Everything else flows from it.
Printable View
Everything else flows from it.
What has made families strong or weak, in general?
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.
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.
Wrong: Good neighborhood means less criminality in the youth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
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.
Decent income of both parents =/= strong family.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
The required existance and presence of two parents = strong family.
The couple may be in terrible relations with each other yet for a million of reasons they stay married. So the first part of your equation doesn't presuppose the second one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
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.
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.Quote:
Difficult to debate when it hasnt been defined what exactly a strong family is.
Not quite what I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
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".
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.
This is really excellent stuff Greyblades.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
No.
You.
Indeed, replace the word "family" with "bomb" and every post up to yours finally makes sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
I got to admit, doing so has been the greatest read. Some quotes..Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
"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".
You should have stuck to the bomb joke; you might have kept yourself from looking so petty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Could be. But the dangers a bad neighborhood may have in store seem to have a higher probability.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Again, I'm just the messenger here, I would never criticize manly men and the awesome things they awesomely do during their awesome days.
:creep:
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. :clown:
This is so not true. The one line you speak about followed another line which was the thread title which makes up two. Make sure you know what you talk about before abusing people. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
See, I went to great lengths to explain that I was writing a zero-liner with the words of people who are definitely not me between the lines and here you go and blame me for these words. :cry:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
The proof of this is, of course, "out there" if one looks for it. Am I correct?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Your going to contest the negative effects of single parenthood?