patrick.net

mell says

We can all agree on the darkness of the dark ages, but how is this relevant today? Throughout history and for the lack of technology we had dark ages simply because it was very hard to prove and to believe otherwise. Also, early Christianity was actually a pioneer in caring for the sick, building hospitals and developing medicine based on research in nature. If you compare Christian (and Jewish) societies in recent decades/centuries to most other religions or atheistic/communist experiments, they actually advanced science more so than most other societies and are nowadays mostly on the receiving end of persecution because they are (too) peaceful and integrate well with other religions and/or atheists.

Being able to be openly atheist is pretty much a new thing. Technological Advances and the power of Religion in Ordinary People's lives are inversely coordinated.

Not much tech coming out of Saudi Arabia, and they're filthy rich.

The relevance is a cautionary tale about the power of Savannah Ape Death Throe Mental Anguish Protection Schemes. I would argue that God is pretty Much dead is the West and has been since at least WW1, if not the 19th Century. Most people are very nominally religious, even the ones who claim to be religious.

As for technology, the Soviets were a powerhouse, especially when you consider it was the most economically and technologically and infrastructurally (???) the most backward country in Europe in 1920. I won't bore you with a list that captures everything from Blood Banks to Human Anthrax Vaccines to most of the Space Firsts to Interlaced Video to Rocketry to Heart-Lung Machines, the Maser, first Nuclear Power Plant, first LED, etc. etc. etc.

Old people in America as a group are overwhelmingly selfish. Judging a group by its behavior is perfectly valid. Granted, there are some old people who aren't selfish, but I never said that all old people are, just that most of them in our country are.

From Psychology Today

Ill and elderly and ill people also often seem "selfish" because they are, almost of necessity, focusing on only one thing–themselves.

Why America's elderly are so spoiled.

America's elderly have never had it so good. They enjoy better health than any previous generation of old people, high incomes and ample assets, access to a host of medical treatments that not only keep them alive but let them enjoy their extra years, and a riotous multitude of ways to spoil their grandchildren. Still they are not content. From gratefully accepting a basic level of assistance back in the early decades of Social Security, America's elderly have come to expect everything their durable little hearts desire.

Old people to America: Drop dead

Polling by the Annenberg Institute indicates that old people have historically been the most opposed to spending more on healthcare for children.

So much for the idea that Grandma will do anything for her grandchildren.

It would be nice if old Americans were less selfish and more concerned about future generations and the world they are leaving them, but they aren't and pretending this problem doesn't exist won't make it go away. The older generations are the ones responsible for killing off half of all wildlife on this planet during the past 40 years. They are responsible for polluting the Earth like a toilet, draining natural resources, and hindering both social and environmental progress.

Do the old have to be selfish? Hell no. But in our society the past few elderly generations have been and whitewashing that doesn't change the truth.

And yes, all religious people are delusional. That's a fact, not a judgement. Believing in supernatural creation and manipulation of the universe is delusion, no different than believing that our country is ran by leprechauns and werewolves. If we consider the later too delusional to vote, then why not the former?

thunderlips11 says

Being able to be openly atheist is pretty much a new thing. Technological Advances and the power of Religion in Ordinary People's lives are inversely coordinated.

In the case of Christianity I'd disagree, overall it contributed massively to science, esp. since it reformed itself. And as an interesting side-note the Catholic church actually hugely sponsored the sciences in the middle-ages, making math and science mandatory subjects, even though they often failed and embarrassed themselves when looking back from today's modern times.

thunderlips11 says

Not much tech coming out of Saudi Arabia, and they're filthy rich.

True, but they don't practice a reformed religion such as modern Christianity, and they have plenty of oil so they don't care (yet).

thunderlips11 says

I would argue that God is pretty Much dead is the West and has been since at least WW1, if not the 19th Century. Most people are very nominally religious, even the ones who claim to be religious.

Yeah, and it is not necessarily a good development. Also I know plenty of people who not just claim to be religious, they actually are, do a lot of good and don't stand in the way of science at all.

thunderlips11 says

As for technology, the Soviets were a powerhouse, especially when you consider it was the most economically and technologically and infrastructurally (???) the most backward country in Europe in 1920.

