church against reduction of vat on condoms !!

BrianCalgary · 08-02-2008 7:14pm

robindch wrote: »

I'm really surprised that both you and PDN -- and other christians? -- seem to think that love is something that you consciously turn on and turn off, or consciously decide to do or not to do. Never expected that, I must say.

That is because it is Robin.

robindch · 08-02-2008 7:15pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

we see the jails full of men who grew up without fathers, becasue divorce allowed fathers to be absent.

Where is your data for this? And how does your data control for other circumstances which cause social disorder?

robindch · 08-02-2008 7:18pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

That is because it is Robin.

That's where we differ. When discussing with PDN, I compared his decision to love somebody to a conscious decision to find somebody funny. I can't control whom I find funny, any more than I can control whom I love. It's a subconscious thing and I find that it verges on the disturbing to me that there are people who are able control their emotions to that extent.

BrianCalgary · 08-02-2008 7:19pm

robindch wrote: »

That's where we differ. When discussing with PDN, I compared his decision to love somebody to a conscious decision to find somebody funny. I can't control whom I find funny, any more than I can control whom I love. It's a subconscious thing and I find that it verges on the disturbing to me that there are people who are able control their emotions to that extent.

Humour and love are two different things completely.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

robindch · 08-02-2008 7:23pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Humour and love are two different things completely.

You may find it so, I certainly don't.

BrianCalgary · 08-02-2008 7:25pm

robindch wrote: »

Where is your data for this? And how does your data control for other circumstances which cause social disorder?

According to the National Center for Children in Poverty, boys without fathers are twice as likely to drop out of school, twice as likely to go to jail, and nearly four times as likely to need treatment for emotional and behavioral problems as boys with fathers.3

3 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Morehouse Report, National Center for Children in Poverty, Bureau of the Census (Washington, D.C.).

Full articel here:

http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000331.cfm

robindch · 08-02-2008 7:48pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

According to the National Center for Children in Poverty, boys without fathers are twice as likely to drop out of school, twice as likely to go to jail, and nearly four times as likely to need treatment for emotional and behavioral problems as boys with fathers [...] 3 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Morehouse Report, National Center for Children in Poverty, Bureau of the Census (Washington, D.C.).

The National Center for Children in Poverty doesn't seem to have any record of a report called the "Morehouse Report" and searching its website for "prison" and "divorce" produces no relevant-looking results either.

The NCCP's home page is here -- perhaps somebody else can locate this elusive report?

With just a brief google check, I can only find this report which links "Morehouse" with a report on absentee fathers who happen to be both black and low-income, two things which are known to be correlated to dropping out of school and ending up in prison; from this data, it would be quite dishonest to claim the conclusion that a father's absenteeism can cause his kid to end up in prison.

Is this the report that Dobson is referring to?

BrianCalgary · 08-02-2008 7:59pm

US Department of Health and Human Services has this page:

http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/index.shtml

Morehouse report here:

www.acf.hhs.gov/healthymarriage/pdf/winshape_report_final.pdf - 2006-03-15

hairyheretic · 08-02-2008 8:45pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Lame, 18.4% of abortions by married women, Still leaves 83.6% by unmarrieds, that are paid for out of taxpayers pockest and eat up valuable resources for health care dollars. So yes, in the words of Marley, 'mankind is my business'.

If you want to bring money into it, how much to raise a child til they're capable of contributing to society and taking care of themself? How much for food, shelter, clothing, education? I suspect a hell of a lot more cost.

If you could prevent one abortion from taking place, would you be prepared to pay for every cost that child will incur for the next 16 to 18 years?

08-02-2008 8:53pm

BrianCalgary wrote:

You know what she is thrilled that everyday I get up and I decide to love her. She is thrilled that another human being can make such a coice to sacrifice self in order to give to her.

Whaaaaat?
That sounds scary. She has so little self worth she's glad of any love she can get? And she thinks it a sacrifice?

But the Christian teaching is to love her despite her foibles and to recognize and love the person she is

Well that's big of you...

Sometimes I just wonder, between this and the "you can switch love on and off" thing...

BrianCalgary · 08-02-2008 9:23pm

hairyheretic wrote: »

If you want to bring money into it, how much to raise a child til they're capable of contributing to society and taking care of themself? How much for food, shelter, clothing, education? I suspect a hell of a lot more cost.

If you could prevent one abortion from taking place, would you be prepared to pay for every cost that child will incur for the next 16 to 18 years?

There are many people that I know that would be very willing to adopt a child. And yes I would be one.

But why not abstain and restrain from commiting fornication and prevent such a loss to a child. Or has our society becaome so selfish as to put personal pleasure above the well being of children?

BrianCalgary · 08-02-2008 9:27pm

bluewolf wrote: »

Whaaaaat?
That sounds a fair bit off. She has so little self worth she's glad of any love she can get? And she thinks it a sacrifice?
The low self esteem you seem to have judging by various posts in the past combined with this makes me wonder sometimes......

And where do you get off making such a statement about my wife?:mad:

I actually dont have low self esteem either. Just really pleased and honoured that a woman such as my wife would choose to love me for my character and ethics as opposed to relying on a reaction to the senses.

That aside, she is a very confident woman. We both recognise that the love that we have between each other is a lot more special because we choose to do so and have made that intellectual decision to do so, as opposed to a chemical reaction in the brain brought on by the senses.

bluewolf wrote: »

Well that's big of you...

08-02-2008 9:28pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

And where do you get off making such a statement about my wife?:mad:

I didn't make statements, I genuinely asked questions because
"She is thrilled that another human being can make such a choice to sacrifice self"
alarmed me when I read it. Still does.

That said, this whole conversation is starting to alarm me, I might just have to stay out...

edit:
alright, hang on a second.

We both recognise that the love that we have between each other is a lot more special because we choose to do so and have made that intellectual decision to do so, as opposed to a chemical reaction in the brain brought on by the senses.

What on earth is that supposed to imply...? that your love is somehow better that other peoples'?

BrianCalgary · 08-02-2008 9:33pm

bluewolf wrote: »

I didn't make statements, I genuinely asked questions because
"She is thrilled that another human being can make such a choice to sacrifice self"
alarmed me when I read it. Still does.

That said, this whole conversation is starting to alarm me, I might just have to stay out...

edit:
alright, hang on a second.

What on earth is that supposed to imply...? that your love is somehow better that other peoples'?

It came acroos wrong. She is thrilled that I another person would sacrifice myself for her. I in turn feel the same knowing thatshe has chosen to love me and sacrifice herself to me.

Makes for a great relationship, God's way.

Men love your wives as Christ loved the Church (giving Himself for it)
Women respect your husbands.

What a wonderful formula for a great marriage and household.

BrianCalgary · 08-02-2008 9:34pm

bluewolf wrote: »

What on earth is that supposed to imply...? that your love is somehow better that other peoples'?

Absolutely, because it is by choice and not animal instinct.

Why is it that you love your wife/girlfriend?

08-02-2008 9:37pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Absolutely, because it is by choice and not animal instinct.

Why is it that you love your wife/girlfriend?

I love my *ahem* boyfriend, because he is wonderful. Many qualities included in that.

So you are saying many people are in love by "animal instinct"... right.

She is thrilled that I another person would sacrifice myself for her.

Sacrificing what/how? Just to be clear here

BrianCalgary · 08-02-2008 10:15pm

bluewolf wrote: »

I love my *ahem* boyfriend, because he is wonderful. Many qualities included in that.

So you are saying many people are in love by "animal instinct"... right.

Yep, the way our society portrays sex as being love and love as being sex. It based on looks, it takes away personality and character. It doesn't talk about the struggles that married couple go through and the highs and lows of a long term commited relationship. Th ebenfits of working through th etroubled times with someone at your side and even being ahead of and behind you on whatever occurs.

Our society teaches that as soon as you fall out of love as soon as the 'feeling' subsides, then break it up.

I see these values in our young. Girls that just talk about the 'hot' guy or the guys who are just interested in a girl because of her assets.

We get lessened to a package of rated hotness in which to judge our worthiness of receiving love.

When it should be character that determines and the choice to look for someone with that character to love and cherish.

bluewolf wrote: »

Sacrificing what/how? Just to be clear here

Well I sacrificed my desire to go to Old Trafford on a regular basis, I'd rather spend the money on building our lives together.

I am a sport nut and love attending live sporting events, my wife not really. I gave that up in favour of being with her and as a result I have come to appreciate live theatre and musicals.

So although giving up Hockey Night in Canada on the surface appeared as a sacrifice at the time, I have actually grown quite a bit richer because of my wife.

Those are just a couple of things that coem to mind that all these years later seem rather silly things to be bothered about.

robindch · 08-02-2008 10:32pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Morehouse report here:www.acf.hhs.gov/healthymarriage/pdf/winshape_report_final.pdf - 2006-03-15

That's not the Morehouse Report, that's a report produced by the "WinShape Retreat Center".

The elusive Morehouse Report (which I still haven't found) seems to have been written by the "Morehouse Research Institute" which lives on the internet here and (from here) is an institute which "is a national clearinghouse of information about the more than 18 million African-American males in the United States".

From this I believe that the report that Dobson quotes was not produced by the "National Center for Children in Poverty" like he says, but by a different institution with a specific research interest that he does not mention. Neither is the report, like he implies, a fully controlled sociological study of the "average" males worldwide, but of a specific subgroup (black, living in the USA) which have known social problems with drugs, crime, low-income, low-education, etc, etc which extend well beyond the simple picture of absentee fathers that he paints.

So, I conclude that Dobson has behaved completely dishonestly in selectively mis-quoting research, no doubt for for grubby political ends. And also, that the conclusion that you hold is completely unsupported by the evidence that you quote.

.

robindch · 08-02-2008 10:44pm

BTW, sorry to be such a crashing bore about this, but it really bugs me to see that Dobson can only gain credibility by lying to decent people -- see my short wikipedia entry for why this bugs me.

BrianCalgary · 08-02-2008 10:46pm

robindch wrote: »

That's not the Morehouse Report, that's a report produced by the "WinShape Retreat Center".

The elusive Morehouse Report (which I still haven't found) seems to have been written by the "Morehouse Research Institute" which lives on the internet here and (from here) is an institute which "is a national clearinghouse of information about the more than 18 million African-American males in the United States".

From this I believe that the report that Dobson quotes was not produced by the "National Center for Children in Poverty" like he says, but by a different institution. Neither is it, like he implies, a fully controlled sociological study of the "average" males worldwide, but of a specific subgroup (black, living in the USA) which have known social problems which extend well beyond the simplistic picture of absentee fathers that he paints.

So, I conclude that Dobson has behaved completely dishonestly in selectively mis-quoting research, no doubt for for grubby political ends. And also, that the conclusion that you hold is completely unsupported by the evidence that you quote.

Try again?

Go here: http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/index.shtml

Type in morehouse report in the search and you get the above document.

Which has on Pg 3:
The 1999 Statement from the African-American Fathers project by the Morehouse Research Institute, Turning the Corner on Father Absence in Black America, marked a significant developmental milestone in this nation’s social policy relating to families. The Statement highlighted an American problem that crosses racial, ethnic and class lines:
Far too many children were growing up in communities where growing out of wedlock births, separation, and divorce are robbing millions of children of the spiritual, emotional and material support of their fathers. Sadly, these children did not fare as well as children raised by married parents. And, this disturbing trend posed significant threats to African American children, to the African American community, and to our Nation.
Representatives from the private, not-for-profit sector, all levels of government, and the philanthropic community had gathered at Morehouse College to participate in the meetings and the deliberations that resulted in the Statement. Most participants and sponsors believed that this expansive assortment of groups, organizations, and individuals would form a line of attack that could address the barriers faced by American children, especially the children in communities of color.

And the Turning the Corner on Father Absence in Black America can be found here: www.americanvalues.org/turning_the_corner.pdf ·

robindch · 08-02-2008 10:50pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Which has on Pg 3:

Yes, I know you get this. But again, that's not the Morehouse Report -- the WinStart report just a couple of short quotes from it, which do not say what Dobson says is in the report. And which you quoted to me that "boys without fathers are twice as likely to drop out of school, twice as likely to go to jail, and nearly four times as likely to need treatment ..." (etc).

They are social problems which affect black citizens of the USA only and there is no evidence that this is applicable worldwide, like Dobson implies, and you seem to think.

BrianCalgary · 08-02-2008 10:51pm

robindch wrote: »

Yes, I know you get this. But again, that's not the Morehouse Report -- the WinStart report just a couple of short quotes from it, which do not say what Dobson says is in the report.

I edited my last post since you posted this. But I believe it has been found.

robindch · 08-02-2008 10:59pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I edited my last post since you posted this. But I believe it has been found.

