chess online
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 personal freedom vs. committment to something higherDavid Brooks At some point over the past generation, people around the world entered what you might call the age of possibility. They became intolerant of any arrangement that might close off their personal options. The transformation has been liberating, and it’s leading to some pretty astounding changes. For example, for centuries, most human societies forcefully guided people into two-parent families. Today that sort of family is increasingly seen as just one option among many. The number of Americans who are living alone has shot up from 9 percent in 1950 to 28 percent today. In 1990, 65 percent of Americans said that children are very important to a successful marriage. Now, only 41 percent of Americans say they believe that. There are now more American houses with dogs than with children. This is not a phenomenon particular to the United States. In Scandinavia, 40 percent to 45 percent of the people live alone. The number of marriages in Spain has declined from 270,000 in 1975 to 170,000 today, and the number of total Spanish births per year is now lower than it was in the 18th century. Thirty percent of German women say they do not intend to have children. In a 2011 survey, a majority of Taiwanese women under 50 said they did not want children. Fertility rates in Brazil have dropped from 4.3 babies per woman 35 years ago to 1.9 babies today. These are all stunningly fast cultural and demographic shifts. The world is moving in the same basic direction, from societies oriented around the two-parent family to cafeteria societies with many options. This global phenomenon has been expertly analyzed in a report called “The Rise of Post-Familialism: Humanity’s Future?” written by a team of scholars including Joel Kotkin, Anuradha Shroff, Ali Modarres and Wendell Cox. Why is this happening? The report offers many explanations. People are less religious. People in many parts of the world are more pessimistic and feeling greater economic stress. Global capitalism also seems to be playing a role, especially, it seems, in Asia. Many people are committed to their professional development and fear that if they don’t put in many hours at work they will fall behind or close off lifestyle options. Toru Suzuki, a researcher at the National Institute of Population and Society Security Research in Japan, gave Kotkin’s team this explanation in its baldest form: “Under the social and economic systems of developed countries, the cost of a child outweighs the child’s usefulness.” Singapore is one of the most interesting cases. Like most Asian societies, it used to be incredibly family-centered. But, as the economy boomed, the marriage rate plummeted. Singapore now has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world. “The focus in Singapore is not to enjoy life, but to keep score: in school, in jobs, in income,” one 30-year-old Singaporean demographer told the researchers. “Many see getting attached as an impediment to this.” This cultural shift is bound to have huge consequences. Globally, countries that remain fertile, like the U.S., will do fine while countries that don’t, like Japan, will decline. Geographically, singles will dominate city life while two-parent families will be out in suburbia. Politically, married people in America are more likely to vote Republican; Mitt Romney easily won among married voters, including married women. Democrats, meanwhile, have done a much better job relating to single people. President Obama crushed Romney among singles, 62 percent to 35 percent. The 2012 election results illustrate the gradual transition we are making from one sort of demography (the current Republican coalition) toward another sort of demography (the Democratic coalition). The rise of post-familialism is a piece of that shift. My view is that the age of possibility is based on a misconception. People are not better off when they are given maximum personal freedom to do what they want. They’re better off when they are enshrouded in commitments that transcend personal choice — commitments to family, God, craft and country. The surest way people bind themselves is through the family. As a practical matter, the traditional family is an effective way to induce people to care about others, become active in their communities and devote themselves to the long-term future of their nation and their kind. Therefore, our laws and attitudes should be biased toward family formation and fertility, including child tax credits, generous family leave policies and the like. But the two-parent family is obviously not the only way people bind themselves. We are inevitably entering a world in which more people search for different ways to attach. Before jumping to the conclusion that the world is going to hell, it’s probably a good idea to investigate these emerging commitment devices. The problem is not necessarily a changing family structure. It’s people who go through adulthood perpetually trying to keep their options open. |
||
|
mrconservative64 19-Jan-13, 19:16 |
Our Founding Fathers... |
||
|
Mr I |
||
|
haha willful blindness to reality! |
||
|
ZL |
||
|
