On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Mahesh Murthy wrote:
[...]
> books to be discussed would be the Ramayana, the MB, the Upanishads, Vedas
After one such serious "tarkam" session, i was asked to pen my
thoughts for a religious magazine. My penchant for digging at the
roots of the language and insis
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 6:32 AM, Kiran K Karthikeyan
wrote:
>
>
> We've also once had to rudely refuse family friends of ours offering us a
> copy of the Bible. When we refused, they left it on the coffee table on
> their way out and had to be reminded to pick it up. When my father was
> hopitalis
> It's a common online practice, even on this forum,
> to not spoon-feed, but to point a questioner in
> the direction of resources that may answer his or her
> question.
Please allow me to point out that more often than not these resources are
dubious and untrustworthy, standing on one leg sort
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 8:02 PM, ss wrote:
> On Friday 13 Mar 2009 10:51:54 pm Mahesh Murthy wrote:
> > To start with, I never spoke of a change from conservative to less
> > conservative. I spoke of life forms in general following a behavioural
> > pattern that would not be termed conservative.
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 8:13 PM, ss wrote:
> On Friday 13 Mar 2009 10:29:34 pm Mahesh Murthy wrote:
> > What you believe or not to be juvenile is irrelevant.
> >
> > Do get to the issue if you feel like, you've tried to distract enough :-)
>
> My sincere apologies - but I think your commenst abou
On Friday 13 Mar 2009 10:29:34 pm Mahesh Murthy wrote:
> What you believe or not to be juvenile is irrelevant.
>
> Do get to the issue if you feel like, you've tried to distract enough :-)
My sincere apologies - but I think your commenst about hand wringing and
distress were unnecessary even if t
On Friday 13 Mar 2009 10:51:54 pm Mahesh Murthy wrote:
> To start with, I never spoke of a change from conservative to less
> conservative. I spoke of life forms in general following a behavioural
> pattern that would not be termed conservative. I have not advocated a
> change either way. I do beli
--- On Sun, 15/3/09, Charles Haynes wrote:
> From: Charles Haynes
> Subject: Re: [silk] What is "Indian culture"?
> To: silklist@lists.hserus.net
> Date: Sunday, 15 March, 2009, 3:06 PM
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 5:59 PM,
> Bonobashi
> wrote:
>
> > T
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Bonobashi wrote:
> The Japanese used baths, too, constructed in place of wood generally (this is
> from memory of texts and books) heated by placing heated stones under the
> bath.
> They were indoors as well as outdoors.
The heating technology varied, but they
Dune etc had the advantage of a single author. The Mahabharata is a huge
accretion of tons of third party interpolations .. every single wannabe guru
with a new message found it very convenient to tack on some verses where
bhishma, krishna, arjuna etc said "x was a good thing", or where "shakuni
> suffers from many versions, most of them bad. The worst I've come
> across the one by ISKCon/Bhaktivedanta Trust. There is a "Krsna, the
> supreme personality of godhead" or something similar in every line and
> it is the first and only book in my life which I bought and threw
> away.
I had that
> I found some aspects of your reply interesting. It is surprising to
> read of these aggressive methods of 'spreading the good Lord's word';
> for a moment, I thought you live in Southern Baptist country.
Most of the ultra aggressive conversion / missionary types, as well as the
extremely loud a
--- On Sun, 15/3/09, Mahesh Murthy wrote:
> From: Mahesh Murthy
> Subject: Re: [silk] What is "Indian culture"?
> To: silklist@lists.hserus.net
> Date: Sunday, 15 March, 2009, 1:32 PM
> > It is quite a shame,
> particularly because you also put an end to
>
> It is quite a shame, particularly because you also put an end to
Oh I'm sure I put an end to nothing. :-)
No one lost out on "appreciating the rich vision" of Hindu epics because of
me. I believe people will appreciate whatever they have to, whenever they
have to.
Back then, I took serious u
> I think personally that that's a shame; the Mahabharata in particular is so
> readable.
It is, as epics go, especially when you compare it with Kalevala, Beowulf
and the like. I've tried several times to wade through each of those. The
slightly more contemporaneous Iliad and Odyssey fare better
> I remember once being asked to attend a "book discussion session" by a
> well-meaning father of a friend, when I was in high school in Hyderabad.
>
> It quickly turned out to be a "discussion" of the Ramayana and the
> Mahabharata and it was soon apparent that the session was less about
> literar
--- On Sun, 15/3/09, Mahesh Murthy wrote:
> From: Mahesh Murthy
> Subject: Re: [silk] What is "Indian culture"?
