It should never have got like this

In the last few days, there’ve been news items and blogposts on the behaviour of certain types in society.   This behaviour is exasperating but it is predictable.

Cherie took issue with the seeming blanket nature of typecasting but we’ve been through all that before – she dislikes labels and typecasting on principle and argued at one point that men and women were the same. Not just equal but the same, in that both could equally do this job or that. I, of course, disagreed and pointed to the military, for example, quoting a woman in the military, Christy O and just how women are being compensated for their shortcomings in order to maintain the fictional narrative.

And why is government worldwide getting behind the fictional narrative? Because one sector of society – the left/radical women – want it so. That’s the only reason for this hideously costly experiment in terms of human lives and resources.

I could also have quoted myself trying to break into women’s fashion and the troubles I’m having “breaking that glass ceiling”. There are things women just have an instinctive feel for. I have some feel for it, quite a lot for a man perhaps and my GFs have always asked my opinion on combinations and cut, I’ve definitely a sense of colour but maybe not as much as Versace and the other male fashion gurus.

It’s a measure of just how brainwashed we are today that we can’t accept that men and women are different, children and adults are different, black and white are different – it’s not the differences which are the issue but prejudice arising from those differences. If one is not prejudiced, then it’s far healthier to recognize the differences and stop pretending black is white and the sky is green.

And if one mentions that “men do this” or “women do that” or “gays do this”, obviously it doesn’t mean all of them and it certainly doesn’t come loaded with prejudice. However, prejudice against the tendencies we’re seeing is an entirely different matter. That’s not just prejudice but an intent to terminate.   Just because you want your child’s behaviour to stop, does not mean you’re prejudiced and hate your child.

A tendency such as Peaches Geldorf’s and Casey Anthony’s is rife these days, though obviously it doesn’t include everyone. It includes a hell of a lot of people in that demographic though, e.g. Amanda Knox and in some respects, e.g. sex before marriage, it includes almost all Gens Y and Z as a model for living.

Seaside Sourpuss did a post on Payday Loans and why they weren’t as bad as they seem.   I’m not arguing one way or the other on any particular firm.   What I am arguing is that we should never have been in that position in the first place in order that there might be be such companies needing to offer these services to this extent and doing very, very well out of it.

So what’s gone wrong?

Where do we start?

1.  When people were gradually – Boomers, Gen X, Gen Y cut adrift from the Judaeo-Christian underpinnings of the society, more was lost than just a “religion” or a hierarchical church.   Within a church, I’d always be a radical/reformer because it needs to get back to the gospels in order to fulfil its mission statement.   And that statement is not outmoded – in fact, if there was ever a need for those values, it’s today with so many, especially the young, walking about rudderless in terms of spiritual health.

The new hegemony of Science [capital S] has been written about here many times and examples given.  Even scientists [small s] agree that what comes out of the Royal Society and the corporate funded Science we’re seeing is not necessarily science [small s].

2.  The illusion of wealth.   Some decades back, people’s aspirations were manipulated by the banks – you too can have two cars, a wardrobe of name clothing, all you want.   The fact that you couldn’t afford that unless you were in a top notch job wasn’t the point – banks were making it possible for a small premium on the debt each month.   Greed basically took over, sugar coated and referred to as “aspirations”.

Many Russian girls came out of Russia to marry westerners and discovered, to their horror, that he didn’t own what he had – it was all on the HP.   In Russia, her father might have had a Lada but he owned that Lada outright, as he did their home.

3.  At the same time, groups like feminists were telling women that they could have it all, independent of men.   The focus was on the individual at the expense of the family – family equalled patriarchy and oppression so it was a bad thing.   Palaces of glitz sprang up and a neighbourhood with a new Gap or Metro centre or whatever was seen as sophisticated.   Nobody mentioned that people once lived within their means and now they weren’t and what was now fuelling so many more people was the mania for both independence and pleasures at all costs.

Delayed gratification was a thing of the past.   This loss always inevitably weakens character.

4.  Also over a few decades came the youth revolution – Frankfurt School leading to the beat generation, 70s, 80s – and kids were doing sex earlier, drugs earlier and had a semblance of being adult earlier.   Adult equals independence.   So loads more people were coming onto not only the job market but were wanting independent accommodation.   As families were breaking down due to more and more women saying “independence or die”, so the pressure on jobs and accommodation increased.   Kids were leaving home and expecting their lifestyle to continue – independently.   And all of this was costing.

