Re: The value of shopping local

He's supposed to be the Number One Poster in the entire group! From what I see second-hand, Amy's got him logically pinned and she knows it, so she's very patiently waiting for the count. Don's now happy guns are regulated so that people like me can't get them. Don's now concerned that everyone else in the group will have to be rational. Don insults her intelligence, calls her narrow-minded... Ding, ding, ding!!

Reply to
Michael Bulatovich
Loading thread data ...

No, I am the wicked family friend/aunt who winds them up and runs screaming with them up and down the halls (and untangles the wires between the play phones, and drags them the rest of the way up the slide when they can't climb all the way to the top, etc.) :-D

-Amy

Reply to
Amy Blankenship

I think he views it more like holding a stock that has declined in value...

Reply to
Amy Blankenship

If that's your MO, next time try giving them 'energy drinks'. Having a kid has made me much more patient... and flexible.

Reply to
Michael Bulatovich

"Averaging down?"

Reply to
Michael Bulatovich

A couple of days sitting in the waiting room of a welfare office would be better.

Reply to
Michael Bulatovich

...

formatting link
Meanwhile, you're apparently in a shack in the woods with some time on your hands... We could do you on welfare, mate.

Reply to
Warm Worm

"Don" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news4.newsguy.com:

I just get irritated when people bypass teh "500 lb gorilla" (the point) and start picking apart the pebbles (details, typos, suggestions, and other triviata). I've gotten that a lot over the years, and it *seems* (but only guessing, because I really dunno why people do what they do) to me to be an attempt at "argument by deflection" - IOW, when a conclusion can't be attacked, people try to distract attention away from it and focus upon a detail or bit of trivia. One sees that in politics very often.

Reply to
Kris Krieger

"Don" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news5.newsguy.com:

No! Arrgh... What the saying means is that parents need the support of the village - the instance in which I'd first heard it was in a program about a village of Natives in Brazil; the mother was ill and the father was off hunting with a bunch of the other men, so the women of the village were looking after the ill mother's children, and that's what one of them was quoted (by the translator) as having said.

THe family is the primary unit, but the point of th esaying is that a family is not *the only* unit. Sometimes parents run into difficulties, and then the village (or analogous sociocultural group) pitches in to help them out.

Your focusing on one slice of the orange and not seeing that there is an entire fruit on the table.

You know darn good and well that I'm not saying or even implying any such thing. The standards are set, yes, by the community, because the community is also where the jobs are. If the community needs its blacksmith to be able to shoe all sorts of horses and ponies, as opposed to specializing is racehorses, then the "standard" for general blacksmithing includes the ability to deal with all sorts of horses and ponies. In a town consisting only of rich people, maybe the blacksmith can specialize in shoing racehorses or carriage horses, but that also narrows the blacksmith's job opportunities.

It's not illogical. If 85% of the jobs available require that a person be able to read and write at a certain level for teh job to be doen adequatelty, that's all there is to it. It's a matter of numbers (population) and available jobs.

But whatever. I think that you like to be argumentative. I'm not a socialist, and it irks me when you argue as though I am. What I am not is a proponent of "let the parents do whatever the hell they want to the kids".

Additionally, the reason I'd been asking about parameters is your accusation of illogic/emotionalism. You say that what ahppens to kids is nobody's damn business but the parents, and I wanted to know preciselty to what degree that is true. Does a aprent have a right to deny a child food and shelter? Does a parent have a right to lock a child in a room, denying that child any contact whatsoever with the outside world (which, yes, does happen)? Does a parent have a right to deny a child the education that would help that child be a productuive person? You talk a lot about individual rights, the rights to "life, liberty, and th epursuit of happiness", and I want to know the parameters you place upon those individual rights - do only "adults" have those rights, and if so, who gets to define what makes on an adult? DO children have *any* rights as individuals whatsoever?

I already know what you beleive *your* rights to be, but that's the simplist, and really the most simplistic, aspect of the question of rights - what is difficult, what takes a lot fo though, is the inquiry into the rights of *all* individulas, which by definition means the rights of others in addition to oneself.

