emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
From Judy and Jimmy, two friends from church:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You just gonna ignore the phrase "in that order"?Doonesbury vs. the truth
The textbook says the Civil War was caused by “sectionalism, states’ rights and slavery”. That's a perfectly reasonable statement. How is it even controversial? There's no reason to think that because slavery is mentioned 3rd it should be considered less significant!
You just gonna ignore the phrase "in that order"?Doonesbury vs. the truth
The textbook says the Civil War was caused by “sectionalism, states’ rights and slavery”. That's a perfectly reasonable statement. How is it even controversial? There's no reason to think that because slavery is mentioned 3rd it should be considered less significant!
You are not well.You just gonna ignore the phrase "in that order"?Doonesbury vs. the truth
The textbook says the Civil War was caused by “sectionalism, states’ rights and slavery”. That's a perfectly reasonable statement. How is it even controversial? There's no reason to think that because slavery is mentioned 3rd it should be considered less significant!
Dear paddymurphy
The order is different for different people and situations, even if they are talking about the same instance.
Each person may perceive the stacking of the levels in a different order.
For example, I have friends who see conflicts as gender conditioning FIRST, male vs. female, they see as projected onto everything else.
Then I have friends who will say it is racism first, before anything else.
I have found, generally, it is division by CLASS and then people project or express that division
using gender, race, and now orientation, but they were already divided by groups or classes on a deeper internal level.
The issue of religion, race, gender, orientation etc as "identifying the two groups in conflict" seems to come second
to the internalized issues.
I've seen people say it is ego first, it is fear-based, BEFORE it is expressed as any of these other specific issues.
However people define the source of the problem, which ends up being different for each person layering it in a different order, the resolution still involves forgiving and working through these differences "in whatever order" people stack them in.
If an issue is both racial and gender, I am not going to waste time fighting if it is "gender first before race"
or "race first before gender" but will work with whatever relates to THAT person, and use a different priority
when dealing with the NEXT person who frames it differently.
Asclepias and I were debating how much of the issues with slavery were from race or class, and he came up with the term "cultural" for the biased conditions that cover both perception of race and of class. So "cultural" conditioning or biases would cover all these things that factor into disparity, regardless if people disagree on the order or extent of each factor.
It's not going to be perfect. We still have people who put church law first, before the state laws that are supposed to follow and be in harmony; versus people who put secular laws first and then see the religious laws as optional that are supposed to comply and not conflicts. So with these two biases from two different set ups, we can only expect to have differences and conflicts, and need to find solutions that satisfy BOTH paradigms, so that neither feels the other way is imposed on them.
Same with people who put race issues first, or gender, or gay/orientation.
We are not going to see things the same way, in the same order.
So can we seek policies that account for these differences, satisfy all of the concerns,
and don't pit one way over others if they are all taken into account anyway.
You are not well.You just gonna ignore the phrase "in that order"?Doonesbury vs. the truth
The textbook says the Civil War was caused by “sectionalism, states’ rights and slavery”. That's a perfectly reasonable statement. How is it even controversial? There's no reason to think that because slavery is mentioned 3rd it should be considered less significant!
Dear paddymurphy
The order is different for different people and situations, even if they are talking about the same instance.
Each person may perceive the stacking of the levels in a different order.
For example, I have friends who see conflicts as gender conditioning FIRST, male vs. female, they see as projected onto everything else.
Then I have friends who will say it is racism first, before anything else.
I have found, generally, it is division by CLASS and then people project or express that division
using gender, race, and now orientation, but they were already divided by groups or classes on a deeper internal level.
The issue of religion, race, gender, orientation etc as "identifying the two groups in conflict" seems to come second
to the internalized issues.
I've seen people say it is ego first, it is fear-based, BEFORE it is expressed as any of these other specific issues.
However people define the source of the problem, which ends up being different for each person layering it in a different order, the resolution still involves forgiving and working through these differences "in whatever order" people stack them in.
