BS: Green/Godly Gardening

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 08:02 PM

China did offer rewards for people who had only one child. And it also allowed people in rural areas to have more than one child without being penalized.

My own opinion is that they could have done a much better job of trying to reduce their population growth rate (which is what they did, rather than reducing the population overall). However, this policy arises from real need and not from a lack of concern for human rights. If we want to criticize the government of China for its human rights abuses, there are plenty of other things to criticize that don't address any urgent needs. But people who understand why the government of China established and implemented this policy do not necessarily do so because of a lack of concern for human rights.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 02:54 AM

I don't think anyone has failed to acknowledge the need for a more healthy policy along the lines of what Bee has suggested - what ws disputed was the notion that the implementation of this particular policy was "humane".

Humane for whom? It may have benefitted the world overall to slow the population growth, but it has not been "humane" towards the children who have been its victims. My point is that it is very easy to solve the world's problems on paper, with neat little solutions that assume everyone will behave in a particular way, but real life is rather messier than that.

And going back to my earlier point about "broken" homes, the same applies.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 06:33 AM

"I stand by the idea that controlling the world's population is green, humane, and necessary"
I'm not quite sure what green means, apart from being a fashionable catchphrase which doesn't really say much, but it seems a bit rich that the person who decries growing non-native plants as 'ungodly', will applaud China's efforts in population control, which go right against Genesis 1:28. Is God on your side, or rather, are you on His, only when it's convenient for your own dogma?

I think that people should have the right to choose for themselves how many children to have, be it ever so many or ever so few. If they want to have a lot because of their religion, that's fine, they are following their own path to happiness just as much as the family with one, aren't they?
Who is to say that having one or two kids is necessarily better, or worse. At the very least, it's unbelievably presumptious to make that choice for the parents.

As for divorce, sometimes it is better than staying together, but it can leave lasting marks on people. Again, that's something that the individuals involved should decide.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 09:11 AM

Volgadon: we humans have taken the first part of Genesis 1:28 too far - for our own good, and for the good of the flora and fauna that we "rule over".

Poem cum song/lay 101 of 230: JUST SUBSIST
(I've turned mostly-vegan since writing this, but decided to leave it.)

At times when I've had time to take,
    I've thought of a plot by a lake:
The plot would be of fertile ground;
    The lake would have some trout around.

The plot's house would be made of brick -
    Well insulated, in good nick.
And round this abode there'd be built -
    Solar panels, kept at best tilt.

Inside large coops would run the legs
    Of chooks and quails - for fresh eggs.
A vine for grapes plus summer shade;
    And, in thin beds, vegetables laid.

Up at dawn, to use all sunlight -
    Fish and farm by day, read at night.
A spouse with me I'd not resist -
    In retirement, we'd just subsist.

From walkaboutsverse.741.com

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 09:14 AM

you still haven't explained what makes China's policy humane, Wavey.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 10:18 AM

There is an important difference between saying the "implementation" of the policy is humane and saying the policy itself is humane. The person who is being attacked in this thread has not said that the way the policy has been implemented is humane, although they have been accused of having said that. This distinction is important.

The only reason I can see why people would insist on putting words in this person's mouth is that doing so makes it a lot easier to attack this person.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 10:53 AM

Carol, I am NOT attacking David. I have disagreed with him, and attempted to discuss a point with which I strongly disagree. What's more, there is substantial evidence to support why I disagreed with him. Trying to get him to defend, or present any evidence for, his position is, as usual, like nailing jelly to a wall.

Look, I understand that you feel victimised on this forum, and I understand why. I have seen posts of yours, with which i agree quite strongly, and seen that you seem to attract quite a lot of criticism. I really don't know the history behind it all as I've dipped only occasionally into those threads, but I reckon that your own experiences have led you to want to "defend the underdog" when you see cases of others being treated similarly.

But where you see a victim in WAV, I perceive a sort of sinister passive-aggression combined with a huge ego. He also makes some very xenophobic claims about folk music, which I would challenge wherever and whenever I heard them, because I believe these have the potential to seriously damage the reputation of the tradition.