> To: silklist@lists.hserus.net
> Date: Sunday, 15 March, 2009, 12:43 PM
> >
> >
> > > I don't see why being gifted a copy of the
> Just idle speculation as I recover slowly from the trial of bringing a cranky
> 89-year-old home from hospital: have you tried telling these bozos that this
> is not the version of the Bible you follow, and it is a fixed religious
> principle of yours not to accept scripture that does not adhe
>
>
> > I don't see why being gifted a copy of the Bible represented such a major
> theological defeat; it's a book.
> >
> > Depending on which edition it is, and their quality and readability
> differs wildly, it's quite a readable book,
>
> I agree and being presented a book is something I wel
--- On Sun, 15/3/09, Kiran K Karthikeyan wrote:
> From: Kiran K Karthikeyan
> Subject: Re: [silk] What is "Indian culture"?
> To: silklist@lists.hserus.net
> Date: Sunday, 15 March, 2009, 12:30 PM
> > I found some aspects of your
> reply interesting. It
> I found some aspects of your reply interesting. It is surprising to read of
> these aggressive methods of 'spreading the good Lord's word'; for a moment, I
> thought you live in Southern Baptist country.
>
> I don't see why being gifted a copy of the Bible represented such a major
> theologica
--- On Sun, 15/3/09, ss wrote:
> From: ss
> Subject: Re: [silk] What is "Indian culture"?
> To: silklist@lists.hserus.net
> Date: Sunday, 15 March, 2009, 9:35 AM
>
> -Inline Attachment Follows-
>
> On Sunday 15 Mar 2009 8:18:27 am
> Charles Ha
--- On Sun, 15/3/09, ss wrote:
> From: ss
> Subject: Re: [silk] What is "Indian culture"?
> To: silklist@lists.hserus.net
> Date: Sunday, 15 March, 2009, 7:37 AM
>
> -Inline Attachment Follows-
>
> The reason I posted this news is the
> fact
--- On Sun, 15/3/09, Kiran K Karthikeyan wrote:
> From: Kiran K Karthikeyan
> Subject: Re: [silk] What is "Indian culture"?
> To: silklist@lists.hserus.net
> Date: Sunday, 15 March, 2009, 6:32 AM
> Suresh,
>
> 2009/3/15 Suresh Ramasubramanian
>
&g
On Sunday 15 Mar 2009 9:48:49 am Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> Even the rich - bishops, kings and such - didn’t bathe.
I had an argument about a related topic recently with a person who insisted
that Hindus are clean because they bathe every day. I tried to point out that
if you select 1000 Hi
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 1:05 AM, ss wrote:
>
> This is interesting information. Could the "vanity" part have been because
> only the richest could afford to bathe often in those times and the Church
> was catering to the (unwashed) faithful?
Maybe. Europeans who first came to Brazil found Brazili
> This is interesting information. Could the "vanity" part have been
> because only the richest could afford to bathe often in those times and the
> Church was catering to the (unwashed) faithful?
Even the rich - bishops, kings and such - didn’t bathe.
> I wonder who invented the shower - which
On Sunday 15 Mar 2009 8:18:27 am Charles Haynes wrote:
> There was a time when European Christians considered it vain to bathe
> too often. Japanese woodcuts during the era of first contact sometimes
> depict westerners with flies flying around them because the Japanese
> considered them to have su
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 1:07 PM, ss wrote:
> The reason I posted this news is the fact that wearing kumkum and flowers (and
> bangles??) seems to be considered Hindu culture,
Possibly, but it might just have been considered "un-Christian"
depending on the particular sect of Christianity. It might
The reason I posted this news is the fact that wearing kumkum and flowers (and
bangles??) seems to be considered Hindu culture,
Catholics even in Europe and other places are accused of being idol
worshippers anyway so the Indian twist is hardly new. Bangalore has dozens of
flower and lamp dec
Suresh,
2009/3/15 Suresh Ramasubramanian
> Interesting bit of nonsense here. Quality reporting (!) to be sure.
I wouldn't dismiss it so easily. Churches in Kerala have long ago adoped the
"nila-vilakku", a bronze lamp used in Hindu homes and religious ceremonies.
I've been to as many churches
> To: silklist@lists.hserus.net
> Subject: Re: [silk] What is "Indian culture"?
