Altruism, and the undermining of freedom
Joseph Dunphy
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This came up on one of the mailing lists.
The names have been changed, out of respect
for the privacy of the parties named.
The Issues that come up, are of broader
applicability.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There is something that came up, in the course of discussing Kara's
pregnancy, that troubled me. Then the business with Aaron came up, and it
didn't seem like the time to talk about this sort of thing, but now that
the funeral has come and gone, I'd like to see if I've completely
misunderstood what seemed to be some disturbing attitudes.
For those who weren't following the discussion, Kara became pregnant,
against her wishes, by a man who took liberties with her, without her
consent, and without protection. Strictly speaking, as she was not quite
awake at the time, this was, legally, a rape. Kara decided to go through
with the pregnancy, which was detected while still in its first trimester.
It was her decision, further that once the, as yet unborn, child was
delivered, that she would put it up for adoption.
Kara, when this came out, in the group, was immediately showered with
praise, for the courage of her decision, as some put it. A refrain that
came up, over and over, was that this decision was admirable, because this
would make it possible for some couple to adopt, and there were so few
adoptive children to go around. News, no doubt, to the people of Eastern
Europe, China,.... but let's let that one slide, if only briefly.
Let us notice, first of all, that if Kara were to change her mind, at
this point, and terminate this pregnancy, which was still in its early
stages, or if she were to decide to go through with the pregnancy, and
keep her child, it would be very hard, and very embarassing, for for her
to do so, at that point.
There are severe social costs, that attach to the act of backing out of a
choice, once so many people have praised one for making it - almost as if
people view it as a failure to keep one's word. Almost as if one sought
that unsolicited praise, and the attention that came with it, under false
pretenses. The person who did so, would be viewed with more than a little
barely veiled hostility, and wouldn't be taken as seriously for some time,
if ever again. If we are to be honest, people, we have to acknowledge that
this sort of chorus of praise, can have a severely coercive effect, and
that the coercion, while often unacknowledged by those who engage in it,
is rarely unintentional. Oh, people will try to sidestep the matter, by
saying that they weren't arm twisting, they were merely providing
encouragement. But when encouragement has so strong of an effect, what
practical difference is there, between the two actions ?
Now, let us take a good look, at the attitude, that seems to underly the
encouragement, at least as seen by this newcomer, who must admit that he
doesn't know those who have been commenting, save by their comments.
Namely, that if a young woman, of child bearing years, becomes pregnant
as a result of a rape, that she should be encouraged to agree to be an
incubator in order to provide a childless couple with a child. And, pardon
me if I'm blunt, but fairly often, this will be a couple that is
childless, because it freely elected to wait too long for the wife to have
children on her own. More than a little passive aggression would seem to
be present in such an act.
I am old enough, to remember the 80s well enough, to remember what a DINK
(double income, no kids) was. Usually, someone who put off having
children, because she and her mate both wanted to make upper management,
and have the spending power that came with it RIGHT THEN. Now, some would
say, that in life, we make choices, between the things that we would like
to have, but of late, we've seen a generation that decided that it had the
right to have its cake, and eat it too. The right to have it all. Make a
choice, between having children, and deferring a few luxuries, or having
all of the money one wants, indulging one's uncontrolled greed, today,
knowing that it means waiting too long to have a family ? Nonsense !
Encourage one of the kids, to have your children for you ! Is this a
monstrously self indulgent wish ? No, because one isn't allowed to
question the motives of those who pretend to be friendly. It wouldn't be
nice. Even when those motives are nakedly predatory.
Is self sacrifice, when it takes place to enable the more unprincipled
among us to indulge their selfish, and unreasonable desires, a good
thing, that we should give lavish praise to, and thus, encourage ? Or,
when we give input, should we think about the person who would be
sacrificing herself, and weigh her legitimate well being, and happiness,
at least as heavily as the desire to indulge another person's unreasonable
wishes ?
