW doesn't oral sex prevent pregnancy, or does it mean just talking about sex. ;)

[This message has been edited by Velvet (edited 21 June 2001).]

22nd Jun 2001, 03:10

To which society do you refer?

The Masai? With in which society it is customary for a man to have as many wives as can be provided for and women have additional boyfriends. A society where paternity is not considered and all children produced within the extended family are cared valued. One that valued & respected women for the health risk women undergo through bearing children without the safety provided by modern medicine?

What about some of the Inuit? Their solution to a limited opportunity to maintain a broad gene pool was for visitors to be encouraged to have sexual intercourse with the lady of the igloo.

Early Muslim perhaps, prior to the teachings of Mohammed being twisted & usurped for the benefit of those in power. One of the first amongst the western world that recognised the equivalence of women, and did so while the christian church still regarded women as chattels.

The Japanese? No christian influence there - where a Geisha was a respected occupation - but they still managed to develop a society that valued beauty, loyalty, service, honour, labour.

How about the Mormon flavour of christianity? Polygamy is fundamental to many in that version..

It seems that you are using an entirely self referential logic in your judgement of what is 'right' ie the reason you have your perception of what is 'right' and what is 'normal' for society is solely because that is the society in which you were raised and are immersed.

Other societies have vastly different, and equally successful, ways of solving the basic problems of survival of its members.

Each one usually makes the same error as you, and judges all others by their own standards, all looking 'down' on all those other 'wrong' & 'immoral' bastions of propriety. And all making the same error: the arbiter of what is 'correct' is solely what one's society considers correct. No more, no less.

[This message has been edited by Tinstaafl (edited 21 June 2001).]

compressor stall
22nd Jun 2001, 05:52

And you did not even have to get around to mention the Taliban to make you point.

Iceowhatever... If you want to stay within the Christian Paradigm, let's go way back to the church dominated states. High moral ground there, sadly lacking in freedom of thought (Galileo), Spanish Inquisitions, whitchhunts...etc etc.

I know in what era I'd rather live.

Those who restrain desire do so because theirs is weak enough to be restrained.
William Blake

no name
22nd Jun 2001, 06:19

I see you didn't add the part where the priest takes the innocence of a young boy as has happened on more than one occasion. Where does that fit into your theory?

Are you out there trying to fix the problem or you just going to sit here and complain?

Bio Warrior
22nd Jun 2001, 06:38
Hey Hey hey Iceo *frown*
You complain because people were rude to Shhhh but you have been just as rude to the ppruners .... Would you go to someones home who has kids and complain that there are toys lying about? It's the same principle

PPrune is the home for pilots they have a tough stressful job and this is where they come to destress... Maybe some of their humor is crude but you don't have to read it or be here any more than I do .. and I don't read the stuff that I don't like (it's simple really.)

Personally I like the people here, they're real and genuine and don't pretend to be something they aren't...

As for the younger genration, I'm 24 still a virgin and intend to stay that way until I get married, Christian, will be a medical missionary once I have enough life experience and currently hold down a good government job, don't drink don't smoke or do drugs... Every older generation complains about the one lower in the pecking order forgetting what happened when they were our age.

What I'm saying is why can't you play nicely Iceo and stop ranting at people and blaming them for all the worlds worries and try to make a better world by doing a few nice kind and loving things yourself.... like getting to know people before you judge them ...

You talk about the church Iceo but I bet Jesus wouldn't have come here like you did, he actually ate and spent time with people like my new freinds.... Why must you "religious" people make God seem so harsh and unapproachable to people who need him, Jesus died for them you know :rolleyes: (Yes OBC and Guyincognito youre included in that query... you make my job of convincing the people that God ISN'T just a club for mentally unhinged long winded grumpy people VERY HARD... )

>hugs and purrs all round<

-Bio Warrior(kitten and nieve young lass)

PS SORRY FOR RANTING AND BEING LONGWINDED FOLKS it makes me sound like a hypocrit doesn't it? http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif
Belief is nine tenths of understanding

[This message has been edited by Bio Warrior (edited 22 June 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Bio Warrior (edited 22 June 2001).]

Capt Vegemite
22nd Jun 2001, 07:14
er.....Wind up alert folks!


... Luposlipaphobia: The fear of being chased by timber wolves around a kitchen
table while wearing socks on a newly waxed floor."

22nd Jun 2001, 07:44
Isobar, I'm sitting here watching the ten o'clock news. They just showed a clip showing the despicable sons of bitches that would deny little children the right to attend school, because of the building's location. I'm willing to bet that most of the f*****g morons involved in that confrontation went to church on Sunday. They probably call themselves fine, god-fearing citizens. F**k them. I prefer the denizens of this forum. They are nowhere near as hypocritical.
Thank you. :mad:

22nd Jun 2001, 10:17
Yup, Capt. Veg is right as usual. OCB or Capt. Ed is back with a new name.

Great reading.

Love Jet Blast!

22nd Jun 2001, 12:15
Ice...eh whatever, I congratulate you on your discussion provoking stirrings. I'm afraid they lack conviction though. It's worth a try. We actually miss good ole Captain Ed and OCB.
But we need a REAL old reactionary, that really gets us going. How about one or two posts on appropriate sites to draw them in.
We need some FUN!

I'd rather
22nd Jun 2001, 14:30
Even if it's a wind-up (and I'm not sure it is), keep 'em coming if it produces more postings like the one from Bio Warrier - mature, well-reasoned and witty. Stick around, girlie - Pprune needs more people like you

Bio Warrior
22nd Jun 2001, 15:47
*blush* thankyou I'd rather

Belief is nine tenths of understanding

22nd Jun 2001, 17:36
Well.. Velvet, according to Boom Boom Becker's procedures it's possible to get a woman pregnant only by a bl*-jo. :) :) :)

I wonder how the conversation was after the act.
Boris: blablabaltennisblabla
Angela: mmmmmmmmmm!!

Radar Departure2
22nd Jun 2001, 18:02
Steepclimb, we part company here; I for one don't miss the appalling Captain Ed at all, and OCB is irrelevant to me because as soon as I see his name on a thread I bypass it. I love JB for the chance to have reasoned discussion, which is a different thing from trying to rebut loud and gleeful ignorance.

