so there i was
winter
do you think a democratic majority in a population the size of the
u.s. would exchange: 1. totally free lifetime education (as much of
it as was wanted/could be manage - including free net access), 2.
totally free lifetime medical care, and 3. totally free lifetime basic room,
board, and clothing
in exchange for agreeing to: 1. to pair with a member of the opposite
sex and naturally parent no more (and no less) than 2 children to the
age of 18, and 2. for both parents to do serious work for 24 hours a
week each outside the domicile?
assume such a system in place and functioning for 4 generations; what
would the system look like?
rgrds,
winter
>Kibbutz.
bless you!
:)
rgrds,
>I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message...
>rian
>winter <win...@winter.winter> schreef in berichtnieuws
>8p4ced$r...@chicago.us.mensa.org...
Rian
--
I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message...
rian
winter <win...@winter.winter> schreef in berichtnieuws
8p4ced$r...@chicago.us.mensa.org...
bi...@xnet.com
It would look like they would agree to the contract, and then
continue to have children even at the risk of being tossed out
of the system. The courts would, based on my take of past
performance, hold that the state cannot contain the conduct
of its citizens.
Roger Shoaf
In reality there are probably many couples that already are married, with
kids, that are loved, nurtured, guided not only to age 18 but beyond. The
committed couple also stays in love with each other and grows old watching
their grandchildren repeat the system they have learned.
I read once someplace that if both parties to a marriage came from intact
families, (no divorce) the rate of divorce was a whole lot lower than other
types of couples as they learned the skills necessary to cope with life's
hardships and work as a team making the sacrifices necessary for the
marriage to last.
The children of these couples also tended to fair much better in school and
in life.
It seems to me that in my observation many folks seem to marry in haste and
regret at their leisure. I suppose that the key ingredient is realistic
expectations and a mutual goal.
If your system had the cooperation of the parties it would probably lead to
a rather stable society, but the pitfalls I see are ones of cost vs.
benefit. If the people accepting the offer get to their 24th hour and their
is still work to be done does it just get left un done for 4 days? Who
defines "serious" work? And are the candidates chosen or is the offer open
to anyone?
Why would this system be offered in the first place? Seems to me that it
might be some sort of system designed to lure colonists to a frontier or
something. Do the folks also earn a wage or are they only going to draw on
the storeroom for their supplies? When the kids turn 18 then what? Do they
have to choose to stay under the same terms or leave? If they chose to stay
does the system issue them a spouse or do they have some time to pick one of
their own?
--
Roger Shoaf
If you are not part of the solution, you are not dissolved in the solvent.
winter <win...@winter.winter> wrote in message
news:8p4ced$r...@chicago.us.mensa.org...
Gistak
opposite sex. Also afaik, there aren't any which require that pair to have
exactly two (or any amount) of children. Hmmm, come to think of it, 24 hours
a week seems a bit less than people on Kibbutzes are expected to work. Other
than those three points, I agree completely.
P
"Rian" <ri...@infocom.demon.nl> wrote in message
news:968215251.20138....@news.demon.nl...
winter
>winter <win...@winter.winter> wrote in message
>> talking with a friends, and someone asked:
>
>> do you think a democratic majority in a population the size of the
>> u.s. would exchange: 1. totally free lifetime education (as much of
>> it as was wanted/could be manage - including free net access), 2.
>> totally free lifetime medical care, and 3. totally free lifetime basic room,
>> board, and clothing
>
>> in exchange for agreeing to: 1. to pair with a member of the opposite
>> sex and naturally parent no more (and no less) than 2 children to the
>> age of 18, and 2. for both parents to do serious work for 24 hours a
>> week each outside the domicile?
>
>> assume such a system in place and functioning for 4 generations; what
>> would the system look like?
>
>It would look like they would agree to the contract, and then
>continue to have children even at the risk of being tossed out
>of the system.
consider that a manageable detail.
>The courts would, based on my take of past performance, hold
> that the state cannot contain the conduct of its citizens.
consider that a non-problem.
rgrds,
winter
>What would be the purpose of such a system?
such a system would have a large impact on existing
conditions; welfare, work, living conditions, environement
etc, etc, and lots of other ects.
>If your system had the cooperation of the parties it would probably lead to
>a rather stable society, but the pitfalls I see are ones of cost vs. benefit.
>If the people accepting the offer get to their 24th hour and their is still work
>to be done does it just get left un done for 4 days? Who defines "serious"
>work? And are the candidates chosen or is the offer open to anyone?
cost v. benefit? who's books?
you seem to want to query details when i was interested in
consequences of such a structure.