5.   The illusion was that while these kids were doing it all far earlier than their forebears and knew all there was to know about the seedy side of the world, let alone living a full adult life without either the experience or sophistication or maturity to do it, we got this mix of the child and the adult in a position of responsibility, e.g. as a single-mother.   The State leapt onto the new socio-economic group, the single mother, and supported, nay encouraged her to do it – at taxpayer’s expense.

There’s a reason many people leave it till later to marry – the simple factor of maturity, something Wolfie mentioned and something singularly lacking in Peaches Geldorf and her baby on the footpath.   These young women give the illusion of maturity through what they’re doing and their hardnosed talk and behaviour but actually they’re a grotesque aberration of the worst excesses of adulthood, way too young.

6. And where were the parents?   With the Boomers already corrupted by the beat generation, much of which was originally manipulated out of Laurel Canyon – one, two – as well as by Spock, the new parent had to be best friends with her child, never deny him what he wanted, let him discover truth by himself and never teach him anything because teaching is pedagogy and pedagogy is fascism.

And thus we are reaping the whirlwind today – large amounts of parents despairing of everything from paedos to their child hurting himself in any way so he has to be cocooned away … and the other extreme – parents teaching children to be “genderless”, babies left on streets while the parents go off to get drunk, children murdered, beaten, abused and the worst abuse of all is withholding proper bringing up – mainly because these parents themselves, esp. Gen X, were already on this path.

It’s seen as being easy-going, sophisticated, modern, laid-back, of this world to do these things and people like myself are anachronistic dinosaurs who need to lighten up and get a life.   This is where we are when parents will not marry and will not bring children up properly.

7.  Marriage.  I’ve been in both situations, including living with the better half.   Living with them is a cop-out.   Marriage comes down to commitment and it smooths out a hell of a lot of bumps along the way, if you know you’re stuck with that person you love or once loved.   Wolfie wrote of maturity and this is what it’s all about – it is maturity to marry, it is hedging one’s bets to live with them out of marriage.

And marriage, as we all know, is under assault from all sides, including the ridiculous spectre of gay”marriage”.   It denies the spiritual aspect of marriage – that it is marriage under heaven and yes, it does alter the perception to see one’s marriage as more than just two people coming together for guaranteed nooky.

Maturity.  Marriage.

And marriage leads to family and dynasties, the ties that bind, the institution which stands the test of centuries.   The State finds it hard to manipulate the individual when he’s locked into a family as his primary loyalty though it tries.   With people living with one another more or less indiscriminately, going form partner to partner, the ties are loosened, the moral resolve is loosened, hedonism and wanting everything one’s way is rampant and the State can then come in and pick people off at random.

This is why the PTB want marriage and family destroyed and the institutions which support it, e.g. the Christian church.

8.  Government began this huge immigration influx post war in some countries but it picked up speed over here under Labour, for an admitted ideological intent of watering down “Britishness”, the better to destroy England which has always been the intention of the continental PTB, e.g. the Club of Rome and Barosso’s boys and girls.

9.   In line with the feminist diktats, jobs which had been in manufacturing and the like were now swinging over into the useless service industries which basically perpetuated themselves to serve each other without actually producing value.   So the job market was becoming progressively weaker and the nation less competitive, meaning a frightening job market for the school leavers.

10.  Nations were coming under the heel of more of the PTB – the CFR, UN, EU – and policy became less and less national, esp. in Europe.   Huge amounts of money were leaving the country and going to the bandit IMF, WB and the like, to be loaned back at huge interest when things eventually began to collapse.

The PTB attempted to collapse things in the late 90s but people were still prosperous and there were still jobs around.   The PTB had another attempt in 2007, constricting credit, building on the loss of nations’ manufacturing bases, having destitute countries hanging off them – such as Eastern Europe, Greece and so on.

11.  So a new underclass arises and William S Burroughs would recognize it.   It’s supposed to be safer – it’s more dangerous.  women are supposed to be respected more – they are the opposite.   Kids are supposed to grow up rounded people – they are dysfunctional, feckless and unable.  The educational standard is testimony to that.   Everything the narrative promised produced the opposite result.

12.   And the last thing standing is this “hard won” freedom, this mania for individual independence, especially in the “modern” woman, which is like someone in hospital on life support.   If people insist on this continuing, then the result will be the workhouse again, the soup kitchens, the prison hulks, while national revenue disintegrates and things like the poll and window taxes are the last desperate attempt to prop up administrations.

