Dr Nancy's Sweetie wrote:
> In alt.support.marriage Ian  wrote:
> > Yes. This is marxism. Everyone's equally bad.
>
> IIUC, Marxism takes the view that imbalance in material wealth is the
> source of trouble, and people are bad because some don't get enough
to
> fill their needs.

How odd, harriet harmanhater's crowd behave like a bunch of marxists
when it suits them, yet they give no regard to men becoming bad because
they give no free sex.

>
> That is to say, Marxism takes the view that "Everyone's equally
good",
> which seems to me exactly the wrong take on it.  People may be bad
when
> they have unmet needs, but lots of rich people are and always have
been
> bad too.
>

I think you and I agree that marxism doesn't work.

>
> The long-standing Christian view is the one that says "Everyone is
> equally bad", the doctrine known as "Original Sin" -- a doctrine
> explicitly rejected by Marx.
>

I could obviously discuss this at length in my favourite walloon bar
just of the grote markt in Brussel, but I'm not
going to.


> I believe that democracy is necessary, and all competent adults
should
> be permitted to vote, not because all people are wise and good and
the
> government is better for their advice, but because all people are
> flawed.  No one can be trusted with irresponsible power over other
> people, and therefore no one can be trusted to be the King.
Democracy
> is an effort to make sure that everyone answers to someone, in the
hope
> that this will act as a brake on those currently in charge.
>

I believe that too, but I also believe that no one can be trusted to be
elected, which is why I'm a monarchist. I don't
particularly like the queen, or her offspring, but I see them as a
safety net, someone who can grass up the other two parties in charge.
Failure to do this brings a republic, and elected officials are just
the ultimate in nest builders.

We get loads of wankers saying that we shouldn't have a monarchy, but
since the only thing they offer in substitute is elected officials,
whose future doesn't depend on the long term future of the country, and
they needn't have a care for it. Yes. So the monarchy's inherent
unfair. So what? Or nearest neighbour, France, had a prez who was so
happy he was running against a nazi last time round, or he'd be in jail
now. Practically every american president is bent, and look at Hoover.

So there are different democracies.

>  *
>
> As for the original post, the worst women have always been equal to
> the worst men.  They have committed murder, they have been
unfaithful,
> they have left their families, they have been thieves.

No they haven't. There's not been a woman in history to compare with
Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Genghis Kahn, etc. However, I take your point,
but at the extremes men do everything far more than women.


>
> Such people, male and female, have always been with us and always
will.
> Legal and social equality with men certainly wasn't going to make
women
> all become like Abraham Lincoln or Albert Einstein, any more than it
was
> going to make all men rise to the level of Florence Nightingale or
Grace

Florence Nightingale was actually a dyke whose "patients" died in more
frequency than Harold Shipman.

> Murray Hopper.

Inventing the common name for a software fault is indeed an
achievement, but men were already far beyond her. Turing had factored
rotor machines, for instance, even though the duck tours guides in
Boston still state that MIT invented the first digital computer. Yeah
right.


>
> Statistically, violent crimes are more commonly committed by men,
have
> been through history, and likely will be for years to come.  But the
> notion that women are somehow *better* than men, merely because they
are
> less likely to be violent, is simply stupid.

Less harmful then.

>
> There will always be some men as good as George Washington, and some
as
> bad as Timothy McVeigh; there will always be some women as good as
> Mother Teresa, and some as bad as Aileen Wuornos.

George Washington was a terrorist, as was Timothy McVeigh. The only
difference between the two, is that Mcveigh lost.

Mother Theresa was a self serving politician. Don't know Aileen
Wuornos.


>
>
> But I don't see any value in going on at length about women or men in
> this, as if sins become a bigger blight on the Universe depending on
the
> chromosomes of the sinner.

Stop being so reasonable woman. You'll never spark any controversial
debates with chatter like that.

>
>
> Darren Provine ! kilroy{at}elvis.rowan.edu !
http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
> "Human nature will not change.  In any future great national trial,
>  compared with the men of this, we shall have as weak and as strong,
>  as silly and as wise, as bad and as good." -- Abraham Lincoln
>                                                Monday, 10 November
1864



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/17/05 5:24:42 PM ---