"Well, shouldn't we be leaving this up to the young woman ?", someone may
ask. I quite agree that we should, but that isn't what has been happening,
for some time now. First of all, think about when it is that we hear that
question. Not when someone tries to persuade, or encourage her to take on
a hardship. If someone protests then, asking this very question, he is
quickly cut down, and told that the person doing the persuading, is
entitled to his or her opinion. An entitlement that mysteriously vanishes
when someone tries to persuade her to be kinder to herself, and not just
to others, and to decline to take on a hardship.
In other words, while we may pretend that she is making her own free, and
uninfluenced choice, based on what works for her, this tends to be a
shabby facade. In almost every such case, she will be confronted with a
chorus of people saying yes, "this is a good thing", and will be the only
person who even might be considering saying "no, is isn't". No matter how
much people may be smiling during such an exchange, and no matter how soft
their voices may be, the pressure such isolation creates is very real,
however subtle. And the hostile manner in which anyone encouraging her to
say "no" will be cut down, will send a message, no matter how
disingenuously denied. Namely, that the tolerance expressed, for the
notion that she might "freely choose" to do something other than the
"wonderful" choice that others praise, is not truly heartfelt. That others
will think less highly of her if she says "no", and that to do so would be
considered selfish, rather than assertive.
Nor will this be the first time, that she has ever witnessed such an
interaction, even though it may be the first time that she was the one
encouraged to sacrifice, at least on so serious of a level. She would not
go into this discussion, without certain expectations about what she
"should" do, subtly reinforced by such conditioning, that would be
supportive of that which she would be encouraged to do.
It is precisely the methodology of a confidence man, but when applied to a
"noble" cause, it becomes not only respectable, but expected. But it's
still wrong. And it's still done. It's how our society tends to function.
Apply this methodology to someone who may be feeling quite vulnerable, and
a little afraid, at the time, like a single woman who finds herself
"unexpectedly, and unwantedly pregnant", as someone put it, herself, and
it can prove quite effective at convincing someone that your wishes, are
her own, even in the most normally hardheaded of individuals.
Especially in a society that teaches the lie that only foolish,
weak, or stupid people can be conned or manipulated. Implying that if one
tries to suggest to someone that others might be dealing with her in a
less than straightforward fashion, that one has insulted, or talked down
to her, rather than offer her moral support, to restore balance to the
situation, and try to be sure that the decisions that are finally made,
reflect what works for her, and not what others have ever so subtly
pressured her into. Telling her that, while she should, out of
politeness, listen to anyone who, however "sweetly", suggests that it
would be a good thing for her to take on a hardship, in order to be kind
to others, that she should refuse to listen to anyone who would suggest
that she consider declining that hardship, to be kind, and fair, to
herself - and not notice that the double standard that she is being
taught to incorporate into her reactions, without even thinking about it.
Encouraging to inflict the moral isolation on herself, on our
behalf, that some of us, however grudgingly, might admit would be wrong
for us to inflict on her, directly.
One might add, that we live in a society in which, though scarcely
anyone abstains from sex until marraige, people still fail to see the
hypocrisy in condemning someone for merely being unlucky enough to be
pregnant before marraige. Thus leaving her with an unspoken, but
understood threat to her place in society, and a strong drive to build her
reputation back up. Throw in a variety of Christian tradition, in which
people are expected to be apologetic, whenever they fail to agree to
perform some particular sort of altruistic act, and even the strongest
woman alive, may end up being quite easy to exploit.
Is it so hard to remember how, not so long ago, young people were being
widely, and blanketly condemned for their "selfishness" by so many of
their elders, for having such unreasonable desires, as the wish to be able
to enjoy a little free time, and a little fun, instead of yielding to the
expectation of others that they should spend every waking moment on the
job, or doing volunteer work, even to the point of having no personal
life ? The opportunity to earn a moderate income, in a safe occupation ?