>Why would this system be offered in the first place? Seems to me that it
>might be some sort of system designed to lure colonists to a frontier or
>something. Do the folks also earn a wage or are they only going to draw on
>the storeroom for their supplies? When the kids turn 18 then what? Do they
>have to choose to stay under the same terms or leave? If they chose to stay
>does the system issue them a spouse or do they have some time to pick one of
>their own?
no wage. life time is life time.
consider such a structure's impact and its likely
evolution. don't worry about 'how is it to be'.
rgrds,
Tracy Yucikas
came to mind that there would be a whole lot fewer insecure neurotic
people suffering the onslaughts of inner-demonizing.
my guessis that the world would be a much better place.
tracy
winter <win...@winter.winter> wrote in message
news:8p4ced$r...@chicago.us.mensa.org...
Roger Shoaf
From: winter <win...@winter.winter>
Newsgroups: mensa.talk.misc
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: so there i was
> "Roger Shoaf" <sh...@nospamsyix.com> wrote:
>
> >What would be the purpose of such a system?
>
> such a system would have a large impact on existing
> conditions; welfare, work, living conditions, environement
> etc, etc, and lots of other ects.
Well it would have some impact, wether that impact is large or small,
positive or negative, would be open to question.
>
>
> >If your system had the cooperation of the parties it would probably lead
to
> >a rather stable society, but the pitfalls I see are ones of cost vs.
benefit.
> >If the people accepting the offer get to their 24th hour and their is
still work
> >to be done does it just get left un done for 4 days? Who defines
"serious"
> >work? And are the candidates chosen or is the offer open to anyone?
>
> cost v. benefit? who's books?
>
> you seem to want to query details when i was interested in
> consequences of such a structure.
I would be happy to speculate on the outcome, but as stated, there is much
missing from the equasion.
>
>
> >Why would this system be offered in the first place? Seems to me that it
> >might be some sort of system designed to lure colonists to a frontier or
> >something. Do the folks also earn a wage or are they only going to draw
on
> >the storeroom for their supplies? When the kids turn 18 then what? Do
they
> >have to choose to stay under the same terms or leave? If they chose to
stay
> >does the system issue them a spouse or do they have some time to pick one
of
> >their own?
>
> no wage. life time is life time.
>
> consider such a structure's impact and its likely
> evolution. don't worry about 'how is it to be'.
Well as far as I can tell if the entire economy were to convert to such a
system, it would slowly spiral down. The reason I suggest this is because
there is no incentive. The controling authority decides what everyone gets
and while that might be adequite for many it would hinder progress. Sooner
or later a complacency would develop and productivity would decline. The
folks that would ordinarily put in the 80 hour weeks to create something new
would become like a vast army of DMV clerks that could care less if there
are 20 people in line if it is time for their coffee break. There would be
very little incentive to study hard in the university when the person that
choses not to has the same standard of living.
Sooner or later the countries infrastructure would fall into decline and
more and more of the work would be assigned to maintain and less and less to
produce.
Also the birth rate at exactly two per couple would actually cause a slow
decline in the population. I think that the zero groth rate would be more
on the order of 2.3 in order to account for infertility and accidental
death.
Give me some more details and I will be happy to speculate further.
winter
>Well as far as I can tell if the entire economy were to convert to such a
>system, it would slowly spiral down. The reason I suggest this is because
>there is no incentive. The controling authority decides what everyone gets
>and while that might be adequite for many it would hinder progress. Sooner
>or later a complacency would develop and productivity would decline. The
>folks that would ordinarily put in the 80 hour weeks to create something new
>would become like a vast army of DMV clerks that could care less if there
>are 20 people in line if it is time for their coffee break. There would be
>very little incentive to study hard in the university when the person that
>choses not to has the same standard of living.
interesting. its given rise to additional thought.
i will return at a time with more time.
i've heard that costa rica has free education and that
bus drivers, and near everyone else, have degrees.
can someone comment on that?
rgrds,
Bronia
winter escribió en mensaje <8p4ced$r...@chicago.us.mensa.org>...
(snip)
>in exchange for agreeing to: 1. to pair with a member of the opposite
>sex and naturally parent no more (and no less) than 2 children to the
>age of 18, and 2. for both parents to do serious work for 24 hours a
>week each outside the domicile?
I am dubious at all attemps
at social engineering. The scheme
is similar to the scheme run
(successfully) in China.
A recent quote from the local press:
*Murder - by official decree in China*.
A newborn baby was murdered
in front of its parents by family
planning officials set on enforcing
China´s one-child-per-family policy
*The baby was torn from it´s
mother´s arms and drowned
in a paddy field*.
Saludos, Bronia.
P.S. I had been looking after a high
ranking chinese power manager/engineer
seconded to our company in the UK.
I discussed this policy with him
to some length.
sammi
Bronia <bro...@futurnet.es> wrote in message
news:8pe96s$1k4$1...@talia.mad.ttd.net...
>
> winter escribió en mensaje <8p4ced$r...@chicago.us.mensa.org>...
