Re: [UnschoolingDiscussion] Question for Oldtimers -I can do guns, it's the g...
[email protected]
In a message dated 12/6/03 11:06:26 AM Eastern Standard Time,
jrossedd@... writes:
about attitudes towards guns. One of the distinctions you might not be seeing
is the difference between rural/urban living. My guess is that it's more of
the rural unschoolers that are finding a use for guns in their lives.
I grew up in a rural area (even though in many ways I'm a city girl), and
guns and their counterpart, bows, were very much a part of life. They were a
practical way to put meat on the table. Hunting and target shooting provided
bonding for people, men especially. My boyfriend at the time hunted and fished
nearly all seasons, often with his four adult brothers. It gave a great excuse
to get up early and enjoy the sunrise in the woods. And hunting and target
shooting were good practice for the boys who hoped to serve in the armed forces
or the police force.
Safety and respect were very important, and there was definitely a code of
honor -- city hunters were those who would take a wild shot at a deer that was
too far away or was already on the move, while good hunters were those who
worked year-round on their accuracy (and range, if they were bow hunters) and
knew, before they shot, exactly where their shot would go and how likely it would
be to bring the deer (or fox, or raccoon, etc.) down. Good hunters knew they
had to track a bleeding animal and make sure the kill was finished.
This is totally different from the setting for guns that gets more air play,
the urban setting. A gun that is bought "for protection" is bought out of
fear, not with a purpose in mind, not with the intent of practicing and
increasing skill level, not with a real understanding of the safety issues involved --
that kind of gun purchase is, in my mind, irresponsible. According to
_Bowling for Columbine_, the guns that suburban dwellers buy "for protection" often
get sold cheaply (buy teen family members) to gang members, and that's where
some of the inner city trouble comes from.
For what it's worth . . .
Peace,
Amy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
jrossedd@... writes:
> but I am genuinely curious to know more about whyI'm sorry, I'm not at all an old-timer, but I have thought for a long time
> it appears (at least to me, for the moment) that there's a pro-gun
> orientation
> among experienced unschoolers.
about attitudes towards guns. One of the distinctions you might not be seeing
is the difference between rural/urban living. My guess is that it's more of
the rural unschoolers that are finding a use for guns in their lives.
I grew up in a rural area (even though in many ways I'm a city girl), and
guns and their counterpart, bows, were very much a part of life. They were a
practical way to put meat on the table. Hunting and target shooting provided
bonding for people, men especially. My boyfriend at the time hunted and fished
nearly all seasons, often with his four adult brothers. It gave a great excuse
to get up early and enjoy the sunrise in the woods. And hunting and target
shooting were good practice for the boys who hoped to serve in the armed forces
or the police force.
Safety and respect were very important, and there was definitely a code of
honor -- city hunters were those who would take a wild shot at a deer that was
too far away or was already on the move, while good hunters were those who
worked year-round on their accuracy (and range, if they were bow hunters) and
knew, before they shot, exactly where their shot would go and how likely it would
be to bring the deer (or fox, or raccoon, etc.) down. Good hunters knew they
had to track a bleeding animal and make sure the kill was finished.
This is totally different from the setting for guns that gets more air play,
the urban setting. A gun that is bought "for protection" is bought out of
fear, not with a purpose in mind, not with the intent of practicing and
increasing skill level, not with a real understanding of the safety issues involved --
that kind of gun purchase is, in my mind, irresponsible. According to
_Bowling for Columbine_, the guns that suburban dwellers buy "for protection" often
get sold cheaply (buy teen family members) to gang members, and that's where
some of the inner city trouble comes from.
For what it's worth . . .
Peace,
Amy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 12/6/03 12:49:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,
ddzimlew@... writes:
and herbalist who had *really* spent time among her plants, and she came to the
view that plants are just as alive as animals, even though they don't move.
We kill something to eat, every time. Even if we ate dirt, we'd be taking it
from the plants who also need it to live. The difference with us, though, is
that we don't know our own limits when it comes to population and what the
earth can handle as far as providing us with resources. For a great discussion of
this, read _Ishmael_ by Daniel Quinn.