Is it so hard to remember how fashionable it was, in the last decade,
and well into this one, to dismiss any complaint of hardship as whining,
and to insist that all be viewed in a positive light ? Have we seen noone
lately, who acted as if she felt obligated to view a terrible thing as if
it were a good, or to bear any hardship, without complaint, and without
"crying". Can we believe that such an expectation witnessed in action,
over a period of years, will do nothing to condition someone to accept
things that she might, of her own accord, refuse ?
If so, is the willingness to take on a hardship, necessarily a mere
reflection of what works for the person so agreeing, or could it in large
part be a reflection of what the person has been conditioned into
believing that she should accept ?
How many times has this happened : one week, you suggest that
something that you are being asked to put up with, is unreasonable.
You are told to try to feel more positive about it, because otherwise,
you're only hurting yourself, and those around you, and noone would
be inclined to help you out, anyway. You grumble, but quiet down.
The next week, you are left with the feeling that someone else is
getting less than a fair shake. You question this. You are told that
the person who you feel had been mistreated, expressed no objections,
and are asked, given this, why do you mind. Once again, you are
silent.
A thought. If you had acquiesced, and said all was well, and another
did speak up on your behalf, would he be asked how he could object on
behalf of one who accepted things as they were, as you were ? And did
the acquiescence that you hear about, come about spontaneously,
or was the person offered it, pressured as were you ?
And, how many times have you heard, "He agreed to this, so why are
you refusing ?" Each time someone yields to the demand to take on
a hardship, the pressure on the next to do likewise is intensified,
until it becomes second nature to say yes, for those who would be
asked.
Divide and conquer. Eventually, those who are being taken advantage
of, will no longer even be inclined to remember, that anything is
amiss.
This is no accident. The popular, as opposed to authentically religious,
Christian tradition, especially here, has been impacted on by centuries
of efforts by unprincipled individuals, to distort the rules, to create
the illusion that others are obliged to grant them their wishes, or at
least to maneuver them into a position where they can no longer
effectively oppose those efforts to do so. A practice that, of late, when
done on a short term basis, has come to be known as "spin doctoring". A
practice that is expressly forbidden in the very scriptures that many of
these people pretend to hold sacred, in the command "Thou shalt not place
a stumbling block before the blind". The freedom of the recipient of
dishonest advice, to decline it, whether such freedom is real or not, is
no excuse for offering such advice - and any advice that is not sincerely
given with the recipient's best interests at heart falls into that
category, regardless of how "good" the giver has convinced himself that
his intentions may be. But I digress.
"But there are couples that legitimately had medical problems....."
Yes, there are. And they deserve a lot more of our sympathy, than those
couples that decided to put off having a child so that they wouldn't have
to wait to buy a jacuzzi, and now expect some college girl to have their
child for them, so that they won't have to take responsibility for their
own free choice to do so. But what about Kara ? Do her difficulties
count for anything ? "Well, yes, but if she goes along with this, it's her
choice".... And if a couple decides to make due without children, rather
than have some young woman go through such a hardship on their behalf,
that is their choice - yet how many people are ready to go out and
encourage them to do so, as Kara has been encouraged here ? So, why is
altruism exclusively encouraged in the giver, here, and not at all in the
recipient ? Let us not try to sidestep the question. Why the readiness to
weigh the couple's hardship so heavily, and Kara's not at all ?
Such a request remains a ludicrously excessive one to make on anyone's
behalf, and no honorable person could make it. Let me say this over and
over and over.... women aren't incubators, and they shouldn't be used as
such, or encouraged to let themselves be used as such, being reduced to
being used as a means, to someone else's end.
If Kara, in her heart of hearts,
ON HER OWN, without being nudged in any way, decided that she wanted to
put herself through this, because it felt right, and it worked for her,
then I would agree that we should respect, and support her in this - after
trying to talk her out of taking on this hardship, and failing. Because if
it is right for her, nothing that we say will persuade her to do
otherwise, and it is more honorable to watch out for those around one,
than to try to exploit them. But listen to what she actually said,
herself ..... "I find myself suddenly, and unwantedly pregnant....".
These are not the words of someone who wants to be going through this.
They sound a lot more like those of someone who acts out of a sense of
obligation, that another has wrongly persuaded her that she should feel.
Even if she should go through the pregnancy, there is the whole separate
issue of putting her child up for adoption, to possibly never be seen by
her again. None would argue, openly, that a desperate desire for children,
is any excuse for stealing the children of others, but is there really a
meaningful difference, ethically, between inflicting a loss on someone
by force, or manipulating them into inflicting it on themselves for you ?
There are other options. It is not unknown for family members to raise the
child of a single mother, so it will not be lost to the family. Did it
occur to anyone to suggest that possibility ? If one assumes that you are
all Kara's friends, wouldn't it have occured to some of you to suggest
an alternative to her going through life, having given birth to a child,
never being able to hold it again, always wondering where it was, was it
OK, what was happening in its life - and never being able to know. Never
even so much as knowing if her child was still alive. And all that I heard
was a chorus of people, pretending to act out of friendship, saying "Yes,
Kara. Good for you, do this to yourself, because it might make someone
ELSE happy". I can only hope that what I heard, was a great deal less than
that which was actually said. Otherwise, however fashionable, this would
have been one of the most appalling displays of passive aggression that it
has ever been my comparatively mild misfortune to observe. I could only
hope, however futily, perhaps, that the responsible parties would go back
and do a little soul searching. Even if their conscious motives seemed as
pure to them as the driven snow, what lay underneath them could be ghastly
to behold.
I just hope that you're doing this because YOU want to, Kara. You do
have time to do this, but maybe not much more. Please clear your head of
all that the rest of us have said, myself included, including the praise -
because there is nothing to praise or condemn here - sit down, and think
about what would be best for Kara, and Kara alone. You have two of the
more serious decisions of your life to make - one of which will soon turn
irrevocable, the other doing so in a few months.
Until the child attains a level of consciousness exceeding that reflected
by reflex actions, you don't owe it anything, because there isn't a
someone there, to owe anything to. You don't owe those people
who want your child anything. But you do owe yourself something. Please
don't think, though, that not thinking about yourself, just to give to
others, would make you a better person, as some here would seem to imply.
In dismissing the importance of your own happiness, and well being, you
would strengthen a social expectation that others to do likewise, and
thus, predictably, incline, or even add to the pressure on them to do
likewise, allowing themselves to suffer needlessly. No openly
malicious act could serve to advance evil in this world, as well as that
one already has before, and no doubt will again.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
An excerpt from the Aftermath.....
As for you, Kara, I'm not going to apologize to you, for having
expressed concern for you, and it's a sick culture that teaches that I
should. Maybe you ought to think about the attitude that inclines you to
smile, and casually accept it, when someone tries to talk you into doing
something unpleasant, but leaves you screaming in incoherent rage when
someone tries to talk you out of it. There's a word for that. It's called
"masochism".
As for the people who thought that I was "patronizing Kara", because
"this was what she wanted to do" (leaving aside the question of just how
free choices are in a society where discourse has been so far from being
free and open, for so long).....
What makes you angry, is not that I say things that are so far from
what you find to be true. What makes you angry is that I confront you
with truths that you don't want to see, and have the bad taste to
remind you of them. You say things, but you don't actually believe
them.
Do you believe, that if someone chooses to do something, that it must
be because she wants to, and to try to talk her out of, would be
presumptuous ? Should one offer her unconditional encouragement,
instead ?
"Yes", you say ? "Really ? Who are we to judge ?"
Suppose what she wants to do, is jump from the ledge on which she is
standing ? Do you still wish to stand by this position, and say that
the respectful thing to do, would be to yell "jump, jump !" ? Or, would
you consider the possibility of talking her out of it, because you
didn't want to see her get hurt - even if that was what she "wanted" ?