And the inquiry becomes even more complex when one is discussing children, percisely because children are completely vulnerable especially in infancy, and because human children do *not* have the same instincts, meaning inborn survival behaviors, as do other animals - for example, a young couger is born with an instinct to hunt which is revealed in its "play". Humans have drives, but not instincts - hunger is a drive, but an instinct is an innate, "preprogrammed" behavior an individual uses to satisfy that drive. Sex is a drive in humans, but the Kama Sutra alone proves that sexual *behavior* is not pre-programmed. The desire to be dry in a rainstorm and warm in a cool spell is a drive, but humams are not like the weaver-bird, born with all the behaviors needed to build an intricate nest safe from snakes. IOW, the point, once again, is that human children are vulnerable - lacking instincts, humans more than any other animal rely upon *learning* in order to cope with their environment. THere *have* been cases of feral or nearly-feral children, and what these cases have shown is that (1) there are critical periods for learning language and various social skills, and (2) a human living without the benefit of language and/or the ability to rely upon and learn from other humans can survive, *but just barely*, and for such people, the entire notion of rights is both foreign, and irrelevant - such people are slaves to whatever is occurring in their surroundings, they cannot choose to go to better surroundings or plan ways to improve their surroundings.

Ergo, for human children, it is not at all illogical to say that children have a right to education - given that humans are not creatures of instinct, but rather creatures of learning/society/culture, it is simply a truth that, in the most fundamental way, one cannot be human without some from of teaching/education. Going back to the example of the Brazilian jungle tribe, a child's education includes learning the identities of the plants and animals in the area, learn which are dangerous and which are not, learn how to weave palm fronds to make a roof to keep off the rain, how to build a fire, and other practical things. In our society, such knowledge would not help one to survive. This society requires different skills.

So stop going on and on as though this is nothing more than a simplistic choice between individual rights OR complete socialism/slavery - *that* is what is illogical because, if one considers even the *barest* fundamentals of scientific understanding of biology, andthropology, psychology, and so on, it becomes glaringly obvious that the matter is leaps and bounds beyond such simplistic reductionism.

Basically, what you do is think and talk about your own individual desire to be left alone and not have to be bothered by, or with, anyone else unless its on your terms. The topic of rights is something different, because the true recognition/understanding of rights is that they are things which aplly not only to oneself, but also to others - it is a regognition that, unless one lives in the middle of nowhere with zero contact of any sort, one cannot have rights unless one also recognizes that others also have rights. ANd thsi, in turn, brings about the realization tha trights need to be balanced - does my next-door neighbor (next door, as in, about 40 feet away) have the "right" to pursue happiness by blasting his stereo so loudly that it interferes with my right to pursue happiness by writing music or reading or working on graphics or whatever. Granted, you don't have to worry about such things any moer, but the issue of rights goes beyond your personal circumstance. If it does not, then the topic is not "rights", but rather, your personal wishes.

You can *claim* that all of this is illogical, sorry, but that claim would merely be a matter of your personal opinion.

Reply to
Kris Krieger

"Don" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news5.newsguy.com:

Well, I'd never argue against that fact, to be sure...

My biggest concern, actually, is the idea of safety training. I don't know the actualy statistics, iof there are any, about how many people get POed, and then go buy a gun with the intent of using it. But there are a lot fo people who just don';t know anyhting about gun safety.

Now, I'm also speaking, don't forget, as someone who grew up in a house that was well-armed. I might have mentioned that my father was a competetive handgunner (had a shelf-full of trophies), and also a collector. He also did some hunting. And a loaded gun was *always* kept in the night-chest next to their bed. I never played with it - firstly, I had principles of gun safety well-ingrained from a very early age, and second, I literally would not put onme foot into my parents' bedroom without their permission. Period. Not an exaggeration; it's how we were raised.

But that's the point - it's how we were raised. Again, a lot fo people don't seem to know the first thing about gun safety, and that is hazardous for the poeple around them (I don't really care if someone blows *their own* fool head off...) So, to me, the whole waiting period thing is dicey, whereas I *do* think that a person should have to demonstrate a knowledge of gun safety before being able to buy one.

Yeah, *that* is just stupid. As though someone with a closetfull of guns is going to get POed, like, what?, on the way home from the A&P??, and decide to pop into the gun shop to buy one to nail someone...? Esp. when the person has a concealed gun permit and can carry one at will. Yeesh...

