Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Conservatives often say liberals are "anti-family". Well, I'm mostly to the left of most liberals, but I do admit, I am anti-family. Once upon a time, the family unit may have served a purpose (as did picking live out of one another's hair and burning dried dung for fuel) but now, it is simply an outdated institution.
Which brings me to the thesis statement: family, in modern times, is a crutch for the weak. Honestly, what is more pathetic than a grown man who still needs his mommy? Granted, family may be necessary for financial obligations, but one could just as easily enter some other agreement devoid of the emotion baggage that comes with family. People may say "I need the love of my family" Well, that right there is the weakness: only the weak need love outside of self love. The true ubermensch is confident within himself/herself and requires no such support. Sorry, but when I hear people crying about their family I can't help but wonder if they'll start crying about their stuffed animal next.
Children need an adult figure in their lives, but why do adults need people whom they share .001% more DNA in common with than someone in another continent? Why not go forward, headstrong, not weighed down by the parasites who brought you into this world?
And also, family is unnatural. Do birds return to the nest after they leave? Do wolves return to their mothers after they learn to hunt and find their own mates? Predators, the higher animals, all abandon their families after they are no longer useful. It is only the herd animals that stay with them. Who wants to be a grazing sheep, requiring the safety of the herd when one could be a snow leopard, alone on the prowl?
And the financial obligations! Why should I support my aging father? Yes, he supported me, but that was him being a sucker. Children never ask to be born. It is all vanity on the part of the parents. It is an investment that will never see a return. Why should anyone feel anything for the people whom went ahead and created them without asking for life?
I intent to work and retire (maybe) at a very old age. With the money I safe having never had children and never given a dime to the parasites who brought me into this world I will have a more than comfortable existence. That is the path of strength: ignoring all ties of family. No need for mommy's shoulder to cry on at age thirty, no need for daddy to pat you on the head for doing a good job at forty. Only one's self to impress and perhaps those whose accomplishments have made them worthy of esteem.
Please note: I am referring to "traditional" family here, not circles of friends or military bands etc whom are often compared to family. Those are adults lending their strengths to a greater cause by free association, not obligations we are allegedly born into. A circle of strong people growing stronger from alliance with one another is one thing...a grown man crying to his mommy because his girlfriend left him is another.
Let me guess: the OP's mom told him to "man up" when his girlfriend left him.
Is this post even real? Is this how you really feel?
Look, there is a saying "no man is an island". The reality is, people need other people, it is the nature of life itself. Even if you don't need other peoples direct monetary or physical assistance. People are social animals, and require others to be in their lives. To socialize with, to think about, to care about. A life would hardly be worth living if there was no one else in it.
What does family have to do with that? Like I said, other arrangements can be made.
Quote:
If we look at the family, it is basically the beginnings of a tribe. Which is the natural state of man. Everything about human psychology relates to its tribal origins. Because of this, people tend to treat their family/tribe differently than people outside of that relationship.
The great thing about family is, they tend to always be there. Friends come and go, but family is forever. Which is very important and good. I know liberals want us to treat everyone as if they are our family and part of our tribe, but that isn't normal, that isn't humanity. You are attempting to shed off your natural psychology in order to follow some sort of idealistic view of the world.
That thinking is outdated. We once needed a tribe...we once need sharp spears too, but with the invention of firearms things have changed. Likewise, In post-industrial society, family is no longer necessary.
Quote:
It sounds to me as if you are incapable of love. You are incapable of real attachment to other people. It isn't as if you are a bad person, you want to be a good person, you see the world very idealistically. Most likely because you are unhappy with your life, and therefore are unhappy with the world which you see as flawed. You seem to blame humanity itself, and what you see is its inherent flaws, for this disdain you hold for the world. And possibly rightfully so. But to hate what makes you a human, is to be self-loathing.
No, I am the center of my own universe, as all people should be. I am capable of love for those whom deserve it. If someone comes from a worthless family, is said worthless family worthy of love? No.