Peace,
Amy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
ddzimlew@... writes:
> From my vegan point of view it seems no more violent to me to own a gun,I had more or less shared this point of view until I met an organic farmer
> shoot targets or critters, play shooting games, than it does to buy
> cleanly packaged meat from a slaughter house or wear leather shoes or
> play with a leather baseball glove or smear emu cream on our owies.
and herbalist who had *really* spent time among her plants, and she came to the
view that plants are just as alive as animals, even though they don't move.
We kill something to eat, every time. Even if we ate dirt, we'd be taking it
from the plants who also need it to live. The difference with us, though, is
that we don't know our own limits when it comes to population and what the
earth can handle as far as providing us with resources. For a great discussion of
this, read _Ishmael_ by Daniel Quinn.
Peace,
Amy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Deborah Lewis
***We kill something to eat, every time. ***
That's right. Even if we want clean drinking water we have to kill
something to get it.
It's the way things are and it's why I don't get excited about shooting
games or guns.
I loved chakram-ing zombies in Xena, Warrior Princess. <g> And I can
honestly say I've never had the urge to chakram anyone in real life.
Deb L
That's right. Even if we want clean drinking water we have to kill
something to get it.
It's the way things are and it's why I don't get excited about shooting
games or guns.
I loved chakram-ing zombies in Xena, Warrior Princess. <g> And I can
honestly say I've never had the urge to chakram anyone in real life.
Deb L
Dawn Adams
Amy writes:
Dawn (Who's first ever and only shot a .22 was a bullseye)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>This is totally different from the setting for guns that gets more air play,I agree with that. I grew up in rural Nova Scotia and guns were just another tool. Kids learned how to shoot and clean them and they weren't sexy, dark weapons. They were just what you used to put down the dog or bag a deer. That said, I'm not pro gun, I don't get the NRA at all. To me a gun is a tool, not a horrible weapon (not a shotgun anyway) and not a sacred right. A matter of context? In the country they make sense, in the city, none at all.
>the urban setting. A gun that is bought "for protection" is bought out of
>fear, not with a purpose in mind, not with the intent of practicing and
>increasing skill level, not with a real understanding of the safety issues involved --
>that kind of gun purchase is, in my mind, irresponsible
Dawn (Who's first ever and only shot a .22 was a bullseye)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 12/6/03 11:54:16 AM, arcarpenter@... writes:
<< The difference with us, though, is
that we don't know our own limits when it comes to population and what the
earth can handle as far as providing us with resources. >>
But who's "we"?
Who will say who doesn't get to reproduce?
(I have the beginnings of a list, but nobody quite thinks I'm the one to
make that decision, and if anyone tries to make such a decision for others it's
seen as evil. The closest yet outside of regular old decimation and
intermarriage (the old-time way, still practiced from time to time) is China's
one-child advantages (which comes with third trimester abortion--NOT a good model for
population control).
"We" could all have zero children and that wouldn't put a noticeable dent in
six billion.
Sandra
<< The difference with us, though, is
that we don't know our own limits when it comes to population and what the
earth can handle as far as providing us with resources. >>
But who's "we"?
Who will say who doesn't get to reproduce?
(I have the beginnings of a list, but nobody quite thinks I'm the one to
make that decision, and if anyone tries to make such a decision for others it's
seen as evil. The closest yet outside of regular old decimation and
intermarriage (the old-time way, still practiced from time to time) is China's
one-child advantages (which comes with third trimester abortion--NOT a good model for
population control).
"We" could all have zero children and that wouldn't put a noticeable dent in
six billion.
Sandra
kayb85
> << The difference with us, though, iswhat the
> that we don't know our own limits when it comes to population and
> earth can handle as far as providing us with resources. >>one to
>
> But who's "we"?
> Who will say who doesn't get to reproduce?
> (I have the beginnings of a list, but nobody quite thinks I'm the
> make that decision, and if anyone tries to make such a decision forothers it's
> seen as evil.There are Christians who plan on taking over the culture for Christ
by having lots of babies. This is talked about in a book
called "Quiver Full". The basic concept is that while Christians are
having as many babies as they can (10 or more sometimes), the non-
christians are having abortions. So in X amount of years the
Christians will outnumber the non-christians. (I can't believe I
actually used to READ that stuff!)
Sheila
Elizabeth Roberts
I have seen quite a bit in my Christian circles about being "quiver-full" although I never realized (or was told) that there was actually a book about the subject. That being said, I'd have as many children as God would bless me with if it wasn't hazardous to my health to do so! I have been slammed in some circles for agreeing with my husband's decision to have a vasectomy because of the QF ideals...
