If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#652
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 08:39:36 -0700, "Circe" wrote:
Dirk wrote: Holger Dansk wrote in message . .. How does anyone think that it is right to not pronounce a lot of common English words correctly? Common English words like Insurance Umbrella Install (commonly misused as a noun, btw) Nuclear I ...? You have to have some loose screws to believe that. I've yet to hear you complain about Southern mispronunciations of the following words. I imagine you think that it's either a) correct, even though the dictionaries I've consulted do not support "INsurance," "UMbrella", INstall", "Nookyouluhr" or "Ah" even as alternative pronunciations; or b) a lovable part of your heritage/culture/yadda yadda. In either case--why don't you cut the brothers some slack already. Sheesh. So long as the grammar's ok I don't really care if an occasional "th" sound comes out like an "f", f'rinstance (a dialect oddity some black Americans happen to share with Cockneys). Why do you? Moreoever, the current US President--a white man born with a silver spoon in his mouth and privileged to have one of the best educations money can buy--cannot pronounce "nuclear" or "sovereignty" plus a half dozen other words correctly, regularly invents words (e.g. "misunderestimate"), and often butchers grammar and syntax (e.g., "Is our children learning?"), but I don't hear Holger complaining about that. Bush speaks excellent English. Holger http://www.mindspring.com/~holger1/holger1.htm |
#653
|
|||
|
|||
Holger Dansk wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 08:51:06 -0700, "Circe" wrote: Holger Dansk wrote: On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 18:07:31 -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote: Her point is that the Greeks would not have done any of these things without slavery, which gave them the wealth and free time to engage in such endeavors. That's absolutely ridiculous. It is not only not ridiculous, it's a fact. A culture cannot engage in significant intellectual or artistic pursuits without surplus food production (e.g., wealth). Moreover, people's ability to produce am agricultural surplus is directly tied to their geographical location. Asia, Europe, and northern Africa are better suited, geographically, to surplus food production than sub-Saharan Africa. (Aboriginal Australians and many native Americans faced similar challenges and didn't have cultural "floruits" as a result.) It's that simple. Asians and Europeans aren't smarter or better than sub-Saharan Africans--they just live in a better location, agriculturally speaking. Boy are you mixed up and confused. I hope you said that to the mirror. Read Jared Diamond's _Guns, Germs, and Steel_ and get educated, Holger. With effort, even you can outgrow and overcome racist thinking and narrow-mindedness. -- Be well, Barbara All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful. Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman |
#654
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:47:03 -0700, "Circe" wrote:
Holger Dansk wrote: On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 08:51:06 -0700, "Circe" wrote: Holger Dansk wrote: On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 18:07:31 -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote: Her point is that the Greeks would not have done any of these things without slavery, which gave them the wealth and free time to engage in such endeavors. That's absolutely ridiculous. It is not only not ridiculous, it's a fact. A culture cannot engage in significant intellectual or artistic pursuits without surplus food production (e.g., wealth). Moreover, people's ability to produce am agricultural surplus is directly tied to their geographical location. Asia, Europe, and northern Africa are better suited, geographically, to surplus food production than sub-Saharan Africa. (Aboriginal Australians and many native Americans faced similar challenges and didn't have cultural "floruits" as a result.) It's that simple. Asians and Europeans aren't smarter or better than sub-Saharan Africans--they just live in a better location, agriculturally speaking. Boy are you mixed up and confused. I hope you said that to the mirror. Read Jared Diamond's _Guns, Germs, and Steel_ and get educated, Holger. With effort, even you can outgrow and overcome racist thinking and narrow-mindedness. Evidently, you have been reading "Catcher in The Rye" and other sick books. Better leave that doo doo alone and help your brothers get their act together. Holger http://www.mindspring.com/~holger1/holger1.htm |
#655
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Bob LeChevalier wrote: Holger Dansk wrote: On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 09:35:26 -0700, "Circe" wrote: ..................... Oh, so it's okay to sell people into slavery if they owe you money? Gotcha. I suggest you look at the Mosaic code, about the Hebrew "slave". A better term would be "indentured servant", for a period of time, and he could be redeemed. The anti-slavery amendment permits slavery or involuntary servitude as a punishment for crime; we would do far better to use this than incarceration as punishment. They have the real thing in Mauritania and have had it for thousands of years in Sudan. Lots of children slaves. So what? "High" cultures the world over (and particularly in Europe) had slavery (and children slaves) for thousands of years. Well, we are talking about now. (today) Who else still has slavery other than the blacks in Sudan and Mauritania? See the cited article. Who else has LEGAL slavery? .................... Her point is that the Greeks would not have done any of these things without slavery, which gave them the wealth and free time to engage in such endeavors. One can have wealth and free time without slavery. Private enterprise seems to do quite well in this regard, and even non-wealthy groups of people have subsidized their religious, scholarly, and artistic classes. Look at the industrial revolution. How much of a role did slavery have in it? At most, it was a source of income, but there were other sources. -- This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 |
