...the PC crowd used it as an opening to attack him as an "Uncle Tom"...
Speaking of which, Uncle Tom's Cabin was published today¹.
¹Accoding to Wikipedia.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
And Like Derek, I am neither a conservatice or a liberal. I hold conservative political views, just because I feel government does a lousy job of things like 'hate speech'. I am very socially liberal, and I am in full agreement with such views as gay marraige, drug legalization and such. I am also a Panentheist, and I am more radical in my religious view than most people, since I don't ascribe to any Abrahamic faith. However, that doesn't mean I will attempt to stop people from putting up creche scenes at Christmas. That's just asinine.Amen.
I'm not a Christian (I really don't know what I am, agnostic, I guess), but I would never try to stop someone from decorating for a holiday.
Which kind of brings me to another point. Why is it that the PC crowd is so worried about offending Hindus, Muslims, pagans, atheists, Buddhists et cetera, but they gleefully tear Christianity apart every chance they get?
Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmm....
I am a Christian but I don't want my son being taught religion at schools or by the city government because they do a lousy job of it. I'd rather they get back to something they're good at like mismanaging my money. On the other hand, moves by the conservative party of Canada to try to ban religious headgear in government offices scare the hell out of me. I've got a tattoo of a cross. Are they going to go after that next?
On the other hand, moves by the conservative party of Canada to try to ban religious headgear in government offices scare the hell out of me. I've got a tattoo of a cross. Are they going to go after that next?
That is scary. As an American conservative I don't understand where they are coming from. What do they say is the justification for this?
I've got a tattoo of a cross. Are they going to go after that next?
Please tell us it's on your forehead. Please?
I remember in a freedom of speech class I took several years ago. We were reading about limiting speech on college campuses. In one story a white student said something like, "Black students shouldn't have to hear the n-word on campus. That will make them not want to go to college and/or drop out." To which a black student in the story responded with something like, "What you just said is more racist then the person using the n-word. We don't need to be coddled."
On the other hand, moves by the conservative party of Canada to try to ban religious headgear in government offices scare the hell out of me. I've got a tattoo of a cross. Are they going to go after that next?That is scary. As an American conservative I don't understand where they are coming from. What do they say is the justification for this?
I think it depends on what we mean by "religious headgear". Do we mean a yamaka (sp?), then yeah that is silly. Do they mean a full face covering burka (sp?), then it is less silly. We need to be able to identify people for various reasons and someone entirely covering their face would go against that need.
We don't need to be coddled."
I do not see how that is coddling them.
We don't need to be coddled."I do not see how that is coddling them.
I believe the point to the story (if I am remembering right) is that the white student was implying that black students "couldn't handle" being called names. As if they were inferior to white students in that regard. They were being treat as if they were children who couldn't handle the ugliness of the world. That is what the coddling was refering to.
I guess I am loosing some of it without the context. I would be less inclined to go to a school if someone was calling me names. I do not see it as not being able to 'handle it' and more about not wanting to put up with it.
|
On the other hand, moves by the conservative party of Canada to try to ban religious headgear in government offices scare the hell out of me. I've got a tattoo of a cross. Are they going to go after that next?That is scary. As an American conservative I don't understand where they are coming from. What do they say is the justification for this?
Garydee, first off, "conservative" has a somewhat different meaning in Commonwealth nations and Europe. What is considered "conservative" there, we in America would call "moderate/moderate-left". American conservatives tend to be seen as WAY extreme right overseas and in Canada, from what I've seen and heard from my Canadian buds.
As far as the headgear thing, we're having a problem here where the law and religious garb can come in conflict. It is illegal to enter a bank in the U.S. wearing something covering your face. A Muslim woman in VERY conservative garb (almost a burqa) was refused service and the incident raised a minor stink (this was a couple years ago). I can understand the bank manager's concerns, as the crime rate goes up with the unemployment rate, generally, and some banks I know (my branch of Chase, for one) have increased their robbery situation training, but the bank manager should have used some common sense, and allowed the woman to use a side room and have a female teller handle her needs. Or something.
And, Tarren, your government is just following the French example. They've outlawed religious headgear in schools for years.
but the bank manager should have used some common sense, and allowed the woman to use a side room and have a female teller handle her needs. Or something.