For now, though I fear not much longer, people will acknowledge that
the latter is the only choice that one could make. There is an
acknowledgement, at that moment, when we have nothing to gain from the
harm that someone is about to accept, that it is proper, and even
obligatory, to try to talk someone out of what she wants AT THE MOMENT,
because there is a very good chance that she'll be glad that she passed
on it later on. There is an acknowledgement, that we are obligated to
concern ourselves with her well being, even over her objections, at the
time, when that acknowledgement costs us nothing - even when the harm
in question is far less than that faced by the jumper.
Yet, let it be the case that someone is benefiting from that act, or
identifies with someone who benefits, and look how easily amnesia
comes. That earlier realization, that we are supposed to be thinking
about the person who is hurting herself, is forgotten, as if it never
was, and the person's willingness to get hurt, is praised, as if the
harm done, was a good thing, rather than a bad thing. The only thing
that has changed, though, is that the realization we had elsewhere,
is no longer convenient.
In fact, the refusal to exercise common decency, at this point, and
decline to "take advantage of the person's good nature" (or, lack
of concern for self, as one sees it), has been praised on this list as
being "brilliantly sneaky". As if "sneakiness" were a virtue. If
someone should balk at this desire to prey on someone, at this moment,
his "nosiness' condemned, as once again, a convenient amnesia arises,
and people forget how customary it is, and has been for some time, to
others to stick their noses deeply into other people's business, when
the choice that the person being commented on, ISN'T one that the
person judging the "snooping" sees the benefit from, in any sense. Let
the person who is so intruded on then complain, and the pious concern
for absolute self determination vanishes, replaced by the comment that
everyone is entitled to an opinion.
There is nothing at play here but a selfish desire to remake the rules,
on a second by second basis, to silence people who get in the way of
what one wants, in the case of some people, and a cowardly willingness
to roll over, and give those people whatever they want, so there won't
be a need to cope with the presence of an argument, on the part of some
others. Beyond that, there are no "principles" involved. Just an
unscrupulous attempt at browbeating, that has been entrenched so long,
that people are unused to seeing it resisted, or questioned.
Having done this, you want to think of yourselves as caring and decent
people. Noble lords, and courageous ladies. Who scream like drunken
banshees, with confronted with the clear, and uncomplimentary truth,
that is there for all to see, who will not let another make them afraid
to look.
_____________________________________________________________________________
My filter has been sent to intercept incoming e-mail, so please
don't send any. It will be lost, and the work you put into writing
it, will go entirely to waste. Please respond by followup instead.
I hope that this causes no inconvenience. While you, yourself, are
probably a perfectly reasonable and intelligent individual, I have
found that those who answer to neither description, are extremely
fond of sending abusive "private e-mail" to people who they will
never have to face in person. As a personal choice, I've decided
to never make it easy for these people to spoil my day with their
presence again. Let us see how "courageous" they are, when their
trolling can only be done, where all can see.
____________________________________________________________________________
Joseph Dunphy
Here's one for you......
Can any of us honestly pretend, to have not seen numerous occasions,
when an older person has asked a younger person to do something,
that some older person will benefit from, scorn being showered on
the younger person for his or her "selfishness", after the younger
person declined to do so, citing the personal hardship that the
granting of the request would entail ?
How often do you see an older person get that kind of hostility heaped
on him for making an unreasonable request, or even for trying to
browbeat the younger person into granting such a request ? Let another
younger person, stick up for the one who is saying "no", and look at
how quickly other people tell him to shut up and mind his own
business. Yet let a group of elders join their peer, and gang up on
the noncooperative younger person, and it is agreed that "they are
entitled to their opinions".
For that matter, how often have we witnessed someone who has yielded
to such an extreme request, basking in a glow of smug self
satisfaction, adopting an air of superiority toward those who were
so "petty and selfish", as to count their own needs as well as those
of others, and refuse ? In the process, perhaps, demonstrating that
she or he has learned to value the "pleasure" of being able to have
the imagined right to look down on others, far more than she has
learned to enjoy healthier pleasures. A "holier than thou" mentality,
as the expression goes. While there is not a religion around that
denies that self-righteousness is a bad thing, it is awfully hard
to find a religious organization that in practice, does not promote
it.