>
> http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?Title=Priest+admits+to+id
> ol+worship+in+churches&artid=1WM/aO6Ec6I=&SectionID=7GUA38txp3s=&MainSe
> ctionID=7GUA38txp3s=&Sect
http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?Title=Priest+admits+to+idol+worship+in+churches&artid=1WM/aO6Ec6I=&SectionID=7GUA38txp3s=&MainSectionID=7GUA38txp3s=&SectionName=zkvyRoWGpmWSxZV2TGM5XQ==&SEO=B%20K%20Somashekara
"The Commission is inquiring into the recent attacks on churches in Karnat
> Mahesh - this is actually a juvenile statement
> In fact that reveals more about you than me.
Argue against his arguments. Why attack the person?
Lets get back to our CiX days for this
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html
http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies
>
> Could I ask you to point me to the message or messages in which you have
> provided statistical and evolutionary evidence that a change of human
> morality from more conservative to less consrvative has a long term
> survival
> benefit for humans.
>
> I think I missed it while I was being antsy
>
>
> This is what I believe is juvenile -
What you believe or not to be juvenile is irrelevant.
Do get to the issue if you feel like, you've tried to distract enough :-)
On Friday 13 Mar 2009 7:32:57 pm Mahesh Murthy wrote:
> I don't believe so.
>
> And I have endeavoured to prove the opposite, with evolutionary,
> statistical and other evidence.
Could I ask you to point me to the message or messages in which you have
provided statistical and evolutionary evidenc
On Friday 13 Mar 2009 7:39:51 pm Mahesh Murthy wrote:
> The discussion, if you must know, is having an amused, calming effect on
> me.
>
> :-)
>
> I have explained before that distressed people are known to wring hands. If
> this is not you, you really shouldn't be worried
I think that you are mer
> The problem as far as I can see is the effect this discussion is having on
> you
> making you speak of actions like "hand wringing", or people
> being "distressed"
The discussion, if you must know, is having an amused, calming effect on me.
:-)
I have explained before that distressed people ar
>
> Tanks for the clarification. I presume you are no longer concerned about
> other peripheral issues like conservative people who may be distressed or
> wringing their hands.
Distressed people (conservative or otherwise) are known to wring their
hands. And it's quite reasonable of me to mentio
On Friday 13 Mar 2009 6:35:26 pm Mahesh Murthy wrote:
> If I recall, you prefaced much of your hypothesis that started it all with
> words to the effect of "I don't necessarily believe what I am saying here,
> but let's have a discussion about it anyway".
>
> And now you're getting all antsy about
On Friday 13 Mar 2009 6:02:32 pm Mahesh Murthy wrote:
> To repeat, I have clearly stated that I believe there is a large area in
> the middle between the opposite extremes of "fidelity" and "free communal
> sex" that most creatures exist in.
>
> Coolness, liberalism, the price of fish and the GDP o
Cory Doctorow [13/03/09 13:19 +]:
Did someone call?
And how did the ramayana confound you, cory?
That I've got to see ..
srs
Charles Haynes wrote:
You left out decadent westerners and their values trying to corrupt
good hearted Hindus but being confounded by the virtue of the
R
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Did someone call?
Charles Haynes wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Mahesh Murthy
> wrote:
>> Pakistan! Free Sex! Womanhood! Family values! Hand-wringing distress!
>> Folks, we have ourselves a full-fledged formula movie here!
>
> You left
Damn! Crossover global hit!
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Charles Haynes wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Mahesh Murthy
> wrote:
> > Pakistan! Free Sex! Womanhood! Family values! Hand-wringing distress!
> > Folks, we have ourselves a full-fledged formula movie here!
>
> You left out
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Mahesh Murthy wrote:
> Pakistan! Free Sex! Womanhood! Family values! Hand-wringing distress!
> Folks, we have ourselves a full-fledged formula movie here!
You left out decadent westerners and their values trying to corrupt
good hearted Hindus but being confounded
Pakistan! Free Sex! Womanhood! Family values! Hand-wringing distress!
Folks, we have ourselves a full-fledged formula movie here!
Cue A R Rahman... :-)
> It seems to me the claim that the sexually inexperienced should not
>
> > argue about sexual mores is roughly the same as saying that someone
>
>
> Are you tyring to make an oblique advertisement about your own sexuality
> while talking about mine?
Wow :-)
And I thought subliminal advertising was dead and gone among us advertising
folks :-)
>
>
> I put it to you that you know less about free sex, sex outside of marriage
> or
> frequ
On Friday 13 Mar 2009 5:54:39 pm Charles Haynes wrote:
> It seems to me the claim that the sexually inexperienced should not
> argue about sexual mores is roughly the same as saying that someone
> who's never been to Pakistan should not try to discuss Pakistani
> mores.
Wrong analogy. You need to
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Udhay Shankar N wrote:
> ss wrote, [on 3/13/2009 5:32 PM]:
>
> > Mahesh - this is actually a juvenile statement because you don't know
> where I
> > am coming from but you reveal where you are coming from.
>
I said that a particular instance would be distressing
On Friday 13 Mar 2009 5:11:14 pm Ingrid wrote:
> so, do the religious/ethical/moral aspects of culture exist/evolve to
> counteract biological impulses/instincts that are hazardous to the
> prevalent social hierarchy?
I don't think morality necessarily counteracts biological impulses/instincts.
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 11:02 PM, ss wrote:
> I put it to you that you know less about free sex, sex outside of marriage or
> frequent changes of sexual partners than you claim to know. Perhaps that is
> why you take so much trouble to second guess my own sexual history and try to
> pin a particu
ss wrote, [on 3/13/2009 5:32 PM]:
> Mahesh - this is actually a juvenile statement because you don't know where I
> am coming from but you reveal where you are coming from.
>
> Regardless of whether I am sexually conservative or liberal I have a
> viewpoint.
>
> I suspect that you feel it is
On Friday 13 Mar 2009 9:51:05 am Mahesh Murthy wrote:
> I can imagine that this must be severely distressing to most sexually
> conservative folks.
Mahesh - this is actually a juvenile statement because you don't know where I
am coming from but you reveal where you are coming from.
Regardless
so, do the religious/ethical/moral aspects of culture exist/evolve to
counteract biological impulses/instincts that are hazardous to the prevalent
social hierarchy?
do they serve any other purpose?
Amidst the frenzied hand-wringing, I think the issue I grok is that you see
"free communal sex" as the only alternative to fidelity.
In fact these are two thinly-populated extremes on the bell curve, and
neither is evolutionarily common or preferred.
A few billion human beings (apart from a few t
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 12:45 PM, ss wrote:
> Why did Rama reject Sita after her rescue from Lanka?
I was under the impression that scholars thought that particular part
of the Ramayana was a relatively recent accretion, and not
contemporaneous with the rest of the writing?
> Is there any Chris
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 12:20 PM, ss wrote:
> But hello? It appears that the bonobo model did not work well for many people
> who lived through the age of Aquarius and a reversion to Victorian models of
> fidelity and morality became a better bet for one's personal life. Why the
> mealy mouthed
On Thursday 12 Mar 2009 10:12:04 pm Radhika, Y. wrote:
> what about the effect of victorian england on hindu mores regarding
> sexuality? surely this would have disturbed the continuum?
Hindu society is likely to have been modified both by Islamic views on
morality as well as Victorian morality.
On Friday 13 Mar 2009 2:53:24 am Charles Haynes wrote:
> I wonder how bonobos are supposed to fit this male dominant "serial
> monogamy" model. Because they certainly don't by any stretch of the
> imagination, and if you're going to try to play the "mongamy is
> natural law" card, then bonobos, as
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:06 PM, Mahesh Murthy wrote:
>> No they do not demand fidelity but they do not allow any other males to
>> have sex with their females. If there is a a difference please tell me.
> The females are *already* nesting with other males. Alpha males don't stop
> them from d
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:06 PM, Mahesh Murthy wrote:
> You do have this bugbear about free, communal sex :-)
> Wonder why :-) Worry not, we all missed out on the age of Aquarius :-)
Speak for yourself.
-- Charles
what about the effect of victorian england on hindu mores regarding
sexuality? surely this would have disturbed the continuum?
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 4:06 AM, Mahesh Murthy wrote:
> > I love your sense of humor.
>
>
> Inadvertant, but always glad to entertain :-)
>
>
> > No they do not demand fi
> I love your sense of humor.
Inadvertant, but always glad to entertain :-)
> No they do not demand fidelity but they do not allow any other males to
> have
> sex with their females. If there is a a difference please tell me.
The females are *already* nesting with other males. Alpha males do
On Thursday 12 Mar 2009 11:49:50 am Mahesh Murthy wrote:
> Even today, most talk of fidelity seems to emanate from those who were
> brought up in Christian / Islamic backgrounds of convent schools or
> madrassas,
I love your sense of humor.
>
> Per most available evidence, alpha males do not de
> The theory sounds compelling and deserves to be considered as a close
> approximation of reality - but going by Hindu tradition the demand for
> female
> fidelity is older than Christianity and Islam.