Agreed. But they had their dark moments as well, plenty of Jews fled the Soviet union at one point or the other. Nobody is perfect and I'd like to see the West and Russia united in their cultural and religious (Christian) roots instead of being divided by outdated cold-war politics.

Dan8267 says

Polling by the Annenberg Institute indicates that old people have historically been the most opposed to spending more on healthcare for children.

So much for the idea that Grandma will do anything for her grandchildren.

They're also reliable on voting down the school budget or bond issuesfor new/upgraded schools. In the Ed Field, it's called the Grey Peril, and it's worse in areas where Seniors relocate to for retirement. It's not an accident that Florida schools blow chunks.
http://extranet.cccco.edu/Portals/1/TRIS/Research/Research/Abstracts/StrategicPlanning/gray.pdf

mell says

In the case of Christianity I'd disagree, overall it contributed massively to science, esp. since it reformed itself. And as an interesting side-note the Catholic church actually hugely sponsored the sciences in the middle-ages, making math and science mandatory subjects, even though they often failed and embarrassed themselves when looking back from today's modern times.

Most of the opposition to Global Warming, Birth Control, Biology, Psychology, Right to Death, and even Anesthesia comes from the Religious. The contribution of "Scientists" in the Middle Ages was minimal, and the connections weak at best. The real impetus to science came in the 18th Century Empirical Revolution of the Enlightenment, that insisted that Rationality (a priori reasoning) be tempered by Observation.

Where did this Empirical Revolution come from? I can think of two off the top of my head.

The availability of the most prophetic book ever written, in poetic form no less. Lucretius' "De Rerum Natura" - On the Nature of Things, written in the last century BC and forgotten in the West until the 16th Century. The masterpiece of Epicurean thought. The premise, that the universe is formed by a mixing of "atoms" - the elements - by "Fortuna" or Chance, and that superstitious Beliefs and Fear of Gods, Death and the Unknown were the worst ill of humanity, to be cured by Reason. That the mind and body and soul were one, and none of them could survive the death of the body. Practically every Enlightenment Bright read this book, from Voltaire to Jefferson.

There's a book about how the rediscovery of this book set fire to the World, another Pulitzer Prize winner
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Swerve:_How_the_World_Became_Modern
(Not surprising that medieval revisionists and apologists hated it)

It's not perfect, but it's pretty damn much on the right track. It freed the Western Mind from a thousand years of the Bible and the Scholastic's Inference (so long as it doesn't contradict Dogma) merry-go-round.

Another reason science took off after the Age of Reaction (17th Century) was that the Catholic AND Protestant belief that once "Everybody has the right kind of Christianity" was irrevocably damaged by the incessant warfare and suffering and final compromise from exhaustion- as well as encountering completely different societies like the Asian and Indian.

Call it Crazy says

Says the guy who DOESN'T have any children.... Yep, you're definitely a verifiable resource for knowledgeable parenting!!

It's you that made the claim that being a parent is hard, yet anyone with a child is one. And the requirement for being in this prestigious club is to merely forgo contraception. Impressive task! Further complicated by the fact that if you promote the idea that being "a good parent" involves x, y or z, it becomes more of a statement of values than any objective claim.

If a woman is single (perhaps through no fault of her own!), and has to raise children, it is possible that "being a good parent" requires her to work a few jobs to pay the bills, keep the lights on and food on the table. Saving for college costs money and that would be an objective for someone who seeks a better life for her children.

But she will spend time away from the children in their formative years, which would make her relatively absent in the parenting department. Which choice makes her a good parent?

Brush up on your use of the dictionary. It may be dominated by intellectuals, but that doesn't mean you conservatives can't trust the dictionary, right?

CL says

If a woman is single (perhaps through no fault of her own!), and has to raise children, it is possible that "being a good parent" requires her to work a few jobs to pay the bills, keep the lights on and food on the table. Saving for college costs money and that would be an objective for someone who seeks a better life for her children.

