Debenham and Caldwell in New York

Discussion of the children's schools in the UK.
Misty

Postby Misty » Wed Mar 17, 2004 10:50 pm

mgormez wrote:
Today I had an intensive workshop on how to recognize cultural/ethinical/appearence differences and group dynamics associated with such, both with clients and colleagues. It was a good day where I met a bunch of wonderfull interesting people. I look back on it with satisfaction and I have no need of someting telling me it was a good day.



Our opinions are what we feel. The SES does not tell you what to feel.

Guest

Postby Guest » Wed Mar 17, 2004 10:50 pm

Misty wrote:
mgormez wrote:
Today I had an intensive workshop on how to recognize cultural/ethinical/appearence differences and group dynamics associated with such, both with clients and colleagues. It was a good day where I met a bunch of wonderfull interesting people. I look back on it with satisfaction and I have no need of someting telling me it was a good day.



Our opinions are what we feel. The SES does not tell you what to feel.


after all.. how can anything tell us how to feel??

mgormez
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2003 9:33 pm
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

Postby mgormez » Wed Mar 17, 2004 11:36 pm

Misty wrote:
mgormez wrote:
Today I had an intensive workshop on how to recognize cultural/ethinical/appearence differences and group dynamics associated with such, both with clients and colleagues. It was a good day where I met a bunch of wonderfull interesting people. I look back on it with satisfaction and I have no need of someting telling me it was a good day.



Our opinions are what we feel. The SES does not tell you what to feel.


But opinions can be changed/affected by external sources. But also, I do think SES steers people into what they should feel, like the long dresses for the girls being "proper".

Have you read Orwell's 1984? Here's a part I thought of:

Slowly the whole sinister significance of the project begins to sink in ? it is not just language that is being destroyed, the attempt is to annihilate consciousness and thought itself. Once newspeak has taken over completely, thoughtcrimes will be impossible, because there will be no language to express rebellious thoughts in. Even doublethink slogans like ?freedom is slavery? will be unnecessary, as the concept of freedom will be forgotten.
http://www.online-literature.com/view.php/1984/30


Not really geared towards SES but I find the concept of controlling language to ultimately control emotions, both scary and fascinating.
Mike Gormez

Misty

Postby Misty » Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:04 am

hmm very interesting point. My mind needs a pleanty more time for thought on this matter.. what you say is definately important.

I haven't read 1984, but it is on my list of 'books to read before I die' list.

In the SES there are certain laws/regulations that you have to meet, like any other school where you have to wear uniform, there is a dress code: Ladies wear long skirts. (not sure what man 'uniform' is - i assume its a suit).

When the SES first started out, skirts in fashion were getting shorter and there was this full on battle for the women fighting for equality.

The fact that females wear skirts and men wear trousers reminds them that they are two different form of beings, which do play different roles in the society in general, and which do have different attributes to what makes them a male or a female. The fact that the skirts must be long is so to protect themselves from unwanted attention. (Why on earth do men (atleast most men) get turned on by women showing their legs?-just something I have never understood)

The SES believes that you can only discover through practise, so first you must try, what you may discover may be either negative or positive. If it is positive carry on, negative.. then withdraw and find an alternative. This is entirely upto the individual, on whether they are suitable for it or not.

I also belive that there wouldn't be Laws if people lived decently. It's only when you take it to an extreme that Laws are enforced. There wouldn't be a need for laws if we lived in a perfect society. Would there be a age limit to driving if people did not abuse the trust? 16 turned to 17, and now 17 had turned to 18.

a different guest

Postby a different guest » Thu Mar 18, 2004 10:05 am

Antises wrote: Any possible purpose to life, in my opinion, should be the same through all the various stages of life. Religion ensures that the purpose cannot possibly be changed. Surely that cannot be a bad thing?
.


I am sure the muslim extremists in this world would appreciate you understanding so well their point of view

a different guest

Postby a different guest » Thu Mar 18, 2004 10:09 am

Misty wrote:The fact that females wear skirts and men wear trousers reminds them that they are two different form of beings, which do play different roles in the society in general, and which do have different attributes to what makes them a male or a female. The fact that the skirts must be long is so to protect themselves from unwanted attention. (Why on earth do men (atleast most men) get turned on by women showing their legs?-just something I have never understood)
.


Umm, what different roles would that be Misty? There are female firefighters and male midwives. Some dads are full time carers of their children while their wives wheel and deal on the trading floor. The whole idea of feminist philosophy is that gender does NOT dictate life choices.