But I also disagree with what appears to be the general opinion that this is a windup. I think ol'iceage or whoever is genuine in his beliefs, and he echoes a significant proportion of society who long for days when things were simpler, when crime was far less likely to affect "ordinary" people, when society was perceived as more trustworthy, where somebody's word meant something and where money wasn't the only factor to be considered in making any decision. In those things I agree with him.

I happen to disagree with him in his thinking that blind faith is the answer, but his is a belief system shared by billions in one form or another, and I've yet to see any empirical evidence from either side.

His views on extra-marital sex also seem somewhat archaic to us now, and I don't agree with him on them either.

But despite being a person who has ingested many substances of dodgy legality over the years, I find it difficult to disagree with his premise that the most egregious problems in our society are drug related.

I think it's just a little unfair to label automatically as a windup any view we may consider as outmoded. It is also a cheap putdown of somebody else's opinion. Loudly proclaiming our own tolerance means little if we tolerate only those who agree with us.


22nd Jun 2001, 18:17
Thanks Velvet ... :)

Sex is all encompassing, that is what the life revolves around. dating and all that other stuff is just a societal pre-requisite for us advanced intelligent humans. In some respects the animals have it better :)

uuummmmm talking about it, thinking about it, doing it, a natural progression hehe ...


[This message has been edited by RW-1 (edited 22 June 2001).]

22nd Jun 2001, 19:32
Absolutely agree radar honey, I too don't think this is a wind-up. However, I think it is not only simplistic, but far too easy to blame whatever you happen to disapprove of.

It is also seeing the past through a haze of memories of a time that never really was, 'cept in memories.

Youngsters do not turn to drugs because of sex outside marriage, any more than our discussing with openness the current social mores causes the downfall of society. Whether drugs are the reason or just a symptom again is a moot point. I think it's more complex than that, though there is no doubt that a lot of crime is drug related.

Preaching at us to go church will not suddenly bring about a reversion to Victorian or early 20th Century lifestyles. Additionally, he is using a very narrow yardstick to measure society's behaviour - Christian mores and traditions cannot and should not be used to determine Hindu, Muslim, Budhist, Sikh, Jewish, Agnostics and Atheist (to name but a few) societal parameters.

I find it rather patronising his assumption that he knows anything about us. To blame us for what is happening in the wider society because posters in JB tend towards the irreverent is purely because he (and it does sound like a him), wants to have a rant about what he sees as the immoral goings on here. It is confusing fantasy with reality and just makes him feel better (which may be an ego boost, but doesn't solve anything).

He may well be sincere, but to defend someone who was abusive (and is probably a wind-up), by indulging in preaching rhetoric rather detracts from his moralistic stance. His assumption that we are all immoral, uncaring, and sex-mad (well okay I'll accept the last) just because of his superficial character analyses based solely on what he read in JB is a tad arrogant.

However, despite that I disagree with him on almost everything he stated - I still would defend his right to say it. Doesn't mean others should be stopped from responding in their own inimical fashion either. I rather enjoy some of the more outrageous blasts.

[This message has been edited by Velvet (edited 22 June 2001).]

22nd Jun 2001, 22:29
I will commend Ice for boldly presenting his opinions. The bottom line I receive from his message is "Respect". We do live in a cruel, self-centered day and age.

I've drank my share in bars and I've been in churches. There's hypocrites in both places. Ever have a drunk make you think they're your best friend, makes promises only to have them talk differently of you the next day? Ever have a churchgoer try to pious their spiritual level only to find out they are having affairs or worse molesting children?

This is not to say there are not "good" people in bars or churches. However, I did read an article once that stated approx. 75%(could have been higher) of inmates were under the influence of alcohol or drugs when they committed their crimes. Most admitted they seriously doubt they would have crossed the decision line to commit the crimes if they were sober.

When I look back at my "spend-thrift" years, I wonder how in the world I came out unscathed from any tragic aftereffects. Another reason I believe there is a God. ;)

I'm not against drinking, I personally choose not to. There's some drinkers I'd rather be around than some angry, critical

I say all this for this reason, I've believed in God and the Bible most all my life (except at one point I did question the existence of God). In my own heart, I know it makes a difference on my choices and responses to conflicts that cross my path.
There are failures plenty, but lessons to be learned.

Ice, I empathize with your feelings. My thoughts are, the responsibility starts within us. If we want respect we give respect even if it's not returned.

23rd Jun 2001, 03:11
Well radar D, I was being a little facetious when I said we missed our old 'friends'. But I remain of the opinion that ice is winding us up.
His, her? views are a very basic almost by rote repetition of all the the usual cliches as trotted out by the usual suspects. Young people nowdays, teenage mothers, lack of respect, turning to crime because of teenage sex, downfall of society, old values etc etc. The same old dreary litany trotted out the type of people who have no concept of the realities that exist and have existed for hundreds of years out there in the real world outside the cosy confines of their self satisfied little world.
The viewpoint expressed is so simplistic and cliche ridden that it's unbelievable. I cannot see any conviction in his comments, anybody can string together a bunch of statements. It all smacks of a debating position. I'm all for debate, but like to think my opponent actually believes what he or she says.
Perhaps Ice would like to comment? I'm prepared to be wrong. His defence would be illuminating.
Wind up merchants are far more common on this site than most seem to realise. It's amusing to see people being drawn into debate with people who are clearly being ironic or merely mischevious. There are lots of clues, read between the lines.

[This message has been edited by Steepclimb (edited 22 June 2001).]

Radar Departure2
23rd Jun 2001, 03:39
Velvet, I agree with almost everything you say in your reply, the exception being that a better time exists only as faulty memories. SOME things were definitely better in "the good old days", mainly in regards to the impact of crime on what I will call for the sake of simplicity "normal" society. When I grew up nobody I knew barricaded themselves in their own houses out of fear. You know that I agree today's society is streets ahead in terms of equality and tolerance; you win some, you lose some.

Steepclimb, I also agree with all your points except one, that being that Ol'Ice Age's beliefs are so simplistic they must be a windup. They are unsophisticated views, yes, and most certainly unfashionable, but whether we like it or not, they echo a significant proportion of society, and the fact that we may find them quaintly outmoded in no way usurps their validity as an opinion.