bill what about family obligations, community safety, and local laws. all these stifle personal freedom. i just do not understand a pov that says only dictatorship stifles personal freedom. do you think speed limits stifle your personal freedom to drive 80 mph in a school zone? do you think my friend who died of lou gehrigs disease t 38 lost some personal freedom? is the pauper born in bangladesh losing personal freedom because he cannot afford a college education, ipad, or crust of bread? slaves in 17th century america did not lose a tiny bit of personal freedom to racism? i cannot go out and defecate in the city park because the community's well being is more important, in this instance, than my personal liberty. none of these are dictatorships, yet cause a loss of personal freedom. so explain how 'only dictatorship stifles personal freedom' if you please. |
||
|
Once women enter the workforce, like any other economic supply and demand phenomena, wages drop, and everyone has to have a working spouse to make ends meet. I can tell you as a practical matter, that once you have more than two or three children, it no longer makes any economic sense for a woman to be in the work force. Whatever she makes is spent on daycare and then some. I have two kids for that reason, and I don't know many people my age that have more than three kids. The reason the birthrate is dropping everywhere in the world is because women are entering the workforce on a global scale. |
||
|
ZL |
||
|
ZL: btw I hope that answers your question. |
||
|
ZL.... for further clarification ---------------------- I am willing to abide by any ordinances that the local populace cares to pass so long as it doesn't violate my Constitutional liberties. ZL: "...do you think my friend who died of lou gehrigs disease t 38 lost some personal freedom?" ---------------------- I am sorry to hear of your loss.... but personal health issues are not the same thing as communal freedoms which are shared by all. ZL: "..is the pauper born in bangladesh losing personal freedom because he cannot afford a college education, ipad, or crust of bread?" ---------------------- No... but I could easily see measures to help eradicate the effects of the caste system... to help further the notion of "equality of opportunity." ZL: "...slaves in 17th century america did not lose a tiny bit of personal freedom to racism?" ---------------------- Of course they did.... their most fundamental rights were violated 24/7.... now you are clearly getting silly. ZL: "...i cannot go out and defecate in the city park because the community's well being is more important, in this instance, than my personal liberty." ---------------------- I am not sure of the question you are asking, but the mental image is clearly disturbing... I highly recommend that you reserve you BM's to locations that conventionally accepted. |
||
|
Then try and make friends with your dreams. |
||
|
ace_kyi 21-Jan-13, 12:18 |
Some thoughts on " Freedom " It all started with whether a single person has much more freedom than a married person who is necessay to raise the family that might be a great burden for one's progress. This might be especially true for men because has not much responsibility for pregancy and nursing of babies. This might be true for some if not the majority men because men just want more sex without commitment but lifestyle of women are also changing because of contraceptions, change in moral values and women can support their own nowadays with high paying jobs. Having said that, there are different kinds of freedoms. This is the first amendment issue and this is a wide subject for discussion. I think the book in the above link " In Our Defense " is very informative of human rights issues which have universal truth and appeal. We believe in freedom for everybody but in order to acheive freedom we need some kind of tolerance. Otherwise, there cannot be full blown democracy. |
||
|
I wonder how free one is? lol. Who is free? Everyone has some purpose.....a purpose hidden to themselves perhaps or to others. One can't be free of one's purpose. |
||
|
ace_kyi 21-Jan-13, 15:20 |
"Marriage and Morals," Ed Norton asked: My reply: Sex and marriage is a two different things. This is debatable. If we analyze the sex scientifically, it is designed to procreate, that is, it is programmed in the DNA of life forms to to propagate and multiply the species. This is an evolutionary process. Otherwise, life forms will become extinct. In order to have sex, nature provides us with sexual urge/pleasure ( libido ). Just like drugs, sex have pleasure and can be addictive but unlike drugs if two consenting healthy adults have sex without harm to each other, there are no significant health hazards. For example, president Clinton and General Petraeus had sex out of their marriage. They did not break any laws for having such sex but morally it is wrong. I will give you a counter question. If both Clinton and Petreaus did not break the law of the land, why could not they have free sex ? This is a complex issue and you will find much wider explanation in Bertrand Russel's " Marriage and Morals" in the link below and some comments. The other side of your question is, How do you define " Freedom " ? As the saying goes, "Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder". For some people they think they have more freedom without marriage. In other words it is their personal choice. ===================================================================== . www.amazon.com Most Helpful First | Newest First 5.0 out of 5 stars A for interest and effort, May 27, 2012 By Anthony Marinelli "marilread" (toronto on canada) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME) This review is from: Marriage and Morals (Paperback) Bertrand Russell had the reputation as an international figure and nobel prize winner as not having so much of a parochial national view but saw international interests in the development of his philosophy. So his books were largely aimed at industrial societies and when he writes these international sympathies lie at the heart of his work. Although in the united states ceding national control to an international body,european thinkers and philosophers and the league of nations and united nations at that time was ceding control to international bodies,and although at one time philosophers like Russell thought of a world of large international powers, not many thinkers have much credence in this any longer. Like the european union,the large economic powers end up controlling the smaller states due to success and economic might and complexity of their own educational and economic diversification and prowess. However in this very old book what i find interesting is what he says of modern marriage which is still worth repeating today. The cohesiveness and well being of the community start at the community home. The first step is the well being of a marriage. Then he discusses children which change the dynamics of the household..and should focus a change from adult relationships to care of children as the primary focus of a person's life and the way that adults relate to chilren and their spouses are an important point. One point i think important to modern life is the stability of marriage...divorce splinters married life and actually leads to the disintegration of all in the original family circle and most importantly the children...and leads to children solely for the most part interacting with children. There are also discussions of how the state has taken over many of the male's control in traditional families and state control has really proved counter productive to family life. An interesting book...and in this divorce prone age of interest. One point i dont agree with is his keeping the family together after the spouses have all kind of romantic entanglements elsewhere for the children's sake,although i sympathize with his values in keeping the family together for the children's sake,how will the children deal and relate to and process this as it will certainly show up in how the parents relate to each other in the home and unfortunately with the children.....Population declines. In the u.s. the ethnic makeup of the nation is changing and also canada...in europe populations are declining as a whole..this he may see as a danger since a population must be stable but is modern culture,divorce,interpersonal relations,what is the actual reason for the decline in family relations,and the decline in populations...and how do we stabilize a population,have healthier relations and have people interested in families.. and what does traditional religion have to do with all this...an old book from a scientific philosopher but still worth reading for an old book. Recommended!! Help other customers find the most helpful reviews Was this review helpful to you? |
||
|
Actually...not helpful O....ooo...Oh...Your own ideas......what is that? Personal freedom doesn't begin where Bertram Russell says.....although thts a nice beginning....it starts where you say it starts.ea. as your id You certainly did not type in that last post. I get referencing and all that, but come.....your words weigh more than some internet quotation. Thatsn one of the things......there is no personal involvement cuz there is no personal discussion......the least bit of disagreement....and you guys are all over google. Thats fine. If ypur comfy with that....okay. Its a world......and you will be right somnetimes....and I will be right sometimes...and the most of the time we will both be wrong. |
||
|
ace_kyi 21-Jan-13, 16:48 |
Is marriage personal choice or freedom ? Actress Jodie Foster's story. ====================================================================== www.msnbc.msn.com -By CHRISTY LEMIRE AP Movie Writer BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. (AP) - Jodie Foster came out without really coming out, and suggested she was retiring from acting without exactly saying so, in a long, breathless and rambling speech at Sunday night's Golden Globe Awards. Foster took the stage as this year's winner of the Cecil B. DeMille Lifetime Achievement Award, which had been announced previously. But her acceptance speech was anything but predictable as the veteran actress seized control of what is every year a noisy, boozy ballroom; the crowd of A-listers quickly quieted down as it became apparent that she had something serious and important to say. The 50-year-old Oscar-winner for "The Silence of the Lambs" and "The Accused," who's been protective of her private life and reluctant to discuss her sexual orientation, was coy at first, suggesting she had a big announcement that would make her publicist nervous (the broadcast audio dropped out at this point, but for no apparent reason; nothing was said off-color). Then she stated: "I'm just going to put it out there, loud and proud ... I am, uh, single," pausing for dramatic effect before that last word. "I hope you're not disappointed that there won't be a big coming-out speech tonight. I already did my coming-out about a thousand years ago back in the Stone Age." Foster joked that celebrities are now expected to reveal they're gay "with a press conference, a fragrance and a prime-time reality show. And you guys might be surprised, but I am not Honey Boo Boo Child. No. I'm sorry. That's just not me. It never was and it never will be. But please don't cry, because my reality show would be so boring." She added defiantly: "If you had been a public figure from the time that you were a toddler, if you'd had to fight for a life that felt real and honest and normal against all