Dole and housing benefits will simply stop.   Nothing will replace them.   Again, you have to see the parallels between Russia and the old England when the same things were occurring.   You’ve read Dickens – Little Nell and her grandfather.   That’s where we’re headed.   Vagrancy will be vigorously prosecuted.

In Russia, hospitals are so overrun that the elderly and sick simply go home to die.  There are no support services.  The only reality is the family again.   People are forced to return to the family home and see out their days there.

Outside, lawlessness abounds.   I’ve lived under it over there – I’ve seen it in operation.   Nowhere near as bad as WW2 Polish ghettoes, obviously but chilling nonetheless.   I have a feeling many people in this country have never really seen such things and don’t know what must inevitably come as a result of the unsustainable narrative many on the left are still trying to cling on to over here.

This is not just doom and gloom – this is the future.   There’s no point exhorting people to get wise who are so far gone that they simply can’t get their act together.   It’s going to be sheer necessity which will force them back together again.   After that is anyone’s guess.

Where does a Christian stand on all this?

For someone who has read these things and knows of them, it is difficult to know what approach to take:

The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Elsewhere:

And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.   For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.   All these are the beginning of sorrows.

Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.  And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.  But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Further:

And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!   But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:   For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

So what does one do – throw up the hands, go out and get drunk and pretend it’s not happening?   Go to church and pray that the end comes quickly?    Or go out and fight alongside your fellow man against this tide?   Points 1-12 above do speak of this tide, so it is no fiction – the only issue in contention is the cause.

At least if we’re arguing as to its cause, we are at least recognizing that we have trouble.   It’s the people, mainly the left and the average citizen out there who are oblivious to anything being wrong at all or if they do, then they can’t see root causes.   They gaze up at us ranting and say “that guy is seriously unbalanced”.

One can’t deal with such minds.

While we obviously have to look after our families and ourselves first and get things in position so that we stay alive and functioning, the next step should be more altruistic – joining our neighbours in fighting until the bitter end.   It’s a Sydney Carton thing.

And yes, in principle, it’s far better to love each other and all get along – no one is disputing that that is the most efficacious way at the micro level and would produce the good we want to see reestablished in society but preaching that to those already far gone because of Points 1-12 above – that will produce nothing but being ignored, vilified, mocked and marginalized.

Wishful thinking in itself is not going to produce the condition we want.   Actively tackling the root causes is, as with any medical condition and the appropriate medication for it.

14 Responses to “It should never have got like this”

  1. James Higham September 12, 2012 at 12:29 Permalink

    This is what is being produced as a result of poverty of the spirit:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2201818/Americas-Next-Top-Model-Jael-Strauss-contestant-battling-meth-addiction.html

    When will people realize that it’s living a lie?

  2. Twisted Root September 12, 2012 at 13:49 Permalink

    Is it just hindsight or do her eyes in the before photo foretell the inevitable?

    The proposed cure is more of the same; the nirvana of notoriety bestowed by a pap psychologist with added celebrity dust benevolently flaunting the portal to a life beyond pain and the cares of little people in front of the patient.

    The Jaels of this world, and there are a lot of them, know nothing else. Lambs to the slaughter.

  3. Mark in Mayenne September 12, 2012 at 14:24 Permalink

    Our British culture is founded upon the morality of the Christian religion, and this in turn forms the basis of the laws of the land.

    The advantage of multiculturalism from a political point of view is that you don’t actually have to do anything. On the other hand, if you want to require people to adopt British culture when they come to Britain to live, you have a reasonable moral obligation to help. The underlying problem is that any culture that is different from British is likely to fall foul of the law sooner or later, and, in a non-multicultural society, the law has to trump both culture and religion.

    A problem with religion is that in many people’s view, it no longer holds the moral high ground; Preaching against contraception, even after marriage, in an overpopulated world? Preaching against the use of condoms in a world with AIDS? Sheltering paedophile priests? Preaching murder of the unfaithful? Preaching against the science that brought us out of the dark ages? And so on. Those who claim that religion can no longer offer a guide to morality (and hence law) have a point.

  4. Bruce Charlton September 12, 2012 at 17:42 Permalink

    Yep – but I see little sign of any possibility of natives fighting alongside their ‘neighbors’ – that is the thing that has really disappeared in the UK in the past couple of decades; all the clubs, professions, guilds, unions, societies – voluntary groups of all kinds have either dwindled, been crushed by bureaucracy, or infiltrated by the Leftism (eg. via subsidies with strings – the ‘lottery money’ has been a potent method for this). Plus the average age is mid forties. I suppose at some point somebody will simply walk-into the UK (or some chunk of it more likely) and take over. Those with power will not be able, or willing, to stop them and will conceal what is happening until it is too late; those who want to stop them are too old and isolated to be effective.

  5. CherryPie September 12, 2012 at 18:16 Permalink

    Not just equal but the same, in that both could equally do this job or that.

    I never actually said that, it shows you misunderstood what I was trying to say.

  6. James Higham September 12, 2012 at 21:41 Permalink

    That’s precisely what you said, Cherie – I was careful with the words, knowing you’d see them. Let me get specific because I am concerned that you’ve had this bee in the bonnet for so long that I:

    1. misinterpret you and
    2. don’t appreciate your comments.

    Both are quite wrong. On the first point, if you make a comment, it is in English and that’s how I read it – as most would expect it to mean. Maybe on your intent behind the words – how you wanted them to convey meaning – it’s quite possible I don’t get that at times.

    This is a selection of your comments on provocative things I’ve posted on [most comments on most posts are value free from you and there is no issue there]:

    # you need to think of people as people and not differentiate between male and female

    # I do think men (who are not comfortable with themselves) have the same traits too.

    # They have a lot of respect for the females and treat them in exactly the same way they (the males) treat each other. There are no concessions, just equal treatment.

    # You don’t value the thoughts of your female commenter’s. You probably should have put a disclaimer in the post saying you only wanted comments from males!

    # My words were, ‘everyone should be treated equally’ it has an entirely different meaning.

    # I see everybody as unique and individual (hence my dislike of labels). I treat everyone equally

    # Stereotyping is fitting people into boxes of types. It can be a positive or negative term.

    # I don’t know whether it is true or not that women micromanage more. In my experience it has been the men who micromanage.

    # Your comment especially by a woman makes me think that you feel women are inferior and should know their place…

    # We should mention the aggressive arrogant guys with or without mobile phones who think they own the road….

    # I have often mentioned to you about labels and stereo types. You need to leave them out if you want to make a serious point or get to the truth of issues!!

    # One of my best managers of all time was a woman, so I don’t agree that women can’t be managers. It depends on their qualities.

    # The story misses out on quite a lot because it focusses on stereotypes and most people in society are not stereotypes.

    # There should be no conflict between male and female they are both part of the whole and the intricate combination between the two is what matters.

    # Men can be equally as naive and get themselves into predicaments with the opposite sex.

    # The real problem here is that most people have a stereotypical idea

    # It is the female blogger that is more likely to up and go if they get hounded. They think life is too short and I have got better things to do whereas a man would usually dig his heels.

    # I don’t agree that it is a mail instinct and they can’t stop themselves.

    The chief issue politically seems to be that you don’t like “types” and in particular “stereotypes”, that every type has exceptions. I agree with one part but not the other. There are very much types and stereotypes – left/right, male/female and that’s why they are seen that way by the majority of people. That’s how various industries work, e.g. advertising and insurance. There are obviously exceptions to everything and I’ve always maintained that, as you have, so there’s no point of contention there.

    However, the way it comes across is that you don’t like any distinction being made, i.e. that whichever two are being differentiated between, they’re not – they’re the same. Yet many of your own comments, particularly when a female is criticized, sees you leaping in to defend the female. To be fair, a few times you’ve defended the male.

    Now I have no issue with that and we’ll agree to disagree on types but the two points at the top are wrong:

    1. I do not misinterpret you on the basis of the words you wrote. Maybe on the intent behind the words – how you wanted them to convey meaning – that’s possible.
    2. I do appreciate your political comment and the notion that I don’t, seriously, is in your mind, Cherie.

  7. CherryPie September 12, 2012 at 22:39 Permalink

    No James it was not what I said (it is not what I think). We had a very long conversation about it and you kept trying to put words in my mouth. I kept trying to explain what I meant but you kept bringing it back to the erroneous statement you have quoted in this post.

    I put it to you that you have selectively remembered the conversation to suit your post? Or did you just misunderstand what I was trying to say?

    The only way to understand ‘words’, is to understand the person behind the ‘words’.

    I am not going to say any more about the subject (my thoughts) here but if any of your readers are curious to know what I really think they can contact me and we can have a conversation about it.

  8. James Higham September 12, 2012 at 22:44 Permalink

    Cherie, our comments crossed. I’ve just answered you above.

  9. CherryPie September 12, 2012 at 23:27 Permalink

    Goodness James…

    I didn’t realise you kept my comments to hand so easily.

    My previous comment was in response to the following before you added to your comment:

    That’s precisely what you said, Cherie – I was careful with the words, knowing you’d see them.

    Now looking back through my comments (that you just posted), I still stand by them all and most of them work even out of the context in which I posted them.

    Now going back to the comment in your post where you said I thought everyone was the same…

    This quote from your comment above is what I said and what I think:

    # My words were, ‘everyone should be treated equally’ it has an entirely different meaning.

    It still has an entirely different meaning than how you represented my thoughts in your post ;-) And that is why I said you misrepresented my thoughts!

    And just to be clear, everyone is an individual with unique thoughts. That is why I don’t like boxes and labels.

    Non of my comments are meant to be political, I don’t think in a political way… But anyone who thinks in a political way will see everything as political. That is obviously another road to confusion.

    I always defend the person who needs defending. It is not about male or female, that doesn’t enter my thought…

    I think I have said enough. For now ;-)

  10. JD September 12, 2012 at 23:58 Permalink

    there’ve been news items and blogposts on the behaviour of certain types in society.
    James, it appears to me that you pay too much attention to what is written in the newspapers. You seem to overlook the fact that newspapers are edited and written by people like this-
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9538782/Hillsborough-Kelvin-MacKenzie-offers-profuse-apologies-to-the-people-of-Liverpool.html
    -people who hate us in other words.
    The newspapers and TV are unreliable witnesses, what they convey bears no resemblance to the people and things I encounter in everyday life.

    As Cherie says, there are no ‘types’ or ‘stereotypes’, that is lazy thinking or a reluctance to see people as individuals without prejudice

    People are people, good and bad; but mostly good in my experience which is long and wide ranging :)

  11. Amfortas September 13, 2012 at 02:57 Permalink

    The only position in which people need equal treatment is ‘Before the Law’. In all other cases their unique composition of characteristics require acknowledgement at the very least and differential treatment as a matter of smooth interpersonal management usually.

    Stereotyping is easily dismissed as ‘lazy’ by the lazy. If I judge a child to be less mature than an adult, I stereotype on the basis of a lifetime of acknowledgement of the obvious. To be called ‘lazy’ for simply accessing that experience and acting accordingly, allowing a free-pass for the child’s misdemeanour and handing responsibility to the adult for hers, is an affront. Treating them, as opposed to their misdemeanours, as equals is plain ridiculous.

    Is it ‘stereotyping’ to assume that women will sit to pee and men will stand? Even though a man might pee while sitting when engaged in other evacuative pursuit? Is it stereotyping to assume that women will ‘air-kiss’ when greeting but men will likely just ‘nod’. Should both men and women be obliged to do the same actions just to satisfy some demand for ‘equal’ treatment?

    With respect, Cherie, you expect too much of others and do not respect your own words.

  12. Mark in Mayenne September 13, 2012 at 06:58 Permalink

    Stereotyping of individuals (on sight) has always been, and remains even in today’s society a key requirement for life and survival.

  13. James Higham September 13, 2012 at 09:25 Permalink

    JD, you and Cherie seem to be of the “everyone the same and all good” persuasion and I respect that, even if it’s not borne out by repeated experience in my experience.

    There are, as I mentioned, fields of work which rely on these types acting to type and they’re not wrong too many times.

    It’s not as if it’s something new and controversial I’m saying here. ;-)

    It’s quite “left’ thinking to believe that there aren’t groups and types – the wish for everyone to be one big happy family has long been associated with the left and there’s nothing wrong with that desire. If I say it’s a bit naive but that the person saying it is a nice person at heart, it’s not intended to offend.

    People who subscribe to the view that there are types are also not necessarily malevolent. If I meet, black, white, Chinese, Spanish, my attitude is to treat that person as a human being, not as a type. Yet I’m interested in the differences too and they add spice to the relationship.

    I’m sure you don’t really want us all to be one big melting pot, a sludgy grey.

    A person can be nice, be very human, be benevolent in nature and still act according to type in many respects. A good example was in the women’s volleyball.

    The Americans and Brazilians all get on together, party together, visit each other’s countries. Logan Tom loves the Brazilians and vice-versa.

    However, the Brazilians acted according to type on the dais and the Americans didn’t like it. Logan told her teammates that that was how Brazilians acted – it wasn’t disrespect. That’s what I mean by types – the behaviour is roughly the same in some respects.

    Now if you go into the Brazil as a whole, then differences emerge – good people, crims, politicians, low moral compass, high moral compass – the normal curve in other words. But just because people are all different in many respects, does not mean there are not also common characteristics in there. This is what nationhood is about.

    Take the Spanish. Now I think it’s quite possible to say they’re generally ebullient, more easygoing, quicker and sharper in manner than the English who can be a bit plummy. However, if I were to go to Spain, I bet I could find dour Spanish in some corner of Spain who would not act according to the stereotype.

    As a predictor, I think it’s safe to typecast the Spanish. For example, if I was tired of the UK for a while and wanted late night eating, lots of cheer and dancing and bubbly conversation, where would I go? Russia? No I’d go to Italy or Spain of course.

    On a one to one basis, a large number of people are good in intent – this was borne out yesterday when I met some people and it’s borne out most days.

    Again though, that is entirely different to there being types. A person can be idiosyncratic and independent, with his own thoughts and still be a type. I’m a type or a mixture of types and types do act according to type in some respects but diverge in others.

    Please note Mark’s comment:

    Stereotyping of individuals (on sight) has always been, and remains even in today’s society a key requirement for life and survival.

    Very much so. And Amfortas mentions the “bleedin’ obvious”:

    If I judge a child to be less mature than an adult, I stereotype on the basis of a lifetime of acknowledgement of the obvious.

    I was “accused” of being a Christian Tory by a leftist. While there are certainly characteristics of that in me, the Tories certainly don’t claim me as one of them – I’m too radical and anti-Them for that.

    Does that mean I can’t be typecast? Of course I can but a person can be many types in one.

    As for well-intentioned behaviour, there is evidence everywhere that mal-intentioned behaviour is increasing rapidly in society and this makes life that bit more dangerous. Obviously Scotland is a model of safety from what you say but for the rest of us here in Old England, the further south you go, the worse this new behaviour is.

    As for heeding what newspapers say, I don’t trust newspapers as far as I could kick them, so linking to them is merely introducing and attributing [netiquette and copyright] – a necessary thing on a blog, esp. if pics are being used. And if they show that an event occurred, that’s usually what happened and so the MSM is useful in that. It’s just the spin they put on it which we don’t trust.

    In the end, I do see why many would not like “types” because they feel it is related to prejudice … and in some people, it can be. Yet there is incredible prejudice from those purporting to be benign and tolerant as well – just look at “positive discrimination”. The left are meant to be tolerant and all love one another but PD is one of the most vicious policies known. There’s an element of hypocrisy in this.

    Second last – JD, you mention a long and wide-ranging experience. Oh I think many at this blog writing and commenting have that. I also have a long and wide-ranging experience of many cultures around the world, Cherie’s been to Japan and you have done what we know you have, which is, as you say, long and wide-ranging, even earthy.

    I’m not sure that is a factor in the argument – it might be if I were 20, say, and had never left home.

    Lastly, I hope there is no residual bitterness in these “discussions” because I value friendships more than I value arguments and will always ditch the latter in favour of the former.

    As to our differences, all I can say is vive la difference.

    ………..

    Bruce – that is so.

    Twisted root – Is it just hindsight or do her eyes in the before photo foretell the inevitable? – could well be.

  14. Amfortas September 14, 2012 at 07:53 Permalink

    James says (above): “JD, you and Cherie seem to be of the “everyone the same and all good” persuasion and I respect that, even if it’s not borne out by repeated experience in my experience. ”

    I can acknowledge that the thought might be held, but not any necessity to ‘respect’ it.

    I am continually astonished and becoming jaded by this idea that all ideas, thoughts, positions and ‘persuations’ are deemed worthy of respect, simply because someone has them. Does one respect a Nazi philosophy? Does one ‘respect’ muslim’s ‘feeling’ so agrieved by an opinion that they burn down buildings and kill people?

    There are many such positions that deserve no respect whatsoever and while I mention those that are ‘bad’ for children, flowers and random officials of countries a person might be taught from the cradle to hate, the same goes for clearly idiotic ideas from even the nicest folk.

    I ‘respect’ the rights of a person to hold nutty ideas. I do not respect ideas or ‘persuations’ of any sort. The singer not the song.

Leave a Reply

Please copy the string jhOJQH to the field below: