re: Abolition of Family - Page 7 - Thinker's Lounge

Forum Options:	my.neoforum register members prefs search faq

Topic: Abolition of Family Options: Print subscribe remove NeoPM
Threads List « Next Newest Next Oldest »
Galacticdramon Smeg off! Are we there yet? total posts: 9857 neopoints: 806 since: Jan 2004	Oct 04, 08 at 8:00pm ^ re: Abolition of Family
	Log in to remove this sponsored message I don't think he's talking exclusively about doing it for America. Irrespective, it wouldn't work in any country. I've explained why, I don't need to do it again. ------------------- Newest FAQ - Feedback Thread - Newest Review - Review Thread - Articles of Excellence - Outer Maelstrom - Sonic NeoWiki
	quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report
udontneed2knowme Resident Neo total posts: 3120 since: Jun 2004	Oct 05, 08 at 12:40am ^ re: Abolition of Family
	Not a bad idea ... but it also depends on things like how close, fond and particularly dependant are they already to their current family. And yes ... it could free up some time for adults with too many children. But you can't have JUST ANYONE live with you. It depends on what they're like and if you're able to provide enough for them, or offer any assistance they may need. I'm not saying a person/family has to provide every single thing for them but at least the basic essentials and treat them right. I think if you're going to live with people ... the home should not only be adequate but also live with people who you get along very well with and make you happy.
	quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report
Justin Time For Peace & Donuts Neo or Bust since: Jul 2005	Oct 08, 08 at 10:07pm ^ re: Abolition of Family
	quote Galacticdramon 5:1 "parent" to child ratio is impossible with current birth rates. You are quite right. Faithhandler misquoted me, my suggestion was a 1:3 parent to child ration, not a 3:1 parent to child ratio, though I could see how 1:4-5 might be necessary. We are not ripping apart families, they're not being taken from a "family". A child's family is who it is raised by, just as an adopted child's family is it's adopted parents, not it's biological ones. And no one said the adaption would be quick, being gradual is the main point. quote The only way to ensure are predefined code of morals is if someone makes it. There is no predefined and enforced set of morals in schools and other areas today, and it wouldn't be necessary in a state society either. quote The only things supporting your arguments are on-paper ideas. That is how ideas that have never been tried out work. The only ideas against my idea are also on paper ideas, as you this has never been done and does not have a direct statistical record as other family systems do. quote silverboner Not at all. Parents don't have to explain why it is that they are being raised by one's own biological parents. They don't have to make sound as though its 'best' for the kid that way. Of course, when there is only one way things are done, why would they need to explain? I am sure if the State system was the common system, many kids would ask their nuclear families why it is that they are not in the State system. When it comes to responsibility, as you brought up, we focus on small things like suing McDonald's, because we won't even allow the smallest amount of irresponsibility like transfat and scalding hot beverages pass us. I would say we are a nation almost overfocused on responsibility. But even so, if the nation is really full of irresponsible people, more reason to screen them out and let the responsible people raise the children. quote silverboner If that was going to hold abortion would have been outlawed all ready. Abortion isn't the termination of an individual, it is the termination of an unthinking, unviable block of cells in a uterus. That is why we still have the right to abortion, but only up to a certain point (before the clump of cells can live on it's own or think!). The right to abortion is far different from the right to raise children, and an entirely different discussion. quote silverboner Given that in order to sustain an adult relationship, girls require a father while growing up, how does that fit into your scheme? They will have healthy male adult influence in their life, so it doesn't. quote Galacticdramon No-one's said that. It is, however, intriguing that kids are more messed-up now that families are breaking down. In reality, crime in general has been going up since the beginning of the 20th century, almost steadily. But it has steadily declined since the nineties. This is all despite the steady decline of full nuclear families since the 60s. Most likely it is all the new drugs and technology that has been invented, rather than the lack of fundamental nuclear families, because families are still declining downwards and yet crime since the 90s (atleast in America) is not going up. Edit: Oct 08, 08 ------------------- Awaiting Moderation
	quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report
silverboner Bored Resident Neo total posts: 2720 since: Dec 2005	Oct 08, 08 at 11:48pm ^ re: Abolition of Family
	quote Justin Time quote silverboner Not at all. Parents don't have to explain why it is that they are being raised by one's own biological parents. They don't have to make sound as though its 'best' for the kid that way. Of course, when there is only one way things are done, why would they need to explain? I am sure if the State system was the common system, many kids would ask their nuclear families why it is that they are not in the State system. Since when would you allow nuclear families? Aren't you suggesting we should dissolve them? quote Justin Time When it comes to responsibility, as you brought up, we focus on small things like suing McDonald's, because we won't even allow the smallest amount of irresponsibility like transfat and scalding hot beverages pass us. I would say we are a nation almost overfocused on responsibility. But even so, if the nation is really full of irresponsible people, more reason to screen them out and let the responsible people raise the children. You don't seem to understand that you aren't going to find too many willing to pick up the responsibility. You are pretty much giving a 'get out of jail free card', and looking around, most people will take it. Hell, look at Nebraska. They wrote up a safe haven law designed for infants, but didn't limit it too infants, and people are dropping off their teenagers. I know you are going to try to turn that around, as reason to 'screen' and take away parents rights, but what you will refuse to consider is that many of those parents probably wanted those kids at some point, and just quit on them. And your screening isn't going to guarantee 100% commitment, no matter how well you do it. quote JT They will have healthy male adult influence in their life, so it doesn't. What kind of healthy adult? 2 fathers? A mother and a father that don't express love for each other? You don't seem to understand that its the kind of relationship that they have with mom, that also affects the daughter's ability to relate to men when when they become adults. quote Justin Time In reality, crime in general has been going up since the beginning of the 20th century, almost steadily. But it has steadily declined since the nineties. This is all despite the steady decline of full nuclear families since the 60s. Most likely it is all the new drugs and technology that has been invented, rather than the lack of fundamental nuclear families, because families are still declining downwards and yet crime since the 90s (atleast in America) is not going up. quote Article American research, cited in Ambert's study, has found boys raised without a father were twice as likely to be jailed – although children raised in step-parent families were at an even greater risk of running afoul of the law. Link quote JQC Abstract: Despite the profound demographic and socioeconomic changes characterizing family life in recent years, youth crime rates have remained more or less constant since 1971. This finding is of interest given the intense public concern regarding the welfare of children. It also serves as a convenient basis for projecting the future volume of youth crime. Link quote MSNBC WASHINGTON - Violent crime kept climbing in 2006, a top FBI official said Wednesday, previewing a report detailing nationwide increases in murders, robberies and other felonies for a second straight year. Link Of course the most interesting thing, is you associated lower crime to dissolving nuclear families, but interesting enough, the period you mention that crime declined, guess what? Divorce rates also dropped Besides that you still need to overcome one little obstacle: Convincing women to give up their child after risking their lives for their child. quote silverboner Is there any girl or woman reading this that would go through the trouble of pregnancy, knowing that they do not get to keep their own son or daughter, and have to give them up for adoption? Anyone? Anyone?
	quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report
Galacticdramon Smeg off! Are we there yet? total posts: 9857 neopoints: 806 since: Jan 2004	Oct 11, 08 at 4:33pm ^ re: Abolition of Family
	Justin, when I talked about kids being "messed up", I meant more than crime rates. Depression, self-harm and mental issues are more prevalent among the young than before. I'm off. I've said what I needed to say, apparently you're not bothered about it. Edit: Oct 11, 08 ------------------- Newest FAQ - Feedback Thread - Newest Review - Review Thread - Articles of Excellence - Outer Maelstrom - Sonic NeoWiki
	quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report
Justin Time For Peace & Donuts Neo or Bust since: Jul 2005	Oct 13, 08 at 10:40pm ^ re: Abolition of Family
	quote silverboner Of course the most interesting thing, is you associated lower crime to dissolving nuclear families, but interesting enough, the period you mention that crime declined, guess what? Divorce rates also dropped Crime rates have been steadily declining since the nineties, and showing statistics that show that divorce rates have been declining since the late 1970's and that crime rates are spiking in the recent year despite this steady decline, just goes to show more and more that divorce rates aren't as proportional to crime as you would think. Even so, divorce has little to do with the discussion at hand since no children will be experiencing divorced parents. quote silverboner although children raised in step-parent families were at an even greater risk of running afoul of the law. Indeed they are, and for good reason. Stepparents most often come into a child's life halfway through childhood, and have to fight to be seen as legitimate authority and a permanent fixture in a child's life. This is not to be the case in a state licesensed parenting society, which operates responsibility from birth. And romantic relationship examples are not a requirement for development among children, most parents I know do not engage in even the smallest romance around their children. And many people who grow up in the chaos of single mother homes still manage to marry when they grow up, even though the poverty and lack of help that happens early on often effects this. quote silverboner And your screening isn't going to guarantee 100% commitment, no matter how well you do it. No, but people jumping to make a living off helping children and willing to sign 18 years+ of their lives in commitment to children are more likely to stay with children than someone who accidentally got pregnant. quote silverboner Since when would you allow nuclear families? Aren't you suggesting we should dissolve them? Of course, but if a biological or otherwise family wants to raise a child in a home seperate from the state, and they acquire a license and the child is old enough to consent, then why should we stop them? And your link to the Nebraska drop-off law, intriguing as it is, also does not relate well to my idea, as no one will begin raising in their teens, only from infancy. And you are right, why would any mother go through all the work of giving birth if she didn't want to keep it? Only those who really want to leave a genetic mark on the world, or are adamently pro-life will. So less people give birth, that's a good thing. quote Galacticdramon I'm off. I've said what I needed to say, apparently you're not bothered about it. I am sorry that you have given up on presenting your view, I do hope you come back though. ------------------- Awaiting Moderation
	quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report
silverboner Bored Resident Neo total posts: 2720 since: Dec 2005	Oct 13, 08 at 11:50pm ^ re: Abolition of Family
	quote JT Crime rates have been steadily declining since the nineties, and showing statistics that show that divorce rates have been declining since the late 1970's and that crime rates are spiking in the recent year despite this steady decline, just goes to show more and more that divorce rates aren't as proportional to crime as you would think. I wasn't making an association, just pointing out that divorce declined, which rules our your claim that nuclear families are dissolving. And I posted recent crime statistics to show that your claim that crime is falling even though families are supposedly declining, are actually increasing. quote JT Indeed they are, and for good reason. Stepparents most often come into a child's life halfway through childhood, and have to fight to be seen as legitimate authority and a permanent fixture in a child's life. This is not to be the case in a state licesensed parenting society, which operates responsibility from birth. That is based on a number of ideals that are essentially assumptions. But, the other way to look at it, is that non-biological parents increase the risk of criminal behavior in the children. quote JT And romantic relationship examples are not a requirement for development among children, most parents I know do not engage in even the smallest romance around their children. And many people who grow up in the chaos of single mother homes still manage to marry when they grow up, even though the poverty and lack of help that happens early on often effects this. Romantic relationships are a requirement for development among children. Any child psychologist is going to tell you that a little girls relationships with her father is the biggest indicator as to her ability to relate to men, and a forecaster for a successful relationship with a man when she is an adult. It is further strengthened by his respect and love for her mother. The ideal situation demands that father loves mom, because that is going to raise the expectations of how the daughter is going to be loved in a relationship. If she doesn't see that played out in 'reality', in the home, while growing up, she isn't going to know how she is supposed to be treated by a man. Link quote Dr. Jane Daughters learn about marriage from watching Mom and Dad. If parents treat each other well, this becomes the expectation. If Dad is a tyrant, then men are regarded as essentially bad. If Dad is alcoholic or abusive, men are considered to be people who are allowed to get out of control and be hurtful. The unconscious conclusion is... "If Dad treats me well, I am a worthwhile individual. If Dad rejects me or criticizes me, I am no good." ... Usually, mothers serve as role models for their daughters. They provide examples of how to be an individual, a mother and a wife. Fathers, however, teach their daughters how to regard themselves, what kinds of relationships are healthy, what to look for in a partner, and what to expect of men in co-parenting relationships. ... When dads are not part of their daughter's lives, father-substitutes can sometimes meet these needs, but like the motto of the medical profession says...."First, do no harm". quote JT Of course, but if a biological or otherwise family wants to raise a child in a home seperate from the state, and they acquire a license and the child is old enough to consent, then why should we stop them? Until the child is old enough to consent? Who is going to raise them until the child is old enough to consent? And at what age does a child really understand that concept? That seems to be in direct conflict with your claim as there will be no "step parents." And depending on the consent of the child, there is going to be a change of parental units, which means step parents. Edit: Oct 14, 08
	quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report
Justin Time For Peace & Donuts Neo or Bust since: Jul 2005	Oct 15, 08 at 12:29am ^ re: Abolition of Family
	quote silverboner But, the other way to look at it, is that non-biological parents increase the risk of criminal behavior in the children. Proof? Adopted children seem to do very close in comparison to biological children from what I have read, and they have to deal with feeling different and feeling like the other children have something they don't. If your parents today told you they weren't biologically related to you, would that change anything? quote silverboner Romantic relationships are a requirement for development among children. No, a healthy view of romanticism is a requirement, which I am sure Dr. Jane agrees. So therefore, an abusive dad or a mom who hates men will probably create an unhealthy expectation and view of men and romantic relations, but being raised by a providing single mom or a very good single dad won't out of nowhere give children bad ideas about romantic relationships, where could they get these bad examples from? quote silverboner Until the child is old enough to consent? Who is going to raise them until the child is old enough to consent? And at what age does a child really understand that concept? That seems to be in direct conflict with your claim as there will be no "step parents." And depending on the consent of the child, there is going to be a change of parental units, which means step parents. This was just a side idea of mine, so I haven't thought it out as much as my other arguments. I was thinking an Age of Consent would be whenever children can show basic understanding and cognition for choice making, I estimate this to be around 12-13. But you are right, this does create a form of stepparentism. A compromise I was thinking was that if a couple, together, got a parenting license, then they could keep their children at birth as long as they continue to renew the license and pass inspections. Once again, these are unformed thoughts I haven't thought out as well as the main idea. I hope no one is discouraged by silverboner and I, feel free to join in with any thoughts! ------------------- Awaiting Moderation
	quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report
Galacticdramon Smeg off! Are we there yet? total posts: 9857 neopoints: 806 since: Jan 2004	Oct 15, 08 at 9:58am ^ re: Abolition of Family
	quote Justin Time If your parents today told you they weren't biologically related to you, would that change anything? Probably, yes. As soon as a person turns 18, they have a right to know their real parents' identities. Most children for various reasons would probably wish to do so. You see, unlike the way you're looking at it, humans are emotional beings. Most wouldn't simply be "not bothered" by being told their parents aren't their real ones. It's not human weakness; simply human. There are certain things which humans take for granted. Family is one. It's something which doesn't have any faults or flaws and humans are comfortable with. ------------------- Newest FAQ - Feedback Thread - Newest Review - Review Thread - Articles of Excellence - Outer Maelstrom - Sonic NeoWiki
	quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report
silverboner Bored Resident Neo total posts: 2720 since: Dec 2005	Oct 15, 08 at 3:29pm ^ re: Abolition of Family
	quote Jt Proof? Adopted children seem to do very close in comparison to biological children from what I have read, and they have to deal with feeling different and feeling like the other children have something they don't. If your parents today told you they weren't biologically related to you, would that change anything? Did you miss the part where a step parent increases the risk of criminal behavior? Did you know that a step parent is a non-biological parent? And yes, there would a change if I found out my parents were lying to me for my entire life. Some things might not change, but you can't assume everything will be OK, when you find out you have been lied to your whole life. Everyone is going to react differently. quote JT No, a healthy view of romanticism is a requirement, which I am sure Dr. Jane agrees. So therefore, an abusive dad or a mom who hates men will probably create an unhealthy expectation and view of men and romantic relations, but being raised by a providing single mom or a very good single dad won't out of nowhere give children bad ideas about romantic relationships, where could they get these bad examples from? They don't have to have bad ideas. Simply not seeing how relationships are supposed to work, hurts them. Even if they don't know it. The ideal situation, the best way to raise children, is through a set of parents, mom and dad, biological or not, who not only express love for their children, but also express love for each other. Anything less, is less then ideal.
	quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report
Justin Time For Peace & Donuts Neo or Bust since: Jul 2005	Oct 15, 08 at 9:40pm ^ re: Abolition of Family
