🚀 go-pugleaf

In <628sn0$rjf@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> "John Dyson" <jrdyson@pipeline.com>
writes: 
>
>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote in message
><62855f$8t0@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>...
>>In <6269cs$1j1@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> "John Dyson"
<jrdyson@pipeline.com>
>>writes:
>>>
>>>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote in message
>>><6267gu$gkh@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>...
>
>
>>            Sure;  I'm all for living in the present;  however, in
>>            doing so, if you forget the past, you are doomed to
relive
>>            it.  We have to learn from our mistakes.
>
>Agree with you 150%.  The problem is that today, everything is based
on>politics, and individual 'wants,' rather than what is for their
'good.'  We>don't do things based on the knowledge we've learned in the
past...we do it>for political reasons.  Most of us are doing it right
now...every day, and>aren't even intelligent enough to see it.

            ----------
            I don't agree. Most humans use what they've learned from
            the past, and integrate that with new information.  At
            least that's been my experience.  Calling something a
            "political reason" is nothing more than expressing a
            philosophy, just like we humans have always done.
            ------------
>
>>>Also...let's not forget about the blacks.  My goodness...since my
>>great,>great, great-grandfather may have had slaves, by all
>>means--let's make>present-day people pay for it.  See what I'm
getting
>>at?
>
>>            I do indeed.  In the same sense that we can't compensate
>>            blacks for the social injustice they experienced,
>
>Who is 'they?'  I seriously doubt there are too many people living
today>that were 'injusticed' into slavery.  What are we talking about?

            ----------
            We are speaking of the generations of separation 
            of black families because of slavery; would you
            expect that those who are told to live without
            family for generations, recover overnight.

  Let me get
>this right...you want to 'compensate' somebody, for something that
somebody>a LONG time ago experienced?  Heck...we may as well go ahead
and startgiving anybody with Ottoman heritage our paychecks...afterall,
the>Byzantines took their whole empire away.  The Romans, too.  Heck,
the way I>figure it, you owe ME everything you own...many of my great,
great, great,>great grandfathers and family were wronged.  Is that not
a point?
    
            If you can read what I've said, you'll see that 
            I've not asked for any compensation.

>
>>            also created fewer family values than the Chinese who
>>            worked together as families.
>
>Which, sadly enough, is something our country no longer has.  Based on
>'history,' we're already on the downfall--massive pornography, people
OVERLY>concerned about what they think their own likes or rights should
be, instead>of what is good for the GROUP or the town, or the nation,
very high divorce>rate, acceptance of homosexuality in society, 
declining military, seperated>parents with no core, family
infrastructure, society making up more and more>holidays and people
making excuses NOT to work.  It's already>happening....if you read The
Rise and Fall of the 3rd Reicht, and the Rise>and Fall of the Roman
Empire, you will see this as a common theme.  The next>book?  The Rise
and Fall of the United States.

            ---------
            That sounds like the doom and gloom scenerios offered
            by militia-unibomber types.  It's a screed and not an
            argument.  Society always has problems;  lumping them
            all together (AS YOU SEE IT) and saying "aint it 
            awful" doesn't accomplish anything.
                ---------------------------
>
>>>WW-II...which we entered in 1941...which was 56 years ago...I'd say
>>that's>more than a few 'short' years ago.  That 2 complete
generations>(to the age>of 30).  You can't even begin to compare the
women of today>>to the turmoil>of the people of 1940.
>
>>>Probably the main reason is that there simply aren't as many working
>>women>and working men.  How can you expect to see the 'same amount'
of>female>managers and such, as there are men, when there aren't even
>>enough working>women to equal that?  That doesn't make sense.
>>
>>            ---------
>>            Women are just about 50% of the workforce.
>
>I question that number, and would like to know what the actual factual
>percentage is.  For every woman you can name that works, I can name 2
that>don't.  However, their husband does.

            -----------
            Well, that's to be expected; you and I would have different
            experiences in that since we don't travel in the same 
            circles.  
            -------------

>
>>             I
>>            do expect to address bias so that equal opportunity
>>            may apply to prevent a continuation of male only
>>            ownership/employment.
>
>Equal opportunity...I have to play 'the bad guy' on this one.  Do you,
>honestly, seek "equal opportunity," or do you seek "special rights?"
>Should a man get paid leave/vacation time to spend the first 6 weeks
with>his newborne? 

            ---------
            That would depend upon the company, would it not?  I
            would support such a plan.  
            ======================


I think he should, if the woman does.  Should a woman have to
>register for a military draft?  I think she should, since the man
does.

            --------
            So do I.  Men are being discriminated against and
            should fight for their equal rights.
            -------------

>(And, as such, there can be no excuses like, "I can't go to the
military...I>just had a baby," or "I can't go...I'm pregnant."  Or, "I
can't go...I don't>want to."  A man can't use any of these excuses...I
would LOVE to stay home>with my newborne, but if I'm called, I have a
job to do.

        ----------
        I would agree with you that where men and women are similarly
        situated they should be treated the same.  Gestation is simply
        NOT a similar situation.  Pregnancy isn't an excuse; it's 
        a fact of life.
            -----------------------


 [By the way, this
>is an example of not being selfish and caring about "my personal
rights,">rather what is good for the country.]  And, if you're after
'equal>opportunity," then you will find this to be fair, too.)
>
>>           Equal opportunity doesn' mean equal result.  If a woman
>>           doesn't have the merit (without bias), she doesn't deserve
>>          the job.  The real question remains the one of prevention
>>          of bias.
>
>You're right...I agree.  And THAT is where the problem is.  Why are
>standards lowered for the woman?  It's called "gender norming," and
"racial>norming," and that is exactly the root of the problem.  In
today's day and>age, you are not allowed to say that somebody
"...doesn't have the merit.">That, in itself, is a bias these days and
will cost you.

            ----------
            Actually including women in the standards is part of
            getting rid of bias against women.  
>
>I appreciate the comments...keep 'em coming.

            ----------
            You too.

                Lefty
            
>
>
>
>