Or maybe she should have used some common sense, and gone through the drive thru teller. I mean going into a bank with a "mask" on? And then getting upset when people get nervous about it? That is lacking some pretty common sense there. I mean if she is as conservative as she wants people to believe, what the hell is she doing out in public anyway?
A lot of good points
I am a conservative Democrate, which confuses the hell out of people that automatically think of the far left and far right when they hear Democrate or Republican.
I have long despised the use of poltical correctness. Being from the South, I have seen it used as a heavy club to bash anyone that disagrees with a different point of view. Usually, this is from someone that does not live in the South.
The IDEA of stopping the use of offensive speech is noble, but in practice it fails because someone will use it as a weapon to crush opposition.
|
like the woman who wanted a drivers license but refused to take off her burka for the photograph? oh that story made me laugh
Oh and by the way you are all racist sexist bastards and need to be silenced before I am driven to madness by your insensitivity to my inability to handle any view different from my own. Your all evil, unamerican, communist, sexist, racist, bigots!
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
The IDEA of stopping the use of offensive speech is noble, but in practice it fails because someone will use it as a weapon to crush opposition.
I think the idea of making the sphere of public discourse more welcoming for those who have been marginalized is noble. The idea of stopping people who don't share your views from speaking is not.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I think it depends on what we mean by "religious headgear". Do we mean a yamaka (sp?), then yeah that is silly. Do they mean a full face covering burka (sp?), then it is less silly. We need to be able to identify people for various reasons and someone entirely covering their face would go against that need.On the other hand, moves by the conservative party of Canada to try to ban religious headgear in government offices scare the hell out of me. I've got a tattoo of a cross. Are they going to go after that next?That is scary. As an American conservative I don't understand where they are coming from. What do they say is the justification for this?
Much of the coversation referred to the wearing of the hijab. The hijab doesn't hide the face. As for the wearing of the burka, my dad's got a beard so bushy from a distance he looks like a sasquatch. He's never had to shave it. I can understand the concerns about photo identification but wonder if they are being selectively applied. In any case, that wasn't what I was referring to. I'm talking about women working as clerks in government offices being discouraged/prohibited from wearing the hijab at work.
The problem with the noble idea can be encapsulated thus: Some people are marginalized for good reasons and when we make an absolute tolerance/pluralism our superbonum, we have not left ourselves the ethical/truth framework in which to admit and deal with the problem, eg, nobody really is going to listen to the KKK, Nazis, and pedophiles. I use something other than discourse to reason with them, and I bet you (pl.) would too. The real question is, why do we marginalize, how, and what guides us in those decisions.
|
|
but the bank manager should have used some common sense, and allowed the woman to use a side room and have a female teller handle her needs. Or something.Or maybe she should have used some common sense, and gone through the drive thru teller. I mean going into a bank with a "mask" on? And then getting upset when people get nervous about it? That is lacking some pretty common sense there. I mean if she is as conservative as she wants people to believe, what the hell is she doing out in public anyway?
Common sense may be the greatest oxymoron ever. If sense were common, we wouldn't have nearly the problems we do today.
pres man, if you knew as many Muslim women as I do (many of my friends second or third generation Pakistani, Iranian and Lebanese), you'd understand that the more conservative women (usually new immigrants) are completely overwhelmed when they come here. I feel for them. They were raised in places where they are treated as second class citizens, if not outright property, where they can be beaten, shot or stoned for things we'd consider quite trivial, if we considered them at all. These are places where a rape victim is the more guilty party, where a woman can be shot and killed (ah, "honor" killings) for not wanting to marry a 50 year old troll when shes 16.
Take that person and drop them into, oh, L.A. She's doing what she thinks is right. She doesn't get out much, doesn't have a lot of contact outside of her community. "Common sense" means different things to people raised different places. "Common sense" for women raised in most Islamic nations consists of "shut up, don't talk to anyone who isn't your immediate family, and do whatever your husband or father (depending) tells you...or else". Not exactly what we would consider "normal". This woman had no idea she couldn't walk into a bank with her head covered, her upbringing informed her that if she showed her uncovered head to an unrelated male, she's probably get a beating, if not worse.
As to the bank manager, once he realized she wasn't a threat, he should have been in customer service mode. He works for a business, a business that really cannot afford to alienate too many customers right now. I think the "common sense" ball was firmly in his court in this instance.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
The problem with it can be encapsulated thus: Some people are marginalized for good reasons and when we make an absolute tolerance/pluralism our superbonum, we have not left ourselves the ethical/truth framework in which to admit and deal with the problem, eg, nobody really wants to hear from the KKK, Nazis, and pedophiles. I use something other than discourse to reason with them, and I bet you (pl.) would too. The real question is, why do we marginalize, how, and what guides us in those decisions.
Sure. And no one here is arguing against the prohibition of hate speech. If racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination always took the form of hate speech than we would be having a very different conversation. The problem is that very important conversations need to be had about things like 'benign racism' or more subtle forms of sexism and we can't have these if people are afraid to talk for fear of being labelled sexist or racist or afraid to discuss them for fear of being labelled politically correct.
|
|
It then becomes impossible to dehumanize them. How do you expect anyone to ever win an argument on the internet without marginalizing your opponent?
logic and fact should be the weapons of choice...
intead we have flames, and trolls, puns and insults... its almost ironic this happens in a fantasy forum :P
but alas I have sinned to so I won't argue to long... I do agree that there are things that can be said aloud and others that its better to keep to onself... because one makes an ass of himself...
freedom of speech is foremost
but as important as freedom of speach is the freedom of everyone to ask for respect
if one gets into a discussion is like opening doors... but alas we need to keep things civil... not for hypocrecy, not for the feelings of the other... but because sometimes its healthy to think before speak.
and more "brain diahrea" when this was a pun answering a sarcasm :P
and more "brain diahrea" when this was a pun answering a sarcasm :P
Um, I shall completely ignore your points due to the following issues:
• Grammar
• Making fun of my sarcasm
• Spelling
• Too many periods
:P
I agree, TD. But I am really nervous about the category of hate speech. Maybe it's been better defined than I realize, legally, but it seems a dangerous and slippery step. Make crimes illegal, not thoughts or speech, except to the extent that one is planning or inciting crime (and here, intention apart from other actions is always a lot more difficult to prove in court, and should be.) If there is a freedom to love, is the freedom to hate implied? "Hate, but do not break the law (which includes transgressing another's rights)." As much as I want to not be hated, I'm not sure I have a right to not be hated, or to belong to a group that has the right not to be hated. Alternatively, we establish a threshold or criteria for who can be hated, and we enforce that (good luck).
|
|
I agree, TD. But I am really nervous about the category of hate speech. Maybe it's been better defined than I realize, legally, but it seems a dangerous and slippery step. Make crimes illegal, not thoughts or speech, except to the extent that one is planning or inciting crime (and here, intention apart from other actions is always a lot more difficult to prove in court, and should be.) If there is a freedom to love, is the freedom to hate implied? "Hate, but do not break the law (which includes transgressing another's rights)." As much as I want to not be hated, I'm not sure I have a right to not be hated, or to belong to a group that has the right not to be hated. Alternatively, we establish a threshold or criteria for who can be hated, and we enforce that (good luck).
well you can send a person to jail for his moral inclinations
just for his actionsotherwise you are making a diservice
unfortunately yes.... freedom of choice means that someone can hate certain people... convention is cool with that... just keep your mouth shout and keep yourself away...
its like when you hate to go somewhere... you just don't go there
taking an active position to attack someone for your feelings... ahh that is where the problem arises...
yes arises... it begins with the hate
but the hate is usually a cultural thing that is almost impossible to take away...
lets see for example Palestina and Israel... they hate each other... with good reasons... they had been at each other throats not for decades... but centuries...
ok Israel has existed for that long... but the crusades did... those are generations of hate that have been spilling into mdoern context...
not everyone is like this... but enough people to warrant agresion.
in my country we have been in peace and without conflicts with Spain for almost 200 years, and we have an strong spanish community in some cities, most of us descend from them, Mexico helped many refugees during the time Franco was in power...