Okay, suppose no one ever disputed any more of WAV's theories and ideas, because to do so somehow constitutes a personal attack. He has already demonstrated the ability to keep endlessly reiterating his "life's work", starting multiple new threads and obsessively drawing attention to himself and his theories. Is this a particularly social way in which to interact with people? If he does not wish to be challenged on his ideas, he should publish them exclusively on his own website, where no one has any opportunity to respond. But this is a forum, and a forum means people debate and discuss and challenge the ideas of others - not that WAV tells us (over and over again) how it is and we just say, "yes, of course you're right."

Someone told me recently that he's been spamming one of the traditional music e-mail groups with his poetry. You think he's being attacked on Mudcat, you want to see some of the responses to his "life's work" there...isn't it interesting how certain people tend to draw the same responses from various different groups, but somehow it's never their fault?

At the end of the day, from what I have observed, it's the people who insist on shoving their own ideas and points of view down the other people's throats, over and over and OVER again, that really wind people up, and which eventually makes their contributions unwelcome. There are genuine victims, and then there are people who deliberately court negative attention. It's important to distinguish between the two.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 11:01 AM

No one is attacking this person, rather it is the retarded absolutist fanatical ego-centric views this person espouses & promotes as being, as this person believes, the best way forward for humanity that are being attacked. It is only because this person chooses to set themselves up in this way that this person's views are thus challenged, as such views must be, simply because they read like the ravings of a mad horse, which is not to call this person a mad horse, rather to perhaps invite this person to reconsider their position somewhat before that conclusion is, perhaps, inevitably drawn. Such views that this person has, and chooses to promote, at some considerable length, have been proven, time and time again, to represent a misanthropy that might well be considered to be inhumane at its most fundamental, or else merely irksome, to those of us who might have knowledge or experience of the things this person persists in discussing whilst being demonstratively wanting even in the fundamentals of those subjects. That this persons persists in such matters is evidence of such a self-promoting ego-centric misanthropy which, it might be suggested, is not entirely an indication of the best of intentions on the part of this person towards humanity as a whole.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 11:26 AM

I'm not a big fan of people ganging up on others (especially when the ones being treated that way never fight back) and there definitely is a lot of attacking going on in the threads in which this person posts. It is possible to disagree with, to challenge, and even to dislike someone's opinions without continually putting that person's back up against a wall or abusing them (not saying everyone is doing this, but some definitely are).

However, while there are many aspects of this person's opinions that I do not agree with, and some I even dislike, I can also see a lot of people jumping to incorrect conclusions about what this person is saying. When I see people arguing with points that haven't even been made, it looks to me like it's being done for reasons other than just disagreement.

I think if people would just respond to what has been said, and not inject any of their own stuff into what has been said, they would find a lot more common ground (that can serve as a point of departure in a constructive discussion) than they seem to think is there. People's minds can gain new perspectives when they feel an exchange is on an equal footing, but that doesn't usually happen when someone feels that their back is up against a wall.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 12:45 PM

"(especially when the ones being treated that way never fight back)"

no, they just post contentious and inflammatory political views and refuse to present any evidence for them, beyoind the constant self-aggrandisation of posting links to their own websaite.


WAV on the Chinese government:
"I'm glad they have stuck to their green, humane, birth-control policies..."

I have responded to this statement, pure and simple. There is nothing either green or humane about how China has implemented its birth control policies. Given the awful outcomes for thousands of abused and murdered children, how can anyone with even an ounce of humanity say they are glad that China has stuck to its policies?

This is what I challenged. This is what WAV has refused to discuss. Why? because I think he now realises what a horrible gaffe he made by raising China as an example of good practice. But he cannot ever admit that he was wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 12:52 PM

I'm not sure of Ruth's stance on native gardening, but IB seems to agree with me, roughly, on that; however, they are both heavily against my views on economic/capitalist immigration, which I am certain has been bad for Aboriginal and English, e.g., culture and society, and which I feel should be controlled by the UN. And it's largely their pro-immigrationism that has led them to say ridiculous things and use some unfair tactics, such as putting words in my mouth, using "Wavey", "retarded", "misanthropy"!...could it be that I've at least tried to support the land rights of Aborigines, Masai, etc., raised the problems of population growth, etc., and put up with these tactics because I (with my degree in humanities, shoestring travel through about 40 countries, etc.) genuinely DO CARE about humanity?

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 01:06 PM

Do explain, then, WAV, how you defend this statement:

"I'm glad they have stuck to their green, humane, birth-control policies..."

I ask again: given the awful outcomes for thousands of abused and murdered children, how can you say you are glad that China has stuck to its policies? Do you think that all of those wasted lives are an accepptable price to pay so that we in the west feel more comfortable with the rate of population growth in China? Now that you have been confronted with the outcomes of those policies, do you still believe them to be green and humane?

And what's wrong with Wavey Davey?

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 01:14 PM

"they are both heavily against my views on economic/capitalist immigration, which I am certain has been bad for Aboriginal and English, e.g., culture and society, and which I feel should be controlled by the UN."

which you won't discuss, or defend, beyond referring people back to your website. It is this tactic of making highly contentious statements, and then refusing to engage in any kind of debate, which has frustrated people almost as much as the statements themselves. If you would answer criticism directly, or provide any kind of evidence for your assertions (beyond referring people back to your qualifications, or resorting to the refuse tip that is Wikipedia), you might find that people are less dogged - usually, they're just trying to get a straight answer from you. Which you mostly refuse to give. My personal opinion is that it's because you don't actually have any (academically defensible) evidence for most of your views and assertions, and can't argue your case successfully, so you choose instead to constantly evade those who try to pin you down.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 01:19 PM

Again, I think the difference between saying that the policy is humane and saying that the implementation of the policy is humane needs to be pointed out.

If the policy results in many fewer deaths than would be the case without it, then it can be argued that it is more humane to have the policy than to not have the policy. And in that case, the only thing that needs to be discussed (in terms of being humane or not) is how the policy is implemented.

Having contentious views, or even ones that those who don't share them consider inflammatory, isn't the same thing at all as attacking people. And for one to say that the motives behind posting poetry are "self-aggrandizing" requires assumptions (and probably some amount of projection). This is a music site. People post song lyrics here all the time in lieu of discussion... even their own song lyrics. Poetry is lyrics that haven't yet been set to music.

There are no rules in the Mudcat against people holding opinions that others don't like, or even posting lyrics (or poetry). There is a rule against personal attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Green/Godly Gardening
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 01:38 PM

"Again, I think the difference between saying that the policy is humane and saying that the implementation of the policy is humane needs to be pointed out."

I disagee, Carol. Saying that you are "glad they stuck with" the policy isn't just about acknowledging the need for some sort of policy; it implicitly condones the policy's implementation.

"And for one to say that the motives behind posting poetry are "self-aggrandizing" requires assumptions (and probably some amount of projection)."

This isn't about poetry. WAV compulsively posts links to his website as his world manifesto. If someone posts a link to a website once or twice, fair enough. WAV's links to his own website must number in the hundreds by now. Many people have commented that it speaks of a certain level of self-obsession.

"There is a rule against personal attacks. "

And if the moderators felt that i had contravened them, I'm sure I would have heard by now.

This thread is closed. It has run its course and nothing being said is under any discussion except individual personalities and how they relate.

Subject: BS: Plant Natives Please
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 16 May 09 - 01:33 PM

Further to the gardening verses in http://walkaboutsverse.sitegoz.com (e-scroll) or http://blogs.myspace.com/walkaboutsverse (e-book), and with the concern that Gardeners' World (BBC) seem to be leaning more-and-more away from native gardening...

Green gardening is native gardening, and vegetables, plus other consumables, should be the only exotic-flora we plant - as doing so can help limit food-miles, etc. By filling our other garden spaces with natives, we use less water and other resources, whilst aiding the native-fauna that, over the centuries, have evolved with them.
(Even high-nectar exotics, such as Buddleia, that are very attractive to SOME native-fauna, should be avoided, because they upset nature's/God's balance – God created evolution, too, that is.)
Our green gardens, with their vegies and natives, can be made still greener by the addition of compost heaps/bins; a wildlife pond – for native frogs, newts, etc, rather than exotic goldfish; bee- and bird-boxes, plus carefully selected feeders; rain- and grey-water vats; by growing everything organically, including thrifty home-propagation/species-swapping; and by leaving some lush untidy patches, decaying branches, etc.