Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id RAA10235 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Thu, 14 Mar 2002 17:39:58 GMT Message-ID: <001d01c1cb86$43cc4040$5e2ffea9@oemcomputer> From: "Philip Jonkers" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: <email@example.com> References: <570E2BEE7BC5A34684EE5914FCFC368C10FBBB@fillan> <000d01c1cb75$6d277880$e6a6eb3e@default> Subject: Re: question about memes Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 09:30:04 -0900 Organization: Prodigy Internet Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
> << I don' t think religion is in the wrong here ! We had a number of
> simular cases here in the Low countries, never was religion the cause
> or the excuse. ' Believing ' was ! Believing in the sense that killing the
> children would be better for the children. The constant annoyance is
> and never was religion but only the sake of the children was the real
> reason to act. Yates, IIRC, was married into a fanatic religious move-
> ment where children were raised at home, where the father worked
> and the mother stayed at home. Contraception was taboo.
> Yates, according to rapports had a pro- natal- depression after her
> fourth child and she was then already expecting her fifth !
> The ' reason ' can be that a mother having a depression, expecting a
> child, obliged to raise three others, clean the house and support her
> husband, etc was just too much ! Killing the children is an option,
> and IMO a rational one.
Beg pardon? Killing your 5 children is a rational option in a somewhat
difficult time is rational to you? Thank 'god' I'm not a daughter or son
of you. Excuse me but I'm beginning to have serious doubts about
your own faculty of reason now Kenneth. I can understand that during
times of extreme conditions like (mideval) famines or prospects of
certain mass-destruction and death, such as invasions and war,
you might save your children a lot of misery and suffering and
surrender them to an easy death. In other cases, it sounds like
insanity to the highest degree and everyone who thinks otherwise
should get his/hers head examined.
> > As you migh expect, I don't really see the 'protecting them from satan'
> > reason as a meme per se. Even if one accepted ideas as memes, as many
> > where did it come from? Are their biblical precedents for drowning kids
> > protect them from evil? Was someone influencing here in this way? If
> > then we're looking at an individual's disorder which religion may have
> > masked others from recognising (extreme and prejudicial beliefs are
> > legitimised within most societies by being associated with religion). I
> > suppose, though, that's not unlike what you're saying about memes as
> > for deeper factors.
> << Yes, I agree, the Satan- stuff is not the real meme. The protection
> of the children is, and that is still a far more deeper lieing (f)actor
> the believe in Satan. You have to understand people like those don 't
> really think straight, seen in the line along we ' normally ' think, but
> their mind, the reasoning is quite rational.
> Also the fact that such events are not quite common can play a role
> in the case of Yates ( being a woman, killing her children that is). In
> Belgium we are quite " used to " to such extremes. IIRC, they even
> say it a typical fact of Belgium....
I get the picture.
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 14 2002 - 17:59:09 GMT