> > I'm just suggesting the Church serves male
> interests
> > so they were too. But you're right we're way off
> > topic.
>
>
>
> We are - my email works, if you want to continue but
> I warn you, I wax long
> winded on the subject... :}
Probably best to wind up here, and agree to differ,
judging from lack of other posts we're obviously
boring everyone or becoming reality TV....:)
> > Not something I'd find convincing in Peckham....
>
>
>
> How about Naples in 1274?
>
Never been there. Now if you were talking Florence
1578........
> >
> > True, but you can always judge the material
> > consequences.
>
>
> I'm not at all sure one can.
I can judge my material situation quite well, that of
my peers fairly well, and that of others with
sufficient accuracy, and postulate some causal chain
or another :)
>
> One can make a value judgement at the time, of the
> time.
>
> I'm quite happy to talk about universal standards,
> but then, I would be. :)
Well yes, as we now know the aesthetic of the most
vital statistics varies widely over time and culture,
but the ratio remains the same. I suspect
aesthetics-ethics has a universal structure.....
> >
> > Thats an interesting point. I'd guess really the
> only
> > validly valuable quantity would be the quality of
> life
> > it produces.
>
>
>
> According to whom, though? The individual? Someone
> other than the
> individual??
> ...
>
Every individual....
> >
> >
> > > In any case, an SQ would
> > > presumably encounter
> > > the same problems of IQ - that any system of
> > > evaluation will to some
> > > extent reflect the dominant/ethnocentric values
> of
> > > those who design the
> > > system.
> >
> > In part yes I agree. But my main point was
> whatever
> > method of quantification is used and whatever
> > different values found, there would always be a
> bell
> > curve. Though that doesn't justify the
> essentialist
> > misuse of that concept, popular in certain
> influential
> > circles at the moment, it just reflects a
> contingent
> > rarity in our society.
>
>
>
> And I still don't see *why*.
Because its hard work and requires resources even if
available to all...... And we live in a lazy society
with scant resources
for most, even if we are the least brainwashed by
religion(perhaps).
>
> So really, the best placed people do to this are not
> elite adults, but
> infants? Serious question....
>
> ...
Yes, you must be as children to enter the kingdom of
heaven ;)
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
|