	quote Galacticdramon Probably, yes. As soon as a person turns 18, they have a right to know their real parents' identities. Most children for various reasons would probably wish to do so. You see, unlike the way you're looking at it, humans are emotional beings. Most wouldn't simply be "not bothered" by being told their parents aren't their real ones. It's not human weakness; simply human. There are certain things which humans take for granted. Family is one. It's something which doesn't have any faults or flaws and humans are comfortable with. I asked if you would be bothered if you found out your parents weren't biologically related to you to make a point that biological relations are not a necessity to having a sense of "family". Oytherwise, I fully agree with you, no truth should be hidden and we have the right to know if our parents are biologically related to us or not. quote silverboner Did you miss the part where a step parent increases the risk of criminal behavior? Did you know that a step parent is a non-biological parent? I pointed out that there are many differences between stepparenthood and adoption. Do you refute this? quote silverboner And yes, there would a change if I found out my parents were lying to me for my entire life. Some things might not change, but you can't assume everything will be OK, when you find out you have been lied to your whole life. Everyone is going to react differently. That's the thing though, you would still love your parents even though you were hurt by their deceit wouldn't you, even though they aren't related to you by blood they cared and raised you. We don't need to decieve children that their caretakers aren't related to them, but that doesn't mean they can't have a sense of "family". quote silverboner Simply not seeing how relationships are supposed to work, hurts them. Even if they don't know it. The ideal situation, the best way to raise children, is through a set of parents, mom and dad, biological or not, who not only express love for their children, but also express love for each other. Anything less, is less then ideal. An ideal situation would involve seeing good examples of love and relationships, but that example doesn't necessarily need to be from your mom and dad. Most of my friends' parents have single parents and have a clear idea on what is abusive in a relationship and what isn't. ------------------- Awaiting Moderation
	quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report
Galacticdramon Smeg off! Are we there yet? total posts: 9857 neopoints: 806 since: Jan 2004	Oct 15, 08 at 9:42pm ^ re: Abolition of Family
	quote Justin Time I asked if you would be bothered if you found out your parents weren't biologically related to you to make a point that biological relations are not a necessity to having a sense of "family". Which I answered. In your opinion biology means nothing in a family unit. In mine, it's an integral part of a family. Most people would be bothered. That doesn't support your argument at all. Quite the opposite if it leans to one idea. ------------------- Newest FAQ - Feedback Thread - Newest Review - Review Thread - Articles of Excellence - Outer Maelstrom - Sonic NeoWiki
	quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report
Justin Time For Peace & Donuts Neo or Bust since: Jul 2005	Oct 15, 08 at 9:46pm ^ re: Abolition of Family
	In what way does biology have any meaning in a family? In what way is a baby raised from birth by an adopting family different from one raised by it's biological family? It can't just be the process of pregnancy either, since surrogate children get along just fine. I can think of no other difference other than the value society has placed on "being related". By the way, glad you're back. ------------------- Awaiting Moderation
	quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report
silverboner Bored Resident Neo total posts: 2720 since: Dec 2005	Oct 15, 08 at 9:51pm ^ re: Abolition of Family
	quote I pointed out that there are many differences between stepparenthood and adoption. Do you refute this? Not at all. quote JT That's the thing though, you would still love your parents even though you were hurt by their deceit wouldn't you, even though they aren't related to you by blood they cared and raised you. We don't need to decieve children that their caretakers aren't related to them, but that doesn't mean they can't have a sense of "family". But your initial assumption, that nothing will change, doesn't hold. quote JT An ideal situation would involve seeing good examples of love and relationships, but that example doesn't necessarily need to be from your mom and dad. Most of my friends' parents have single parents and have a clear idea on what is abusive in a relationship and what isn't. There is more to understand then forms of abuse. If you don't see it from mom and dad, then where are you going to see it? At a park?
	quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report
Justin Time For Peace & Donuts Neo or Bust since: Jul 2005	Oct 15, 08 at 11:28pm ^ re: Abolition of Family
	quote silverboner There is more to understand then forms of abuse. If you don't see it from mom and dad, then where are you going to see it? At a park? In my experience, seeing relationships on TV and in parks and seeing how people in different types of relationships feel is better for judging what is best for you than just following whatever your parents do. Relationships are all over society, and what is healthy and not is also all over society, and taught in schools even today. We can't stop all people from having unhealthy relationships, but we an minimize it. ------------------- Awaiting Moderation
	quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report
[All dates in (PST) time]	Threads List « Next Newest Next Oldest »

Thread title	From	Last replied
Now searching...

Abolition of Family - Page 7

Hobbies

Sports

Skills

Chat and Lounges

Game Platforms

Mobile Platforms

Top Core Games

Top Portable Games

Top Communities