That's all I was saying. :) I hope I haven't sounded too condescending.


23rd Jun 2001, 03:45
Just a little steepclimb ;)

Sometimes if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck - it could well turn out to be a DUCK

23rd Jun 2001, 03:49
I find it quite interesting the different range of feelings that have been expressed by others in this topic.

To start with, I will focus on just one area of the issues facing society today, the increasing number of single parents. However there is no reason why the RIGHT single person should not bring up a child alone.

Unfortunatly, the most common single parent is not a wealthy and mature person, able to give the new child a decent start in life. The often young mother of a single child is facing a difficult start in paternal life.

Despite the help that is provided by social services in providing childcare, the mother usually cannot spend all day at work. This means she becomes reliant on state benefits. The state does not provide enough benefits to ensure a high standard of living. What we then have is a young mother living in a council house, and struggling on a small state handout.

Council houses are often in estates, in poor area's, with a generally low standard of life. These young mothers are grouped together not only with others in the same position, but also with others who rely on society to support them. You are probably familiar with the image of crime ridden estates such as are seen in the news.

As the young child grows up in one of these estates, they become familiar with the idea that a mother can live alone, and rely on the state to support her. The child will attend a local school, and his idea's of what the state will provide are reinforced by meeting other children in a similar position.

I cannot imagine that firm discipline is always provided by the mother, as what she deals out, will be undermined by the influence of others in school demonstrating just what they can get away with.

The child will grow up seeing gangs of kids on the estate hanging around, and will aspire to join them. Their influence on the developing child will become significant at this stage.

What the child needs at this point in life is inspiration. He/she needs something to look up to, someone who they can aspire to be. Where's the motivation to work at school if all the people you look up to never work, and doss around all day. Smoking and then drugs can appear, through peer presure.

The young person not having had a solid moral upbringing will thing nothing wrong with having other young sexual partners. If they are female, she can become pregnant and start the process off all over again. If they are male, he may settle down with her in the accomodation provided by the council, or try to develope his own life.

The boy that fathered the child is likely to have been brought up on the same estate, and will not have a high standard of education. He won't often be able to work, earn money and move into a better area with his young partner and child.

Having been to a decent school, not having had been committed to his education, and not having something to aspire to be, not having been taught morals, it is easy for him to slip into crime because it's 'easy'.

What religion has provided is a solid foundation for civilisation. There has been one big failing, which is the lack of tolerance for the religeon of others. This has caused countless wars, and has been used as an excuse for others.

If society decided to turn back to religion and follow the basic morals preached by most religeons, the world would become a better place to live. The 10 commandments were a solid basis for civilisation.

I will not type the 10 commandments in here, as I am sure you are all aware of them. If society was to obey them (and they are most certainly not unreasonable) we would all benefit, especially our children who will be around longer than us. They will have to watch the morals in society around them fall to lower and lower levels.

[This message has been edited by Iceolareanic (edited 22 June 2001).]

23rd Jun 2001, 05:38
As SLF this means nothing to me, but to you as flyers it might do, "Iceolareanic" is an anagram of "oceania relic"

23rd Jun 2001, 06:44
Ice, if you believe for one minute that civilised behaviour has any connection with religion then you are sadly mistaken. There is no relationship between a personal emotional need to believe in the existence of a "God" and the ability to behave in a reasonable manner and teach your offspring to do the same.

The older generations have been complaining about the behaviour of the younger generations since speech was invented. It's only the theories quoted as a cause for their degeneracy that change.

Your thinly veiled suggestion that only the wealthy and well-educated are fit to raise children is offensive in the extreme. Your statements about single parents are equally so. Where does the parent whose partner has died fit into your scheme of things? A single parent is a single parent regardless of the cause. There are many out there whose spouses have died before baby has even been born. Do you think for one minute that the child knows the difference?

The rules of civilsed society are based on society's understanding that we need to be able to live in peace together, that we need to recognise the inseparable connection between rights and responsibilities. My inalienable right to smack you in the face ends at the point where your face begins.

Your theory that only those of a religios persuasion will get it right is equally as offensive as other suggestions you have made here. Take a very long hard look at the atrocities that have been commited in the name of religion before you promote it as being a good thing.

If you want your children to behave in such a way that their rights are balanced with their responsibilities then it is up to you to teach them how. You can do this regardless of your level of education or financial status or religion or lack of it and if you put some effort into it then you may, with luck, produce children who not only know right from wrong, but who actually behave according to the principles you have helped them understand.

Civilised people had basic laws for life set in place long before the advent of the theory of "the ten commandments". As an example I would like to cite the Aborigines here in Australia who had developed laws to enable them to live in harmony with each other and with the land and its flora and fauna some thirty thousand years before this "ten commandment" idea.

One final word - the most basic genetic instinct of any living organism is the instinct to reproduce itself. There are no qualifiers such as "when you're married" or "when you are a certain age". This instinct overrides all others and has done so since the first amoeba split in half. In order to keep the genetic base strong and healthy, the idea is that we should reproduce with as many different partners as possible. "Marriage" and "religion" on the other hand are fairly recent inventions.

Winston Smith
23rd Jun 2001, 15:24
No, BlueDiamond, marriage and religion are not "fairly recent inventions".

Though my opinion of religion is not a particularly favourable one, I would certainly not dismiss it as a simple "invention". From time immemorial Man has sought to explain the miracles of nature and thus could not help believing in some kind of supreme beings - imagine witnessing a thunderbolt without ever having heard a thing about electricity! And very early down history, I suspect, a few of the more astute individuals discovered how to use this superstition of their fellow-men, either to advance ethical viewpoints they honestly believed to be right, or some interests of their own.

You may think of Islam what you want; we have to concede that Mohammed was a genius in setting up a social system that has endured to this day and promises to be around for a much longer time, probably surviving most of today's ideologies.

As for monogamy (and that's the essence of marriage, which we are talking about here), the bulk of mankind has always had comparable social standards - please don't come up with some exceptional isolated pacific island tribe to prove me wrong. And - especially from the woman's point of view - it is quite natural in that it ensures a protected upbringing of the child. Finally, monogamy is not unheard of in the animal kingdom, either. For example, the kiwis (I'm talking of those cute little AOG birds, not the upside-down Brits) mate for life, as do the penguins, if I'm not mistaken, and probably many more.