A quick glance through that report (thanks) shows that it contains no research of its own, but simply quotes other research which I don't have time to check out now -- I'm already half an hour late for a party and I haven't left home yet -- will take it up later, if I'm still sober

BrianCalgary · 08-02-2008 11:09pm

robindch wrote: »

A quick glance through that report (thanks) shows that it contains no research of its own, but simply quotes other research which I don't have time to check out now -- I'm already half an hour late for a party and I haven't left home yet -- will take it up later, if I'm still sober

LOL.

hairyheretic · 09-02-2008 1:50am

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Yep, the way our society portrays sex as being love and love as being sex.

I would have to disagree with that. I can see the differences between love and sex being easily apparent. Its quite possible to have love without sex, or sex without love.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

It based on looks, it takes away personality and character. It doesn't talk about the struggles that married couple go through and the highs and lows of a long term commited relationship. The benfits of working through the troubled times with someone at your side and even being ahead of and behind you on whatever occurs.

Initial attraction, generally speaking, is going to be based solely on looks. When you look at a person, and feel attracted to them, the only thing you have right at that instant is their looks and how you rate attractiveness.

That is what makes you want to get to know a person more, and from that you'll learn about their qualities, good and bad alike, and from the whole package you decide if its someone you want to have a relationship with.

If you don't want a relationship, but simply a night of enjoyment, then you're unlikely to be concerned with anything more than looks.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Our society teaches that as soon as you fall out of love as soon as the 'feeling' subsides, then break it up.

Again, I'd disagree. If a relationship does go bad though, then at some point it makes no sense to keep trying. You have to admit that it is over.

I'm not saying you give up immediately, but some couples simply aren't compatable, and a relationship only based on looks isn't likely to last.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I see these values in our young. Girls that just talk about the 'hot' guy or the guys who are just interested in a girl because of her assets.

We get lessened to a package of rated hotness in which to judge our worthiness of receiving love.

When it should be character that determines and the choice to look for someone with that character to love and cherish.

And again, I disagree. I think I've alredy adequately replied to these points above though.

djpbarry · 09-02-2008 2:30pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Absolutely, because it is by choice and not animal instinct.

I'm with bluewolf on this one; love is an emotion, not a verb. I cannot CHOOSE to love someone any more than I can choose not to feel physical pain.

robindch wrote: »

So, I conclude that Dobson has behaved completely dishonestly in selectively mis-quoting research, no doubt for for grubby political ends.

Wouldn't be the first time; James Dobson is notorious for misrepresenting research findings.

Hivemind187 · 09-02-2008 11:56pm

Funny how all of those social issues get pinned on absentee fathers. Every single one of them (drugs, crime, lack of education, gang affiliation, ghettoisation whatever) is directly attributable to poverty.

Education: In America, if you dont have money, you dont go to college. Scholarships are not plentiful enough to cover everyone and there are no real grant or subsidy facilities like we have in Europe.

Health: If you are poor in the US, you are more likely to be unable to gain access to proper medical treatments. You will be unlikely to have insurance to cover medication.

Crime: If you are poor you are likely to live in a poor neighbourhood. The US is extremely prejudicial to such things (regardless of discrimination laws) and as such you are less likely to be able to find decent paying work. If you can not make money honestly, crime eventually becomes the only viable alternative.

Gangs: If you are poor, you are more likely to live in a poor neighbourhood. Such neighbourhoods are a breeding ground for gangs because they provide an identity and a sense of security in an insecure life. Gangs also provide operatunities to make money through crime (see above for the key to this self propagating cycle).

Drugs: Being poor, many activities and passtimes will be unavailable in the US do to the prohibitive costs. Drugs, by comparisson offer a cheap recreational activity which can be social in its own way. Further, the "high" produced by such substances are, for many people, preferable to the crushing fear, depression and hopelessness associated with being poor and living in a poor neighbourhood.

Sex & Fatherless families: these are more likely to occur in poor neighbourhoods and amongst poor people due to lack of education, lack of money, poorer health and anyone of the examples given. In many cases, marriages and relationships break up due to lack of money, the single most common cause of arguments.

Poverty is the cause of these things, not a result.

Consider that much of this can be seen in certain parts of Dublin, ethnic populations (contrary to what the Daily Mail readers would have you believe) are actually quite low and the vast majority of the crime, gangs, drug dealing and bastard children are produced by white people with low incomes.

While there will usually be more income in a family where there are two people and the absence of a second income can be cause for poverty - it would ignore the fact that this would remove BOTH parents from the life of the child due to their responsibilities to their jobs.

church against reduction of vat on condoms !!

Comments