and still there are people outcrying against the spaniards for conquering us 500 years ago :P
there are illogic in the people... only education can help with that... but that doesn't mean it will be any time soon :P much elss where further conflicts continue :S
PS: and I don't know where this came from :P
|
|
and more "brain diahrea" when this was a pun answering a sarcasm :PUm, I shall completely ignore your points due to the following issues:
• Grammar
• Making fun of my sarcasm
• Spelling
• Too many periods:P
I won't apollogize for being un-American (strange and invalid term considering i live in America... at least somewhere in the lands between Canada and the lands of Fire in Argentina :P)
and I like using periods :P
still fact and logic should be the weapons of choice... I know they are mine :P
fact is my shield, logic is my sword... and maybe I should stop :P
"Logic is like the sword - those who appeal to it, shall perish by it."
|
|
One of my favorite TV moments. I was in L.A. back in the '90s, watching some local panel news show. The panel consisted of the host, a native american activist, a mexican-american activist and a african-american activist (being PC here folks ;) )
Anyway, the Hispanic dude starts going off about how Spanish is the language of California, how California was stolen from Mexico by the U.S., blah, blah, blah. Indian dude looks at him and says "I wasn't aware Spanish was spoken in this valley in 1491. This is alarming news!". Hispanic dude shot eye daggers the rest of the segment.
Black chick: "We feel your pain, we understand the plight of your people!". Indian dude looks at her and says "Hmmm, after the white man freed you, did he try to kill every one of you? Of course not, he enlisted you into his armies, called you "Buffalo Soldiers", and used you to kill us."
Pc is in the eyes of the beholder, it seems...
and I like using periods :P
¡Ai caramba!
Take that person and drop them into, oh, L.A. She's doing what she thinks is right. She doesn't get out much, doesn't have a lot of contact outside of her community. "Common sense" means different things to people raised different places. "Common sense" for women raised in most Islamic nations consists of "shut up, don't talk to anyone who isn't your immediate family, and do whatever your husband or father (depending) tells you...or else". Not exactly what we would consider "normal". This woman had no idea she couldn't walk into a bank with her head covered, her upbringing informed her that if she showed her uncovered head to an unrelated male, she's probably get a beating, if not worse.
Thanks for proving my point. If she is so conservative and/or "sheltered" as to not see this as possibly an error, then what was she doing out of the home at all. As you say, she is not suppose to talk to any non-relative, so how exactly was she going to handle her business at the bank. Business that her husband or other male relative should have been doing.
Assimulate/adapt or get the hell out of the way. Don't whine if you are too ignorant (notice I said ignorant not stupid) to conform to the society around you.
Getting back to the general topic. What about symbols? Say for example the swastika, a symbol used in culturals through out the world long before the nazis every came along. And yet, it is thought of as culturally insensitive to use it now. I remember hearing about a pokemon card that was released in Japan with the symbol (common in Japanese culture), but being removed when it was brought to the US. Or what about the Confederate flag, that by many is a flag form of giving people the bird, generally used by many to represent an idea of rebellion. Still because it was used by the Southern states during the Civil War, a war only partially about slavery (read up on it), it is considered by many as a racist symbol.
|
|
Take that person and drop them into, oh, L.A. She's doing what she thinks is right. She doesn't get out much, doesn't have a lot of contact outside of her community. "Common sense" means different things to people raised different places. "Common sense" for women raised in most Islamic nations consists of "shut up, don't talk to anyone who isn't your immediate family, and do whatever your husband or father (depending) tells you...or else". Not exactly what we would consider "normal". This woman had no idea she couldn't walk into a bank with her head covered, her upbringing informed her that if she showed her uncovered head to an unrelated male, she's probably get a beating, if not worse.Thanks for proving my point. If she is so conservative and/or "sheltered" as to not see this as possibly an error, then what was she doing out of the home at all. As you say, she is not suppose to talk to any non-relative, so how exactly was she going to handle her business at the bank. Business that her husband or other male relative should have been doing.
Assimulate/adapt or get the hell out of the way. Don't whine if you are too ignorant (notice I said ignorant not stupid) to conform the society around.
Getting back to the general topic. What about symbols? Say for example the swastika, a symbol used in culturals through out the world long before the nazis every came along. And yet, it is thought of as culturally insensitive to use it now. I remember hearing about a pokemon card that was released in Japan with the symbol (common in Japanese culture), but being removed when it was brought to the US. Or what about the Confederate flag, that by many is a flag form of giving people the bird, generally used by many to represent an idea of rebellion. Still because it was used by the Southern states during the Civil War, a war only partially about slavery (read up on it), it is considered by many as a racist symbol.