Manipulating societal parameters which have made mankind prosper will turn out to be much more serious in the end than any alleged "global warming" or other outward impact of our existence on nature (this is not meant to downplay the dangers of pollution and over-population!). Most of us will probably come to regret this bitterly in the years ahead.

23rd Jun 2001, 16:51
Bloody hell, this is driving me back to my JAR ATPL studies!
Chill out every one!

reddo...feral animal!

24th Jun 2001, 00:58
Winston, while I agree with most of the points you make, you're wrong about monogamy and the extent to which it is practised. You're right that marriage and religion are ancient institutions. Monogamy, however, is not.

There are numerous communities all over the world that practice - celebrate - polygamy, from South America, Africa, the Middle East, the sub-continent, the Far East and North America. Polygamy is literally world-wide.

You probably would have a great deal of difficulty taking in the extent to which different cultures have different mores about sex. For example, I know of one in which it is considered customary for a mother to be her son's first sexual partner, and for the father to do the same for his daughters. The theory is that they then get educated about sex by someone close to them, who knows more or less what they're doing, and cares about them. Difficult to argue with that!

In the Caribbean it is not uncommon (I knew one example) for a girl to have three of four children by her mid-twenties, all by different fathers. This does not result in neglect of the children. Far from it, because the principle of the extended family is still very strong there, and aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins all muck in together to help raise the younger members of the family. What about the fathers' responsibilities, I hear you ask? They're busy spending their money on helping to bring up their sisters' and cousins' children, so one way or another, the kids get to go to school in clean shirts, with shoes on their feet.

If we look further into the Social Anthropology, it is difficult to come to any conclusion about how homo sapiens is designed. The vast majority of animals can only copulate when the female is fertile. HUmans are about the only animal in which this is not the case. This has been offered as proof that a woman's partner is expected to be there all the time, fending off possible contending suitors, whereas among, for example, a pack of wolves, everyone knows when one bitch is on heat, she runs off with the male population chasing her, and it is the fastest that has the first chance of fertilising her, thus ensuring fleet-footed offspring. However, just to make sure, the rest of the pack then take their turns. The individual wolf's defence against this (against it NOT being his genes that continue) is dog-knotting.

I make no conclusion about the basic design of humans. I believe, however, that polygamy can work, and work well. Given the way most western societies are built, however, monogamy has to be the only way in this corner of the world.

It intrigues me also that the word "polygamy" has come to mean multiple wives married to one husband, when it actually means multiple partners. The male/female-specific terms are polyandry and polygyny. Hence I'm not in the least sure about the teachings of Brigham Young. Speaking solely from a selfish point of view, I believe in monogamy - it's hard enough for me to find a partner without a few men hogging them all! :)

The basic problem we have in the west is, I would suggest, weakening of family ties, the destruction of the extended family (and, now, even the nuclear family) and concentration on the individual, to the neglect of society as a whole, and the role of individuals within that society.

Put simply, Margaret "There is no such thing as Society" Thatcher was only putting the nail in the coffin of a corpse that was taking a very long time to die.

Ice, your posturing on single mothers and on the Church are simplistic in the extreme. For an A-level paper in Sociology I'd only mark your efforts a "D".

[This message has been edited by HugMonster (edited 23 June 2001).]

24th Jun 2001, 02:46
This is a very materialistic age where everything is being sacrificed at the altar
of 'freedom', the world from east to west, is witnessing a total collapse of
morality and decency. Virtue is portrayed as evil while sins of every type
are being glamourized so as to seem acceptable to society. Honesty,
fidelity, generosity, piety, chastity, the fear of God etc are rarely
looked upon as praiseworthy qualities while adultery, gambling, fraud,
usury, cheating, abortion, homosexuality, lesbianism, etc. are fast becoming
the order of the day. Why? because of these new modern and selfish human rights. Give somebody a right to be themselves and f*** up society.

24th Jun 2001, 03:35

I agree your thread starter but you have your hands full with these knuckleheads. I've been babysitting them since Capt. Ed left back in November.

And no posters, it's not me starting this. I wouldn't be that nice, you should know better by now.


24th Jun 2001, 03:42

This is what I call harsh!

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">You talk about the church Iceo but I bet Jesus wouldn't have come here like you did, he actually ate and spent time with people like my new freinds.... Why must you "religious" people make God seem so harsh and unapproachable to people who need him, Jesus died for them you know</font>

And judgmental too! I mean really. You point out some elses judgment by making one twice as bad. What's that all about?


24th Jun 2001, 19:29
*Right Wing Warning!*

Boy I love heated topics!!

Why has Society lost respect blah blah!
Easy...too many people insisting on hugging things!

Too many bloody do-gooders trying to do good!

My vote....put em all on one big island. Let them do good to each other, while the rest of us get on with life!

Vive le revolution!! Down the Tree Huggers!!

aaah.....I love Jet Blast!!

Send Clowns
24th Jun 2001, 19:41
Anyone willing to put up with multiple mothers-in-law should be allowed to be polygamous, as that kind of fortitude should be encouraged in the gene pool. Cereal monogamy is not essential, ever since Kellogs brought out those multi packs of 8 small boxes of different varieties.

'Me here at last on the ground, you in mid air'

[This message has been edited by Send Clowns (edited 24 June 2001).]

Winston Smith
24th Jun 2001, 20:26
HugMonster, thanks for your detailed response.

When you state that marriage is an ancient institution, but monogamy is not, I presume you are citing well-known instances like polygamy in Islam, to name but one example. And you are right. However, apart from the fact that these "domestic arrangements" still constitute some kind of clearly delimited core family, it goes without saying that simple arithmetics confine this phenomenon to the upper strata of the respective society.

Perhaps I have been unfortunate in my choice of words, the opposite of "promiscuity" might have been a more suitable substitute for "monogamy". Don't get this wrong; since I'm anything but a bible-banger I don't have any objections at all to love and/or relationships outside of marriage, but when it comes to raising children in a healthy environment, promiscuity is certainly not the way to go.

