here we go again...

[bae]

Even under another name, when ya hear "pooh pooh head", ya know it's him.

See, here I thought it was Mark V. Shaney again.

[redfox]

and the convo deteriorates into ...nothing...

Well, subtlety is different than nothing!

[Zoebird]

Here is the entire post that you presume to damn me with.

I am not damning you. I'm calling you out for inappropriate behavior. I'm not taking issue with you, I'm taking issue with the words that you stated. Likewise, I'm not presuming anything (as this assumes a great deal, and there is actually very little that I'm assuming. I'm taking your words on face-value.)

Tell me exactly what is ignorant and condescending?

I have. This will be the third time. 115, 117, and now this one.

First, you asserted that you felt that the amish were "at worst, regressive." "Regressive" means backwards.

Considering a community backwards -- by using a term that means backwards -- is condescending toward that community.

But, I see from your post here:

I admitted in a later post that I meant repressive, not regressive, (although regressive simply means opposing progress) {snip}

I apologize that I did not read/see that. If it is the case (and if you could reference the post that would be helpful, but it is not necessary), then I apologize for continuing on this particular vein after the fact. Assuming that you did reframe (and I'll give the benefit of the doubt rather than having to re-read everything *right now!* to verify it), then I accept this reframing as being closer to your meaning, and that you did not mean to disparage the amish in this way.

Second, you also assert that the amish are ignorant and incapable of living in the modern world because of their education -- that they are only capable of washing toilets or waiting tables. You give many examples from books to cultural references to modern technological advances.

But of course, there is ample evidence to the contrary -- which I provided. This evidence demonstrates that

1. the amish are often, and obviously, more educated than 8th grade based on their lifestyles;
2. many amish who choose to join their community have higher education (to qualify for higher education, you have to demonstrate the intelligence and ability to complete the material first, which indicates that they do not lack education, even if it isn't formal after age 13);
3. the amish who choose to not join their community usually seek higher education and/or go into the trades where they already have experience, thus "making it" in the modern world.

You perpetually asserted the opposite -- without providing evidence, and becoming hung up on how you believe shunning is practiced within the culture (despite evidence to the contrary there as well).

When you state that a person is simply too ignorant, uneducated and therefore incapable of living in the modern world -- amish or not -- this is a disparaging statement.

Likewise, I find it condescending to be told to "take a breath" or "sheesh, get a grip!" these are condescending, personal attacks against me, asserting that I both need to calm down and that I do not have a "grip" (on reality). I quoted you in this as well. I also find the accusation that I am not "actually reading your posts!" as personally disparaging.

And example exists in your last post as well:

and if you had actually read my posts instead of damning me, you would know that.

You have also stated "do you even read what you write?" to me.

I very much take this world online seriously. I take my communication seriously, and I think it is important to carefully read -- to the best of my ability -- other people's posts.

You're pretty much the only one calling names here.

Actually, I have not once called you a name. I have asked you several times to quote me where I have called you names, demonized you, or -- for that matter -- damned you. Feel free to quote me where I have personally attacked you at all.

I have only asserted that your words were disparaging toward the amish and condescending towards me. I quoted those words and explained my position several times.

You cannot simply 'claim victimhood' here, when there is no evidence of you being a victim of anything.

I stand by all my words.

I will accept the regressive/repressive reframe -- I'm sorry that I didn't catch it before. But so far, you have refused to accept that you have been condescending towards me several times in our communications here. Likewise, you accuse me of being condescending, but do not provide any evidence to this. It seems to me that since you refuse to even deal with these direct quotes of your statements towards me, you have no intention of 'standing by all" of your words.

[Zoebird]

You seem to agree with me that they don't have the cultural references, the background in literature, education, or experience we all share in this MODERN world, which is what I'm talking about. I never said a person can't learn. You INFERED that. I just said an 8th grade education does not prepare you to live successfully in THIS MODERN WORLD. And it doesn't. That isn't denigrating. It's reality. And if your culture doesn't embrace or value education beyond 13, then you are hard pressed to 'go it alone'. I never said some don't. Again, your 'interpretation' of what I said. I just said it was very difficult. And the faster this world speeds ahead, the harder it will be.

We actually disagree here. I thought I was clear in this. I do not think that people need to have the same cultural experiences in order to make their way in that culture's world. I believe that humans are infinitely intelligent and adaptable, regardless of the level of difficulty or the disparity between the person's prior culture and new culture.

And, you speak in absolutes here, too "It just doesn't." --which, again, is condescending because it asserts that any disagreement with your assertion is absolutely wrong and that the other person living in a fantasy, without evidence. But as far as I can tell, so far, the only person to not provide *any* evidence on the topic of the amish thus far is you (with the exception of amish.net, which actually didn't seem to support your post, but that's neither here nor there).

And, most of what you assume has been demonstrated to be false. You assume that the amish don't value education beyond age 13. The reality is that young people are educated -- outside of the traditional education that we might understand and utilize - in ways that their community values (even though you may not value it). And that these young people can and often do go on to higher education, some choosing to stay and some choosing to leave.

These sorts of statements greatly misrepresent the amish -- in both my experience and education, as well as the evidence that I provided to you in prior posts -- and yet you still keep making these statements over and over, with absolutisms such as "And it just doesn't."

Likewise, my inference was a logical inference based on what you had posted.

When a person is asserting their position, their process is to assert evidence that leads to specific inferences and outcomes. The idea is that the writer (or communicator if one is communicating orally or what have you) is providing evidence in such a way that the reader will infer the proper intent and meaning of the writer.

Thus, if I am inferring it, it is logical to have done so based on the evidence that you provided.

You are so invested in making these people educated, and forward thinking, and hip and connected, you've got them more savvy than a New Yorker!

Here is an example of "reading into things." I've never stated these things, nor would it be logical to infer this from the statements that I have made or the evidence that I have provided regarding the amish (both my experience and other articles from the internet).

You can't even allow them to be what they are, a closed religious sect that live a simple, fairly austere (simple, plain, disciplined) life. I would suggest you are the one being condescending. I accept them for who and what they are. But apparently that bothers you.

Again, this is a wild, false claim. You have no evidence to support this claim, and I fail to understand why you would make it.

I own my words. They are not denigrating and I won't apologize or re-phrase them to fit your world view. Sorry Zoe, you are just going to have to accept that.

Now, if you want to discuss the merits of an 8th grade education,(dropping out at 13) and how it's doesn't prepare you to function successfully in a modern, 21st century world, that's another thread we can start.

I don't think this is necessary, because it is out of context.

Foremost, the amish -- for which this is contextual -- do not "drop out." They finish their formal education (as we understand formal education) at 13, and then begin their education. You might call it their life-learning, or continuing educaiton, or skilled learning. Then, as they enter into young adulthood, they may get more formal education (in the form of secondary education) or they may not. And they may also become amish or not become amish.

In not becoming amish, they may choose to get any amount of education -- and they are capable of it because they are educated. Are they educated in the same way as the average american teenager? No, they are not.

But neither is bae's daughter.

And that is where the argument is *relevant.*

There is a process out there called "unschooling." It is where the idea of formalized education (for which you advocate so highly) is considered problematic, so much so that a parent wants to eschew formal education all together. No curricula, no direct process.

So, does this create entirely ignorant, ill-prepared, uneducated children?

No, it does not. Every unschooled child whom I have met is far beyond his/her own peers. S/he is capable of learning anything, enthusastic about it, and follows his/her passions.

What is the process? When a child suggests an interest, the parents provide support of that interest (this is, admittedly, the antithesis of the amish -- but there *is* a point that is relevant). And by following this interest, the child self-educates. . .well, for his/her whole life.

These children also usually go to university, but most go after they have learned a trade. It's an interesting process.