My point was, she was a fish out of water, adjusting to the new paradigm she finds herself living in. Pres man, I'll tell you what. Just for $hits and giggles, lets drop you in, say, Karachi, and the only people you know are your immediate family. You know very little of Pakistani customs or laws, you have no friends, and, for whatever reason, you're not allowed to associate with any of the natives unless absolutely necessary. I don't think you'd be ready to run for some time. You'd have to learn Urdu, for one, then you'd have to the laws and customs. Then you have to completely adjust how you relate to the world. In your case, it would be going from more freedom to less. Hers is the opposite. It takes time to adapt. Less time if you come from a similar culture, a long time if the cultures are radically different. I think it is unreasonable to expect a new immigrant to be a fully functional, culturally literate citizen the moment they get off the boat.
Said the guy who ironically spelled the King of the Franks' name as Charlemange in another thread.
You got me.
Do I have to step down from Vice President of OTD?
My point was, she was a fish out of water, adjusting to the new paradigm she finds herself living in. Pres man, I'll tell you what. Just for $hits and giggles, lets drop you in, say, Karachi, and the only people you know are your immediate family. You know very little of Pakistani customs or laws, you have no friends, and, for whatever reason, you're not allowed to associate with any of the natives unless absolutely necessary. I don't think you'd be ready to run for some time. You'd have to learn Urdu, for one, then you'd have to the laws and customs. Then you have to completely adjust how you relate to the world. In your case, it would be going from more freedom to less. Hers is the opposite. It takes time to adapt. Less time if you come from a similar culture, a long time if the cultures are radically different. I think it is unreasonable to expect a new immigrant to be a fully functional, culturally literate citizen the moment they get off the boat.
Did she have family there? Then what the hell was she doing out of the house? You are right, if I was shipped off to some strange place, I would be like a fish out of water. So I'd hang out with my family until I got more assimulated and even then when I started going out, I would depend on my family to aid me. I wouldn't run around on my own and then get upset because I didn't know what the hell I was doing.
The problem here is hypocrisy, either she is conservative and so should not have been out of the house at all, or she is not conservative and so should have got rid of the "hood" when asked. Instead we have this half-assed thing going on where she is kind of conservative, but not really conservative, so she is putting herself in stupid situations where she doesn't understand how to behave. Sorry, I'm not feeling a whole lot of sympathy for dumbass behavior.
|
|
My point was, she was a fish out of water, adjusting to the new paradigm she finds herself living in. Pres man, I'll tell you what. Just for $hits and giggles, lets drop you in, say, Karachi, and the only people you know are your immediate family. You know very little of Pakistani customs or laws, you have no friends, and, for whatever reason, you're not allowed to associate with any of the natives unless absolutely necessary. I don't think you'd be ready to run for some time. You'd have to learn Urdu, for one, then you'd have to the laws and customs. Then you have to completely adjust how you relate to the world. In your case, it would be going from more freedom to less. Hers is the opposite. It takes time to adapt. Less time if you come from a similar culture, a long time if the cultures are radically different. I think it is unreasonable to expect a new immigrant to be a fully functional, culturally literate citizen the moment they get off the boat.Did she have family there? Then what the hell was she doing out of the house? You are right, if I was shipped off to some strange place, I would be like a fish out of water. So I'd hang out with my family until I got more assimulated and even then when I started going out, I would depend on my family to aid me. I wouldn't run around on my own and then get upset because I didn't know what the hell I was doing.
"A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step" Lao Tzu
"A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step" Lao Tzu"A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step" Lao Tzu
I get the feeling I'm being a little too politically incorrect for you Derek, by not being sympathetic to the poor lady. =D
Um, I shall completely ignore your points due to the following issues:
• Spelling
Said the guy who ironically spelled the King of the Franks' name as Charlemange in another thread.
I'm pretty sure that was a furrian--I mean Freudian--slip.