odds, then maybe you, too, might value privacy above all else." Foster thanked Cydney Bernard, a production manager whom she identified as "my heroic co-parent, my ex-partner in love but righteous soul sister in life," her former partner of 20 years - a relationship she never hid and from which she has two sons. Advertise | AdChoicesAdvertise | AdChoices Advertise | AdChoices .She also made it sound as if she planned to retire from acting once and for all, something she'd toyed with previously. "This feels like the end of one era and the beginning of something else. Scary and exciting, and now what?" Foster said. "I may never be up on this stage again, on any stage, for that matter." But backstage afterward, she clarified for reporters: "I could never stop acting. You'd have to drag me behind a team of horses. I'd like to be directing tomorrow. I'm more into it than I have ever been." As for why she chose this place and time to discuss her private life, Foster explained backstage: "The speech kind of speaks for itself. ... It's a big moment. I wanted to say what's most in my heart." Her revelation, vague as it was, nonetheless set Twitter on fire with reactions. Some called her words moving and brave while others suggested that she should have done more to be a role model for lesbians. Ricky Martin, who came out himself in 2010, tweeted: "Jody Foster On your terms. Its your time! Not before nor after. Its when it feels right." And Amy Poehler, who co-hosted the Golden Globes with longtime friend and fellow comedian Tina Fey, cracked as she was signing off for the night: "We're going home with Jodie Foster!" |
||
|
ed and ace.... [Ace is actually the clear winner, but ed you get points of egging Ace on...lol] |
||
|
ace_kyi 21-Jan-13, 18:32 |
Is this a joy or burden to have child ? i found this interesting. i am not sure i agree with all of it, but most of it is right on. people are happier and better off when they commit to something higher then themselves and personal freedom - i.e. family, community, god, craft, or country. ===================================================================== My comment: Consider yourself a thoroughbred horse who won the Kentucky derby. Horse owners will be asking your sperm to inseminate their mares to have thouroughbred horses like you. The owner of the thoroughbred horse will be proud and happy because he will get stud fee. You will have fun and sexual pleasure by having sex with so many mares. You will be also very proud of your new creation of many horses. The analogy is somewhat similar to donating blood which saves lives but here yor are creating new lives. Having said that, instead of a horse you are a man you want to give many lives to chldless couples for any reasons by donating your sperms without legal obligations such as alimony or child support. I told you about Jodi Foster, a lesbian's medico-legal implications of sex, marriage and having children. This is neither my imaginations or exaggerstions. Let me give you the real story in the following link below. A married man Mr. Marotta in Topeka, Kansas found an ad in craiglist that a lesbian couple want a sperm donor to have a child. The lesbians said they will pay the sperm donor and the donor will have no rights whatsoever, visitation or child support. The man already has children and does not want any more children. He asked his wife whether he can donate his sperm without any fee to make the lesbian couple happy. The wife agreed and he donated the sperm resulting in having a beautiful child. Soon afterwards, the lesbian couple separated. Kansas has no same sex marriage law. Since the lesbians were not legally married, the lesbian who has the child can neither ask alimony nor child support from other lesbian. She is poor and she asked the Kansas state for welfare and child support. Kansas state asked who the father is ? Since the artificial insemination was not performed at doctor's office, Kansas state said that the biological father who donated the sperm is responsible to pay child support although he had signed a consent that he has no legal obligations to do that. He was very surprised and unhappy when he heard for the court because he cannot afford to pay child support. He is appealing not to pay child support in the following news below. ====================================================================== www.msnbc.msn.com By KSNW News KSNW-TV updated 1/8/2013 6:18:29 AM ET 2013-01-08T11:18:29 Print Font: +-TOPEKA, Kansas — The first hearing for William Marotta has been delayed. The original date for the first hearing was January 8, but it has since been pushed back until April due to scheduling issues. Marotta donated his sperm back in 2009 to a lesbian couple to help them conceive a child. At that time, he signed a document, giving up his rights as a parent to the child. But when the women applied for state assistance this year, the state demanded they provide the donor's name so it could collect child support. The state says, because the child was conceived without the use of a licensed physician, the document they signed is null and void. The Kansas Department for Children and Families released a statement saying "in cases where parties do not go through a licensed physician or clinic, there remains the question of who actually is the father of the child or children. In such cases, DCF is required by statute to establish paternity and then pursue child support from the non-custodial parent." Marotta's attorney, Ben Swinnen says he's waiting to see what presumption the state is moving over, because they have yet to ask for a DNA test. |
Log in 