How many times have we seen someone express regret, not because he
said no, but was so "selfish", that the thought passed through his
head, that he might decline to say "yes" ?
When people condition themselves to become incapable of entertaining
such thoughts, what happens to free will ?
Can we honestly pretend that a lifetime of witnessing such exchanges,
in which those making the demands, may band together, but
those who would refuse them, are required to stand alone - can we
honestly pretend that this experience will not undermine a person's
will to refuse, or to even let herself consider the possibility that
she might say "no" ?
Take a look at what we are encouraged to do, in Synagogue or Church.
Does there seem to be any effort made at seeking a balance between the
rights and well being of the young and the old ? Or do we see the
young constantly exhorted to sacrifice just a little more, on behalf
of the old, with no consideration in return being suggested ?
Can we honestly pretend, that the creation of such an experience, is
anything other than a conditioning, a subtle form of brainwashing ?
One intended to teach the young person to "mind her place", and
accept, without even noticing that there is something to question ?
Namely, a "value system" in which the young almost never refuse even
the most extreme requests of their elders - while the elders feel no
need to give even the slightest though to the hardships that granting
their requests will entail ? This attitude on the part of the
latter, adopted in dealing with those who have been conditioned
into thinking that they should want to grant those requests.
Yet, when a young person gives in to an extreme request, how quickly
so many of us are willing to act as if they had forgotten that such
exchanges ever occured. As if these "free" choices were made in a
vacuum. How quickly so many of us will be to develop amnesia, as
it proves convenient, and offer a "sincere" belief, in this
transparent pretense, to defend the notion, that it is OK to seek
to take advantage of another person's "good" nature, because that
other person is completely "free" to say no.
But in our hearts, we know that it is a lie.
Joseph Dunphy (st...@typhoon.xnet.com) wrote:
:
: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
:
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
My filter has been sent to intercept incoming e-mail, so please
don't send any. It will be lost, and the work you put into writing
it, will go entirely to waste. Please respond by followup instead.
I hope that this causes no inconvenience. While you, yourself, are
probably a perfectly reasonable and intelligent individual, I have
found that those who answer to neither description, are extremely
fond of sending abusive "private e-mail" to people who they will
never have to face in person. As a personal choice, I've decided
to never make it easy for these people to darken my day with their
Kathleen Coburn
who is this person and what is he ranting about?
Q
There is a limited amount of intelligence in the universe, and the
population keeps growing.
;-) Q :-) Q :-) Q :-) Q :-) Q :-) Q :-) Q ;-) Q
Merry Meet and Merry Part
Blessed Be to all
Gentle Breezes warm your heart
And Gaia grace your hall
dkpi...@cts.com
Kathleen Coburn <co...@webtv.net> wrote in article
<69qv8q$t2v$1...@newsd-153.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
>
> who is this person and what is he ranting about?
>
> Q
>
>
I think his daughter got pregnant (through "date" rape) and decided to
continue the pregnancy and give the baby up for adoption (encouraged by her
SCA friends). It sounds like he wanted her to get an abortion and when she
declined he decided he (or another family member) should raise the baby
which she also declined. He now blames her association with her SCA group
for her decisions and beleives that her group has brainwashed her to a
certain degree. Anyway they had a big fight and he decided to air his
dirty linen in public. Could it be that she has found some independence at
last and is out from under Daddy's thumb? It sounds like Daddy is mad
because he is not controlling her anymore. Daddy needs some serious
psychotherapy and he needs to apologize to his daughter for public
humiliating her even if he did change the names.