#656
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Bob LeChevalier wrote: Holger Dansk wrote: That's horrible. She has to show where someone else wrote it down for people to believe her? You also have to show references for people to believe you. You don't. Therefore we don't believe you. You are using the social science argument, which has hindered learning. One can acquire knowledge without wasting memory on the precise location of the piece of information, or even knowing where it is at all. Quoting "experts", who have become such merely by an outpouring of textual material which may have no relevance whatever, does not back up claims. -- This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 |
#657
|
|||
|
|||
Holger Dansk wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 08:39:36 -0700, "Circe" wrote: Moreoever, the current US President--a white man born with a silver spoon in his mouth and privileged to have one of the best educations money can buy--cannot pronounce "nuclear" or "sovereignty" plus a half dozen other words correctly, regularly invents words (e.g. "misunderestimate"), and often butchers grammar and syntax (e.g., "Is our children learning?"), but I don't hear Holger complaining about that. Bush speaks excellent English. You proved my point. As far as you are concerned, all *white* people speak good English, even when their English is atrocious (aka GW Bush). Thank you for your honesty. -- Be well, Barbara Mom to Sin (Vernon, 2), Misery (Aurora, 4), and the Rising Son (Julian, 6) Aurora (in the bathroom with her dad)--"It looks like an elephant, Daddy." Me (later)--"You should feel flattered." All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful. Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman |
#658
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
toto wrote: On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 18:10:22 GMT, Holger Dansk wrote: So what? "High" cultures the world over (and particularly in Europe) had slavery (and children slaves) for thousands of years. Well, we are talking about now. (today) Who else still has slavery other than the blacks in Sudan and Mauritania? Any country with bonded labor has slavery. Bonded labor is simply another name for it. How much "bonded labor" is there? It is uneconomical. Today, slavery avoids the lable by not asserting legal ownership of the slaves, but millions of economically and socially vulnerable people are potential slaves creating a surplus of slave labor. This is the Marxist approach, also held by many others, that a person is deserving of a "living wage" just by being there. In the South in 1850, the average slave cost the equivalent of $40,000 in today's dollars. The average slave today costs $90 and thus when s/he becomes ill and can no longer work, s/he is dumped or killed. This is why it is hard to establish a free society. Freeing slaves or serfs in many places caused revolts, as the "victims" did not want the problem of taking care of themselves. Those who want a government guarantee have the serf mentality, and would like to make everyone else serfs. In the past, those who did not like the current situation could go to a place where they could try to impose their views. Alas, such places no longer exist, and today's totalitarians have essentially seen to it that they cannot. -- This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 |
#659
|
|||
|
|||
Herman Rubin wrote:
In article , Bob LeChevalier wrote: Holger Dansk wrote: On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 09:35:26 -0700, "Circe" wrote: Oh, so it's okay to sell people into slavery if they owe you money? Gotcha. I suggest you look at the Mosaic code, about the Hebrew "slave". A better term would be "indentured servant", for a period of time, and he could be redeemed. The problem with "indentured servitude" in modern times (I will not speak to the Jewish institution) is that people rarely ever pay off their debt bondage. In fact, bondage often continues into several generations. For example: "Slavery takes different forms in different lands. In Pakistan and India there is debt bondage. Poor people are tricked with promises of good jobs, but they are isolated and must deal with their employer in every way. The food they buy and other required things are sold only by their employers, with very high prices. The workers are forced to stay and work until the debt is paid off. But the deck is stacked so the debt keeps getting bigger. The "employee" is a slave for life. And, even beyond life. The children are kept working until the debt is paid, which never happens. Generations are forced to work without ever seeing a day of freedom." Source: http://www.injusticeline.com/slave1.html The anti-slavery amendment permits slavery or involuntary servitude as a punishment for crime; we would do far better to use this than incarceration as punishment. They have the real thing in Mauritania and have had it for thousands of years in Sudan. Lots of children slaves. So what? "High" cultures the world over (and particularly in Europe) had slavery (and children slaves) for thousands of years. Well, we are talking about now. (today) Who else still has slavery other than the blacks in Sudan and