A vision for the future

13

Comments

  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Hugal wrote: »
    Okay, @goperryrevs

    Society accepts the late abortion of a foetus with Down Syndrome. You, as I understand it, don't, but society does. And if you want to employ the slippery-slope argument, as you did in your last paragraph, that's where the slope starts. Or perhaps it started when many women chose to have a career and delay child-bearing making DS more likely.

    According to this recent BBC story there is a campaign to change the law, but as it currently stands abortion following a diagnosis of Down Syndrome is permitted "at any point up until birth". The reason being that DS is only detectable late in pregnancy and sometimes not until after the birth.

    All I have done is observe that in terms of its development there isn't much difference between a foetus in the week before it's born and and a newborn in the week after it's born and drawn an obvious conclusion.

    If you think there is a major difference in development terms between a foetus in the week before birth and an infant in the week after I'd like to hear it.

    Six months was mentioned earlier but I believe that is the length of time it can take for the symptoms of DS to appear. If all newborns were screened immediately after birth then DS can be detected much earlier.

    I accept that you find that abhorrent. I believe expecting a woman to carry a foetus she does not want is abhorrent. I believe expecting anyone to commit to a lifetime of care is abhorrent.

    There is no real difference between the two states. Both function as human on inside the womb and one outside the room. They are both human beings. Just because a child is in the womb doesn’t mean it is not human. Your opinion not withstanding the child’s functions as a child.
    As I said and you still have not answered info is readily available and certainly in the UK you van get protection free or cheaply before and after sex. There is no moral excuse.
    Just because the law allows something to happen does not make it right. Downs kids can lead a life worth living.

    Contraception is not 100% reliable and people make mistakes. I am reasonably careful with knives, but if I make a mistake while chopping an onion am I obliged to bleed everywhere or can I get an Elastoplast? I use that as an example because that is how I see abortion: it's a solution to a problem, not a moral dilemma.

    In any event, contraception is not relevant to Down Syndrome so I assume your objection is to abortion at any stage in pregnancy for anything other than medical reasons.

    It should be clear by now that your morals are not my morals and that we live in a morally pluralist society.

    Up thread you said that Christians should seek to make protection and info available. I pointed out they are there. Christians need not do that. It is done. Also because you do not know this Christianity you reject, you do not know about Christian organisations that help in these and other important situations. AIDS sufferers and their families, those in debt large and small as well as the subjects we are talking about and others. I think you make decisions about Christians without fully knowing.
    Anyway. Yes we do have different morals. If that is the case then OK. It has to be.
  • Hugal wrote: »
    Up thread you said that Christians should seek to make protection and info available. I pointed out they are there. Christians need not do that. It is done. Also because you do not know this Christianity you reject, you do not know about Christian organisations that help in these and other important situations. AIDS sufferers and their families, those in debt large and small as well as the subjects we are talking about and others. I think you make decisions about Christians without fully knowing.
    Anyway. Yes we do have different morals. If that is the case then OK. It has to be.

    I did not specifically single out Christians and by making sure contraception and information is available I mean ensuring society provides it to all those who need it and ensuring there is no stigma attached to buying it or using it, which means no stigmatising pre-marital sex or any other variety of sex.

    I am perfectly aware that Christian organisations do a lot of charity work. I do not make decisions about Christians on any level. I have visited many churches and cathedrals, I have attended talks in churches, and been acquaintances with many Christians. I am not as ignorant as you suppose.

    And for the last time, I do not reject Christianity. An atheist believes there is no God. An atheist does not reject God. You cannot reject that which you believe does not exist and which has never given you any reason to doubt its non-existence.

    Saying I reject God is as daft as me saying you reject Buddhism or atheism.

  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    Hugal wrote: »
    Up thread you said that Christians should seek to make protection and info available. I pointed out they are there. Christians need not do that. It is done. Also because you do not know this Christianity you reject, you do not know about Christian organisations that help in these and other important situations. AIDS sufferers and their families, those in debt large and small as well as the subjects we are talking about and others. I think you make decisions about Christians without fully knowing.
    Anyway. Yes we do have different morals. If that is the case then OK. It has to be.

    I did not specifically single out Christians and by making sure contraception and information is available I mean ensuring society provides it to all those who need it and ensuring there is no stigma attached to buying it or using it, which means no stigmatising pre-marital sex or any other variety of sex.

    I am perfectly aware that Christian organisations do a lot of charity work. I do not make decisions about Christians on any level. I have visited many churches and cathedrals, I have attended talks in churches, and been acquaintances with many Christians. I am not as ignorant as you suppose.

    And for the last time, I do not reject Christianity. An atheist believes there is no God. An atheist does not reject God. You cannot reject that which you believe does not exist and which has never given you any reason to doubt its non-existence.

    Saying I reject God is as daft as me saying you reject Buddhism or atheism.

    I rejected Buddhism after I studied and practiced it for several years. I also rejected atheism after I engaged in that way of thinking for a similar time period.

    Presumably you know a bit about the Christian faith, and you reject it as such. I don't think describing it as rejection is daft in anyway. To reject a system of belief implies that one is minimally competent in the belief system and came to the conclusion, in whatever way, that it does not adhere with one's fundamental way of seeing the world and thinking. I, being a Christian, disagree with you there, but it is a rejection. You were presented with something and said no, in the same way I was presented with Buddhism or atheism, or a couple of other belief systems, and said no.
  • Colin SmithColin Smith Suspended
    edited August 2020
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    Up thread you said that Christians should seek to make protection and info available. I pointed out they are there. Christians need not do that. It is done. Also because you do not know this Christianity you reject, you do not know about Christian organisations that help in these and other important situations. AIDS sufferers and their families, those in debt large and small as well as the subjects we are talking about and others. I think you make decisions about Christians without fully knowing.
    Anyway. Yes we do have different morals. If that is the case then OK. It has to be.

    I did not specifically single out Christians and by making sure contraception and information is available I mean ensuring society provides it to all those who need it and ensuring there is no stigma attached to buying it or using it, which means no stigmatising pre-marital sex or any other variety of sex.

    I am perfectly aware that Christian organisations do a lot of charity work. I do not make decisions about Christians on any level. I have visited many churches and cathedrals, I have attended talks in churches, and been acquaintances with many Christians. I am not as ignorant as you suppose.

    And for the last time, I do not reject Christianity. An atheist believes there is no God. An atheist does not reject God. You cannot reject that which you believe does not exist and which has never given you any reason to doubt its non-existence.

    Saying I reject God is as daft as me saying you reject Buddhism or atheism.

    I rejected Buddhism after I studied and practiced it for several years. I also rejected atheism after I engaged in that way of thinking for a similar time period.

    Presumably you know a bit about the Christian faith, and you reject it as such. I don't think describing it as rejection is daft in anyway. To reject a system of belief implies that one is minimally competent in the belief system and came to the conclusion, in whatever way, that it does not adhere with one's fundamental way of seeing the world and thinking. I, being a Christian, disagree with you there, but it is a rejection. You were presented with something and said no, in the same way I was presented with Buddhism or atheism, or a couple of other belief systems, and said no.

    I think you presume to know too much about my experiences. Christianity was never presented to me. I grew up in a family that was completely irreligious. The only religious element in my childhood came from saying the Lords Prayer at school assembly, a year or two of RE at school, of which the only bit I can remember is something about Sikhism, and carols at Christmas. I did as a very young child have a few months at Sunday School but that was only to give my parents a rest as my younger brother had just been born. In terms of things to believe in, I recall TV programmes like Horizon, The World About US, and The Undersea World of Jacques Cousteau, provided all the explanation I needed for life, the universe, and everything. I also in my teens became an avid reader of science fiction.

    The result was that I grew up agnostic and with no interest in religion. I vaguely knew my grandparents had some sort of christian faith but was incurious about it. I didn't meet an actual young Christian until I was 19 and it was a shock, made worse by her being a young earth creationist. I genuinely thought such beliefs were extinct. In my thirties I gradually shifted from agnostic to atheist as it became clear to me that God was inconceivable within a worldview founded on science and materialism. And when I say God, I don't just mean the Christian God. I mean any god or gods or supernatural or spiritual element to existence.

    So no, I haven't rejected Buddhism, or Christianity, or Islam, because I was never searching for anything to believe in. You it seems, were searching.
  • Christianity was never presented to me.

    YET?
  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    Up thread you said that Christians should seek to make protection and info available. I pointed out they are there. Christians need not do that. It is done. Also because you do not know this Christianity you reject, you do not know about Christian organisations that help in these and other important situations. AIDS sufferers and their families, those in debt large and small as well as the subjects we are talking about and others. I think you make decisions about Christians without fully knowing.
    Anyway. Yes we do have different morals. If that is the case then OK. It has to be.

    I did not specifically single out Christians and by making sure contraception and information is available I mean ensuring society provides it to all those who need it and ensuring there is no stigma attached to buying it or using it, which means no stigmatising pre-marital sex or any other variety of sex.

    I am perfectly aware that Christian organisations do a lot of charity work. I do not make decisions about Christians on any level. I have visited many churches and cathedrals, I have attended talks in churches, and been acquaintances with many Christians. I am not as ignorant as you suppose.

    And for the last time, I do not reject Christianity. An atheist believes there is no God. An atheist does not reject God. You cannot reject that which you believe does not exist and which has never given you any reason to doubt its non-existence.

    Saying I reject God is as daft as me saying you reject Buddhism or atheism.

    I rejected Buddhism after I studied and practiced it for several years. I also rejected atheism after I engaged in that way of thinking for a similar time period.

    Presumably you know a bit about the Christian faith, and you reject it as such. I don't think describing it as rejection is daft in anyway. To reject a system of belief implies that one is minimally competent in the belief system and came to the conclusion, in whatever way, that it does not adhere with one's fundamental way of seeing the world and thinking. I, being a Christian, disagree with you there, but it is a rejection. You were presented with something and said no, in the same way I was presented with Buddhism or atheism, or a couple of other belief systems, and said no.

    I think you presume to know too much about my experiences. Christianity was never presented to me. I grew up in a family that was completely irreligious. The only religious element in my childhood came from saying the Lords Prayer at school assembly, a year or two of RE at school, of which the only bit I can remember is something about Sikhism, and carols at Christmas. I did as a very young child have a few months at Sunday School but that was only to give my parents a rest as my younger brother had just been born. In terms of things to believe in, I recall TV programmes like Horizon, The World About US, and The Undersea World of Jacques Cousteau, provided all the explanation I needed for life, the universe, and everything. I also in my teens became an avid reader of science fiction.

    The result was that I grew up agnostic and with no interest in religion. I vaguely knew my grandparents had some sort of christian faith but was incurious about it. I didn't meet an actual young Christian until I was 19 and it was a shock, made worse by her being a young earth creationist. I genuinely thought such beliefs were extinct. In my thirties I gradually shifted from agnostic to atheist as it became clear to me that God was inconceivable within a worldview founded on science and materialism. And when I say God, I don't just mean the Christian God. I mean any god or gods or supernatural or spiritual element to existence.

    So no, I haven't rejected Buddhism, or Christianity, or Islam, because I was never searching for anything to believe in. You it seems, were searching.


    I was, indeed, searching at a certain point, but this was started after being raised in a household that was adamantly irreligious. I did not attend my first religious ceremony until I was 20, which was a Jewish Sabbat service.

    I apologize if I'm presuming, but I think you may have misunderstood the point I was making. I was merely stating that you know the outline of the faith: God, Christ, redemption, etc. Your lack of interest in religion isn't what I'm gesturing to, merely that you are cognizant of the belief system, and have decided it's not for you as such.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Christianity was never presented to me.

    YET?

    I suppose if an angel appeared I'd have to consider it :wink:

    But it's very hard to even contemplate accepting Christianity if you're starting from a position of not believing in anything spiritual. How would I know it is Christianity and not something else. After all I live in a Christian country (nominally) and I am slightly more familiar with Christianity than any other belief so would I assume it's Christianity because I know nothing else it might be?

    I can accept a sort of universalism where all beliefs, including atheism, are interpretations or aspects of one true source, but the idea that only one belief out of the hundreds of beliefs mankind has had is right and all the others are wrong seems absurd.
  • ECraigR wrote: »


    I was, indeed, searching at a certain point, but this was started after being raised in a household that was adamantly irreligious. I did not attend my first religious ceremony until I was 20, which was a Jewish Sabbat service.

    I apologize if I'm presuming, but I think you may have misunderstood the point I was making. I was merely stating that you know the outline of the faith: God, Christ, redemption, etc. Your lack of interest in religion isn't what I'm gesturing to, merely that you are cognizant of the belief system, and have decided it's not for you as such.

    I don't think you understand. I have no more decided Christianity isn't for me that I have decided being French isn't for me. I suppose it could be that you think atheism is a sort of void waiting to be filled by something, but I assure you that's not how I see it. I love my atheism.

    I'm fairly cognisant of the Norse pantheon of gods. Have I rejected Odinism as well?

    From your spelling I suspect you are American. I am British. In terms of religious landscape we experienced two very different worlds growing up. As I proved, it was possible in 60s and 70s Britain to grow up almost completely unaware of any religious belief, including adamant irreligiosity.
  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    ECraigR wrote: »


    I was, indeed, searching at a certain point, but this was started after being raised in a household that was adamantly irreligious. I did not attend my first religious ceremony until I was 20, which was a Jewish Sabbat service.

    I apologize if I'm presuming, but I think you may have misunderstood the point I was making. I was merely stating that you know the outline of the faith: God, Christ, redemption, etc. Your lack of interest in religion isn't what I'm gesturing to, merely that you are cognizant of the belief system, and have decided it's not for you as such.

    I don't think you understand. I have no more decided Christianity isn't for me that I have decided being French isn't for me. I suppose it could be that you think atheism is a sort of void waiting to be filled by something, but I assure you that's not how I see it. I love my atheism.

    I'm fairly cognisant of the Norse pantheon of gods. Have I rejected Odinism as well?

    From your spelling I suspect you are American. I am British. In terms of religious landscape we experienced two very different worlds growing up. As I proved, it was possible in 60s and 70s Britain to grow up almost completely unaware of any religious belief, including adamant irreligiosity.

    I think you're making a category error with your first example. One doesn't decide to accept, or reject, one's nationality. One is born into it and deals with it as such. That is distinct from the approaching of a belief system that is not tied to national boundaries or being-born-into status. For more information on the relationship of nationality to one's thinking I direct you to Mr James Joyce, who 'rejected' Ireland and lived far from it, yet never strayed far from it mentally.

    I am, indeed, American. However, I am much younger than you, being a millennial, who was born into a quite irreligious, all things considered, part of the country. I grew up quite detached from religion and had no interaction with it until I sought it out, as noted above.

    I would suggest that you have rejected the Norse religion, in the same way that I, being a Classical Languages and Literatures student, rejected Ancient Greek and Roman religion. Now, I would not say that I've rejected Ancient Mayan religion as I've no contact with it beyond the writings of Charles Olson. It is quite possible that I'd enjoy it immensely, perhaps even come to identify with it, but I have not been exposed to it in any way besides the writings of an experimental poet. In contrast, after having read Yeats and Robert Duncan, I explored Theosophism and rejected it. As I noted earlier, what is required is a minimal exposure to the religion, which I think you have, bearing in mind the minimal qualifications I noted earlier.
  • Colin SmithColin Smith Suspended
    edited August 2020
    ECraigR wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »


    I was, indeed, searching at a certain point, but this was started after being raised in a household that was adamantly irreligious. I did not attend my first religious ceremony until I was 20, which was a Jewish Sabbat service.

    I apologize if I'm presuming, but I think you may have misunderstood the point I was making. I was merely stating that you know the outline of the faith: God, Christ, redemption, etc. Your lack of interest in religion isn't what I'm gesturing to, merely that you are cognizant of the belief system, and have decided it's not for you as such.

    I don't think you understand. I have no more decided Christianity isn't for me that I have decided being French isn't for me. I suppose it could be that you think atheism is a sort of void waiting to be filled by something, but I assure you that's not how I see it. I love my atheism.

    I'm fairly cognisant of the Norse pantheon of gods. Have I rejected Odinism as well?

    From your spelling I suspect you are American. I am British. In terms of religious landscape we experienced two very different worlds growing up. As I proved, it was possible in 60s and 70s Britain to grow up almost completely unaware of any religious belief, including adamant irreligiosity.

    I think you're making a category error with your first example. One doesn't decide to accept, or reject, one's nationality. One is born into it and deals with it as such. That is distinct from the approaching of a belief system that is not tied to national boundaries or being-born-into status. For more information on the relationship of nationality to one's thinking I direct you to Mr James Joyce, who 'rejected' Ireland and lived far from it, yet never strayed far from it mentally.

    I am, indeed, American. However, I am much younger than you, being a millennial, who was born into a quite irreligious, all things considered, part of the country. I grew up quite detached from religion and had no interaction with it until I sought it out, as noted above.

    I would suggest that you have rejected the Norse religion, in the same way that I, being a Classical Languages and Literatures student, rejected Ancient Greek and Roman religion. Now, I would not say that I've rejected Ancient Mayan religion as I've no contact with it beyond the writings of Charles Olson. It is quite possible that I'd enjoy it immensely, perhaps even come to identify with it, but I have not been exposed to it in any way besides the writings of an experimental poet. In contrast, after having read Yeats and Robert Duncan, I explored Theosophism and rejected it. As I noted earlier, what is required is a minimal exposure to the religion, which I think you have, bearing in mind the minimal qualifications I noted earlier.

    I think it requires two things. Some exposure to a religion and a desire for more of it. I never had the desire, but lack of desire is not the same as rejection. You, it seems, were seeking and like most seekers you found something. But I say again, I no more rejected the Norse religion than I rejected being Biggles (you might need to Google that). It simply wasn't something I considered believable.

    May I ask why you sought out religion and why appear to wish to believe that I have rejected belief?
  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    ECraigR wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »


    I was, indeed, searching at a certain point, but this was started after being raised in a household that was adamantly irreligious. I did not attend my first religious ceremony until I was 20, which was a Jewish Sabbat service.

    I apologize if I'm presuming, but I think you may have misunderstood the point I was making. I was merely stating that you know the outline of the faith: God, Christ, redemption, etc. Your lack of interest in religion isn't what I'm gesturing to, merely that you are cognizant of the belief system, and have decided it's not for you as such.

    I don't think you understand. I have no more decided Christianity isn't for me that I have decided being French isn't for me. I suppose it could be that you think atheism is a sort of void waiting to be filled by something, but I assure you that's not how I see it. I love my atheism.

    I'm fairly cognisant of the Norse pantheon of gods. Have I rejected Odinism as well?

    From your spelling I suspect you are American. I am British. In terms of religious landscape we experienced two very different worlds growing up. As I proved, it was possible in 60s and 70s Britain to grow up almost completely unaware of any religious belief, including adamant irreligiosity.

    I think you're making a category error with your first example. One doesn't decide to accept, or reject, one's nationality. One is born into it and deals with it as such. That is distinct from the approaching of a belief system that is not tied to national boundaries or being-born-into status. For more information on the relationship of nationality to one's thinking I direct you to Mr James Joyce, who 'rejected' Ireland and lived far from it, yet never strayed far from it mentally.

    I am, indeed, American. However, I am much younger than you, being a millennial, who was born into a quite irreligious, all things considered, part of the country. I grew up quite detached from religion and had no interaction with it until I sought it out, as noted above.

    I would suggest that you have rejected the Norse religion, in the same way that I, being a Classical Languages and Literatures student, rejected Ancient Greek and Roman religion. Now, I would not say that I've rejected Ancient Mayan religion as I've no contact with it beyond the writings of Charles Olson. It is quite possible that I'd enjoy it immensely, perhaps even come to identify with it, but I have not been exposed to it in any way besides the writings of an experimental poet. In contrast, after having read Yeats and Robert Duncan, I explored Theosophism and rejected it. As I noted earlier, what is required is a minimal exposure to the religion, which I think you have, bearing in mind the minimal qualifications I noted earlier.

    I think it requires two things. Some exposure to a religion and a desire for more of it. I never had the desire, but lack of desire is not the same as rejection. You, it seems, were seeking and like most seekers you found something. But I say again, I no more rejected the Norse religion than I rejected being Biggles (you might need to Google that). It simply wasn't something I considered believable.

    May I ask why you sought out religion and why appear to wish to believe that I have rejected belief?

    You may. I have an extensive background in Anglo-American philosophy and poetry criticism where words matter and quibbling over their use is what academic careers are made out of. Beyond that, I have no desire for you to acknowledge the validity of Christianity and reject it as such, or whatever else you may have implied in that last bit.

    I don't think desiring more knowledge of a religion is necessary for rejecting it. As previously stated, I think having a minimal knowledge of it is necessary for rejecting it. And as I also previously stated, I would consider myself to have rejected Ancient Greek and Roman religion through my knowledge of it. I had no desire to learn more about the faith, I just rejected it as such.

    Also, if I'm not much mistaken, I believe you came onto this website desiring to learn more about Christianity for the novel you're writing, or wrote.
  • ECraigR wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »


    I was, indeed, searching at a certain point, but this was started after being raised in a household that was adamantly irreligious. I did not attend my first religious ceremony until I was 20, which was a Jewish Sabbat service.

    I apologize if I'm presuming, but I think you may have misunderstood the point I was making. I was merely stating that you know the outline of the faith: God, Christ, redemption, etc. Your lack of interest in religion isn't what I'm gesturing to, merely that you are cognizant of the belief system, and have decided it's not for you as such.

    I don't think you understand. I have no more decided Christianity isn't for me that I have decided being French isn't for me. I suppose it could be that you think atheism is a sort of void waiting to be filled by something, but I assure you that's not how I see it. I love my atheism.

    I'm fairly cognisant of the Norse pantheon of gods. Have I rejected Odinism as well?

    From your spelling I suspect you are American. I am British. In terms of religious landscape we experienced two very different worlds growing up. As I proved, it was possible in 60s and 70s Britain to grow up almost completely unaware of any religious belief, including adamant irreligiosity.

    I think you're making a category error with your first example. One doesn't decide to accept, or reject, one's nationality. One is born into it and deals with it as such. That is distinct from the approaching of a belief system that is not tied to national boundaries or being-born-into status. For more information on the relationship of nationality to one's thinking I direct you to Mr James Joyce, who 'rejected' Ireland and lived far from it, yet never strayed far from it mentally.

    I am, indeed, American. However, I am much younger than you, being a millennial, who was born into a quite irreligious, all things considered, part of the country. I grew up quite detached from religion and had no interaction with it until I sought it out, as noted above.

    I would suggest that you have rejected the Norse religion, in the same way that I, being a Classical Languages and Literatures student, rejected Ancient Greek and Roman religion. Now, I would not say that I've rejected Ancient Mayan religion as I've no contact with it beyond the writings of Charles Olson. It is quite possible that I'd enjoy it immensely, perhaps even come to identify with it, but I have not been exposed to it in any way besides the writings of an experimental poet. In contrast, after having read Yeats and Robert Duncan, I explored Theosophism and rejected it. As I noted earlier, what is required is a minimal exposure to the religion, which I think you have, bearing in mind the minimal qualifications I noted earlier.

    I think it requires two things. Some exposure to a religion and a desire for more of it. I never had the desire, but lack of desire is not the same as rejection. You, it seems, were seeking and like most seekers you found something. But I say again, I no more rejected the Norse religion than I rejected being Biggles (you might need to Google that). It simply wasn't something I considered believable.

    May I ask why you sought out religion and why appear to wish to believe that I have rejected belief?

    You may. I have an extensive background in Anglo-American philosophy and poetry criticism where words matter and quibbling over their use is what academic careers are made out of. Beyond that, I have no desire for you to acknowledge the validity of Christianity and reject it as such, or whatever else you may have implied in that last bit.

    I don't think desiring more knowledge of a religion is necessary for rejecting it. As previously stated, I think having a minimal knowledge of it is necessary for rejecting it. And as I also previously stated, I would consider myself to have rejected Ancient Greek and Roman religion through my knowledge of it. I had no desire to learn more about the faith, I just rejected it as such.

    Also, if I'm not much mistaken, I believe you came onto this website desiring to learn more about Christianity for the novel you're writing, or wrote.

    The last point is partially true, though there is a very long and arcane list of things I have learnt about in the course of writing. But learning about something in order to depict it plausibly on the page is very different from the kind of learning an enthusiast for the thing itself would engage in.

    I say partially because actually I wanted to learn what made Christians tick. There was an assumption, false as it happened, that Christians were somehow different from non-Christians/atheists.

    I acknowledge the validity of Christianity for anyone who wants to believe in it. I also acknowledge the validity of all other beliefs for those who wish to believe in them. If I have a belief in anything it's the impossibility of arriving at universal truths. We each have out subjective truth and that is enough. Or it's enough for me.

    Subjectively, it's getting late so goodnight and as the late, great Dave Allen would say, may your God go with you.
  • anoesisanoesis Shipmate
    According to this recent BBC story there is a campaign to change the law, but as it currently stands abortion following a diagnosis of Down Syndrome is permitted "at any point up until birth". The reason being that DS is only detectable late in pregnancy and sometimes not until after the birth.
    [Italics mine].

    Did the BBC truly offer the impossibility of detecting of detecting Down's Syndrome until late in pregnancy? - because where I live, an initial screen to determine the likelihood of you carrying a child with a chromosomal condition is done in the first trimester of pregnancy, followed up by a further screen for those deemed at high risk, followed by an actual diagnostic procedure (amniocentesis - second trimester), for the much smaller cohort who the second screen also suggests are at high risk. Link, if you're interested: https://www.nsu.govt.nz/pregnancy-newborn-screening/antenatal-screening-down-syndrome-and-other-conditions/about-test

    I would be...surprised...to hear that the UK lagged behind in medical/scientific terms on this matter.

  • Colin--

    Fellow fan of Dave Allen, 42, and "The Undersea World Of Jacques Cousteau".
    :)

    Have you tried any of Terry Pratchett's Disc World books? For me, they're sort of H2G2 to the infinite power. TP was an agnostic, BTW.
  • anoesis wrote: »
    According to this recent BBC story there is a campaign to change the law, but as it currently stands abortion following a diagnosis of Down Syndrome is permitted "at any point up until birth". The reason being that DS is only detectable late in pregnancy and sometimes not until after the birth.
    [Italics mine].

    Did the BBC truly offer the impossibility of detecting of detecting Down's Syndrome until late in pregnancy? - because where I live, an initial screen to determine the likelihood of you carrying a child with a chromosomal condition is done in the first trimester of pregnancy, followed up by a further screen for those deemed at high risk, followed by an actual diagnostic procedure (amniocentesis - second trimester), for the much smaller cohort who the second screen also suggests are at high risk. Link, if you're interested: https://www.nsu.govt.nz/pregnancy-newborn-screening/antenatal-screening-down-syndrome-and-other-conditions/about-test

    I would be...surprised...to hear that the UK lagged behind in medical/scientific terms on this matter.

    Apologies. I picked up the late diagnosis from information I read on the Danish policy but misrepresented it. You can detect DS early in pregnancy but often it doesn't show up until later in the pregnancy and sometimes not until after birth. The test is not infallible.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Colin--

    Fellow fan of Dave Allen, 42, and "The Undersea World Of Jacques Cousteau".
    :)

    Have you tried any of Terry Pratchett's Disc World books? For me, they're sort of H2G2 to the infinite power. TP was an agnostic, BTW.

    I read the first two Discworld books but was left wondering what the fuss was about. I understand the series got better once TP realised he could use them as satire but haven't been tempted. There are an awful lot of books in the world and I am a very slow reader. I read H2G2 of course but I'm not sure I could re-read them now. The humour that appealed to a 20 year-old isn't the same as that which appeals to me now.

    The beliefs of the author/performer don't bother me unless they get especially didactic about it. In their different ways Philip Pullman and PD James fall foul of that (I found Children of Men unreadable).
  • Colin--

    Yes, I'm not a big fan of Pullman. There are things I like in his alt Oxford trilogy--particularly the girl and Mr. Bear. But that world .is. .so. .bleak.

    I initially had trouble getting into the Disc World series, and I understand other Shipmates have, too. It's kind of like each of the books is a door, and some doors are more suitable for some people. Starting out, I couldn't get anywhere with the first 2 books. "Witches Abroad" worked much better for me. "Mort" works well for some people. I'm guessing "The Thief Of Time" works well, too, if you like martial arts monks with a mission to fix history. (Which I do!)

    Oh, and I was able to go back to the beginning books later, and enjoy them.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    The early Discworld books were pastiches of another writer. When Pratchette started writing in his own voice things picked up drastically.
  • Ahhhhhh. Thx!
  • anoesis wrote: »
    According to this recent BBC story there is a campaign to change the law, but as it currently stands abortion following a diagnosis of Down Syndrome is permitted "at any point up until birth". The reason being that DS is only detectable late in pregnancy and sometimes not until after the birth.
    [Italics mine].

    Did the BBC truly offer the impossibility of detecting of detecting Down's Syndrome until late in pregnancy? - because where I live, an initial screen to determine the likelihood of you carrying a child with a chromosomal condition is done in the first trimester of pregnancy, followed up by a further screen for those deemed at high risk, followed by an actual diagnostic procedure (amniocentesis - second trimester), for the much smaller cohort who the second screen also suggests are at high risk. Link, if you're interested: https://www.nsu.govt.nz/pregnancy-newborn-screening/antenatal-screening-down-syndrome-and-other-conditions/about-test

    I would be...surprised...to hear that the UK lagged behind in medical/scientific terms on this matter.

    The earlier screenings can give a likelihood, but not a certainty. So you're both right.
  • Colin SmithColin Smith Suspended
    edited August 2020
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Colin--

    Yes, I'm not a big fan of Pullman. There are things I like in his alt Oxford trilogy--particularly the girl and Mr. Bear. But that world .is. .so. .bleak.

    I initially had trouble getting into the Disc World series, and I understand other Shipmates have, too. It's kind of like each of the books is a door, and some doors are more suitable for some people. Starting out, I couldn't get anywhere with the first 2 books. "Witches Abroad" worked much better for me. "Mort" works well for some people. I'm guessing "The Thief Of Time" works well, too, if you like martial arts monks with a mission to fix history. (Which I do!)

    Oh, and I was able to go back to the beginning books later, and enjoy them.

    Ah, bleakness I don't mind at all. I find Pullman's story-teller style off-putting. If you're going to use it you need to have a very good narratorial voice, and his isn't. It's like listening to a dull teacher explaining things to you. The book sitting on my table waiting for me to read it (and it's sat for a while) is Martin Amis's Money but I am tempted by The Sunken Land Begins To Rise, by M John Harrison, and must read Piranesi by Susanna Clarke. Most of my reading is at the lighter end of Lit Fic.
  • ArgonaArgona Shipmate Posts: 17
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    It seems to me your position actually has little do with choice as such, except your own and no one else’s. It comes across as nothing but convenience and selfishness, described as choice to make it appear more palatable.

    It is certainly your choice to be selfish and avoid inconvenience, or to portray yourself as such if this is just amusement for you.

    The rest of us have the choice of what conclusions to draw from what you say.

    Yes. My point is that everyone should have the choice to put their convenience and selfishness first if that is what they wish.

    If that were so (which it is not), we would have the choice simply to squish them. End of.
  • Argona wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    It seems to me your position actually has little do with choice as such, except your own and no one else’s. It comes across as nothing but convenience and selfishness, described as choice to make it appear more palatable.

    It is certainly your choice to be selfish and avoid inconvenience, or to portray yourself as such if this is just amusement for you.

    The rest of us have the choice of what conclusions to draw from what you say.

    Yes. My point is that everyone should have the choice to put their convenience and selfishness first if that is what they wish.

    If that were so (which it is not), we would have the choice simply to squish them. End of.

    But countered by their choice not to be squished.
  • Well, logically, the multiple wishes of the masses to squish the pain-in-the-ass selfish person would prevail. So selfishness is not a life-extending behavior.
  • Well, logically, the multiple wishes of the masses to squish the pain-in-the-ass selfish person would prevail. So selfishness is not a life-extending behavior.

    In the real world most people are a bit selfish.
  • Colin--
    My point is that everyone should have the choice to put their convenience and selfishness first if that is what they wish.

    Pragmatically: within certain parameters, yes.

    And, if you're a hermit, 1000 miles away from other humans, you might be able to successfully pull it off.

    Problem is, your primary self-priority choice can affect other people negatively. And other people's primary self-priority choices can affect *you* negatively.

    A thought experiment:

    You live in a small town, with few services available. So the community makes do and improvises--for example, the fire dept. is all volunteer.

    You're living happily and quietly in a cottage at the edge of town. You have the bare minimum of human interaction necessary to get groceries, etc. You don't bother your neighbors, and they don't bother you.

    One night, you're in your house, writing (with occasional breaks for Foolishness ;) online). A fire breaks out in your kitchen: some poor appliance gave up the ghost, and decided to go out in a blaze.

    The fire is quickly becoming more than you can manage on your own. You're just ready to contact the volunteer fire fighters (VFF). Then you remember the big party in the town square that night. Most of the VFF will probably be there, happy and busily relaxing.

    Q1. If the VFF are happily at the party, are they required to leave and put out your fire?

    Q2. Should you expect them to put out your fire?

    Q3. If, on another occasion, your neighbor's house catches fire, should you do anything about it? Call the VFF? Go check on your neighbor to make sure they've gotten out ok? Use their garden hose to try to put the fire out, or at least soak the outside of the house so the fire won't spread?

    Q4. Should they expect you to help?


    I'm just saying that choosing to put yourself (gen.) first all the time can be complicated. Much of the time, it sounds like a really good idea. Sometimes, it's even the right thing to do.

    But, as a permanent choice for all situations, there are going to be problems.
  • Moreover, consider how you ended up with a volunteer fire service in the first place. Is it unselfishness (I want to help my neighbours in times of distress) or selfishness (If my house catches fire, I want there to be something in place to help me put it out).

    And even further, if you've refused to volunteer, even though you're physically able, or refused to help fund the service, even though you're financially able, should you benefit from them? We're back in an era of insurance-based fire cover, and yes, we tried that, and no, it didn't work.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Was beaten to it. Your choice to not go will almost certainly mean someone will not be free to go.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Colin--
    My point is that everyone should have the choice to put their convenience and selfishness first if that is what they wish.

    Pragmatically: within certain parameters, yes.

    And, if you're a hermit, 1000 miles away from other humans, you might be able to successfully pull it off.

    Problem is, your primary self-priority choice can affect other people negatively. And other people's primary self-priority choices can affect *you* negatively.

    A thought experiment:

    You live in a small town, with few services available. So the community makes do and improvises--for example, the fire dept. is all volunteer.

    You're living happily and quietly in a cottage at the edge of town. You have the bare minimum of human interaction necessary to get groceries, etc. You don't bother your neighbors, and they don't bother you.

    One night, you're in your house, writing (with occasional breaks for Foolishness ;) online). A fire breaks out in your kitchen: some poor appliance gave up the ghost, and decided to go out in a blaze.

    The fire is quickly becoming more than you can manage on your own. You're just ready to contact the volunteer fire fighters (VFF). Then you remember the big party in the town square that night. Most of the VFF will probably be there, happy and busily relaxing.

    Q1. If the VFF are happily at the party, are they required to leave and put out your fire?

    Q2. Should you expect them to put out your fire?

    Q3. If, on another occasion, your neighbor's house catches fire, should you do anything about it? Call the VFF? Go check on your neighbor to make sure they've gotten out ok? Use their garden hose to try to put the fire out, or at least soak the outside of the house so the fire won't spread?

    Q4. Should they expect you to help?


    I'm just saying that choosing to put yourself (gen.) first all the time can be complicated. Much of the time, it sounds like a really good idea. Sometimes, it's even the right thing to do.

    But, as a permanent choice for all situations, there are going to be problems.

    It's not a permanent choice for all situations. For example, I volunteer at a local garden and at a private library. I choose my level of commitment and stick to it. I made an exception for gardening this week because it was 30 degrees C. 87 Fahrenheit which is a lot too warm for me to be weeding in the sun.

    Being self-centred (a much more accurate word than selfish) means putting my interest first BUT as it is good for my well-being to be active and engaged and to feel rewarded for what I have done I will make a commitment and stick to it.

    Taking the attitude that I can say fuck it on a whim whenever I don't want to do something is actually destructive to my self interest.
  • Ah, but that still doesn't get you off the hook, poor guy. :lol: Because there are going to be those jobs and those occasions which NOBODY wants to do, and which pure self-centeredness will inevitably decline--burying the dead comes to mind, as well as cleaning out the sewers, caring for the incontinent, and so forth. And yet, if everyone makes the self-centered choice, ... ewww. I just don't want to imagine that world.
    So let's suppose that most people make the altruistic choice, at least on something, and you alone continue in your self-centered course. Humans have selfish-meters, just as they have bullshit meters, and they also have long memories for who the hell never pitches in. (AND memories for who decides to do nothing but gardening in the comfort of a pleasant evening, while the others are busting their butts dealing with the fire at the town dump.)
    Which means that, inevitably, you will find yourself on the receiving end of social punishment. Which may be as mild as nasty looks or as severe as "Fuck 'em. Let their house burn down."
    Of course, you COULD move every two years to escape your reputation, but on a practical level, that's not a comfortable solution long term either.
  • Ah, but that still doesn't get you off the hook, poor guy. :lol: Because there are going to be those jobs and those occasions which NOBODY wants to do, and which pure self-centeredness will inevitably decline--burying the dead comes to mind, as well as cleaning out the sewers, caring for the incontinent, and so forth. And yet, if everyone makes the self-centered choice, ... ewww. I just don't want to imagine that world.
    So let's suppose that most people make the altruistic choice, at least on something, and you alone continue in your self-centered course. Humans have selfish-meters, just as they have bullshit meters, and they also have long memories for who the hell never pitches in. (AND memories for who decides to do nothing but gardening in the comfort of a pleasant evening, while the others are busting their butts dealing with the fire at the town dump.)
    Which means that, inevitably, you will find yourself on the receiving end of social punishment. Which may be as mild as nasty looks or as severe as "Fuck 'em. Let their house burn down."
    Of course, you COULD move every two years to escape your reputation, but on a practical level, that's not a comfortable solution long term either.

    You have a very odd idea of UK society. People don't put out fires or deal with the incontinent purely out of altruism. They're paid. Not paid as much as they should be, but paid. I'm not paid for the work I do, other than state welfare.
    As it happens I'm 59 and have lived in 3 cities and around 20 towns and villages but it's not because I've been driven out of towns by mobs demanding I clean someone's bottom or put out a fire.

    PS. cities, towns, and villages in the UK don't translate directly to the US.
  • Tell me, does every incontinent person in the UK have a paid carer, then? Because that's definitely not the case here. And "volunteer fire department" means "unpaid." You may have no need for such things, but there are still places in the U.S. where they are a necessity. My uncle was on one for years.

    Do you think money is the only motivator, then? Because it's hard to square that with the legions of people who do nasty jobs for low pay.
  • Oops, forgot. "Incontinent" includes most people under the age of two, many up to age five. Does the UK normally pay parents to deal with those as well?
  • Colin SmithColin Smith Suspended
    edited August 2020
    Tell me, does every incontinent person in the UK have a paid carer, then? Because that's definitely not the case here. And "volunteer fire department" means "unpaid." You may have no need for such things, but there are still places in the U.S. where they are a necessity. My uncle was on one for years.

    Do you think money is the only motivator, then? Because it's hard to square that with the legions of people who do nasty jobs for low pay.

    So far as I'm aware carers are either paid or close relatives. No idea what the situation is in the US, but in the UK the majority of geriatric care takes place in care homes which are heavily subsidised by the state. Admittedly the cost of care can bite into a person's savings leaving little to pass on in a will but it's not difficult to secure your savings in a trust in which case the money in the trust is protected and the state covers the costs of care. That's what my father did when my mother went into care. Sorry for the complicated answer but I suspect the situation in the UK is very different to that in the US.

    I think there are some remote places in the UK that have volunteer fire services but that certainly isn't the norm. There's also a long tradition of volunteer lifeboat services in the UK but you need to have fairly specialised skills to be on them. Plus I'm not sure the fire-service has much use for a half-blind 5'6" over-weight 59 year old.

    Yes, in the UK at least I think money is the main motivator. Unfortunately many of the nasty jobs are low-skilled and low paid so people lacking in skills don't have much choice.

    I should add that many years ago I worked in a supermarket doing the early morning cleaning so have done my share of toilet cleaning, including dealing with what didn't flush away. I've also been an architectural modelmaker and a picture framer which, while not exactly strenuous, was a lot more active than a desk-job.

    As for parents, the UK has reasonable maternity and paternity leave so yes, parents get paid, initially at least, to wipe their baby's bottom. Plus the state pays something called 'child benefit' up to the age of 16 or 18.
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    But we're discussing your theory of ideal selfcenteredness. If it only works in the UK--and even there, only because of heavy subsidy by other people, i.e. taxpayers--then the proposed mode of life is not tenable. (And leaving close relatives on the hook for providing unpaid icky and difficult care also militates against it.)
  • Left libertarianism is a combination of individualism and state support which requires that individuals pay into the state when they are able to do so.

    And I agree that leaving, or expecting, close relatives to pick up care responsibilities is unreasonable.

    Like any ideal, complete self-centredness is unachievable but you can move towards it and put your own well-being first. You do need a reasonably enlightened sense of well-being and understand that it's not all about indulgence and luxury. Well-being also comes from helping others.

    I don't think it only works in the UK. Most countries have paternity and maternity leave, and so on. The US is anomalous among developed nations.

    A simple way to think of ideal self-centredness is to consider what brings you most happiness and then focus your life on doing that as much and as often as possible.
  • Colin Smith, given your general world view, I doubt that this will make much impression, but what the hell, it's worth a shot. One of my favourite personal essays. It's brief. Less than a cup of tea. Always Go To The Funeral.
  • Colin Smith, given your general world view, I doubt that this will make much impression, but what the hell, it's worth a shot. One of my favourite personal essays. It's brief. Less than a cup of tea. Always Go To The Funeral.

    Well, I went to my mother's funeral in March of this year but that was the first funeral I had been to in ten or twelve years. Not because I had turned down invitations but because there had been no invitations. I don't know what a calling hour is.

    It might be different if one has lived for many years within a community, but I have lived in about 25 towns, cities and villages scattered across England and have lost touch with the vast majority of people I have known.
  • The point of the essay is: Always do the uncomfortable but right thing that becomes a blessing to others. Do this, and your life will be blessed and meaningful. Fail to do this, and you'll miss out.
  • And "volunteer fire department" means "unpaid." You may have no need for such things, but there are still places in the U.S. where they are a necessity. My uncle was on one for years.

    We don't have unpaid volunteers, but we do have a community fire service with fire fighters who are paid only for the time they are training or if there is a callout. Callouts are rare enough that no-one is going to be making a living from it. Somewhat oddly, presumably for regulatory reasons, our airport has a full time, paid firefighting crew who really don't have a lot to do as we only have 4 scheduled flights a day max (and occasional private visitors). The reality is that in the event of an actual fire (we had a fairly serious grass fire a couple of summers ago) it's literally a case of "all hands to the pumps" and we saw the community fire engine go past followed not long after by both appliances from the airport.
  • The point of the essay is: Always do the uncomfortable but right thing that becomes a blessing to others. Do this, and your life will be blessed and meaningful. Fail to do this, and you'll miss out.

    I think that works for some people but not for others. Some people feels a genuine sense of satisfaction from helping others and I suspect you are such a person. Others can feel that as well but they can't exist solely on it. They need time for the things that are important to them.

