Subject:
|
Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 10 Jun 2004 23:12:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2396 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
| |
| |
Take a look around. I think you are denying the obvious. What would you
assert the foundation of our society is?
|
No one thing!!!
|
And....?
|
You keep asserting that the nuclear family is the foundation of society. I
guess I thought you meant that the nuclear family is the foundation of
society. Silly me.
| |
| |
It wouldn’t erode at the fabric of marriage as a “sacred”
institution.
|
Excuse me? It would completely change it!
|
It would improve it!
| |
| |
It wouldn’t erode at the “foundation” of society.
|
With all due respect, you have no idea what you are talking about.
|
I think you left out some of the respect due.
| |
| |
We would
just be normallizing relations with one of the many groups that are harmed
dramatically and daily by the majority in this country.
|
“Harmed dramatically”??? Please! What in the world are you talking about?
|
Subjugating citizens to a second-class status, denying them rights, and
further emphasizing the scant difference between them and the norm based on a
difference that harms no one, is genetic and unpreventable, and trivial is
dramatic harm. What did you think I was talking about?
| |
| |
| |
I didn’t say it was the norm, just the foundation.
|
So nuclear families were the norm for sixty of the 1000 years of our
(western) culture’s history and you get to call it the foundation? Do you
hear how dumb that sounds?
|
What sounds dumb is the assertion that the nuclear family is a construct
dating back 60 years. The institution of marriage is very old. I’m not sure
what exactly you are talking about.
|
100 years ago, most people lived in family units with at least three generations
present. That is now quite uncommon (though certainly not unheard of) in the
US. The nuclear family replaced family clans about 70-100 years ago as the
norm. Since then, it has evolved on to the next step.
| |
| |
| |
What does govern animal behavior then, Tom? Reason? Ethics? Religion?
|
Satisfaction of preference just like ours.
|
So you are claiming that animals have emotions? Any proof of that?
|
I hadn’t claimed that, but I’m certainly willing to. What proof would you
accept? Animals (even those as simple as house cats -- who I happen to think
have a much broader mode of emotional expression than do dogs) clearly have
moods, in the commonly understood human sense. How could moods be possible
without emotion? Just instinct?
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| (...) All I am asking is upon what do you believe our society is based. If you think it is a myriad of things, fine. What are they? (...) Upon what exactly do you base your assertion? (...) What I mean is that you are asserting things for which you (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| (...) And....? (...) How do you know? How do you claim to understand all of the social ramifications of such a shift? You can't even cite any historical references because such a proposition is unprecedented. Forgive me if I pass on your little (...) (20 years ago, 10-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
|
|
|
|