As for long skirts and "unwanted attention" - why not wear a burka?

Antises

Postby Antises » Thu Mar 18, 2004 6:40 pm

a different guest wrote:
Antises wrote: Any possible purpose to life, in my opinion, should be the same through all the various stages of life. Religion ensures that the purpose cannot possibly be changed. Surely that cannot be a bad thing?
.


I am sure the muslim extremists in this world would appreciate you understanding so well their point of view


What is your rash statement meant to mean? My opinion neither justifies the views of extremist, nor does it legitimate their action. As it happens, what I say applies, I feel, to all major religions - any purpose that is attached through religion is constant not only across a single lifetime but for all of time: this should be obvious because the sacred text of any religion essentially does not change. Please, if you are trying to close an argument with a single, thoughtless statement, think, think again, and don't do it.

Guest

Postby Guest » Thu Mar 18, 2004 8:11 pm

a different guest wrote:
Antises wrote: Any possible purpose to life, in my opinion, should be the same through all the various stages of life. Religion ensures that the purpose cannot possibly be changed. Surely that cannot be a bad thing?
.


I am sure the muslim extremists in this world would appreciate you understanding so well their point of view


What is your definition of Muslim extremists?

Is it not possible to have peopel fromm all religions being extreme?

I'm quite interested to know why you point out MUSLIM extremisats?

the annoyed

Postby the annoyed » Thu Mar 18, 2004 8:18 pm

Antises wrote: Please, if you are trying to close an argument with a single, thoughtless statement, think, think again, and don't do it.


Anti, its laughable at these stupid and dumb comments that actually dont mean anything. Irrational and thoughtless one would say... and yet they fail to see anything deep, and even so fail to go beyond the surface of anything.

Ofcourse it's the surface that is quite obvious... that explains it.

Your against the SES, yet you know where you stand, where as many are somewhat afraid and seem to see only one way:anything possibly related to the SES must be wrong!

Perhaps what I say may be wrong, but that is how I see it so far. Anyone one is invited to prove me wrong.

the annoyed

Postby the annoyed » Thu Mar 18, 2004 9:17 pm

a different guest wrote:
Misty wrote:The fact that females wear skirts and men wear trousers reminds them that they are two different form of beings, which do play different roles in the society in general, and which do have different attributes to what makes them a male or a female. The fact that the skirts must be long is so to protect themselves from unwanted attention. (Why on earth do men (atleast most men) get turned on by women showing their legs?-just something I have never understood)
.


Umm, what different roles would that be Misty? There are female firefighters and male midwives. Some dads are full time carers of their children while their wives wheel and deal on the trading floor. The whole idea of feminist philosophy is that gender does NOT dictate life choices.

As for long skirts and "unwanted attention" - why not wear a burka?


Whether you like it or not, man and female are not the same, this means that they have some differences(and I'm not just talking about the physical form), it is a law of nature, and it will exist no matter how much you try and turn away from it.

Who said anything about man and female jobs? Who said ladies cannot work in the fireforce, who said males cannot be midwives, who said women cant be the working ones while thier husbands look after the children? You are the ONLy one suggesting these things!

Wearing a skirt reminds poeple (especially those in the SES) of the differences between man and women. It even on the signs on public toilets. The stick man with the skirt, suggests the toilets are for the women! Mind you it would be hilarious if there were any feminists kicking up a huge fuss on why girls' toilet signs have to have a girl wearing a skirt on it!

Nor does the SES say you must wear skirts 24/7. It is like a uniform! Don't know about you, but I definately do not wear my uniform when I get home or in the weekends!

the annoyed

Postby the annoyed » Thu Mar 18, 2004 9:27 pm

THis is what 'different guest' wrote:

As for long skirts and "unwanted attention" - why not wear a burka?


That is a muslim tradition. I don't think Muslims will appreciate them wearing a burka and not really being Muslim, infact it would be nothing but an insult. The burka is a religious thing which muslims do hold quite dear to them, as it is very religious and it is those who are the most passionate about thier religion that wear them.

I only gave you the mere reason of what the SES think about long skirts. And who can argue with their reasoning? You would get more attention from wearing a miniskirt, than if you wear a long skirt. It is like maths, 1+1=2! Simple as that guest!

Tom Grubb
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: London

Postby Tom Grubb » Thu Mar 18, 2004 9:47 pm

Antises wrote:
I think that the only alternative for those who do not believe in a Creator is to believe that there is no purpose to human life and that chance combined with mutations and Darwinian natural selection has brought all life to Earth.