>
> (snip)
>
> >in exchange for agreeing to: 1. to pair with a member of the opposite
> >sex and naturally parent no more (and no less) than 2 children to the
> >age of 18, and 2. for both parents to do serious work for 24 hours a
> >week each outside the domicile?
>
>
> I am dubious at all attemps
> at social engineering.
that's what it's called then ? good, now i have a label and yes, i agree
i also think it's immoral. we shouldn't have the power over others lives in
order to, essentially, make our own more comfortable.
but it is a dilemma when others do not hesitate to do that to you, for
instance by abusing systems set up 'for the good of all'.
the only solution, if indeed there is one, lies in improving the system. i
think.
sammi
(:)<
winter
>winter escribió en mensaje <8p4ced$r...@chicago.us.mensa.org>...
>(snip)
>
>>in exchange for agreeing to: 1. to pair with a member of the opposite
>>sex and naturally parent no more (and no less) than 2 children to the
>>age of 18, and 2. for both parents to do serious work for 24 hours a
>>week each outside the domicile?
>
>
>I am dubious at all attemps
>at social engineering. The scheme
>is similar to the scheme run
>(successfully) in China.
odd, the news these days is that capitolism
and crime is rampant.
>A recent quote from the local press:
>
>*Murder - by official decree in China*.
>
>A newborn baby was murdered
>in front of its parents by family
>planning officials set on enforcing
>China´s one-child-per-family policy
>
>*The baby was torn from it´s
>mother´s arms and drowned
>in a paddy field*.
point? cite?
>P.S. I had been looking after a high
>ranking chinese power manager/engineer
>seconded to our company in the UK.
>I discussed this policy with him
>to some length.
first hand observations at times have interesting
information.
rgrds,
Tracy Yucikas
> at social engineering. The scheme
bronia,
hmm, wouldn't all systems of law governing human interactions
qualify as artifacts of "social engineering'. I've always thought
that civilization itself and moderation of human behavior to
suppress the "tooth and fang" version of society is just
"social engineering" which has stoood the test of time and
tradition. For better of for worse, most of us benefit from
some of the usually unacknowledged byproducts of
social engineering.
tracy
> is similar to the scheme run
> (successfully) in China.
Bronia
winter escribió en mensaje <8pf4pn$2...@chicago.us.mensa.org>...
>"Bronia" <bro...@futurnet.es> wrote:
(snip)
>>I am dubious at all attemps
>>at social engineering. The scheme
>>is similar to the scheme run
>>(successfully) in China.
>
>odd, the news these days is that capitolism
>and crime is rampant.
The one-child-only policy was run for
a decade or two in People´s China.
The first child would have the benefits
you describe. The second child, if it
survived the *compulsory abortion*
would have none of the benefits of
communist society.
The policy was successful in that it
limited China´s huge population growth.
It is apparently still in force as witnessed
below:
>
>>A recent quote from the local press:
>>*Murder - by official decree in China*.
>>
>>A newborn baby was murdered
>>in front of its parents by family
>>planning officials set on enforcing
>>China´s one-child-per-family policy
>>
>>*The baby was torn from it´s
>>mother´s arms and drowned
>>in a paddy field*.
>
>point? cite?
>From *The Western Sun*, 01/09/2000, p.7
(South Tenerife English language paper)
Point? Having soc eng policies is one thing,
enforcing them is another. This particular child
*survived* abortion by saline solution, the father
refused to kill the baby when born, the parents
dumped the child but it was found by a kindhearted
doctor and returned to its mother.
My Chinese colleague told me stories of hardship
and cruelty due to this policy. He considered
himself lucky with two children, though he refused
to say how the second child managed to *escape*.
I suspect high political status, his and his wife´s ,
had something to do with this.
Saludos, Bronia
Prigator
> wouldn't all systems of law governing human interactions
>qualify as artifacts of "social engineering'.
Not the same thing. Common law codifies what has evolved by general agreement,
called ethos, in a society. It is done for the purpose of deterring the
criminal element, with the majority agreeing that it must be done. Social
engineering is a plan to change that general agreement, with the planners as a
very small minority.
Doug Chandler
Gistak
> A recent quote from the local press:
>
> *Murder - by official decree in China*.
>
> A newborn baby was murdered
> in front of its parents by family
> planning officials set on enforcing
> China´s one-child-per-family policy
>
> *The baby was torn from it´s
> mother´s arms and drowned
> in a paddy field*.
>
Please forgive my scepticism, but do you think you could be more specific on
that "local press" story? It doesn't quite jibe with the little I know about
modern China. Thanks!
P
Vince
I think that Tracy has a valid point here. Your discussion of "general
agreement" or "ethos" just adds another layer to the onion.
If there is a majority agreement, how did it come into being? By a
group of people attempting to get others to see things their way.
Social Engineering, by your definition. The laws are an artifact of
that attempt.