Oh, I know :p . That whole argument (that criminlas buy guns in gun shops) is based on fear, not facts.

A lot of it is. I detest the "presumed guilty" mentality.

Yes, there are some dangerous poeple, but most of the gun "control" proposals do that and nothign else - IOW, control guns, NOT dangerous poeple. Dangerous people will do stuff like pour a bucketfull of battery acid off of a rooftop, or figure out how to make explosives from, I dunno, foot powder and a flea collar, or some other innocuous thing. We already can't buy Sudafed any more without registering like criminals, just because some a-holes want to cook it up in old toilet-bowls or whatever so they can turn their brains into Swiss cheese by using Crystal-Meth. Hell, I went to buy a can of metal spray paint at Lowe's this past Saturday, and had to stand there waiting at the self-chek-out until someone could come over and figure out that I'm probably over 21 - why? becasue some kids have fingured out some way to "huff" (that's what the clerk called it) the stuff in the spray paint.

People get so caught up in trying to control the distribuition of

*things*, even though *things* are not the fundamental problem. I'm waiting for the day that one has to surrender one's birth certificate and passport to buy a set of steak knives...
Reply to
Kris Krieger

"Don" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news4.newsguy.com:

Hmm? I didn't demand that. I was asking why, if one did not wish to be aprt of a community, one would wish to live within that community, as opposed to leaving.

Yup. It's a trade-off, a choice. Nothing is ever perfect, at least not all of the time.

That's exactly true. But that wasn't what I was asking about. I'm not attacking or accusing, I'm just asking questions. If I sound rude, you have to ell me, because I have little sense of that sort of thing, but being rude isn't my intent...

Reply to
Kris Krieger

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in news:rsL4j.8067$ snipped-for-privacy@bignews5.bellsouth.net:

What I was asking about, however, was something very local - community.

THere is a flow to it - the individual, the family, the extended family, the village/community, and everything else from there.

WHJen DOn said that he doesn't aprticipate in democracy, I understood it on the level of the supra-community so to speak, i.e. the county, state, and national levels, which are several times reomved from the individual.

What I'm curious about is what sort of groups he might participate in, and, if he doe aprticipate in a group//"community", then how are decision smade in that group/community, and to what extent can one be amember of a community and yet not participate in the decision-making process (for things that affect teh commyunity as a whole).

For example, the most personal level of community democracy is the New England town, where each vote is direct. Will we pay to fix the local dam so that th etown center isn't flooded out if the Winter rains are heavier than normal - that is the sort of desicion made in small towns, and the voting in smaller towns is direct - you do not vote for some doodz who then decide whetehr to fix the dam, you vote directyl whetehr teh town will collect money to fix it.

THat is more like what I was asking DOn about, in an admittedlty round- about manner.

So it's not actually accurate to say that, if DOn refuses to participate in the national Representative democracy, it therefore means taht he does not participate in a local community - that is faulty logic. What I'm trying to get at is his view of participation in local/direct democracy, and a couple of other issues related to direct/local community/group activity.

Reply to
Kris Krieger

"Don" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news1.newsguy.com:

Oh Jeez, you HAD to say that twice. Now my "OCD" thing is gonna kick in (heh, get it? SOck? Kick?) and for the rest of the day, I'm going to be walking around picturing little googly-eyes and pink felt tongues on my Dr. Scholl's, which means that when I go to the store, I'll get stared at because I'll keep thinging about it and giggling like a damn idiot...

ARRRGH!!!!

Reply to
Kris Krieger

However, in order to _not_ participate in democracy, he would have to completely leave its sphere of influence. He would have to not only avoid using the roads built by that democracy, but, as you rightly pointed out, refuse to use any product or do business with any person who had traveled on the road. He would have to read no books by anyone who had ever been publicly educated. He would have to use no electricity or (in some locales) water or sewer.

He has not chosen to remove himself from the benefits of democracy, therefore, like it or not, he is participating in it.