As always,
Celestria
PS I am wondering if he went to the local police department and got nowhere
there. In frustration he came here to vent. If he is reading this--please
get on your hands and knees and APOLOGIZE to your daughter. I am assuming
she is over the age of 16-- if she is she is old enough to make this
decision AND choose who she will influenced by. If you can talk to her you
can at least recommend an open adoption. I am concerned too that there is
something you are not telling us about your skills as a father. Usually
when a young girl refuses to let her parents raise or adopt her child it
has something to do with them as parents and is not due to outside
influences.
AND NOW BACK TO OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED SCA "STUFF"
Maire Aislinge
Joseph Dunphy <st...@typhoon.xnet.com> wrote in article
<69qopr$27p$7...@flood.xnet.com>...
entire 411 lines snipped.
To be fair, I actuallly agree with your sentiment. My objections are two:
1) It could have been said in MANY, MANY less words.
2) What prompted you to set up your soapbox (oops! not period!) here?
Those of us who post to this news group are diligently attempting to
reenact periods of our historic past in which altruism was pretty damned
well left to the saints of the Church. I won't even attempt the concept of
freedom.
To paraphrase Scarlett O'Hara (also not period) "Mr Dunphy, how you do run
on."
Maire Aislinge
Dennis O'Connor
:Kathleen Coburn wrote in message
<69qv8q$t2v$1...@newsd-153.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
:who is this person and what is he ranting about?
I've left that for the net-abuse people at the domain
the messages originated at to sort out.
Sk8Maven
Kathleen Coburn wrote:
> who is this person and what is he ranting about?
He's a troll. Ignore him.
Maven
Heather Garvey
In fact, if you recognize his existance and comment in
any way, shape or form, he will make violent, violent threats
that would make Quentin Tarantino blush. He's a net.kook.
Avert your eyes and pray he goes away.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Garvey | A mighty cry of "Oh fuck" did rise
ra...@xnet.com | from the bowels of the tower...
http://www.xnet.com/~raven/ | -- John the Unstable
Greg Shetler
Joseph Dunphy blathered:
[snip start of spew re Dual Income No Kids]
> Now, some would
> say, that in life, we make choices, between the things that we would like
> to have, but of late, we've seen a generation that decided that it had the
> right to have its cake, and eat it too. The right to have it all. Make a
> choice, between having children, and deferring a few luxuries, or having
> all of the money one wants, indulging one's uncontrolled greed, today,
> knowing that it means waiting too long to have a family ? Nonsense !
> Encourage one of the kids, to have your children for you ! Is this a
> monstrously self indulgent wish ? No, because one isn't allowed to
> question the motives of those who pretend to be friendly. It wouldn't be
> nice. Even when those motives are nakedly predatory.
[snip rest of spew]
What is this crap? Everybody gets to choose how they want to live their
lives. This appears as though you are making the unstated assumption
that anybody who chooses not to have children are predatory, inhuman,
rapacious, greedy, etc. Come right out and say what you want to say.
You think it's wrong, and want to force us all to have children, because
that fits what you think is the "natural order of things."
Take your instructions to me about how to live my life and use them for
toilet tissue, buddy. I choose how to live my life. And I would
appreciate it if you returned the courtesy I show you in *not* telling
you how to live yours.
Mordock von Rugen
Greg Shetler
Mr. Dunphy, take your out-of-subject preaching somewhere else.
rec.org.sca is not a forum for amateur evangelists to practice.
Mordock von Rugen
John N Enloe
You know, you implied that the people replying to you were not courageous
because they were sending you private email -- while you judge others with
your conspiracy theories from the safety and anonymity of your computer.
It seems to me that you are the one who is not courageous. Playing the
game of I'll shut off my email so that I won't have to listen to your side
of the argument is cowardly -- and don't try to use the excuse that "well
this keeps all correspondence in the public forum" -- the replies are for
you, not for everyone else. If you are going to get up on your moral
soapbox and preach at others, you must be prepared to take the heat. You
disparage the courage of others, yet you show a lack of it yourself.
John Newton Enloe
Lord Jonathus Fitche d'Abercrombie
Barony of Thor's Mountain
Meridies
jen...@korrnet.org