Two examples that spring to mind are the anti-smoking and anti-drunk
driving movements. I remember when both were though of as busybodies
without lives, who were blowing the issue(s) out of purportion. Now
there is (generally speaking) an ethos that says that these things are
bad, and laws prohibiting(drunkdriving) and severely limiting these
actions. Other examples include equal rights (racial), equal rights
(sex), etc, etc, and so on.
-Vince
Jonathan
the "Dying Rooms" in the States (the so-called orphanages where incredible
numbers of children were left to die) ?
Jonathan
Gistak <gis...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8pf207$dn3$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
winter
>winter escribió en mensaje <8pf4pn$2...@chicago.us.mensa.org>...
>>"Bronia" <bro...@futurnet.es> wrote:
>>>I am dubious at all attemps
>>>at social engineering. The scheme
>>>is similar to the scheme run
>>>(successfully) in China.
>>
>>odd, the news these days is that capitolism
>>and crime is rampant.
>
>The one-child-only policy was run for
>a decade or two in People´s China.
>The first child would have the benefits
>you describe. The second child, if it
>survived the *compulsory abortion*
>would have none of the benefits of
>communist society.
as one result of that policy, china is said to be
currently missing some 30 million girl children.
it is truely bad what that government policy does
to its inoffensive and helpless population.
>The policy was successful in that it
>limited China´s huge population growth.
>It is apparently still in force as witnessed
>below:
outrageous, isn't it? but then you'd not want to hear about some
of the abortion practices used by children in the favelas above
rio de janerio, or about the protection methods used by its police
when coping with the kids that descend to its better neighborhoods.
>>>A recent quote from the local press:
>>>*Murder - by official decree in China*.
>>>
>>>A newborn baby was murdered
>>>in front of its parents by family
>>>planning officials set on enforcing
>>>China´s one-child-per-family policy
>>>
>>>*The baby was torn from it´s
>>>mother´s arms and drowned
>>>in a paddy field*.
>>
>>point? cite?
>
>>From *The Western Sun*, 01/09/2000, p.7
>(South Tenerife English language paper)
what is the dominant religion in tenerife?
>Point? Having soc eng policies is one thing,
>enforcing them is another. This particular child
>*survived* abortion by saline solution, the father
>refused to kill the baby when born, the parents
>dumped the child but it was found by a kindhearted
>doctor and returned to its mother.
so, let me get this straight.
government wants kid dead. pop refuses to kill kid,
govenment tears kid from parents, drowns him/her
in rice paddy. kindly doctor comes along, brings kid
back to life, returns same to mom.
right?
>My Chinese colleague told me stories of hardship
>and cruelty due to this policy. He considered
>himself lucky with two children, though he refused
>to say how the second child managed to *escape*.
>I suspect high political status, his and his wife´s ,
>had something to do with this.
chinese gov. policy states 1 child per couple, but they
actually try for 1.6 (mostly in rural areas, 1.2 is replace-
ment, .4 in rural areas is probable attempt to ameliorate
migration to citys).
second child is allowed, but fines amount to approx 1 to
1.5 years of state salery.
third child is prohibited.
Bronia
winter escribió en mensaje <8pgefn$8...@chicago.us.mensa.org>...
>what is the dominant religion in tenerife?
it´s roman catholic but the paper is Anglican
>government wants kid dead. pop refuses to kill kid,
>govenment tears kid from parents, drowns him/her
>in rice paddy. kindly doctor comes along, brings kid
>back to life, returns same to mom.
>
>right?
Wrong. Pope has nothing to do with this.
It´s the father who refuses to kill the kid.
The doctor came to rescue the child when
his parents attempted to dump it to avoid
direct killing it.
The officials came afterwards to *finish the job*
that the parents refused to do.
Apparently the over eager officials are to be
prosecuted for murder but the public is
*sceptical* about it.
>
>Chinese gov. policy states 1 child per couple, but they
>actually try for 1.6 (mostly in rural areas, 1.2 is replace-
>ment, .4 in rural areas is probable attempt to ameliorate
>migration to citys).
>
>second child is allowed, but fines amount to approx 1 to
>1.5 years of state salery.
>
>third child is prohibited.
I understand the second child loses the rights
to free education and the free health care.
The third child is definitely prohibited. I believe
the story refers to a *third child*.
I don´t know the details you mention.
We didn´t discuss the decimal points
with my Chinese colleague. Only
the salient points. I understand it was
not safe to discuss the subject at all.
Saludos, Bronia.
The Polymath (Jerry Hollombe)
> winter escribió en mensaje <8pgefn$8...@chicago.us.mensa.org>...
> >government wants kid dead. pop refuses to kill kid,
> >govenment tears kid from parents, drowns him/her
> >in rice paddy. kindly doctor comes along, brings kid
> >back to life, returns same to mom.
> >
> >right?
>
> Wrong. Pope has nothing to do with this.
Language clarification: Pop = Dad, i.e., father.