Asking someone to look at a constellation - assuming you could find it
during a rare cloudless
On Thursday 12 Mar 2009 1:43:11 am Mahesh Murthy wrote:
> - Fidelity is an aberration from the point of view of evolutionary biology,
> where fidelity is not indicated as a means to produce the fittest
> offspring.
>
> - If you were to consider humankind as merely another specie, then the
> female'
I've heard the number 10% for India too.
That's somewhat astounding - implying that some 100+ million people here are
not the children of their mothers' long-term partners.
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 2:32 AM, Badri Natarajan wrote:
> > Also, from what I've read:
> >
> > - DNA testing of hunter /
> Also, from what I've read:
>
> - DNA testing of hunter / gatherer societies show different dispersion of
> parentage - much more of the supposed alpha-male-in-a-commune kind of
> patterns, with no discernible lineage of the
>
JADP, even in modern Western societies, "dispersion of parentage" is m
Also, from what I've read:
- DNA testing of hunter / gatherer societies show different dispersion of
parentage - much more of the supposed alpha-male-in-a-commune kind of
patterns, with no discernible lineage of the two-parents-in-mutual-fidelity
kind
- this two-parent-in-mutual-fidelity lineage
[Meta: Glad to see Bonobashi has (for the most part) fixed his mail
client's quoting]
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Bonobashi wrote:
> The wandering of the Indo-Aryans was one of the phenomena which
> contributed to this revolution. Think of male domination of society as
> a disease. The IA vo
On Wednesday 11 Mar 2009 6:46:40 pm Ingrid wrote:
> maternity is usually a provable fact. paternity, without DNA testing, a
> claim.
> this is not a significant issue when resources and responsibilities are
> jointly owned or shared by a tribe/clan/commune/kibbutz/joint family.
> it is also not an
easily available everywhere?
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 5:39 AM, ss wrote:
> On Wednesday 11 Mar 2009 3:21:27 pm gabin kattukaran wrote:
> > Which book is this?
>
> Lost Ciivilizations of the Stone Age - Richard Rudgley, Arrow 1998
>
>
Can I norrow this book if someone (from silk) in Bangalore has it?
V
On 3/11/09, ss wrote:
> On Wednesday 11 Mar 2009 3:21:27 pm gabin kattukaran wrote:
>> Which book is this?
>
> Lost Ciivilizations of the Stone Age - Richard Rudgley, Arrow 1998
>
>
--
Sent from my mobile device
2009/3/11 ss
> On Wednesday 11 Mar 2009 4:34:15 pm Ingrid wrote:
> > monogamy and the control of women's sexuality in general, are only
> > necessary when patrilineal private property is the norm. all communal
> forms
> > are, therefore, viable alternatives.
>
> Could you expand on this a little
On Wednesday 11 Mar 2009 3:21:27 pm gabin kattukaran wrote:
> Which book is this?
Lost Ciivilizations of the Stone Age - Richard Rudgley, Arrow 1998
OT but all this talk of marriage and family reminds me of
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ysm9eRtYHk
shiv
On Wednesday 11 Mar 2009 4:34:15 pm Ingrid wrote:
> monogamy and the control of women's sexuality in general, are only
> necessary when patrilineal private property is the norm. all communal forms
> are, therefore, viable alternatives.
Could you expand on this a little bit more please
shiv
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 08:51:23AM +0530, ss wrote:
> > It seems to me that, at least for now, overpopulation is a more
> > serious threat to sustainability.
Sustainability is a function of the technology available. Unfortunately
we're in an unstable regime where we need to push for ridiculously
2009/3/11 ss
> On Wednesday 11 Mar 2009 8:14:05 am Charles Haynes wrote:
> > As I mention above, even if you believe that children are best raised
> > in a stable multi-adult environment, it's not clear how that implies
> > marriage, or even traditional family.
>
> It does not, but the only known
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:25:42AM +, Sriram Karra wrote:
> > 8. Children talk back to adults.
>
> "I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on
> the frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless
> beyond words.
>
> When I was a boy, we were taught to
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Bonobashi wrote:
>
> What I was trying to 'sell' to you, Shiv, as you have spotted, is the idea
> that matriarchal society was the accepted norm right through pre-history,
> with all the riff-raff (males) sent safely far away from the camp to hunt,
> while grow
--- On Wed, 11/3/09, ss wrote:
> From: ss
> Subject: Re: [silk] What is "Indian culture"?