The thing is, he _is_ a member of the community he lives in, and that goes all the way up to the level of the Nation. I find it laughable that he expects the nation to defend his mythical individual right to a gun, yet he does not want to contribute anything to the institutions that might be capable of doing so, should such a right actually exist. Of course the wording of the Second Amendment is very clear that the right to bear arms exists primarily to provide for a militia, so I find it very amusing that the people who call themselves strict constructionists will argue that it means an individual right, whereas they'll argue that the public welfare is an obligation to the States and not the individuals in the states.

He has made it clear that, even if the road that he uses every day would be washed out by failure to repair the dam, he won't pay to repair it because he knows enough of his neighbors are civic-minded enough to do it. Yet he'll drive over the road cheerfully.

I think he's made it clear that, while he has no intention of eschewing the benefits of living in this country, he is not interested in bearing the costs of it.

You act like you're the only person to ever ask him about this, and that your interpretation of the question is the only possible one. Refusing to vote does not mean you're not participating in a democracy (republic, actually). It just means you're not willing to try to influence the outcome of the vote.

-Amy

Reply to
Amy Blankenship

"Michael Bulatovich" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news5.newsguy.com:

[snipped for bandwidth]

I was the one who said the "frustration => extreme statements" thing - it was a speculation on my part, not a statement of fact. I do not know for a fact why Don might say something extreme.

I also didn't say or imply that "you can't take him seriously" - that is not the same thing as what I'd said. I don't know that you can or cannot. I'm probing in part to see how much I can take seriously, but mostly for my own reasons. THat's not the same thing as telling someone to not take someone else at his word - that isn't my call and I'm not going to pretend it is, but I also am not going to allow anyone to say or imply I'm saying it is.

I was only saying that as hominem attacks (regardless of who indulges) are *IMO* a waste of time. Obviously, a great many poeple disagree, which is, of course, their choice.

Don't set me up as being your enemy merely because I'm not going to say I'm Don's enemy. I have neither the time/energy, nor the inclination, for that sort of game. OTOH, I'm also not going to just lay down in the road and let people drive trucks over me.

Reply to
Kris Krieger

"Don" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news4.newsguy.com:

[snip]

That was really unnecessary :p . We all have our various "icons" so to speak, representations of an idea or ideal of inspiration or aspiration, sometimes one specific one, sometimes various ones as time passes, as we reach different stages of life. I don't think it's either right, *or* good karma, to belittle someone's 'spirit guide' for lack of a better term - even if you don't like the person, it's just not good karma.

((OTOH, just on general principle, there are good reasons to not hang one's 'spirit guides' out naked in the glare of public opinion - people *will* try to take your personal power away by ridiculing them.))

Reply to
Kris Krieger

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in news:2Nk5j.15824$ snipped-for-privacy@bignews5.bellsouth.net:

Except that he doesn't seem to expect that at all. DOn seems to be an anarchist, in the technical meaning of the word (simply, No GOv.t). I find this interesting/curious, because I'm wondering how it relates to human groups (and their interactions) in general.

He expects, I htink, to have the means to defend that right himself.

Prob. becasue the two things are worded differently. But that's a bit of a different issue.

Actually, what he said is that he'd be willing pay a fee to drive over it should he choose to do so. ANyway, the road was a different example, and he already answered that question.

I'm not acting like that - it's a gross misinterpretation. I have my own questions, and my own reasons for asking them, which are not the same as anyone else's. But others seem to be trying to reinterpret my questions to fit into their own views. All I am "acting like" is I'm the person who is asking my questions for my own reasons. For some reason that I don't understand, this seems to be upsetting to a few people, who seem determined to tell me what I am asking, why I am "really" asking it, what the answers "really" mean - and what sort of lowlife I am for not getting into a froth over the answers and/or for questioning their interpretations of those answers.

WHich is why I was trying to limit my question to a very local situation.

Reply to
Kris Krieger

But he is _not_ willing to pay for the indirect benefits he receives, nor to eschew those benefits.

It doesn't make the larger issue just go away, however.

Reply to
Amy Blankenship

Michael and you are no worse or better than anyone else. How about you two just shake hands and call it a truce? How about setting good examples for William and others?

Reply to
Warm Worm

In this case I suspect that someone with health insurance would have been equally in bad shape because there are upper end caps on what will be paid.

Reply to
Clark F Morris

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.