If an issue is both racial and gender, I am not going to waste time fighting if it is "gender first before race"
or "race first before gender" but will work with whatever relates to THAT person, and use a different priority
when dealing with the NEXT person who frames it differently.
Asclepias and I were debating how much of the issues with slavery were from race or class, and he came up with the term "cultural" for the biased conditions that cover both perception of race and of class. So "cultural" conditioning or biases would cover all these things that factor into disparity, regardless if people disagree on the order or extent of each factor.
It's not going to be perfect. We still have people who put church law first, before the state laws that are supposed to follow and be in harmony; versus people who put secular laws first and then see the religious laws as optional that are supposed to comply and not conflicts. So with these two biases from two different set ups, we can only expect to have differences and conflicts, and need to find solutions that satisfy BOTH paradigms, so that neither feels the other way is imposed on them.
Same with people who put race issues first, or gender, or gay/orientation.
We are not going to see things the same way, in the same order.
So can we seek policies that account for these differences, satisfy all of the concerns,
and don't pit one way over others if they are all taken into account anyway.
Your explanation has nothing to do with the post. And I have read your incoherent ramblings on other topics. The problem is not with following them. They are incoherent nonsense.You are not well.You just gonna ignore the phrase "in that order"?Doonesbury vs. the truth
The textbook says the Civil War was caused by “sectionalism, states’ rights and slavery”. That's a perfectly reasonable statement. How is it even controversial? There's no reason to think that because slavery is mentioned 3rd it should be considered less significant!
Dear paddymurphy
The order is different for different people and situations, even if they are talking about the same instance.
Each person may perceive the stacking of the levels in a different order.
For example, I have friends who see conflicts as gender conditioning FIRST, male vs. female, they see as projected onto everything else.
Then I have friends who will say it is racism first, before anything else.
I have found, generally, it is division by CLASS and then people project or express that division
using gender, race, and now orientation, but they were already divided by groups or classes on a deeper internal level.
The issue of religion, race, gender, orientation etc as "identifying the two groups in conflict" seems to come second
to the internalized issues.
I've seen people say it is ego first, it is fear-based, BEFORE it is expressed as any of these other specific issues.
However people define the source of the problem, which ends up being different for each person layering it in a different order, the resolution still involves forgiving and working through these differences "in whatever order" people stack them in.
If an issue is both racial and gender, I am not going to waste time fighting if it is "gender first before race"
or "race first before gender" but will work with whatever relates to THAT person, and use a different priority
when dealing with the NEXT person who frames it differently.
Asclepias and I were debating how much of the issues with slavery were from race or class, and he came up with the term "cultural" for the biased conditions that cover both perception of race and of class. So "cultural" conditioning or biases would cover all these things that factor into disparity, regardless if people disagree on the order or extent of each factor.
It's not going to be perfect. We still have people who put church law first, before the state laws that are supposed to follow and be in harmony; versus people who put secular laws first and then see the religious laws as optional that are supposed to comply and not conflicts. So with these two biases from two different set ups, we can only expect to have differences and conflicts, and need to find solutions that satisfy BOTH paradigms, so that neither feels the other way is imposed on them.
Same with people who put race issues first, or gender, or gay/orientation.
We are not going to see things the same way, in the same order.
So can we seek policies that account for these differences, satisfy all of the concerns,
and don't pit one way over others if they are all taken into account anyway.
If you can't follow my explanations, one group that does the best job is the
Center for the Healing of Racism that facilitates discussion to work out issues of race and political conflict related:
http://www.houstonprogressive.org
http://centerhealingracism.org/
As for me, I'm doing pretty good for someone working two jobs
to fund nonprofits on zero budgets trying to save national historic and environmental sites,
while political leaders act like we can afford to blow billions of dollars fighting over politics as usual.