I still don?t see how that is ?the only alternative?. There were atheists and agnostics before Darwin. And there are still atheists and agnostics who don?t believe in Darwinian natural selection.

Antises wrote:
Also, I NEVER cricitized atheism: I merely asked a question, and unexpectedly received an overly defensive reply.


I?m not aware of anybody suggesting that you did criticise atheism! I also haven?t noticed any overly defensive replies to your question.

Antises wrote:
I never claimed, as suggested by Tom Grubb, that the lives of atheists and agnostics cannot be moral, useful and purposeful (in the sense of "purpose of a life", not in the sense of "purpose of life" - that is another factor which has led to disagreement; whilst I talk of the latter purpose, you talk of the former).


Er?I didn?t suggest that you made such a claim.

However, I think you make a very interesting point. It may well be true that religious people tend to think in terms of there being a god-given purpose to human life as a whole, whereas non-believers probably tend to limit this sense of a purpose to their own individual life. Religions, by their nature, tend to deal in ?universal? values and often attempt to enforce these values, by violent and other means, upon those who do not share them. Of course, one problem with this is that, since so many religions conflict with each other as to what the fundamental purpose of life is (and in many other things), they cannot possibly all be correct.

Antises wrote:
The problem that may arise with this attitude is that a person's "set of principles" and "set of beliefs" may not be constant (of course, I am not qualified to say whether they are or not). Any possible purpose to life, in my opinion, should be the same through all the various stages of life. Religion ensures that the purpose cannot possibly be changed. Surely that cannot be a bad thing?


I readily admit that my set of beliefs is not constant, but I fail to see why this might a bad thing! I try to temper my belief in something according to the quality of the available evidence for it. For example, I don?t believe in the existence of the Loch Ness Monster because, as yet, there is no convincing evidence for its existence. I would be astonished if, after all these years of people searching, such evidence did come to light. However, were this to happen, I would be quite prepared to add a belief in Nessie to my existing set of beliefs.

Also, I hope you?re not suggesting that the set of beliefs and principles of each individual religion is something that never changes. Religious teachings evolve. They may tend to drag far behind scientific and societal advances, but they do change.

Guest

Postby Guest » Thu Mar 18, 2004 9:51 pm

Tom Grubb wrote: They may tend to drag far behind scientific and societal advances, but they do change.


I belive science and religion work together very well -for me anyway!

a different guest

Postby a different guest » Thu Mar 18, 2004 11:30 pm

Antises wrote:
a different guest wrote:
Antises wrote: Any possible purpose to life, in my opinion, should be the same through all the various stages of life. Religion ensures that the purpose cannot possibly be changed. Surely that cannot be a bad thing?
.


I am sure the muslim extremists in this world would appreciate you understanding so well their point of view


What is your rash statement meant to mean? My opinion neither justifies the views of extremist, nor does it legitimate their action. As it happens, what I say applies, I feel, to all major religions - any purpose that is attached through religion is constant not only across a single lifetime but for all of time: this should be obvious because the sacred text of any religion essentially does not change. Please, if you are trying to close an argument with a single, thoughtless statement, think, think again, and don't do it.


It was not a rash statement and your opinion DOES justify extremists views. btw to the other poster - I only used the example of muslim extremists as they are in the news a lot lately (blowing people up - you may have noticed), I could just have easily cited Christian extremists who murder doctors and women at abortion clinics.

The sacred text of ANY religion is open to interpretation. Extremists tend to take things pretty literally. A muslim extremists purpose in life is to convert all to islam and kill infidels - their religion (according to them) justifies their actions.

a different guest

Postby a different guest » Thu Mar 18, 2004 11:33 pm

the annoyed wrote:
That is a muslim tradition. I don't think Muslims will appreciate them wearing a burka and not really being Muslim, infact it would be nothing but an insult. The burka is a religious thing which muslims do hold quite dear to them, as it is very religious and it is those who are the most passionate about thier religion that wear them.

!

You need to get out more annoyed on. The burka is NOT a "religious thing", it is a CULTURAL thing. Some muslim women do not even wear the hajib! All the Quoran says of women's dress is that they should dress "modestly".

And it is NOT an insult for non muslim women to wear the burka - in come countries it is required that ALL women wear it no matter what their religion.


Return to “St James and St Vedast”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests