Again your interpretation. I meant to have politely replied: What is your context?
2014-11-03 20:41 GMT+01:00 archytas <[email protected]>: > Gabby makes some important points - seem to remember the 81 paper but > there were many, Dictionaries don't really help here - nor the > hermeneutics of 'finding the original copy' - German sin is exemplified in > the Jewish Numbers 31 and so on across genocides and the concentration camp > as a business tactic in such as 'red rubber'. Primitive societies tell us > their wars are based on revenge - though they always involve resource grabs > (land, hunting, women, children). We seem to have merely managerialised > this. > > The demand for social services and welfare is much greater than we admit, > extending into such issues as why we have been so stupid to expand the > human population in tripling it in my lifetime, global warming, pollution > and the crass failures of "education". One might think one could at least > focus on 'the abuse next door' - but I have to say when this came along in > my life Sue and I failed and found the agencies and politicians much worse > than useless. The ultimate standard of morality would have been to shoot > the parents and do the time - had one been able to rely on the agencies > looking after the kids rather than doing a worse job. > > The resource issues are not insurmountable though they are within our > stupid economic system. Even to talk of this is more or less heresy - and > look what we prefer to do - speak of young kids preferring a 'prostitute > lifestyle' and hear politicians talking about the few cases in which abused > children hit the care jackpot. The ages of consent across the West were > often created in response to child prostitution. The first law of > innocents I know of comes from Dark Age Scotland and I am by no means sure > what the improvements since have been. > > The specific social services resource issue was discussed in the 1950's in > terms of concentric circles - one could only focus on a small number of the > worst cases in a much wider circle of need. Only 10% of kids killed by > parents in the UK are actually known to social services in the sense of > being subject to a care order. The costs of admitting a problem soon > spiral and following the money one soon realises little actually gets spent > on the kids. Gabby raises the issue that it is cruel to promise solution > when we have no intent of funding what's needed. In terms of sufficient > numbers of people to do most of what is needed there is no problem - we > just create a system which prevents money-resourcing. > > We have, of course, pumped trillions into subsidy of manufacturing and > banks over the years - these areas supposedly thrusting self-reliant genius > competitors - and very little into what we call welfare - we 'police' > Afghanistan and Iraq making things much worse but do almost nothing for our > own victims. There are answers. > > > On Sunday, November 2, 2014 8:46:36 PM UTC, Molly wrote: >> >> I befriended one of the LaCasa employees that worked with children in >> groups and took disclosures. She eventually became a police officer, >> hoping it would be less stressful. I think it probably was.If the network >> is large enough, no one burns out. Trouble is, it is rarely large enough. >> I think people have the need to look away from this problem more than any >> other. >> >> On Sunday, November 2, 2014 2:59:57 PM UTC-5, Allan Heretic wrote: >>> >>> Ah, pedophiles they have been in the news including one for soliciting >>> an underage computer image. Personally I am glad to see the aggressive >>> prosecution, I am very proud of the enforcement effort. >>> I wish I could say it would an honor to be part of the team thing on >>> pedophile but truth is I think it would destroy me. I do give them my full >>> support, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Molly <[email protected]> >>> To: [email protected] >>> Sent: Sun, 02 Nov 2014 8:26 PM >>> Subject: Re: Mind's Eye Re: Who can we tell? >>> >>> *It is important to agree on terms when conversing. This from the Free >>> Dictionary:* >>> *em·power·ment** n.* >>> *Usage Note: *Although it is a contemporary buzzword, the word *empower* >>> is not new, having arisen in the mid-17th century with thelegalistic >>> meaning "to invest with authority, authorize." Shortly thereafter it beg >>> an to be used with an infinitive in a more general waymeaning "to enable >>> or permit." Both of these uses survive today but have been overpowered >>> by the word's use in politics and poppsychology. Its modern use or >>> iginated in the civil rights movement, which sought political >>> *empowerment* for its followers. The wordwas then taken up by the >>> women's movement, and its appeal has not flagged. Since people of all >>> political persuasions have a need fora word that makes their >>> constituents feel that they are or are about to become more in control >>> of their destinies, *empower* has been adopted by conservatives as well >>> as social reformers. It has even migrated out of the political arena >>> into other fields. · The UsagePanel has some misgivings about this >>> recent broadening of usage. For the Panelists, the acceptability of the >>> verb *empower* depends on the context. Eighty percent approve of the >>> example *We want to empower ordinary citizens.* But in contexts that are >>> not political the Panel is markedly less enthusiastic. The sentence >>> *Hunger and greed and then sexual zeal are felt by some to be stages of >>> experiencethat empower the individual* >>> garners approval from only 33 percent of the Panelists. The Panel may >>> frown on this kind of psychological empowering because it resonates of >>> the self-help movement, which is notorious for trendy coinages. >>> >>> I've never been interested in talking politics, and although I've had >>> occasion to work with some, never really affiliated with any party. I will >>> leave any tendency to interpret what I say as an affiliation with a >>> political party up to you. I really don't have one. I will be excited to >>> see Dave Bing next week when he comes to my place of employment. for a >>> photo shoot, the Democrat who restored integrity to the office of Mayor of >>> Detroit. He took a lot of heat and it took guts to devout the years of his >>> life that he did to turning the city around like a freighter on the river. >>> Like skin color, religion or citizenship, I don't don't hold many >>> preconceived notions to a persons political persuasion when relating to >>> them, so really can't speak to your comment about republicans and democrats. >>> >>> Nice to know pedophiles are prosecuted somewhere. Congratulations! A >>> system working! >>> >>> On Sunday, November 2, 2014 1:28:13 PM UTC-5, Gabby wrote: >>>> >>>> The big picture, that you draw, is very much a U.S. American >>>> Republican's view. I know quite a number of people whose aggressivenes gets >>>> triggerd by this deliberate choice of imagery. (I'm sure the relief barking >>>> will set in later) >>>> Let's see if we can find a common ground for the word "empowerment". >>>> The root is English, that's correct, but the modern popularity and usage >>>> goes back to the American Julian Rappaport: In praise of paradox. A social >>>> policy of empowerment over prevention, in: American Journal of Community >>>> Psychology, 9/1981, 1-25 (13), saying: „Having rights but no resources and >>>> no services available is a cruel joke.“ I think we can all agree if we >>>> don't take a closer look at our rights, but assume we have them. >>>> As for moving, if you cannot protect innocent children - this would >>>> still be a taboo in our German context, even if we wanted to do the same. >>>> We have left innocent Jews to the apparatus, we have no excuse left. It is >>>> the alledged pedophiles who have to be protected in our communities, or >>>> they have to move elsewhere, no laws and law enforcement could do something >>>> about that. >>>> But you know what, I believe your call for a kid's survival training is >>>> more of an anti-Democrat, Republican demagogy than a real call! :) Am I >>>> right? >>>> >>> -- >>> >>> --- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> -- > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/minds-eye/QYatNwqDgp8/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