    Put it this way. I believe there is no such thing as an unselfish act. Sometimes we do things because we are coerced or fear the consequences of not doing them, but most of the time we do the thing because we want the warm glow of achievement* from having done it. Some primarily get that feeling from helping others and some primarily don't.

    *Incidentally, I am not advocating for a life of epicurean indulgence or sloth but pointing out that, for example, mountain climbing or novel writing are just as effective for some people at delivering the warm glow of achievement as volunteering in the fire service or missionary work is for others and they are equally worthwhile achievements.
  • I have quite often not gone to funerals, but I don't think I was avoiding the "right thing". Well, I'm not sure how that is determined. My mother would have loved me to visit every week, but I didn't. And so on. I got tired of the guilt and "should". But I think this is an endless argument.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    The point of the essay is: Always do the uncomfortable but right thing that becomes a blessing to others. Do this, and your life will be blessed and meaningful. Fail to do this, and you'll miss out.

    I think that works for some people but not for others. Some people feels a genuine sense of satisfaction from helping others and I suspect you are such a person. Others can feel that as well but they can't exist solely on it. They need time for the things that are important to them.

    Put it this way. I believe there is no such thing as an unselfish act. Sometimes we do things because we are coerced or fear the consequences of not doing them, but most of the time we do the thing because we want the warm glow of achievement* from having done it. Some primarily get that feeling from helping others and some primarily don't.

    *Incidentally, I am not advocating for a life of epicurean indulgence or sloth but pointing out that, for example, mountain climbing or novel writing are just as effective for some people at delivering the warm glow of achievement as volunteering in the fire service or missionary work is for others and they are equally worthwhile achievements.

    I think you are only partly fight. People don’t necessarily do things to get a warm glow. They do them because they are right or they have to do it. I would add that you time to do things for you. You need time to relax, not burn out.
  • Hugal wrote: »

    I think you are only partly fight. People don’t necessarily do things to get a warm glow. They do them because they are right or they have to do it. I would add that you time to do things for you. You need time to relax, not burn out.

    I disagree. People don't do things because they are right. The do things that are right because they get satisfaction from doing the right thing or because they don't want to live with knowing they did the wrong thing. That's part of being a social animal. We do the right thing and we get a dose of dopamine which makes us feel good. It's just evolution and chemistry,
  • Well, so you say. But I haven't got a great deal of confidence in what you say, because by your own testimony you are a person who avoids such activities. So how would you know?

    And no, I don't go to funerals because it gives me a warm glow of achievement. Nor do I go because I think God is going to reward me, or because I think I'm going to get social rewards or some such (in my case, showing up at funerals would be taken as a norm not to be congratulated anymore than brushing one's teeth--not even the kindness it would be from a person not a pastor's wife). Nor do I go to funerals because I like them, or because I like fulfilling norms (I tend rather the opposite, though Trump is enough to make anybody reconsider that). I go because it's right. End of.
  • Well, so you say. But I haven't got a great deal of confidence in what you say, because by your own testimony you are a person who avoids such activities. So how would you know?

    And no, I don't go to funerals because it gives me a warm glow of achievement. Nor do I go because I think God is going to reward me, or because I think I'm going to get social rewards or some such (in my case, showing up at funerals would be taken as a norm not to be congratulated anymore than brushing one's teeth--not even the kindness it would be from a person not a pastor's wife). Nor do I go to funerals because I like them, or because I like fulfilling norms (I tend rather the opposite, though Trump is enough to make anybody reconsider that). I go because it's right. End of.

    I can only assume you know a lot of people who have died. Over the last twelve years or so five people I have known have died. Two of them were relatives and two were writing tutors. I was invited to three funerals and attended. The fifth person was someone I only knew briefly and not closely.

    I don't think I have ever been invited to a funeral and not gone but at the same time I have moved around a lot and not built long-term friendships so the number of potential invites is small.
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    I think you missed the bit where I mentioned I was a pastor's wife. The year I don't go to at least 5 funerals is a good year. Though on the other hand, we had 2018, when four members of my family died, and those funerals really sucked.

    And do people in the UK issue invitations to funerals? Here you hear about it and you turn up (provided you are not the ex-wife, or the Other Woman™ or the person who caused the death, and so on.). It's common to show up to funerals for neighbors, fellow church members, people at work and their nearest and dearest, etc. as well as friends and family.
  • I think you missed the bit where I mentioned I was a pastor's wife. The year I don't go to at least 5 funerals is a good year. Though on the other hand, we had 2018, when four members of my family died, and those funerals really sucked.

    And do people in the UK issue invitations to funerals? Here you hear about it and you turn up (provided you are not the ex-wife, or the Other Woman™ or the person who caused the death, and so on.). It's common to show up to funerals for neighbors, fellow church members, people at work and their nearest and dearest, etc. as well as friends and family.

    Ah. I sort of glossed that bit. You are in the death business, along with the other rites of passage.

    I don't recall seeing many general invitations to funerals. I dare say fellow congregants go to each others funerals but church attendance is very low here so the majority aren't in that group. And many of us aren't neighbourly. I mean, I've lived in the same place for twenty months now (which is quite settled for me in recent years) but couldn't name any neighbours other than my landlord. People at work, yes I think so, but my work has usually been for small companies with only a handful of staff. I can't recall a workmate dying while I was with the company. As for friends, they have tended to be about my age or younger so again their deaths have been few in number plus I have moved around a lot and lost touch with people so friends have not grown old on me. As for family, my extended family has never been close knit and is separated by a few hundred miles, which on a UK scale is huge. I attended all my grandparent's funerals and my mother's but that's it so far.

    You need to bear in mind the British sense of reserve. We mind our own business and expect others to do the same. It would be unusual to attend the funeral of someone you only slightly knew.
  • Colin SmithColin Smith Suspended
    edited August 2020
    @Lamb Chopped I tried to Google the average funeral attendance in the UK but it's choked with corona virus information at the moment as the number of attendees at funerals has been capped during the crisis.

    I did find this Quora discussion asking "How many people are there at a typical funeral?" which even for a "heartless bastard*" like me is truly depressing reading.

    *not really.
  • @Colin Smith 's explanation of the UK situation is not the case everywhere. Here it is common for notice of funerals to be posted in the local shop and spread by word of mouth. I've attended perhaps half a dozen funerals since living here, of folk known to me or whose close relatives are known to me and I go to offer them moral support. A funeral here will often have a hundred people in attendance, two hundred (and hence overflowing out of the church) is not that uncommon (our resident population is ~650).
Sign In or Register to comment.