But why is it relevant?

Because we are talking about choice -- the choices that parents get to make in regards to how they educate their kids, what it means for their kids, and what it means for the whole community (our society as a whole, which includes sub-communities such as 'hippies' and 'republicans' and 'amish').

Whether we are talking about the amish -- effectively home-schooling from 8th grade on -- or an unschooler who never sends his/her child to school and never sets them to a curriculum, or a fundamentalist christian who doesn't want their children to learn the theory of evolution, or any other formation that you can think of -- what we are talking about is what individuals value for themselves and their children.

A parent -- like myself -- is going to choose for their child based on their values. The amish value their way of life -- and so they act in accordance with those values.

While I might have any number of qualms about how another person may choose to educate their child, at the end of the day, I have to recognize that their values and my values are divergent.

And because they are divergent, there may be some conflict or tension in those values. And that's ok, truly.

Which is also why your last claim -- that I somehow want you to "fit my worldview" -- this is not at all the case. Aside from being unsubstantiated, I value different world views greatly. I always have.

This includes world views that I might find troubling, difficult, or problematic. Yes, there are some world views that hold less value than others (i tend to feel this way about absolute world views, btw -- which might also be why I find your statements such as "it just is!" and "get a grip!" to be condescending) -- but who is the arbiter as to which world views should be upheld and which world views should not?

And it is this that ties back to the abortion argument. There isn't wrong in Alan's world view. But there isn't wrong in your worldview (assuming, women have absolute right to choice). And there isn't wrong in a lot of world views in the middle.

But these world views are in conflict -- and it is only through *respectful* and *clear* communication of these ideas can we come to any sense of other perspectives, understand the points of view, and come to conclusions that would support as many world views as possible when defining the social and legal processes of our society.

At the end of the day, you're either going to choose to communicate respectfully or you are not.

You have been repeatedly disparaging of the amish (regarding their education and capacity), you have made wild claims about me (you would have me admire them! you make them out to be more savvy than a New Yorker!) where there is no evidence to support this, you have claimed victimhood and asserted that I have demonized you, called you names, and so on (again, without providing any evidence), and you have condescended toward me (get a grip! do you even read my posts? do you even read what you write?).

And you refuse to take ownership of any of it. If you own your words, then you would take what I am saying to you seriously.

Now, and finally, I will not speak of this again. If you cannot see my points -- when they have been so clearly laid out multiple times -- then it is obvious to me that you simply lack the capacity.

[flowerseverywhere]

why does Texas have the most stringent laws in this area yet have an astounding record of Capitol punishment? Playing god?

How can you argue that we need to reduce government interference except in this matter, which is legal? Don't we have far bigger problems?

And lastly, how can we care so much about this issue while a soldier recently went on a rampage in Afghanistan, we recently has a teenager kill classmates in Ohio, and every day you can find a report of some child being murdered or badly abused by its parents.

It doesn't make sense why this issue is so much more important it has led people to say some really nasty stuff to each other

[poetry_writer]

Flowers why do we care so much about this issue? Because life is precious. People seem to ramble in all directions on this forum rather than stay on topic. Some here think it is ok to kill. That shows why our society and the world is in the pitiful and pathetic state it is in.

[peggy]

Zoe, you really crack me up! In your above post you say I 'insulted' you by stating you didn't read what I wrote..while admitting you DIDN'T READ WHAT I WROTE! Unbelievable! You missed the regressive/repressive thing, and by the way, regressive doesn't mean stupid or backwards, it means rejecting progress. Perhaps a more careful reading of what I wrote will help you find more things you missed.

Again, you keep saying i called them ignorant and backwards. I DID NOT! And I consider this lie you keep telling as a personal attack on me.


Shunning
Shunning, or meidung means expulsion from the Amish community for breaching religious guidelines -- including marrying outside the faith. The practice of shunning is the main reason that the Amish broke away from the Mennonites in 1693. When an individual is subject to meidung, it means they have to leave their friends, family and lives behind. All communication and contact is cut off, even among family members. Shunning is serious, and usually considered a last resort after repeated warnings.

Shunning can be broken down into behaviours and practices that seek to accomplish either or both of two primary goals.
1.To modify the behaviour of a member. This approach seeks to influence, encourage, or coerce normative behaviours from members, and may seek to dissuade, provide disincentives for, or to compel avoidance of certain behaviours. Shunning may include disassociating from a member by other members of the community who are in good standing. It may include more antagonistic psychological behaviours (described below). This approach may be seen as either corrective or punitive (or both) by the group membership or leadership, and may also be intended as a deterrent.

and from your post:
"There are several different kinds of problems -- everything from abuse in families, hiding of people with disabilities, and genetic health problems that are as yet to be solved (though there are several 'english' doctors who are working on that specifically -- one of them formerly amish himself, but desiring to go to medical school, he did, and simply "missed the time" that he could become amish. in deciding to stick with modern medicine as a profession -- he simply 'drifted away' from the amish community. And yet, not fully shunned, he is their go-to physician for his community, and he's managed to find a treatment for three common genetic diseases -- I'll look for the source, it was a local newspaper article in the Lancaster New Era newspaper from about 5-6 years ago)."

See, I wonder why they would even sort of shun him, for wanting to be a modern medical doctor, or for not joining their church. And I'm guessing there are many other respectable career choices for which they can be shunned. Note, I never said they couldn't do these things, or were completely incapable of doing these things, I just said that if you knew you were going to be even a little shunned, that is incredible pressure to not consider these career choices.

In the country at large, 80% or more kids who grew up on the farm don't choose to be farmers. So what's keeping these kids back?

You are young and your kid is young. Maybe you don't realize the incredible influence and pressure a family and community can bring on to a kid. Not many kids would choose to be even a little shunned, or disapproved of strongly by family and community, which probably accounts for the low number that do leave.

I have known people who were forced to drop out of school at 13. These weren't just dumb rocks that just sat on their butts the rest of their lives. They were capable, hard working people, but every one of them wishes they could have continued their education. You seem to think it's easy peasy to simply continue your education on your own. It's not. It's very very difficult, especially when your family thinks you got all the formal education you needed by 13. I certainly admire anyone who does continue, because I know how very hard it is.

Nothing you say is going to convince me that the average Amish parent is encouraging their kid to seek education in computer science, electrical engineering, law, medical technology, physics, evolutionary biology, astronomy, and on and on. It's an exciting world out there, and getting more exciting all the time. Don't tell me these bright, curious, lively teens don't notice. And don't try to convince me that the parents are talking about all these things around the dinner table and encouraging their kids to explore.

•"Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?" (II Corinthians 6:14)

•"Come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord." (II Corinthians 6:17)


Don't forget we aren't talking about some remote tribe somewhere. We are talking about bright, curious American teenagers, smack dab in the middle of modern, progressive, exciting America. Frankly, the way I see this religious sect going forward, they will have to loosen up their restrictions and beliefs about the modern world, or they will go the way of Shakers.

"Now, and finally, I will not speak of this again. If you cannot see my points -- when they have been so clearly laid out multiple times -- then it is obvious to me that you simply lack the capacity."

Right back at ya.

[peggy]

Flowers why do we care so much about this issue? Because life is precious. People seem to ramble in all directions on this forum rather than stay on topic. Some here think it is ok to kill. That shows why our society and the world is in the pitiful and pathetic state it is in.

poetry writer, i"m curious. Mitt Romney said yesterday that as President he would completely de-fund Planned Parenthood. Do you agree with that?

[Gregg]

Is there some form of contraception that is 100% effective, and usable without nasty side effects by everyone?

Abstinence. And its already free.

[bae]

Abstinence. And its already free.

That method seems to suffer a significant failure rate in the real world, ideally though it performs under laboratory conditions.