Stargazer Posted January 17, 2011 Posted January 17, 2011 Having studied this topic extensively, I have different views. There are undoubtedly benefits from the social interaction that occurs around social drinking, but I don't believe these benefits are derived from alcohol itself. The same could be said about food when it brings people together. I don't believe adding alcohol to a social gathering reduces the stress/depression induced by asociality.[snip /]There is more truth in the claim of antioxidants in red wine than in the general assertion that drinking any alcohol moderately protects against heart disease. Red grape juice has the same antioxidants as red wine anyway, so that's another strike against alcohol If anyone is interested I can start another thread on this topic, I have plenty of sources to share.I'd love to see a thread on this topic! Fire away!
Analytics Posted January 17, 2011 Posted January 17, 2011 Any anyway, this article was sort of odd in that it was both critical and complimentary of Mormonism.Mainly complimentary. First, I find your asymmetrical criticism odd. This lady slams Mormonism in a number of ways, using both bigoted stereotypes and questionable data and assumptions. Where is your gripe about her lack of class?I don't see a lack of class in articles that are mainly complimentary of different groups. Maybe that's just me.I was commenting on her own characterization of her own lifestyle:The author juxtaposed the "cheerful ... wholesome ... uplifting ... normal ... calm ... uplifting ... fun ... easy ... joyful ... relaxed" lives of LDS women with her own, and concluded that her life as an atheist feminist is "nothing like" theirs.So my comment about her comment about her crappy lifestyle is inappropriate...why, exactly?In general, when people express
Skylla Posted January 17, 2011 Posted January 17, 2011 Analytics: Read the board guidelines. You're out of this thread for personal attacks.Skylla
krose Posted January 17, 2011 Posted January 17, 2011 I'm confused. I didn't see a personal attack from Analytics.
zelder Posted January 17, 2011 Posted January 17, 2011 I thought it was a cute yet self-revealing article. However, I don't think these blogs have anything to do with showcasing Mormonism. As the author says, you have to look to find that. These women would be blogging regardless just as they would be doing everything else they do. What interested me was the question begging premise:Where is she getting the idea that blogs are to prettify lives? One of those "sweet and simple" bloggers had been burned over 80% of her body in a plane crash and says she will be having surguries for life. The trick in making a readable blog is making the mundane look interesting. A lot of it depends on how good of a photographer the author is. Most of the young adults I know keep blogs. They talk about a variety of things not just pretty stuff. That is going to depend on where one is in life anyway. A lot of these blogs are about making it through the student years on minimum wage jobs and student loans. It is a wonderful medium to communicate to family and friends in a very immediate and interesting way. If you can make money out of that is gravy. So I get the fascination with them. What I don't get is an idea that they aren't a slice of real life. She wouldn't be so obsessed with them if that was true.Good point. It would not be interesting if it was sugar coated. Its interesting because it is real. The real life of being a dad or a mom is that it is really hard but it is also extremely fulfilling.
bluebell Posted January 17, 2011 Posted January 17, 2011 I'm confused. I didn't see a personal attack from Analytics. The only thing i saw was where he said something about 'classless' but that seems far from a personal attack. Maybe i missed something.
selek Posted January 17, 2011 Posted January 17, 2011 The only thing i saw was where he said something about 'classless' but that seems far from a personal attack. Maybe i missed something. Considering that you largely missed the attacks in the article which spawned the thread....
bluebell Posted January 17, 2011 Posted January 17, 2011 Considering that you largely missed the attacks in the article which spawned the thread.... What attacks in the article?
Skylla Posted January 17, 2011 Posted January 17, 2011 The OP should be able to comment on the article without comment on his character or motivation for the thread (i.e. "righteous indignation").Skylla
DH Posted January 17, 2011 Posted January 17, 2011 Ok, BCSpace, here's your quote in full:Despite the portrayal of being whimsically tempted by the LDS married lifestyle, it really is a hit piece against Mormonism with it's presentation of depression and "some chafe". This type of antiMormonism illustrates the Socialism/Communism of Satan's plan perfectly. Under the Gospel plan, many, and indeed most will fail to achieve the ultimate blessings. Satan's plan however, and it's worldly manifestations, make the impossible promise that "not one shall be lost" with the ultimate blessings guaranteed to all no matter what.I'll be fascinated to learn the connection between Socialism and Communism, the LDS married lifestyle, anti-Mormonism, mental illness, Mormon mommy bloggers, feminism, atheism, and universal salvation. Go ahead, give me an explanation that ties all those things together coherently and that has something to do with the article.The author stated that she's a feminist and an atheist. But the article is not about feminism or atheism. Marxist economic theory is mentioned nowhere at all, and neither is universal salvation. It seems to me that you are taking HUGE leaps of logic and going way off topic. If you want to discuss Communism, by all means start a new thread, but really, it has nothing to do with the article this thread is about.
DH Posted January 17, 2011 Posted January 17, 2011 Communism is a form of socialism and is atheistic in its tenets. So it does stand as an opposite to Mormonism in which atheism is of course rejected. Also Marx felt the family was an oppressive traditionalist tool and hoped that capitalism would at least destroy the family (in all fairness the family of the time meant a woman at home could not own property or have equal rights within the family, and as such that is correct). So yes, communism being what it is does indeed have a connection here since it undermines both family and religion.Ok. The problem is, the article is not about socialism or atheism. The fact that the author is an atheist does not mean she is a Marxist. Why bring Marxism into the discussion completely out of the blue like that?
MorningStar Posted January 17, 2011 Posted January 17, 2011 The Meanest Mom is a really funny blog. I'm pretty sure she's LDS too and definitely doesn't portray a perfect life. She just makes everything imperfect sound hilarious.
Jeff K. Posted January 18, 2011 Posted January 18, 2011 Ok. The problem is, the article is not about socialism or atheism. The fact that the author is an atheist does not mean she is a Marxist. Why bring Marxism into the discussion completely out of the blue like that?I was only making a connection. I agree the article did not speak to the issue of communism though it did mention atheism which could bring the political system into question (even though libertarians can be atheists too, as well as anarchists, autarkists, and so on and so on).
Skylla Posted January 18, 2011 Posted January 18, 2011 I'm deleting off-topic comments. We want the topics discussed. Stop discussing the posters. If you think someone said something worse, report it. We don't read every post in every thread.Skylla
Jason Posted January 18, 2011 Posted January 18, 2011 Whew! This article sure makes atheistic feminism sound . . . not fun.What makes me shudder is the idea that there is a "standard-issue late-20-something childless overeducated atheist feminist" that finds "the basic messages expressed in these blogs -- family is wonderful, life is meant to be enjoyed, celebrate the small things...a life in which marriage and motherhood could potentially be something other than a miserable, soul-destroying trap..." a valuable message of note. Aren't these ideas pretty much common sense? Who turned this woman into such a bitter cynic?
Jeff K. Posted January 18, 2011 Posted January 18, 2011 A society which taught her that motherhood and being at home was synonymous to slavery and failure.
krose Posted January 18, 2011 Posted January 18, 2011 Whew! This article sure makes atheistic feminism sound . . . not fun.If so, she's not doing it right.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.