But most importantly, the outstanding success of Western civilisation lends credibility to the suspicion that institutionalized, lifelong one-on-one mating might actually be one of its prerequisites. Nowadays both appears to be in decline, but to discuss which causes which would be as futile as to argue about the hen and the egg.

Perhaps polygamy without marriage may, as you report, "work" in the Carribean, especially on smaller islands - but once this behavourial pattern is transferred to, say, American "ghettos", a considerable percentage of these children grow up without even knowing who their father is. But you said it yourself: "Given the way most western societies are built, however, monogamy has to be the only way in this corner of the world."

As for this incestuous "one" culture you mention, I was talking of the "bulk" of mankind and expressly asked for anyone not to come up with some anomaly.


By the way, would anyone care to tell me who this apparently infamous "Captain Ed" guy was anyway and why he has gone?

24th Jun 2001, 21:10
Telling you here would no doubt give rise to yet another "ed-inspired" rift :) , so if you really want to know, you can mail me at [email protected] and I'll give you my own subjective description.

Singularly Simple Person........

25th Jun 2001, 05:24
Okay, Winston, since you've substituted the word "promiscuity" I'm with you on this one. As for the rest of it, I think we're agreed that Practice (a) works well in Society (a) but not in Society (b), where Practice (b) is more likely a winner.

So, what is the cause of this promiscuity? Interest only in oneself, and in instant gratification. Lack of any feelings of responsibility to and for others, of any responsibility for how Society works out. People want it all, and want it NOW.

You can see the ads on TV - buy now, pay later - instant credit available - instances of road rage where it's considered okay by some to punch, kick or even kill someone for some imagined wrong, or air rage where it's okay to endanger an aircraft and everyone on it because the cabin crew won't serve you another drink or tell you it's not okay for you to smoke... etc. etc. No mention of things like having to work for the little luxuries in life, or saving up to buy the things you want, or having some responsibility or respect for people around you.

And when people lose that sense of responsibility and respect, when all they're interested in is their own instant gratification, they lose respect for themselves.

It's not about religion at all. That is completely outside this discussion. My religious beliefs are tied in with my life philosophy and politics, but none of those causes the others. I've known some extremely unpleasant, or bigoted, or selfish church-goers, and similar among non-church-goers. My brother-in-law is a total non-believer, but is one of the most humane, kind and generous people I know, as well as one of the best fathers I know.

The slow degeneration of "Society" is, I suspect, an irreversible procedure. I hope that's not true, but it is a product of what our children are taught, by their parents, by their teachers, by their elders, by their peers. And a selfish child will grow up to be a selfish adult, who will teach his or her children to be selfish - and so it spreads and replicates.

25th Jun 2001, 10:28
I agree western society is going down hill. I think however, as a general comment on the history of our world, nothing has changed. If you look back into the ancient societies you will see similar conduct to what our society is degenerating into, and worse.

So the question begs: why is our society degenerating? But a better question is: why did our society at some stage regenerate, so that it had somewhere to degenerate to? Surely the best way to answer that question is to look at the building blocks of our society. What was our society based on? Ans. A Judeo-Christian worldview. The reformations and Christian revivals throughout the western world had enormous social impact. Consider some of the accepted parts of western society initiated by the church: schools, social welfare, charities, universities... Most of these aren't world-firsts, but surely they mark an improvement in the way societies conduct themselves.

For those interested in anthropology, have you studied the works of Margaret Mead? She is championed as the hero of modern anthropology. After her indepth study of (I think it was) Samoan culture anthropologists were able to conclude that basic human morality, especially in terms of marriage, were social constructs, and that human behaviour was far less inherent than previously thought. I believe that may be the example that HugM sites for alternate family arrangements. Unfortunately for Margaret, and modern anthropology, the teenage girls from which she extracted the information lied to her. They invented their own story which she bought hook, line and sinker. Since then, one of the teenage girls, as a very old lady, has confessed in a court of law to lying to Margaret Mead during her study.

You have to ask the question: why did she buy it, if it was all lies? As controversial as the answer may sound, she was predisposed to believing the teenage girls because she was cheating on her husband at the time, and wanted to believe them. This is all verifiable information.

The other question that has to be asked is: given that Margaret's studies were so influential in the history of anthropology, has it caused a rethink of anthropological doctrine? Sadly no. Other than some fringe academics that are trying to pry open the nature v nurture debate again, the mainstream message of anthropology has been decidedly nurture, as HugM has adequately expressed.

Food for thought.

Winston Smith
25th Jun 2001, 12:48

superb post! I have nothing to add. :)



Rift? But hey, that's what we all want, don't we? Give us rift, big time - JetBlast thrives on it! Put it in out in the open! Give'em hell! :)



sorry, but many people correctly claim that Western civilisation rose inspite of the Church, not because of it. The break-through was the Reformation and the Renaissance, when - to put it simply - a few influential people finally were fed up with the Church, looked back to the Ancient World, and began to center their world-view on man himself instead of some Supreme being apparently either too shy or too cool to manifest itself, with the possible exception of a few a carefully selected and enlightened individuals - the predecessors of today's God-Needs-Your-Money crowd.

As for your statement about "nature vs nurture", bullsh't I say. http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/cool.gif By the way, the "mainstream message of anthropology" in the Middle Ages was the opera about Adam and his spare rib, and changed quite a few times subsequently in accordance with the interests of those in power.

As an aside, was this old lady really tried simply for making fun of a do-gooder half a century earlier? If so, then some of us here should begin to feel uneasy... http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif

25th Jun 2001, 23:51
Guy, I've never read that author, mainly because the elements of my university studies were away from mainstream anthropology, in social anthropology, where the most often quoted author is Lucy Mair. I'll try and dig out a few references.

I really, really HOPE that the nature vs. nurture debate is dead. I DO NOT believe in nature as a cause of evil, or crime, or society's injustices... I don't believe that anyone is BY NATURE criminal. Mentally deficient, maybe. And if such mental deficiency leads them to wrongdoing, then it can just as easily lead them in the other direction, provided the right stimulus is applied from the word Go.