> To: silklist@lists.hserus.net
> Date: Wednesday, 11 March, 2009, 8:00 AM
>
> -Inline Attachment Follows-
>
> On Tuesday 10 Mar 2009 11:51:23 pm
> Radhik
On Wednesday 11 Mar 2009 9:02:21 am . wrote:
> This is a good thing IMO, since parenting is a responsibility, not a
> right on account of its biological function.
Not disagreeing with your views which you have a right to hold, but just
asking about what I have quoted above
Who defines rights an
On Wednesday 11 Mar 2009 9:05:51 am Charles Haynes wrote:
> Except that the ideas in your first paragraph (monogamous families are
> the best we know) are being used as justification to prohibit the
> second (investigate alternatives) - sometimes violently.
True.
And this is politics. On what gro
On 3/10/09 8:38 PM, "lukhman_khan" wrote:
>
> If divorces are becoming rampant, somehow the broken families will deal with
> themselves. The society will also find a way. The people whose families broke
> will get along.
>
> (A breakup)? it will all be normal.
"Getting along" is not the equiva
>> "I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent >> on the
>> frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are
>> reckless beyond words.
>> When I was a boy, we were taught to be discrete and
>> respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly
>> wise and impati
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 2:04 PM, ss wrote:
> On Wednesday 11 Mar 2009 8:14:05 am Charles Haynes wrote:
>> As I mention above, even if you believe that children are best raised
>> in a stable multi-adult environment, it's not clear how that implies
>> marriage, or even traditional family.
> It doe
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 10:16 PM, ss wrote:
>
> Research about the results of not marrying is going on right now. Long term
> effects will not be in for at least 20 years from now. It is not at all clear
> that for human children the "happy single parent" environment is good.
> Research seems to
On Wednesday 11 Mar 2009 8:14:05 am Charles Haynes wrote:
> > And as Western populations are allowing female
> > independence in this way, it is being accompanied by a fall in fertility
> > as women choose to have fewer babies.
>
> It seems to me that, at least for now, overpopulation is a more
>
On Wednesday 11 Mar 2009 8:14:05 am Charles Haynes wrote:
> As I mention above, even if you believe that children are best raised
> in a stable multi-adult environment, it's not clear how that implies
> marriage, or even traditional family.
It does not, but the only known method so far is the fami
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 5:55 AM, Sriram Karra wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 7:15 AM, Udhay Shankar N wrote:
>
>
> > 8. Children talk back to adults.
>
>
> "I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on
> the frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless
>
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 1:16 PM, ss wrote:
> Support through
> physical illness and other times of stress (such as unemployment) is much
> better from the family unit rather than the individual unit.
...
> Pregnant women, and women with infants need support from others
> and "independence" is not
On Tuesday 10 Mar 2009 11:51:23 pm Radhika, Y. wrote:
> I personally believe that the law in every country needs to go from
> offering protection to offering futures for women. Yes, it must protect
> women from marital rape, domestic abuse and where the spouses have
> irreconciliable differences, t
On Tuesday 10 Mar 2009 11:37:30 pm . wrote:
> I know there is a whole industry that earns its bread from getting
> people married :) but why the undue emphasis on the institution of
> marriage and why should it be protected? Is there any research that
> has been done to find out the negative effect
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 7:15 AM, Udhay Shankar N wrote:
> 8. Children talk back to adults.
"I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on
the frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless
beyond words.
When I was a boy, we were taught to be discrete and r
Shiv, I agree that fidelity must be expected for both men and women. Not
getting divorced in INdia where a marriage has gone bad is also often
because the spouses want to save face-too many at the anecdotal level to
relate.
In my experience as a 20-something divorced woman in India in the early 90
Its strange that this discussion is about men & women but few women
are participating in a discussion which is also about "them" ..
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 6:22 AM, ss wrote:
> Be that as it may, the divorce rates in the West are not necessarily high
> merely because of infidelity are they? T
On Mar 10, 2009, at 6:14 AM, Mahesh Murthy wrote:
Be that as it may, the divorce rates in the West are not
necessarily high
merely because of infidelity are they?
It is certainly the most frequently-quoted cause.
In most such cases, I would argue that infidelity is merely a symptom
On Tuesday 10 Mar 2009 5:04:41 pm Anish Mohammed wrote:
> Hi Shiv,
> I have to agree to disagree with you. Your views about NHS I beleive come
> from your days in UK. Things have changed quite a bit, I have quite a few
> Asian ( and Indian) friends who are consultants, and even some classmates
>
1 - 100 of 147 matches
Mail list logo