MamaBeth
kayb85 <sheran@...> wrote:
by having lots of babies. This is talked about in a book
called "Quiver Full". The basic concept is that while Christians are
having as many babies as they can (10 or more sometimes), the non-
christians are having abortions. So in X amount of years the
Christians will outnumber the non-christians. (I can't believe I
actually used to READ that stuff!)
Sheila
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
"List Posting Policies" are provided in the files area of this group.
To unsubscribe from this send an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website and message boards: http://www.unschooling.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Everything I need to know, I learned on my own!
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
MamaBeth
kayb85 <sheran@...> wrote:
> << The difference with us, though, iswhat the
> that we don't know our own limits when it comes to population and
> earth can handle as far as providing us with resources. >>one to
>
> But who's "we"?
> Who will say who doesn't get to reproduce?
> (I have the beginnings of a list, but nobody quite thinks I'm the
> make that decision, and if anyone tries to make such a decision forothers it's
> seen as evil.There are Christians who plan on taking over the culture for Christ
by having lots of babies. This is talked about in a book
called "Quiver Full". The basic concept is that while Christians are
having as many babies as they can (10 or more sometimes), the non-
christians are having abortions. So in X amount of years the
Christians will outnumber the non-christians. (I can't believe I
actually used to READ that stuff!)
Sheila
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
"List Posting Policies" are provided in the files area of this group.
To unsubscribe from this send an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website and message boards: http://www.unschooling.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Everything I need to know, I learned on my own!
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Dawn Adams
Mamabeth writes:
Dawn (who knows most Christians she knows would laugh at the QF idea)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>I have seen quite a bit in my Christian circles about being "quiver-full" although I >never realized (or was told) that there was actually a book about the subject. That being >said, I'd have as many children as God would bless me with if it wasn't hazardous to my >health to do so! I have been slammed in some circles for agreeing with my husband's >decision to have a vasectomy because of the QF ideals...I'm finding this bizarre. I've never encountered this with the Christans I know here (I'm beginning to exclude myself from the christian label I think). Are Canadian christians more moderate? Or just Nova Scotian ones? Or is this QF idea just a fundamental idea?
Dawn (who knows most Christians she knows would laugh at the QF idea)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Elizabeth Roberts
I would say it was rather fundamentalist circles...
MamaBeth
Dawn Adams <Wishbone@...> wrote:
Mamabeth writes:
Dawn (who knows most Christians she knows would laugh at the QF idea)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
"List Posting Policies" are provided in the files area of this group.
To unsubscribe from this send an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website and message boards: http://www.unschooling.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Everything I need to know, I learned on my own!
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
MamaBeth
Dawn Adams <Wishbone@...> wrote:
Mamabeth writes:
>I have seen quite a bit in my Christian circles about being "quiver-full" although I >never realized (or was told) that there was actually a book about the subject. That being >said, I'd have as many children as God would bless me with if it wasn't hazardous to my >health to do so! I have been slammed in some circles for agreeing with my husband's >decision to have a vasectomy because of the QF ideals...I'm finding this bizarre. I've never encountered this with the Christans I know here (I'm beginning to exclude myself from the christian label I think). Are Canadian christians more moderate? Or just Nova Scotian ones? Or is this QF idea just a fundamental idea?
Dawn (who knows most Christians she knows would laugh at the QF idea)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
"List Posting Policies" are provided in the files area of this group.
To unsubscribe from this send an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website and message boards: http://www.unschooling.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Everything I need to know, I learned on my own!
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 12/8/03 5:01:08 AM, Wishbone@... writes:
<< Are Canadian christians more moderate? >>
Yes.
<<Or just Nova Scotian ones? >>
Are you talking Presbyterians?
Anglicans?
If so, those are practically Catholic by the standards of the fundamentalist
Christians of the southeastern U.S. (which have spread their beliefs north
and west, but whose motherhive is there, "the Bible Belt).
In central Canada there are Lutherans. They're practically Catholics too.
Not from their own point of view, but from the politicized born-again
quiver-full Jesus-spoke-English-and-was-blond Christians who are so prevalent in the
"Christian homeschooling" sub-universe.
<<most Christians she knows would laugh at the QF idea>>
Well they're probably intellectual Christians willing to read a book besides
the Bible.
