Everything else flows from it.
Everything else flows from it.
There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford
My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.
What has made families strong or weak, in general?
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
The nuclear family must be the building block central to any culture. Too central a concern for a species that takes 15+ years to mature and is almost helplessly weak until 10 years have passed.
The extended family is more questionable. Their are advantages, but without a larger polity trumping the extended family, you end up with amoral familailism/tribalism.
"The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken
Strong economies equal strong nations.
Strong families mean less criminality in the youth, less burden on the state in welfare, greater individual performance and contribution to the state by the offspring.
The degeneration of the african american population can IMO be rather convinceingly attributed to a trend of a lack of father figures in the average family unit.
Last edited by Greyblades; 04-28-2017 at 11:21.
Access to good neighbourhood requires income of two parents or external funding. The presence of a father encourages discipline more than single mothers and intact families with one dedicated wage earner lets other parent spend more time with children. These reduce criminality, even in bad neighbourhoods.
Last edited by Greyblades; 04-28-2017 at 12:24.
The required existance and presence of two parents = strong family.
Last edited by Greyblades; 04-28-2017 at 13:58.
And what if the good neighbourhood hides a paedophils ring or a serial child killer?
Difficult to debate when it hasnt been defined what exactly a strong family is. We're talking generalities and I say the family unit is more beneficial than the neighbourhood in such terms.
Last edited by Greyblades; 04-28-2017 at 20:37.
Well, you've got that right. So far in the thread is Seamus' suggestion that the extended family may be "stronger" than the nuclear family, but to communal or social detriment in some respects.Difficult to debate when it hasnt been defined what exactly a strong family is.
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Not quite what I said.
The value of the nuclear family for the development of emotional stability, cultural indoctrination, and the furtherance of general welfare is obvious. That it is aided by a decent family income, decent education, the presence AND involvement of two parents rather than one are supported in divers studies.
Strong ties and connections with the extended family or clan may make for a "stronger" family by multiplying the support system noted above. However, when allegiance/reliance on that larger version of "family" comes to supplant the need to partake in and support and/or sacrifice for the larger polity, then the larger society is undercut. When government service is viewed first and foremost as a way to enrich one's clan and one's power within that clan, then the larger collective (which could generate greater benefits for far greater numbers) is undercut.
If you look at the ethnic conflicts of central Africa and the warlordism of Central Asia, you will usually see the primary locus of cultural power being the extended family/clan....which may well explain their inability to get out of the "rut" they are in even more than the more fashionable emphasis on Western mucking about in their affairs.
"The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken
So it's a fair extension of what you said. But to the extent that such associations with organization around extended family are present, what are the relevant factors? Is it absolute family size? Geographic labor mobility? Transport infrastructure? One obvious general pattern is that the larger society is unreliable for provisioning services and security where extended families are a significant unit. But it would seem to be a mistake to simply equate ethnic conflict with an emphasis on familial affiliation. In those cases, there is no larger polity any more than feudal Europe was an overarching society - perhaps less so.
We're going to need to shift the conversation away from the very-most fragmented entities today if we want to find something specific about "family".
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
You lot can be so clueless sometimes. The family is fundamental to human society, but f-all to do with the nation state. The human family has been around for millions of years. The nation state has been around 150 years.
"The republicans will draft your kids, poison the air and water, take away your social security and burn down black churches if elected." Gawain of Orkney
There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford
My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.
I got to admit, doing so has been the greatest read. Some quotes..
"The Bomb is The cornerstone of the nation state. Everything else flows from it.
What has made bombs strong or weak, in general?
The nuclear bomb must be the building block central to any culture. Too central a concern for a species that takes 15+ years to mature and is almost helplessly weak until 10 years have passed. The extended bomb is more questionable. Their are advantages, but without a larger polity trumping the extended bomb, you end up with amoral bombing/rocketeering.
Strong bombs mean less criminality in the youth, less burden on the state in welfare, greater individual performance and contribution to the state by the offspring.
The degeneration of the african american population can IMO be rather convinceingly attributed to a trend of a lack of father figures in the average bomb unit.
The value of the nuclear bomb for the development of emotional stability, cultural indoctrination, and the furtherance of general welfare is obvious...
We're going to need to shift the conversation away from the very-most fragmented entities today if we want to find something specific about "bombs".
Last edited by Beskar; 04-29-2017 at 00:39.
Days since the Apocalypse began
"We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
"Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."
Could be. But the dangers a bad neighborhood may have in store seem to have a higher probability.
Finally! We have come to realize that we started discussing a strong family, but we haven't agreed on what strong family is (nor on what a family is, it seems).
I know the manly man who started this thread is more of a man than I could ever hope to be, but maybe some other people who are not me might think that he could have opened the thread with a bit more than a one-liner as I have friends who tell me they have heard that some people talked about people saying thread openers should lead into the topic at hand properly, which, as they say, would require more than one sentence.
Again, I'm just the messenger here, I would never criticize manly men and the awesome things they awesomely do during their awesome days.
Also the difference of definition is becoming part of the culture here. If we all used the same definitions for everything, we'd all agree most likely.
Last edited by Husar; 04-29-2017 at 14:14.
"Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu
"Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu
Requesting suggestions for new sig.
-><- GOGOGO GOGOGO WINLAND WINLAND ALL HAIL TECHNOVIKING!SCHUMACHER!
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Your going to contest the negative effects of single parenthood?
Bookmarks