To me, what is "sick" are the PROBLEMS that aren't solved by partisan division,
such as spending several trillion on war without taking
care of Veterans who are left disabled from service. Or spending
6 billion on election campaigns that don't solve anything,
while claiming there is no money to fix problems directly? Really?
I would say our SYSTEM isn't doing too well if we are trillions in debt
and not covering basic costs. Sorry you feel the need to project
the problems onto me as just another one of the messengers pointing out this isn't working.
I didn't create these issues, I am just trying to promote the solutions to them.
If my explanations suck, just go directly to the sources with success records that speak for themselves.
"in that order" is not part of the textbook. Trudeau is being intellectually dishonest.You just gonna ignore the phrase "in that order"?
Your explanation has nothing to do with the post. And I have read your incoherent ramblings on other topics. The problem is not with following them. They are incoherent nonsense.You are not well.You just gonna ignore the phrase "in that order"?Doonesbury vs. the truth
The textbook says the Civil War was caused by “sectionalism, states’ rights and slavery”. That's a perfectly reasonable statement. How is it even controversial? There's no reason to think that because slavery is mentioned 3rd it should be considered less significant!
Dear paddymurphy
The order is different for different people and situations, even if they are talking about the same instance.
Each person may perceive the stacking of the levels in a different order.
For example, I have friends who see conflicts as gender conditioning FIRST, male vs. female, they see as projected onto everything else.
Then I have friends who will say it is racism first, before anything else.
I have found, generally, it is division by CLASS and then people project or express that division
using gender, race, and now orientation, but they were already divided by groups or classes on a deeper internal level.
The issue of religion, race, gender, orientation etc as "identifying the two groups in conflict" seems to come second
to the internalized issues.
I've seen people say it is ego first, it is fear-based, BEFORE it is expressed as any of these other specific issues.
However people define the source of the problem, which ends up being different for each person layering it in a different order, the resolution still involves forgiving and working through these differences "in whatever order" people stack them in.
If an issue is both racial and gender, I am not going to waste time fighting if it is "gender first before race"
or "race first before gender" but will work with whatever relates to THAT person, and use a different priority
when dealing with the NEXT person who frames it differently.
Asclepias and I were debating how much of the issues with slavery were from race or class, and he came up with the term "cultural" for the biased conditions that cover both perception of race and of class. So "cultural" conditioning or biases would cover all these things that factor into disparity, regardless if people disagree on the order or extent of each factor.
It's not going to be perfect. We still have people who put church law first, before the state laws that are supposed to follow and be in harmony; versus people who put secular laws first and then see the religious laws as optional that are supposed to comply and not conflicts. So with these two biases from two different set ups, we can only expect to have differences and conflicts, and need to find solutions that satisfy BOTH paradigms, so that neither feels the other way is imposed on them.
Same with people who put race issues first, or gender, or gay/orientation.
We are not going to see things the same way, in the same order.
So can we seek policies that account for these differences, satisfy all of the concerns,
and don't pit one way over others if they are all taken into account anyway.
If you can't follow my explanations, one group that does the best job is the
Center for the Healing of Racism that facilitates discussion to work out issues of race and political conflict related:
http://www.houstonprogressive.org
Center For The Healing Of Racism | Internalize Oneness - Home
As for me, I'm doing pretty good for someone working two jobs
to fund nonprofits on zero budgets trying to save national historic and environmental sites,
while political leaders act like we can afford to blow billions of dollars fighting over politics as usual.
To me, what is "sick" are the PROBLEMS that aren't solved by partisan division,
such as spending several trillion on war without taking
care of Veterans who are left disabled from service. Or spending
6 billion on election campaigns that don't solve anything,
while claiming there is no money to fix problems directly? Really?
I would say our SYSTEM isn't doing too well if we are trillions in debt
and not covering basic costs. Sorry you feel the need to project
the problems onto me as just another one of the messengers pointing out this isn't working.
I didn't create these issues, I am just trying to promote the solutions to them.
If my explanations suck, just go directly to the sources with success records that speak for themselves.