Mauritania? See the cited article. Who else has LEGAL slavery? I don't know why it matters in the slightest whether it is legal or not; it exists everywhere and in many places, governments turn a blind eye to it and do not enforce their laws against it. It's certainly true that Sudanese slavery is particularly vile, but it would be worthwhile at this juncture to note that it is the "whites" (Arabs) doing the enslaving, not the "black savages", to use Holger's phraseology. From http://www.iabolish.com/today/factsheet.htm: "Slavery occurs in every continent in the world except Antarctica. A few selected hotspots include: ALBANIA: Teenage girls are tricked into sex slavery and trafficked by organized crime rings BRAZIL: Lured into the rainforest, families burn trees into charcoal at gunpoint BURMA: The ruling military junta enslaves its own people to build infrastructure projects, some benefiting US corporations. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: Haitians are rounded up at random, taken across the border, and forced to cut cane in sugar plantations GHANA: Families repent for sins by giving daughters as slaves to fetish priests INDIA: Children trapped in debt bondage roll beedi cigarettes 14 hours a day IVORY COAST: Child slaves forced to work on cocoa plantations MAURITANIA: Arab-Berbers buy and sell black Africans as inheritable property PAKISTAN: Children with nimble fingers are forced to weave carpets in looms SUDAN: Arab militias from the North take Southern Sudanese women and children in slave raids. THAILAND: Women and children become sex slaves for tourists UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: Bangladeshi boys are transported and exploited as jockeys for camel racing UNITED STATES: The CIA estimates that 50,000 people are trafficked as sex slaves, domestics, garment, and agricultural slaves" Please explain why the legality of the practice makes it any more or less vile. Her point is that the Greeks would not have done any of these things without slavery, which gave them the wealth and free time to engage in such endeavors. One can have wealth and free time without slavery. Of course it is. I did not claim otherwise. Notwithstanding, all ancient cultures with high floruits had slavery in some form and the existence of slave labor was partially responsible for producing the agricultural surpluses that allowed some members of the society to engage in pursuits other than making a living. Private enterprise seems to do quite well in this regard, and even non-wealthy groups of people have subsidized their religious, scholarly, and artistic classes. No doubt. This does not alter the fact that Greek culture was highly dependent on the existence of slavery for the support of its religious, scholarly, and artistic classes. Look at the industrial revolution. How much of a role did slavery have in it? At most, it was a source of income, but there were other sources. Income is everything, though. And income is derived from what, exactly? Why, from people's labor! And if the labor is derived from people who are not paid (or are paid exceedingly low wages), then the income derived from their labor enriches the wealthy and impoverishes the poor. The industrial revolution was a *really* bad time to be poor. It was a great time to be rich. -- Be well, Barbara All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful. Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman |
#660
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Holger Dansk wrote: On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 01:14:15 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" wrote: The Greeks had a great civilization. Much greater than the Romans. They gave us many, many things. Not just some art and some literature. Nonsense, they had the money to afford thinkers because they had slaves once again, but they squandered it and most Athenians wasted their money on high living, the few thinkers were a tiny minority. The Greeks were not famous for being rich. I don't think there is any mention of that in their history. I'm sure that the creators of philosophy and architecture and math and on were probably about 10 % of their culture. Their contributions to the world were incredible. You see, they didn't even have libraries full of books to go and read. They had to create all of it. They were not even 10%, but their supporters were more than 10%. The major centers were Athens and Asia Minor, until Alexander conquered the Persian Empire, and then it switched to Alexandria, in Greek-controlled Egypt. There was not much mixing between the Greeks and the Egyptians. If papyrus had rotted ten percent faster they'd have been unknown! The Egyptians were the ones who found or created papyrus. That, and some engineering (the pyramids, etc.) was about all they did. Papyrus does not last well except in Egypt. Most of the Greek writings, not on stone inscriptions, was on parchment, which is more durable, and an invention of the Asia Minor Greeks. Egyptians did more than you give them credit for, and the Greeks did not hesitate to learn from Egypt. But the pyramids were not much of engineering, which is evidenced by the fact that the stages leading up to it are all there, and after the third one, they did not even try to have big ones. And they had at least a million farmers idle during the flood which made Egypt the best farmland at the time. But the tombs and temples, built a millennium later, are much better from and engineering and artistic point of view. They were not built by unskilled labor, as the pyramids were. -- This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A first 'Parker Jensen' bill advances | wexwimpy | Foster Parents | 0 | February 8th 04 06:29 PM |