Subject:
|
Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 9 Jun 2004 22:05:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1964 times
|
| |
|
|
John wrote:
> > As recently as three generations ago, the nuclear family as a self-contained
> > unit was newish. I don't assume that the nuclear family is the ultimate peak
> > of social development. I also don't believe that society is in any
> > meaningful way "built" upon the nuclear family.
>
> Well, ours is, and so is Western Culture in general.
Really? Do tell...
> > The same logic could have
> > been used to fight the transition from extended family/clan compounds to
> > nuclear families. I don't see any evidence that free and open sex would
> > disincent family raising -- I personally know a small handful of families
> > raising children in which the parents have sex regularly with people other
> > than their primary lover. And finally even if you were right that people
> > would stop "raising" families, so what?
>
> It wouldn't be the same society we have now. I like it the way it is, and I
> don't want to change it. Neither do the vast majority of Americans. You are
> going to have to live with it or leave, because nobody wants to change to
> accommodate {your} vision of society.
I don't exactly know what reality you live in anymore, John (if I ever did), but
I've got news for you - the Nuclear Family is a 20th C construct, and it is falling
by the wayside. It is anything BUT the norm anymore. While the majority of familes
{might} meet your Perfect Family Mold, it's only a matter of time (I say might
because I am too lazy to look up the latest census figures).
I seem to remember this argument coming up before here, and you're view of the US
was shot down pretty quickly.
> > All organisms "control" their
> > destinies as much as they are able.
>
> Pardon? "Control"? Animals have no control-- they are governed by instinct.
What an absolute load of BS.
>
>
> > Why is it human, and not e.g. canine, to
> > suppress our "animal instincts"?
>
> Animals {can't} suppress instinct. We are able.
Even a lab rat can suppress instinct if given the right impetus.
As usual, the vast majority of words coming out of your mouth in here stink of
bovine-digested-grasses.
> Honestly, I find this equivocation of humans and animals disturbing. Say the
> last tiger alive on earth was attacking me and would indeed kill me if you
> didn't kill it first. Would you?
It depends - would you also be the last other person in the world that I'd have to
talk to? ;-)
--
Tom Stangl
*http://www.vfaq.com/
*DSM Visual FAQ home
*http://www.vfaq.net/
*Prius Visual FAQ Home
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| (...) Take a look around. I think you are denying the obvious. What would you assert the foundation of our society is? (...) (snip) (...) I didn't say it was the norm, just the foundation. (...) I doubt it. Cultures with strong, nuclear families (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| (...) Then we disagree. (...) Yes, but neither are you "all for" sex either, unless you are willing to advocate beastiality, incest, etc. You draw your lines, I draw mine. There is no difference except in degree. (...) Of course. Do you have another (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
218 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