Maybe they're not set out to prove that the Bible is literal in every word
(in English only--a special deal made with God and the King James Bible).
Sandra
<< Are Canadian christians more moderate? >>
Yes.
<<Or just Nova Scotian ones? >>
Are you talking Presbyterians?
Anglicans?
If so, those are practically Catholic by the standards of the fundamentalist
Christians of the southeastern U.S. (which have spread their beliefs north
and west, but whose motherhive is there, "the Bible Belt).
In central Canada there are Lutherans. They're practically Catholics too.
Not from their own point of view, but from the politicized born-again
quiver-full Jesus-spoke-English-and-was-blond Christians who are so prevalent in the
"Christian homeschooling" sub-universe.
<<most Christians she knows would laugh at the QF idea>>
Well they're probably intellectual Christians willing to read a book besides
the Bible.
Maybe they're not set out to prove that the Bible is literal in every word
(in English only--a special deal made with God and the King James Bible).
Sandra
Dawn Adams
Sandra writes:
Dawn
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>Maybe they're not set out to prove that the Bible is literal in every wordTrue. There aren't a lot of creationists in my neck of the woods for instance. :)
Dawn
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Andrea
At 12:00 PM 12/8/03 -0500, Sandra Dodd wrote:
here, possibly just as fundamentalist as the American ones, and many of
them are choosing to homeschool because of their fundamentalist beliefs.
I live in Nova Scotia, too. We are having some difficulty with our home
education association and differing (greatly differing in some cases :-)
ideas about what we should be doing with our organization. I and others
think we should only be political while others want to use the
organization's newsletter to publish any and all articles about
homeschooling. We cannot agree on philosophy, but we can all be respectful
and use our group to protect homeschooling rights. Even there we differ but
there are just too few of us to have separate organizations.
sure how they compare to U.S. ones. At our home school events we are not
allowed to have any magic or mention of evolution, among other things. The
women wear modest dresses. They have more children than most.
When I lived in Antigonish (another part of Nova Scotia - nickname "the
little Vatican") I met several women through La Leche League who were
fundamentalist Christian.
These are not Lutherans or Anglicans or United or Catholic church members.
My next-door neighbour is Lutheran and he jokingly says they are
"practically Catholic."
>In a message dated 12/8/03 5:01:08 AM, Wishbone@... writes:But, it is good to be aware that there *are* fundamentalist Christians
>
><< Are Canadian christians more moderate? >>
>
>Yes.
here, possibly just as fundamentalist as the American ones, and many of
them are choosing to homeschool because of their fundamentalist beliefs.
I live in Nova Scotia, too. We are having some difficulty with our home
education association and differing (greatly differing in some cases :-)
ideas about what we should be doing with our organization. I and others
think we should only be political while others want to use the
organization's newsletter to publish any and all articles about
homeschooling. We cannot agree on philosophy, but we can all be respectful
and use our group to protect homeschooling rights. Even there we differ but
there are just too few of us to have separate organizations.
><<Or just Nova Scotian ones? >>There are definitely fundamentalist Christians here in Nova Scotia. I'm not
>
>Are you talking Presbyterians?
>Anglicans?
sure how they compare to U.S. ones. At our home school events we are not
allowed to have any magic or mention of evolution, among other things. The
women wear modest dresses. They have more children than most.
When I lived in Antigonish (another part of Nova Scotia - nickname "the
little Vatican") I met several women through La Leche League who were
fundamentalist Christian.
These are not Lutherans or Anglicans or United or Catholic church members.
My next-door neighbour is Lutheran and he jokingly says they are
"practically Catholic."
>If so, those are practically Catholic by the standards of the fundamentalist
>Christians of the southeastern U.S. (which have spread their beliefs north
>and west, but whose motherhive is there, "the Bible Belt).
>
>In central Canada there are Lutherans. They're practically Catholics too.
>Not from their own point of view, but from the politicized born-again
>quiver-full Jesus-spoke-English-and-was-blond Christians who are so
>prevalent in the
>"Christian homeschooling" sub-universe.
>
><<most Christians she knows would laugh at the QF idea>>
>
>Well they're probably intellectual Christians willing to read a book besides
>the Bible.
>Maybe they're not set out to prove that the Bible is literal in every word
>(in English only--a special deal made with God and the King James Bible).
>
>
>Sandra