Breeding Per Dementia Unto Something Jolly Big, Toodle-pip

Bio Warrior
26th Jun 2001, 00:11
OCB sweetie
I'm sorry if what I said was harsh.... but I'm afraid I have to stand by it when I first came here and told people I was a Christian their response was "oh no not another Christian like OCB who will sit and rant and preach" as soon as they heard I was a Christian all their mentle doors slammed tight. That isn't judgement thats fact, now that they've got to know me they say "well youre just a nice kid" instead of thinking all Christians are loving and concerned about them they think I'm the EXCEPTION!!!!!! do you know how painful that is, how frustrating? OCB a bit of old advice people don't care how much you know till they know how much you care... your preaching knowledge is impressive but a lot of these people see your name on a post and don't even read it, and if you ever entered chat lets just say I doubt they'd clean up their topics cos they don't want to hurt you (like they do with me... and I'm thankful for it.)
Think about it OCB, one day I'd luv to get a chance to talk with you, there are some things I could learn from you, don't get your feathers ruffled by some constructive critcism. I mean no harm.

The difference between religion and faith is relationship


Belief is nine tenths of understanding

26th Jun 2001, 04:48

What do I say? You make strong confident statements which you expect people to take as fact. Thank you for your opinion. When you interact with facts we can have an argument.


You would probably struggle to be able to read anything actually written by Margaret Mead. As I understand it her studies were very influential in anthropological study, especially social anthropology. I don't think she was a prolific author, but more of a researcher.

Your one-eyed nature v nurture view is highly representative of modern anthropology. It is not universely accepted throughout the field of anthropology. Most of the positions of power and influence, however, are held by those who hold the view you have been handed down. One would not expect to interact with much, if any of the controversial material (ie. anti-nurture-only material) in an undergraduate exposure.

But like I said, like it or not, it is verifiable information. Anthropology has swallowed a nurture-only explanation of life hook, line and sinker, largely based on what people wanted to believe and a reasonable helping of lies.

It sounds very one-eyed and extremist, but if you really are serious about understanding social anthropology it's worth a look. I'll see it I can find some references for a starting point, if you're interested that is.

Winston Smith
26th Jun 2001, 04:51

It is self-evident that "by nature", no one can be "criminal", since "criminal" has always been descriptive of those acts (or thoughts) inconvient to the powers that be, and both are subject to change. The "nature vs. nurture" debate, on the other hand, is neither dead nor alive, but simply stupid and a waste of time. The day you'll teach a penguin to fly, however, I shall gladly change my mind - I'm always receptive to new insights.


your well-balanced posts are always refreshingly honest and kind-hearted. - I find it quite interesting (that's not meant as criticism in any way) to note you're a Christian, which has become quite rare in our generation (I understand we are of the same age), especially over here on the European mainland.


As for "Captain Ed", I have done some "research" in the depths of JetBlast. From what little I've read, I can't help noticing that though he's a bible-citing fanatic or something, he appears to be neither too boring nor too dim-witted. So why do most of you seem to genuinely hate him?

26th Jun 2001, 05:12
I don't think there is such a lack of respect but rather more of a state of forced apathy as society has become too liberalized and if you decide to say something you're branded a racist or a redneck or a fascist or predjudiced toward people of a different sexual persausion or a ..........you know what Im saying. There was a time and it seems not that long ago I didn't give a damn what I said or where I said it and now I find myself biting my tongue all the time.
Such a pity, only in Britain you say, UK here I come.

Winston Smith
26th Jun 2001, 05:22

please state clearly which of my "strong confident statements" you refuse to consider as fact.

Perhaps you should first try to make up your mind about your own opinions:

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">[05:28z - ...] some fringe academics that are trying to pry open the nature v nurture debate again, the mainstream message of anthropology has been decidedly nurture [...]

[23:48z - after a pro-nurture statement by HM:] Your one-eyed nature v nurture view is highly representative of modern anthropology. [...]</font>

To make a long story short, first you call "nature proponents" "fringe academics", and then you accuse HugMonster of a "one-eyed" view in this regard. From your following sentences it becomes even less clear which side of this anthropological chasm you are on. http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/confused.gif

MASTER CAUTION: double-think alert!

Winston Smith, convicted Thought-Criminal.

26th Jun 2001, 05:25
guy, thank you for your extremely patronising and unintelligent post. When you've finished being dazzled by your own brilliance, come back and we'll discuss Lucy Mair, Ivan Illich and Dworkin, with a dash of Godfrey Lienhart, Erving Goffman and, of course, Berger and Luckmann.

26th Jun 2001, 05:30
Sorry, Winston, I was oversimplifying, since I didn't want to get into the "Laws vs. Rules vs. Conventions" discussion, so I used the term "criminal" to encompass all attitudes or acts that bring an individual into conflict with the rest of society, not merely those that the authorities consider worthy of punishment.

26th Jun 2001, 14:19
Well said Huggy, I too found guyincognito's post rather patronising, but also somewhat arrogant. As if he is the only one who is capable of understanding anything in the debate of nurture v nature. Just because he has read some obscure researcher, who backs up his belief.

Strange he should consider you a 'one-eyed extremist', as his view is so highly coloured by his biblical inerrancy perception of history. Anyone who considers the Bible to be total and utterly factual cannot lay claim to objectivity.

Winston, I have noticed before this tendency for guyincognito to contradict himself, frequently in subsequent posts, but sometimes even in the same response (occasionally even in the same paragraph).

On the subject of Captain Ed, he was a redneck bigoted racist, who was not averse to crude insults to offend posters - usually when he was losing an argument. Rather like ocb in fact - however, he was barred from this forum because he broke an agreement with the administrators. As for why he is generally disliked, it was something that you had to be around to understand.

Are people born bad, probably not (though I'm sure a case could be made for some specific examples) - but I do think there are some people who are more likely to be led astray, parental example, peer pressure, natural greed, laziness, a desire for material things without working for them, even jealousy of what others have, abuse etc. There can be in one family siblings who are treated relatively the same and yet one will become a successful millionaire businessman, another take a backpack and just wander the world. A fourth could end up in prison for serious crime, and the last a happily married housewife and mother. Was it nature, or nurture that was the cause of their lifestyles? They had the same opportunities, the same schooling, home environment, even the same parents - but they all turned out differently.

Is the criminal of today the same as the criminal of 50 or 100 years ago - is it a loss of respect for authority or just a more independent view that they no longer know better than the individual. Is the increasing need by authorities to make life safe and peaceful, also increasing the need for youngsters and others to take more risks and to have an outlet for their natural aggression.

27th Jun 2001, 09:34
How about accountability and responsibility? We all have to be accountable to something or somebody. Although home environments may have an influence on the upbringing, we all stand
as individuals accountable for our own actions.

In my opinion, being accountable to God has transformed and restored lives. It does not change who we are as individuals and personalities, but it has changed thinking and choices for a more fulfilling life.

Someone once posted on PPRuNe pictures of a lady who was a prostitute and drug addict and the degradation of her life over a span of years. I couldn't venture to say why she chose that life or know the battles she fought with her addiction. Many like her have had their lives transformed by choosing to be accountable.

This is an extreme example, but perhaps there is something to be said for establishing accountability for our behavior. It's finding how and what we determine will make us accountable.

27th Jun 2001, 10:54
I'm sorry that I am confusing. I'm sorry that I sound patronising.

No I am not an anthropology genius. Margaret Mead is not anthropology small-fry. She may not have written much, but her studies are a cornerstone to modern anthropology. She provided the solid proof that human behaviour was primarily nurture, by her studies among the Samoan people.

I think human behaviour is a lot more influenced by our nature then modern social anthropology accepts. Modern anthropology, like HugM's post is rather one-eyed in the nature-nurture debate. As Hug has already said himself, they see no debate at all. At no time have I suggested that Hug or Anthropologists are extremists. That was a lovely example of inflamatory language.

Thank you Velvet for suggesting that because of my biblical convictions my opinions and thoughts are somehow less valuable and more subjective than yours. I would be inclined to say that no-one can claim to have an objective opinion on anything. That does not necessarily imply that a subjective opinion is therefore wrong. Otherwise we could know nothing, and therefore there would be no point in this forum or any discussions.

Winston Smith
27th Jun 2001, 13:55

may I ask if you are doing this deliberately? :mad:

First you say Mead's studies, which you call a cornerstone to modern anthropology, provided "solid proof" for a mostly pro nurture conception. Anyone not suffering from Multiple Personalities Disorder wouldn't refer to something as "solid proof" if he didn't believe it to be true himself.

Right in the next line you contradict yourself by stating you disagree with modern anthropology and "think human behaviour is a lot more influenced by our nature".

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">I would be inclined to say that no-one can claim to have an objective opinion on anything.</font>

Could very well be true, but having at least an opinion which remains constant for more than a few seconds might not be too bad for a start, either.

[This message has been edited by Winston Smith (edited 27 June 2001).]

27th Jun 2001, 17:42
Guy, please don't misrepresent what I said - it's not a good debating ploy and only loses points, as you then have to backtrack or realise your response was irrelevant. I didn't say that your views were less subjective or valuable than mine - just that they are premised on the belief that the Bible is 100% factual, accurate and immutable - which means that your views are coloured by that belief and likely to dismiss anything which doesn't fit the biblical paradigm.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">You would probably struggle to be able to read anything actually written by Margaret Mead. </font> that sounds very patronising guy, and very much as if you think Huggy not capable of the same level of understanding as yourself.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">It sounds very one-eyed and extremist........</font>
again this sounds very much like you do consider Huggy a 'one-eyed extremist', which is what I took issue with. The inflamatory language was yours - so don't get all antzi about someone quoting it back at you.

I also happen to believe that views / opinions are subjective, purely because there is no other way we can perceive the world. However, that doesn't mean we can't use objectivity to examine ideas, evidence and statements from others (and ensure we understand what is said, not put our own interpretation upon it).

Margaret Mead may well have been a cornerstone of modern anthropological studies, but like Freud much of her work has been overtaken by subsequent and more recent studies of human behaviour. She was after all born at the beginning of the 20th Century, and was a product of her time and a rather unorthodox American upbringing. She based her work on studies and research done amongst primitive people in the early part of the last century - hardly a good yardstick for the whole world, especially a western technologically advanced, metropolitan environment.

I didn't study anthropology, nor sociology so know very little of her; perhaps she is better known in American Academic circles than in the UK.

However, why do you dismiss modern anthropology, despite not being a genius in anthropological studies, you still reckon you know better than many of leading modern experts in this field.

Still nice debating with you guy, perhaps one day we'll go back to the science -v- religion discussion.

"Theologian: An uncommon individual who, though possessing finite abilities, has been called by God himself who, though possessing infinite abilities, requires the assistance of the former in explaining Himself to the rest of us."
[Translation: if God existed, theologians would be out of work.]" Rev Donald Morgan

29th Jun 2001, 06:03

Firstly Velvet, quoting someone out of context is "not a good debating ploy and only loses points, as you then have to backtrack or realise your response was irrelevant."

I did not say that Hug "sounds very one-eyed and extremist", I said that I sounded one-eyed and extremist.

"One-eyed" was my word in relation to Hug. Extremist was yours.

Winston et al,

Margaret Mead had a great influence in the nature v nurture debate because of her research, not because she came up with the argument that ended the debate. She came up with the "indisputable proof" that sounded the death knell to the debate. That debate has since largely been dead. Therefore mainstream anthropology recognises little behaviour that is inherently human, claiming that most of our behaviour can be explained in terms purely by our environment, our nurture.

The problem is that Margaret Mead's "indisputable proof" is in fact founded on lies. Mainstream social anthropology refuses to go back and revisit the debate, however, which really should be (I think) reopened, now that their "indisputable proof" has been disreputed.

That is my view. I hope it is clear. Like I said, you probably think I'm a one-eyed extremist bible-believing bigot. (No Velvet you did not use those words.) But regardless of what you think of me, I still think, if anyone is serious about understanding humanity then it is worth a look into.

(And just for the record, I don't think that science v religion is worth the argument. I don't think that biblical Christianity opposes, or should oppose the practice of good science.)

29th Jun 2001, 16:08
Guy, firstly, your post didn't make it clear that you were taking about yourself:

You put Huggy's name at the beginning of the following paragraphs
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Your one-eyed nature v nurture view is highly representative of modern anthropology. ...............</font>
then a few paragraphs down you linked it with
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">
It sounds very one-eyed and extremist, but if you really are serious about understanding social anthropology ............</font>

Now, to me and I think you'll agree that sounds very much like you are aiming it at Huggy. I merely quoted your words back at you and took issue with this, and you didn't say 'I sound one-eyed and extremist'. If you had meant us to interpret this as being your perception of yourself - I think it would have been better if you had made this clearer. Unfortunately, I can only go on what you write, not what you meant to say.

Actually, I don't think you are an extremist bigot (you have no idea what I think), however, I do believe you are hampered by your inerrantist belief in the Bible, thus rendering you incapable of a more objective view of scientific facts. Scientists have just discovered that man is far older than previously believed and certainly, even modern man predated Genesis by millennia (by biblical dating). But thanks for clearing up some of the confusion.

Additionally, I did go and read up on Margaret Mead, her research and findings - so thanks you for the reference. No doubt it will surprise you, but in this case I agree with you - she did appear to have a deadening effect on research into whether we are governed by nature or environment. And yes, much of what she postulated was founded on very small groups, thus rendering her results skewed.

I believe that nature plays a very large part in forming our characters, and environment a much smaller part than has been thought for some time. Studies of twins separated at birth show surprising similarities in the lifestyle - even though in most cases the environment was completely different.

We may have irreconcilable differences over religion, but in other matters we can find common ground and if nothing else have a good debate / discussion in the process.

1st Jul 2001, 16:55

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">
On the subject of Captain Ed, he was a redneck bigoted racist, who was not averse to crude insults to offend posters - usually when he was losing an argument. Rather like ocb in fact - however, he was barred from this forum because he broke an agreement with the administrators. As for why he is generally disliked, it was something that you had to be around to understand. </font>

Velvet, where did you get the idea Capt. Ed was generally disliked from? Where do you get the idea that OCB is generally disliked from. If OCB raises a point, those who agree with him are not going to come flooding into the topic on his side, to remotly the same extent as those who oppose him. It seems that the JB crowd like to try and destroy anyone who doesn't agree with them. People here seem far more keen to attack an opponent, than to help an ally.

Therefore, you are making a rash assumption by reading the text of those who scream the loudest. More poeple may agree with OCB, but in JB is has become politically incorrect to do so. Therefore they don't comment, just read. And narrow minded people like yourself, make these rash and sweeping statements about who's liked and who isn't.

I find OCB's posts far more fun and interesting than any of yours. And as for Captain Ed, re-reading his old posts is interesting, as they can't be repeated today. He has been silenced by the news and information provider, pprune. We can only read about what the media choose to give us. They put their spin and bias on any story, and can refuse to let us read another.

1st Jul 2001, 17:15
Release you are entitled to your opinion, however, please make an effor to read and understand what is written (don't make an assumption based on your prejudice) - I said that ocb, like CapnEd resorted to insults when losing an argument. Frankly I don't give a damn if he's generally liked or not - nor if you prefer what he writes. I think you'll find that ocb is ignored rather than liked by the majority of those who don't respond to him.

If, however, you want to find CapnEd, I'm sure if you go to NewsMax or email him or ocb (who'll be able to put you in touch), additionally he has a website. He hasn't been silenced, just removed from here - not my decision nor yours.

Strange you enjoy ocb's posts, since approximately 80% of them are either quotes from the bible, or cut and pasted from other posters (including mine).

[This message has been edited by Velvet (edited 01 July 2001).]

Send Clowns
1st Jul 2001, 23:47

Looks like you signed on around February. Were you hanging around JB at that time (I don't recall any posts)? If so you will have seen nasty, vindictive, personal attacks on people, especially Velvet with whom he seemed to have an obsession, from OCB. The people he was attacking were trying to have a rational debate, but he would cut in stating in effect that they could not dispute his interpretation of the word of his God, and that everyone else was by definition wrong.

On this forum I disagree with the opinion of the vast majority of regular contributors at some time (even Velvet) and on other issues agree with the same people. They are always pleasant and friendly, even when we disagree. I have found my views challenged by intelligent debate and supported, and no-one trying to tell me I could not have that view, or codemned my personally for holding a view different from their own. The exception has been OCB (and a couple of supporters he had for a short while, that may or may not have been his aliases).

Note in the 'not again!' thread Slasher's suggested debating rules. They are wise. Slasher has a reputation for robust views and uncompromising debatng style (as well as intelligence and sharp wit, so careful of ill-considered posts opposing him!), but he has never as far as I have noticed turned from attacking an argument or post to attacking a debator or poster.

Nothing is politically incorrect here except porn/racism as defined by Danny or attempts to smash down debating oposition by pure nastiness. Oh, and maybe making assumptions about other posters then airing them as truth, but that's kind of fair complaint. Political correctness is not even politically incorrect here, just unpopular and subject to concentrated debate if aired. Also note that OCB's unpopularity has not spread to JudyTTexas, even when she has supported him. We do not stamp down on his supporters, the fact is that he is generally very unpopular (read the voting to have him leave when he offered to - even most who did not want him to disliked him! The he reneged on his offer and his claim on another forum to have left here).

Nil nos tremefacit
2nd Jul 2001, 01:54

Sadly I agree with Send Clowns. OCB has brought a lot of the bad feeling on himself by the way he has treated others. I started, for a joke, a good natured thread to get OCB back. In the end I deleted the whole thread because of the nastiness and venom.

I am entitled, in a debate, to reasonably criticise OCB's stance. I am entitled to disagree with his view of the world. I am entitled to hold a different inerpretation of the Bible to him. I can believe what I like for whatever reason I like. I don't have to want to go to his version of paradise if I don't want to, but OCB has frequently abused me for my beliefs. His treatment of my arguments has been immature and based on an assumption that his world view cannot be deviated from. He assumes that he is the fount of all knowledge and that those of us who have read other ideas from philosophers or jurists he's not heard of are wrong and that they are likewise wrong - he was even abusive about Douglas Adams when I cited him as an alternative thinker on the meaning of life. I even tried to be nice to OCB, but still received invective of the worst order. I can't have a joke with him - he even takes trouble to be abusive about my sense of humour (which is mine alone and I am entitled to it - some people laugh at some of my posts, just in the wrong places).

I enjoy debate with people who respect my point of view and I respect their opinions in return. I like a laugh and I like the odd wind up, but I am saddened when we lapse into serious name calling.