| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 12 2016 10:18 LegalLord wrote: From a societal/demographics standpoint, I'd say it's not. I'll withhold judgment until I see their concrete policy proposals though. Good old fashion moralistic social engineering. Promote desired family unit as if it is the most fictional at the exclusion of others. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24336 Posts
On July 12 2016 10:21 Plansix wrote: Good old fashion moralistic social engineering. Promote desired family unit as if it is the most fictional at the exclusion of others. 50's propaganda too stronk. All that stuff. You wouldn't believe how many people don't realize the whole pink and blue thing was a marketing gimmick. I think it's fascinating how people imagine themselves above the social fray uninfluenced by society around them. So much stuff we don't realize (myself included despite going out of my way to look this stuff up). | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
As for the value of BLM, to respond to xDaunt from a bit back, I think that sort of judgment needs to wait until history shows the response. On one hand, I definitely disagree with some of BLM's tactics and overall approach to getting their message across, as I find it divisive and unpersuasive in its lack of nuance. On the other, I think that the demographic that BLM attempts to speak for is one that is due the right to say something in the way they want to say it, and as a white man who has personally witnessed his fair share of overt racism against black people while growing up in Ohio, I'm not going to be the one to tell BLM to stop being so bothersome with their message. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On July 12 2016 10:31 GreenHorizons wrote: 50's propaganda too stronk. All that stuff. You wouldn't believe how many people don't realize the whole pink and blue thing was a marketing gimmick. I think it's fascinating how people imagine themselves above the social fray uninfluenced by society around them. So much stuff we don't realize (myself included despite going out of my way to look this stuff up). "Every gender/family-related conservative idea I don't like is just 1950s propaganda." Not really quite true. A lot of modern developments on that front since then have involved throwing out the baby with the bath water. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On July 12 2016 10:39 LegalLord wrote: "Every gender/family-related conservative idea I don't like is just 1950s propaganda." Not really quite true. A lot of modern developments on that front since then have involved throwing out the baby with the bath water. I think your argument with him will be more productive if you're specific; if you're both spouting generalities, you each have to make assumptions to fill in the details, and you'll be using quite different assumptions, which will lead to confusion and pointless discourse from talking past each other. | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6233 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
There are certainly a lot of pitfalls here. First of all, forcing people to have children they don't really want often ends badly. A lot of the cases, generally associated with religious arrangements, force a woman to have one child early, when things are likely to end badly. They generally choose not to have another child and not to have a family at all. Another issue is forcing women into an arrangement where they either work or raise children, which is unnecessary and by all means a perverse incentive. And so on with issues that make it difficult to want to have and raise children properly. So in one sense, it does make sense to shift from the "1950s style" nuclear family as the one and only long term living arrangement. Some people don't want children, a lot more don't have the means to benefit from having them. However, a lot of the newer developments, such as cohabitation, are a socially undesirable limbo that are demographically harmful, and not particularly necessary. Unless human nature has changed in the past few years, people should still want a family at least in general. And families are a socially desirable arrangement, and so it makes sense to incentivize it. The discussion might end badly but... let's give it a shot. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
So yeah, this GOP thing about the blight of porn and discouraging cohabitation is just social conservatives trying to get government into your bed room. Let us not forget this is the party that decides hearing on birth control were an important part of the governments time. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On July 12 2016 11:08 LegalLord wrote: Unless human nature has changed in the past few years, people should still want a family at least in general. And families are a socially desirable arrangement, and so it makes sense to incentivize it. the nuclear family is a cultural unit rather than a natural one given that it's a fairly recent development in human history that's largely tied to human's settling down and becoming farmers. There's nothing inherently valuable to it. Especially with the progress in women's rights etc.. it doesn't look like a super attractive arrangement anymore, at least not one you might want to actively push on society. And it's not specifically families that are socially desirable but stable communities of all sorts. There are plenty of arrangements that are mutually and socially beneficial, the traditional family being only one point in that space. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On July 12 2016 11:22 Nyxisto wrote: the nuclear family is a cultural unit rather than a natural one given that it's a fairly recent development in human history that's largely tied to human's settling down and becoming farmers. There's nothing inherently valuable to it. Especially with the progress in women's rights etc.. it doesn't look like a super attractive arrangement anymore, at least not one you might want to actively push on society. And it's not specifically families that are socially desirable but stable communities of all sorts. There are plenty of arrangements that are mutually and socially beneficial, the traditional family being only one point in that space. What exactly are you arguing here? A committed mother and father raising kids as one unit, while having a loving relationship with each other is well studied and well known to really, really, really help child development. "non-standard" family arrangements may be great for the adults, but kids straight up need a stable family. There is no psychological substitute for a stable family. | ||
|
CorsairHero
Canada9491 Posts
A Canadian affiliate of the Clinton Foundation that has raised millions from mining executives has spent far more on salaries and administrative costs than charitable programming in the two most recent years for which numbers are available, according to financial statements from the Canada Revenue Agency. The Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada), a registered charity based in Vancouver, B.C., devoted $737,441 — amounting to 78 per cent of its expenditures — to management and administration in 2014. The amount includes spending on office supplies and expenses, salaries and professional and consulting fees. That same year, according to the return filed to the Canada Revenue Agency and published online, the organization devoted $205,419 to charitable programs, accounting for 22 per cent of its expenditures. A similar ratio — 72 per cent to management and administration costs and 28 per cent to charitable programs — is in the 2013 return. Source | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On July 12 2016 11:39 Mohdoo wrote: What exactly are you arguing here? A committed mother and father raising kids as one unit, while having a loving relationship with each other is well studied and well known to really, really, really help child development. "non-standard" family arrangements may be great for the adults, but kids straight up need a stable family. There is no psychological substitute for a stable family. I'm not saying that it isn't, I'm just saying that there's no reason to push it on anybody, which was brought up in the context of the GOP platform which demands exactly that. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 12 2016 11:39 Mohdoo wrote: What exactly are you arguing here? A committed mother and father raising kids as one unit, while having a loving relationship with each other is well studied and well known to really, really, really help child development. "non-standard" family arrangements may be great for the adults, but kids straight up need a stable family. There is no psychological substitute for a stable family. Stability is not the exclusive product of a "standard family". It just happens to be the default set up when people have kids. But there is nothing meritorious about it beyond that. Plenty of people have been raised by their grandparents, adopted families, gay couples and other non-standard social groups and been fine. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
| ||
|
Amarok
Australia2003 Posts
On July 12 2016 11:47 Plansix wrote: Stability is not the exclusive product of a "standard family". It just happens to be the default set up when people have kids. But there is nothing meritorious about it beyond that. Plenty of people have been raised by their grandparents, adopted families, gay couples and other non-standard social groups and been fine. Stability is not exclusively the product of a standard family, it "just happens" to be the setup that most often produces the social stability that leads to a healthy well adjusted child. It is far and away the ideal environment for a child to be raised in and acknowledging that isn't "exclusionary". EDIT: Should point out I'd consider same sex couples as part of the above. 2 people in a loving committed relationship would be my definition of a "standard family." | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On July 12 2016 11:47 Plansix wrote: Stability is not the exclusive product of a "standard family". It just happens to be the default set up when people have kids. But there is nothing meritorious about it beyond that. Plenty of people have been raised by their grandparents, adopted families, gay couples and other non-standard social groups and been fine. You're right, I was lazy with my wording. Nothing has shown 2x same sex parents being worse, psychologically and emotionally, for a child. There *does* appear to be a distinct benefit to having more than 1 parental figure, but I did not mean to imply that only a mother/faster dynamic is effective. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 12 2016 12:05 Mohdoo wrote: You're right, I was lazy with my wording. Nothing has shown 2x same sex parents being worse, psychologically and emotionally, for a child. There *does* appear to be a distinct benefit to having more than 1 parental figure, but I did not mean to imply that only a mother/faster dynamic is effective. Two is greater than one and better. I bet 3 would be even more helpful. Single parent house holds are at a disadvantage due to the simple fact that its hard to care for a second human and yourself at the same time. But that doesn't mean the government should go around create these environments through moralistic financial incentives. The government shouldn't be making people decide to stay in relationships they are not happy with just to have extra money to support their child. Just give that money to single parents. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24336 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
If you want to know why the nuclear family has been torn to shreds just look at women's integration into the workforce. | ||
| ||
|
|
Escore
IntoTheTV X SOOP
CranKy Ducklings
WardiTV Invitational
Cure vs Zoun
SHIN vs Classic
ByuN vs MaxPax
Percival vs YoungYakov
OSC
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Invitational
Shopify Rebellion Sundays
Spirit vs Mixu
Clem vs TBD
RSL Revival
Serral vs Rogue
BlizzCon
IdrA vs MC
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