Huh, oh. Let's start the duel of ancient Chinese wisdom: "The ox is slow, but the earth is patient."
|
|
Did she have family there? Then what the hell was she doing out of the house? You are right, if I was shipped off to some strange place, I would be like a fish out of water. So I'd hang out with my family until I got more assimulated and even then when I started going out, I would depend on my family to aid me. I wouldn't run around on my own and then get upset because I didn't know what the hell I was doing.
The problem here is hypocrisy, either she is conservative and so should not have been out of the house at all, or she is not conservative and so should have got rid of the "hood" when asked. Instead we have this half-assed thing going on where she is kind of conservative, but not really conservative, so she is putting herself in stupid situations where she doesn't understand how to behave. Sorry, I'm not feeling a whole lot of sympathy for dumbass behavior.
the fact is s##@ happens
sometimes is not because you want but you are forced to, if she went to the bank under such conditions the 1st think I would think is that she had a great necesity and sense of urgency.
she is not supposed to talk to any MAN besides her direct family... women in such cultures are free to talk to other women... and since women work in the bank its just logic she can do her bussiness there :P
also babysteps... if you are ina foreign society... you are going to stay there and you hide yourself because you are not ready... then there is something wrong...
i think this woman had either an emergency or a pressing bussiness, there was no one around so she took whatever courage she had and went to confront this new society...
which candidly slapped her on the face for being of other religion and not ready for it... its very nice and american let me tell you :P
the irony is that many (not all) people form US when they go to other countries expect them to conform to their needs and customs... it doesn't matter how "savage" are this for the people on the town.
|
|
"A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step" Lao Tzu"A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step" Lao Tzu
I get the feeling I'm being a little too politically incorrect for you Derek, by not being sympathetic to the poor lady. =D
Hehehehe :)
That really has nothing to do with PC. Just manners, really.
And I read the article (I had only heard about it on the t.v. news) and apparently the bank manager did ask her to go to a private room.
So, um....
Huh, oh. Let's start the duel of ancient Chinese wisdom: "The ox is slow, but the earth is patient."
Man who stand on toilet, high on pot.
|
|
Um, I shall completely ignore your points due to the following issues:
• Spelling
Said the guy who ironically spelled the King of the Franks' name as Charlemange in another thread.
I'm pretty sure that was a furrian--I mean Freudian--slip.
Huh, oh. Let's start the duel of ancient Chinese wisdom: "The ox is slow, but the earth is patient."
Here's one Rumsfeld and Bremer seemed to miss:
"In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it." Sun Tzu
Huh, oh. Let's start the duel of ancient Chinese wisdom: "The ox is slow, but the earth is patient."Man who stand on toilet, high on pot.
Man who go to bed with itchy butt, wake up with stinky finger.
No, we need to keep the poodle demographics happy.
There are only, like three of us. I would think you would want to pander to the numerous chick cults.
No, we need to keep the poodle demographics happy.There are only, like three of us. I would think you would want to pander to the numerous chick cults.
Already do that. *grumble, bank account is almost empty, grumble*
Already do that. *grumble, bank account is almost empty, grumble*
More Chinese wisdom, “A sucker is born every minute.”
As an aside, before we all join this pity party, it should be pointed out that several women do choose to wear a veil or cover their heads voluntarily, and there are reasons they consider sensible for this: they don't wish to be ogled by brutes because after all, every man is a potential rapist.
(a piece of argumentation I have picked elsewhere, but if one gets offended by that, one should get a thicker skin).
Personally I know people who are partial to nudism (and am not opposed to it myself), so would it be acceptable for them to go to do business in the bank without clothes? Surely it will not be a safety issue then, and demanding that they should wear clothes in public is limiting their freedom of speech (body language).
And I am quite a big fan of political correctness, when it means the thing it is supposed to mean: taking into consideration that there are other people and other experiences than you. Unfortunately the term has been misused to meaninglessness...
See, before there was political correctness, there was this thing called consideration, otherwise known as good manners...I think I'm more a fan of that.
And I'm pretty sure it's no more offensive to think of every man as a potential rapist than it is to think of every woman as a potential victim...
A question: is it inappropriate to pity people whom we think are making bad decisions? For example, if I pity women who choose to be in plural marriages because of the cultural context in which they make that decision, even if they see themselves as accruing benefits from that decision? Or to pity the children raised in those contexts?