--
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) "There are no good plan Bs. If
http://www.babcom.com/polymath/ they were good, they'd be plan A."
http://www.babcom.com/gla-mensa/ -- The Magic School Bus
Query pgpkeys.mit.edu for PGP public key.
Bronia
The Polymath (Jerry Hollombe) escribió en mensaje
<39BBF22A...@pacbell.net>...
>Bronia wrote:
>Language clarification: Pop = Dad, i.e., father.
Thanks, I didn´t know that.
Saludos, Bronia.
Bronia
Gistak escribió en mensaje <8pf207$dn3$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>...
>
>Please forgive my scepticism, but do you think you could be more specific
on
>that "local press" story? It doesn't quite jibe with the little I know
about
>modern China. Thanks!
See my reply to winter
Saludos, Bronia
Prigator
>>Tracy says:
>>
>>> wouldn't all systems of law governing human interactions
>>>qualify as artifacts of "social engineering'.
>>Not the same thing. Common law codifies what has evolved by general
>agreement,
>>called ethos, in a society.
>If there is a majority agreement, how did it come into being? By a
>group of people attempting to get others to see things their way.
>Social Engineering, by your definition. The laws are an artifact of
>that attempt.
Very few of the laws. Robbery was always considered to be something bad. So
were most antisocial acts codified into criminal law.
>Two examples that spring to mind are the anti-smoking and anti-drunk
>driving movements. I remember when both were though of as busybodies
>without lives, who were blowing the issue(s) out of purportion. Now
>there is (generally speaking) an ethos that says that these things are
>bad, and laws
Those were examples of the ethos evolving, a continuous process. Somewhere
along the line we also added penalties for insider trading. We are talking
about a democracy, or a representative republic, and theoretically the majority
had to agree to add those laws.
My definition of social engineering is a deliberate attempt to make major
changes without a vote by the people.
Doug Chandler
Gistak
Oh well, I wanted to check the source for myself. To see if the article was
talking about something recent or not, and to see if the paper is
respectable. Unfortunately, on the 'net I can only find El Dia, Fortnightly
Tenerife News, and La Opinion. Since I can't find any other newspapers for
Tenerife, I can't do much arguing. Damn, I hate that!
P
winter
>winter escribió en mensaje <8pgefn$8...@chicago.us.mensa.org>...
>>what is the dominant religion in tenerife?
>
>it´s roman catholic but the paper is Anglican
that's odd. an anglican paper printing what amounts
to anti-abortion 'news', news that occurs half way
around the world, for a roman catholic community.
frankly, there is too much speculation about what
the 'story' is for me to think it worth continuing with
in the line that includes it in consideration of public
policy vis-a-vis limiting the number of children in a
family.
second children lead to fines for modern mainland
chinese and third children appear to be illegal.
illegal acts, be they harsh local treatment for trans-
gression of population laws or the murder of girl
children because parents want boys, have nothing
to do with the advisablility of population policys.
one might as well assert the advisability of police existing
is a bad idea due to the existance of police who act illegally
or that we ought to do away with property because people steal.
rgrds,
Tracy Yucikas
> Vince,
>
> >>Tracy says:
> >>
> >>> wouldn't all systems of law governing human interactions
> >>>qualify as artifacts of "social engineering'.
>
> >>Not the same thing. Common law codifies what has evolved by general
> >agreement,
> >>called ethos, in a society.
>
> >If there is a majority agreement, how did it come into being? By a
> >group of people attempting to get others to see things their way.
> >Social Engineering, by your definition. The laws are an artifact of
> >that attempt.
.......
> about a democracy, or a representative republic, and theoretically the
majority
> had to agree to add those laws.
>
> My definition of social engineering is a deliberate attempt to make major
> changes without a vote by the people.
<as though the 'collective wisdom of the electorate' acted as a benevolent
force in human affairs ... history might indicate a less than 500 batting
average> (secretly hopes that SOME elected politicians are actually "good")
perhaps if "vote by the people" were replaced with "vote by the powerful"
...
was slavery in ancient Greece a result of "social engineering" ? .... and
was the abolition of slavery in teh USA a result of "social engineering" ?
whenever vagueness or confusion begin to enter into a discussion,
there is often underlying value-conflict which muddies the semantic
thought-stream.
" ... from the Gulf stream waters, to the New York highways ..."
tracy ( who thinks that Nietcxhze 'wanted' to be optimistic)
Bronia
winter escribió en mensaje <8phqes$j...@chicago.us.mensa.org>...
>"Bronia" <bro...@futurnet.es> wrote:
>>winter escribió en mensaje <8pgefn$8...@chicago.us.mensa.org>...
>
>>>what is the dominant religion in tenerife?
>>
>>it´s roman catholic but the paper is Anglican
>
>that's odd. an anglican paper printing what amounts
>to anti-abortion 'news', news that occurs half way
>around the world, for a roman catholic community.
>
Correction needed.
The paper is an English language paper for the
sizeable English community here. I can only assume
they are predominantly Anglican, but religion doesn´t
seem to play an important role in that community.
Abortions have been legalized shortly after Franco´s
death. To my knowledge they are not an issue even
in the Spanish community, with the exception, perhaps,
of old people who are still deeply religious. Even among
the young Spaniards who seem to be religious and are
quite attached to their religious festivals, the abortion
issue appears to be curiously detached from their faith.
Contraception is widely used and consequently Spain
has the lowest birth rate in Europe.
Saludos, Bronia.
Bronia
Gistak escribió en mensaje <8phd16$7v6$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>...
>Oh well, I wanted to check the source for myself. To see if the article was
>talking about something recent or not, and to see if the paper is
>respectable.
*The Western Sun* is a small circulation paper,
one of the three catering for the English speaking
community here on the SW of Tenerife and for the
more than a million of British tourists who come here
every year.
They have the usual disclaimer:
*While the Western Sun makes every effort to ensure
that all material published is legal, decent and accurate
it takes no responsibility for any loss or damage...*.
The murder of the newborn baby is said to have taken
place in Hubei Province and is said to *have stunned
a nation used to harsh justice* This would indicate that
the original source was probably the Chinese press,
possibly from Hong Kong where English is printed widely.
Saludos, Bronia.
winter
sorry.
i get on a bit about religion in politics.
rgrds,
winter
>The murder of the newborn baby is said to have taken
>place in Hubei Province and is said to *have stunned
>a nation used to harsh justice*
"the murder of the new born baby..."
anti-abortionists *love* to present pictures of aborted fe-
tuses (not of autopsied corpses though, that's not an is-
sue although it is just as potentially a religious issue and
just as gruesome). i do not know if you, bronia, are polit-
ical that way, but they would really like the choices in words
involved here.
go to the web and garner an understanding of what saline
abortions involve.
rgrds,
Gistak
"Jonathan" <jojen...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:8pga9g$f9p$2...@supernews.com...
> Gistak - I know it's not quite the same thing or as recent but did you get
> the "Dying Rooms" in the States (the so-called orphanages where incredible
> numbers of children were left to die) ?
>
Hmmm, trying to remember. I remember something like that in Romania, but
that's only 'cause I know someone who went over there to adopt one of them.
Since I assume you're talking about China I guess I don't know it. Doesn't
sound nice.
P
Vince
<snip>
>Those were examples of the ethos evolving, a continuous process. Somewhere
>along the line we also added penalties for insider trading. We are talking
>about a democracy, or a representative republic, and theoretically the majority
>had to agree to add those laws.
>
>My definition of social engineering is a deliberate attempt to make major
>changes without a vote by the people.
>
definition...
>Doug Chandler
Sue Spence
>
>"Bronia" <bro...@futurnet.es> wrote:
>>winter escribió en mensaje <8pf4pn$2...@chicago.us.mensa.org>...
>>>"Bronia" <bro...@futurnet.es> wrote:
>
>>>>I am dubious at all attemps
>>>>at social engineering. The scheme
>>>>is similar to the scheme run
>>>>(successfully) in China.
>>>
>>>odd, the news these days is that capitolism
>>>and crime is rampant.
>>
>>The one-child-only policy was run for
>>a decade or two in People´s China.
>>The first child would have the benefits
>>you describe. The second child, if it
>>survived the *compulsory abortion*
>>would have none of the benefits of
>>communist society.
>
>as one result of that policy, china is said to be
>currently missing some 30 million girl children.
>
>it is truely bad what that government policy does
>to its inoffensive and helpless population.
They're already suffering from it, and will continue to do so for the
foreseeable future.
>
>>The policy was successful in that it
>>limited China´s huge population growth.
>>It is apparently still in force as witnessed
>>below:
>
>outrageous, isn't it? but then you'd not want to hear about some
>of the abortion practices used by children in the favelas above
>rio de janerio, or about the protection methods used by its police
>when coping with the kids that descend to its better neighborhoods.
>
>
>>>>A recent quote from the local press:
>>>>*Murder - by official decree in China*.
>>>>
>>>>A newborn baby was murdered
>>>>in front of its parents by family
>>>>planning officials set on enforcing
>>>>China´s one-child-per-family policy
>>>>
>>>>*The baby was torn from it´s
>>>>mother´s arms and drowned
>>>>in a paddy field*.
>>>
>>>point? cite?
>>
>>>From *The Western Sun*, 01/09/2000, p.7
>>(South Tenerife English language paper)
>
>what is the dominant religion in tenerife?
Tenerife is in the Canary Islands, which are part of Spain. As you probably
know, Spain is predominantly Roman Catholic.
>
>
>>Point? Having soc eng policies is one thing,
>>enforcing them is another. This particular child
>>*survived* abortion by saline solution, the father
>>refused to kill the baby when born, the parents
>>dumped the child but it was found by a kindhearted
>>doctor and returned to its mother.
>
>so, let me get this straight.
>
>government wants kid dead. pop refuses to kill kid,
>govenment tears kid from parents, drowns him/her
>in rice paddy. kindly doctor comes along, brings kid
>back to life, returns same to mom.
>
>right?
I think I also saw this story in The Times (UK).
Gistak
"winter" <win...@winter.winter> wrote in message
news:8piq8g$h...@chicago.us.mensa.org...
> "Bronia" <bro...@futurnet.es> wrote:
>
> >The murder of the newborn baby is said to have taken
> >place in Hubei Province and is said to *have stunned
> >a nation used to harsh justice*
>
> "the murder of the new born baby..."
>
> anti-abortionists *love* to present pictures of aborted fe-
> tuses (not of autopsied corpses though, that's not an is-
> sue although it is just as potentially a religious issue and
> just as gruesome). i do not know if you, bronia, are polit-
> ical that way, but they would really like the choices in words
> involved here.
>
Not sure I understand what you're saying. Winter. Certainly the word murder
applies to a baby "torn from it's mother's arms" and "drowned in a paddy
field." I still don't know if I believe it, but there's no other word for
it, is there?
P
Gistak
> The murder of the newborn baby is said to have taken
> place in Hubei Province and is said to *have stunned
> a nation used to harsh justice* This would indicate that
> the original source was probably the Chinese press,
> possibly from Hong Kong where English is printed widely.
>
Not sure I understand why that indicates the Chinese press, or that the
original story would have been in English. Either way, I guess I find it
hard to believe. I certainly won't say it can't be true, but it's hard to
swallow without more to go on. Where did they get the info? When was it
supposed to have happened? HOW did they get the info? Stuff like that. I'm
not asking you, bronia; I know you don't represent the paper. I'm just
wondering....
P
Bronia
Gistak escribió en mensaje <8piub5$lo0$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>...
>Not sure I understand why that indicates the Chinese press, or that the
>original story would have been in English.
Elementary, my dear Watson!
For the Chinese nations to be *stunned*
the story had to appear in Chinese.
For a small English local paper in Tenerife
to take it over it would have to have appeared
in English somewhere. It is unlikely, though not
impossible, that the journalists here speak
Mandarine.
The information about the life in China usually
arrives through Hong Kong.
There is also an influx of Chines immigrants here,
so this may be a route too.
I didn´t try to verify the story, because it fitted with
what I had been told by my Chinese colleague.
Killing of *surplus* babies was actually quite
widespread, though the methods differed.
I think what horrified the Chinese was that it was
done in public rather than in secret (no questions asked)
and that five officials were involved. The wrath
of bureucracy when they didn´t have their way .
There also must have been a lot of sympathy with
a baby who dodged death three times: 1. in saline (sic)
abortion (whatever this is), 2. through brave refusal of
the father to kill it (as probably would have been expected)
and 3. when it was *left to die* and was subsequently found
and returned to its mother by the doctor.
Even the most cruel mind would be inclined to think
that such a *survivor* deserved to live.
Saludos, Bronia.
Jonathan
G/P - I don't recall the details but in essence a Chinese female doctor
worked in Chinese orphanages where a horrendous load of children were simply
left to die (starve to death I believe) as part of official policy. She went
through all the proper channels etc. to try and get it stopped and couldn't
and in the end started documenting and filming conditions and got out with
the evidence via Hong Kong. Someone with a better awareness of current
affairs could explain this a whole lot better. In the end there was so much
lobbying from Western Governments every time there were diplomatic meetings
etc. that I think they either stopped it or covered it up better.
Jonathan
Gistak
> G/P - I don't recall the details but in essence a Chinese female doctor
> worked in Chinese orphanages where a horrendous load of children were
simply
> left to die (starve to death I believe) as part of official policy. She
went
> through all the proper channels etc. to try and get it stopped and
couldn't
> and in the end started documenting and filming conditions and got out with
> the evidence via Hong Kong.
I knew it didn't sound nice. Makes you wonder what's *not* getting smuggled
out to Hong Kong, doesn't it?
(The whole "P" thing is a red herring. It's an old signature from my days of
anonymity. If you're having trouble with G's and P's, you can call me the
very ordinary name, "Rob").
Gistak
>
> Gistak escribió en mensaje <8piub5$lo0$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>...
>
> >Not sure I understand why that indicates the Chinese press, or that the
> >original story would have been in English.
>
> Elementary, my dear Watson!
>
> For the Chinese nations to be *stunned*
> the story had to appear in Chinese.
>
> For a small English local paper in Tenerife
> to take it over it would have to have appeared
> in English somewhere. It is unlikely, though not
> impossible, that the journalists here speak
> Mandarine.
>
It confuses me that the original story had to be Chinese to stun China, but
English to be picked up in Tenerife. It doesn't seem elementary to me.
You said, that the "original source was probably the Chinese press, possibly
from Hong Kong where English is printed widely."
I guess you mean that the Chinese press reported it in Chinese in Mainland
China, and also in English in Hong Kong. Maybe, but there are also other
ways to spread news. There's the Internet, word of mouth, and non-Chinese
international papers.
Anyway, I'm aware that this little side trip has nothing to do with what you
were originally saying. I wanted to get more info, and you suggested some
places to look. I'm not sure about your suggestions, but I don't want to
fight about them!!
P
bi...@xnet.com
> It confuses me that the original story had to be
> Chinese to stun China, but English to be picked
> up in Tenerife. It doesn't seem elementary to me.
Well china isn't in Tenerife after all. Bronia's unstated
seems pretty elementary to me.
> I guess you mean that the Chinese press reported it
> in Chinese in Mainland China, and also in English in
> Hong Kong. Maybe, but there are also other ways
> to spread news. There's the Internet, word of mouth,
> and non-Chinese international papers.
Despite all the advertising in the US (and perhaps
elsewhere) those of us actually using the internet for
news/information constitute a distinctly small minority.
Thinking of the internet as a significant disseminator
of news is an error. The media have their own networks,
independent of the internet and predating the internet in
various forms by several centuries. Carrier pigeons were
also used.
> I'm not sure about your suggestions, but I don't want
> to fight about them!!
Really?
Gistak
<bi...@xnet.com> wrote in message news:8plh11$b...@chicago.us.mensa.org...
> Gistak <gis...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > It confuses me that the original story had to be
> > Chinese to stun China, but English to be picked
> > up in Tenerife. It doesn't seem elementary to me.
>
> Well china isn't in Tenerife after all. Bronia's unstated
> seems pretty elementary to me.
>
Her unstated? I honestly don't know what you're talking about. My point was
that it seems like the source couldn't be in English AND ALSO Chinese. That
you'd have one source, and everyone else picks it up from there. But then,
later in my post (below), I reasoned that it was possible. Possible, but not
obvious or elementary.
Look, this isn't a big deal. In B's opinion, the original story probably was
from the Chinese press (I'm not sure I get whether it was supposed to be in
English or Chinese because I think s/he thinks both). In my opinion, it
could have come from a reporter from any nation in any language, and been
picked up. It's all guessing, and it doesn't matter much.
> > I guess you mean that the Chinese press reported it
> > in Chinese in Mainland China, and also in English in
> > Hong Kong. Maybe, but there are also other ways
> > to spread news. There's the Internet, word of mouth,
> > and non-Chinese international papers.
>
> Despite all the advertising in the US (and perhaps
> elsewhere) those of us actually using the internet for
> news/information constitute a distinctly small minority.
>
In a country like China, where real news in rare, the small amount of people
who get their news from the Internet make a bigger difference than in
America. I met several people in China who told me that the Internet is one
of the things that they believe will end government censorship.
> Thinking of the internet as a significant disseminator
> of news is an error. The media have their own networks,
> independent of the internet and predating the internet in
> various forms by several centuries. Carrier pigeons were
> also used.
>
Uh, yeah. Ok. My point was that the story didn't necessarily have to be
printed by the Chinese press in order to "stun" the Chinese people. I wonder
if you noticed that I even mentioned "word of mouth, and non-Chinese
international papers" as possible ways to spread the story. The story could
be printed by a non-Chinese paper, and still find a way to stun Chinese
people. I wasn't ever saying that the Internet is the best way to
disseminate information. And carrier pigeons? Um... whatever.
I have a sneaking suspicion that you didn't really understand what I was
trying to say, so I hope this clears it up for you. It's the nature of
Usenet that this seems like some big argument, when really I just thought
that there were other possibilities than the ones that Bronia suggested.
> > I'm not sure about your suggestions, but I don't want
> > to fight about them!!
>
>
> Really?
>
That's right. Really! That's why I said it. I actually said, "Anyway, I'm
aware that this little side trip has nothing to do with what you were
originally saying. I wanted to get more info, and you suggested some
places to look. I'm not sure about your suggestions, but I don't want to
fight about them."
I thought that would be an obvious way to say that I don't want a fight.
This whole thing seems petty, and now that you're in it, it's even more
confusing than it was. I know that I started it, and I wish I hadn't. I know
that if it's petty, it's mostly my fault. I don't really care about the
argument, so I REALLY don't want to argue. I did want to clear up what I was
saying. If you disagree with me, fine. If you misunderstand me, not fine.
P
bi...@xnet.com
> ....so I REALLY don't want to argue. I did want to
> clear up what I was saying. If you disagree with me,
> fine. If you misunderstand me, not fine.
Well thank you for clearing that up.
Don't take life so seriously, son
It ain't nowhow permanent.
-PorkyPine