This case is non-existent and any ultra-rare exceptions you could find (if you can) would prove this point further. A woman does not need to work to raise her kids unless she gets pregnant by someone who has zero money which would make it her own fault. In all other cases she will coast with enough money from her ex. If she also wants to have a posh middle-class life for herself, then she has to work, but it's not to raise her kids. There is no such thing as no fault of her own, every human being takes full responsibility for their actions, man or woman, including their decisions on who to partner with, which is already step one to being a good parent. Furthermore reasons for separation (the vast majority of separations/divorces are initiated by women) are usually trite, selfish issues, and while you can certainly raise good kids in separation, it requires much more effort and you better be up to it. No matter what your progressive beta agenda may make you believe, good parenting means being there for your kids emotionally and financially and considering single-parenthood as a last resort, and if you do, you better maintain proximity and a good relationship with your ex and put your selfish needs behind. Then you can give your kids a straight-laced, strict, no-nonsense, tough love upbringing and the odds of them turning out well are excellent. Fostering, encouraging or cheering single parenthood is one of the dumbest things progressives have come up with - and it hurts the kids.

mell says

A woman does not need to work to raise her kids

http://www.forbes.com/sites/learnvest/2013/11/04/4-dual-income-households-tell-all-how-we-save-and-spend/

59% of families with children have 2 working parents. The "traditional" model with one "breadwinner" is quickly becoming a minority at an escalating pace.

dublin hillz says

mell says

A woman does not need to work to raise her kids

http://www.forbes.com/sites/learnvest/2013/11/04/4-dual-income-households-tell-all-how-we-save-and-spend/

59% of families with children have 2 working parents. The "traditional" model with one "breadwinner" is quickly becoming a minority at an escalating pace.

Yes, if they are together and both don't make much money and want to keep up the unsustainable "middle-class" lifestyle. Often though it would be cheaper for one parent to stay at home if there is a big income gap between the two. However separated moms can count on the burden being put on the guy so they don't have to work to maintain a minimal comfortable lifestyle - if they didn't choose a deadbeat. In the long run though this lifestyle is unsustainable and we will have to say goodbye to fancy webphones, igadgets, fine-dining and massages and learn to do shit ourselves again. Learning how to garden and cook would be an easy start ;)

Stay at home moms are even more rare than that. The hordes of single moms on welfare must be considered as adding to the 59% and subtracting from the percentage of families who can manage to have the mom stay home. And that's if she actually WANTS to be a SAHM! My wife doesn't. She is educated and wants a career to justify her education, wants to be working outside the home. I do make enough to support us nicely, but she isn't content with that.
I'm actually okay with it though. The kids are in school and the little one in daycare loves going there to "pway wif my fwends." Kids are meant to be in community so I think they're actually getting a social advantage.
The wife will eventualy advance her education and career to the point where our wages are much more equal and then we will have even more options. Which is a better place to be than with a fat aging housewife whose kids are grown and doesn't have a purpose beyond daytime soaps. Those guys get mistresses and divorces. My wife will only get more interesting as time goes by.

Quigley says

I'm actually okay with it though. The kids are in school and the little one in daycare loves going there to "pway wif my fwends." Kids are meant to be in community so I think they're actually getting a social advantage.

The wife will eventualy advance her education and career to the point where our wages are much more equal and then we will have even more options. Which is a better place to be than with a fat aging housewife whose kids are grown and doesn't have a purpose beyond daytime soaps. Those guys get mistresses and divorces. My wife will only get more interesting as time goes by.

There's nothing wrong with that as long as it is understood that the choice of working does not significantly interfere with the relationship towards the partner and the kids and that the job of the partner making more money takes precedence over chores and whatever else emotional support one was used to during the kid-less honeymoon dating phase.

I stumbled onto this website last week. It's anonymous confessionals from parents (99%moms) about their true feelings on parenting, their spouses, and the kids. Shocking stuff! Nothing can be verified of course, but who would admit to this stuff publicly?

http://www.scarymommy.com/confessions/