Quote:
As for the issue of family vs the world. You again have to understand human psychology. Especially in regards to men, a lot of times men will only do something if they feel like they need to, if they have to. When you attempt to transfer from a man his responsibility, then he will become more and more irresponsible for anything and everything. Even if you attempt to argue that a man is responsible for all of humanity, it simply doesn't register well, because he becomes a minor player in the grand scheme of things. There are so many other men that can contribute, so his own contributions mean very little.
But when a man is in a family, with only a few other members, then his contributions become very meaningful. And he feels that others rely on him, and need him. And he must be responsible, because if he isn't, then there are immediate implications. And so therefore, the family becomes something that drives a man into being a better man.
In a capitalist society, the man (or woman) is their own entity. Not dependent on a collective, he or she goes out and creates for themselves. Family is the ultimate collective and is similar to communism in that respect. Much like communism, we are forced into a collective that we cannot escape (in theory) But we can easily escape the herd of family and strike out on our own.
Quote:
In a very real sense, it seems like what you want to employ to save humanity, would simply destroy it. You don't seem to have a grasp on human psychology.
Evolution. We evolved past the need for family past perhaps age sixteen or so and family itself could be replaced. To save our species it must evolve.
Either that or he is one lonely, dysfunctional, borderline sociopath.
Now that brings up a good question: what is a sociopath? One could say that in today's society, in which the individual is far more important than the collective, a sociopath is naturally at an edge. We no longer need the collective (tribe, hunter gatherer group, etc) and instead live our lives more independent than ever before. So, as society evolves, couldn't someone who is completely selfish and works with others only as long as it advances their own goals be considered the next stage of human evolution?
As sociopaths are the ones who make the most money and therefore are seen as the most attractive mates, it is reasonable to assume that they could have more children and pass their traits on to future generations. Granted, that would take thousands of years and things will change before them (that whole peak oil thing for starters) and our civilization, in its present state, will only be here for a little while longer, relatively speaking. But, if we were to go on like this forever, wouldn't sociopaths the more advanced human?
To entertain such a thesis one must ask... what is your purpose? is your DNA needed? why are you so "weak" as to need to mate with anyone? I don't care to see most of the genetic material spread.
So you are hatched and after you are no longer a parasite, then what purpose do you serve? You suck off an earth that would be far better off if you didn't exist. Animals would be far better off had people not made their mark. So exactly what is the purpose for life? No one would care you exist. You are a loner in a planet that has no purpose for you, you are largely forgettable.
Sounds like a lonely thesis. while we may be capable of existing a solitary life...why?
First, I'm not saying people need no one, only that the family is not needed. Second, as for the meaning of life, let's face it: Life has no meaning besides what we as individuals give it. If the goal of someone's life is to make a pile of money and die surrounded by their self made empire, that is the meaning of their life. If someone else decides the meaning of life is to obtain enlightenment and gives up everything to become a monk, that is their meaning of life. If another person says the meaning of their life is to have fun, than that is their meaning of life.
What you're saying is that not reproducing means our lives have no meaning. Lots of people don't have children and they would argue with you on that point.
I'm glad this thread was started. This is far left thinking and it's sick. Maybe it will wake some people up.
I say "left" economically (by American standards) and for foreign policy (which are left or libertarian) But when it comes to other issues, I am far to the right of most Americans. (I'm not a fan of democracy, like corporal punishment, believe in Eugenics and the second amendment etc)
Basically, although it makes no sense to read, I could be called a "green/libertarian/fascist".
I must admit your thesis is concise. However, it isn't weakness to be family oriented. In fact, I'd say that it's a strength. To be a good parent, by definition, is a commitment to raising and protecting a child. This alone is a frightening proposition which can only be accomplished through strength of commitment.
Okay, that is one of the few good points made by people other than me in this thread.
I suppose one could call it strength to go ahead and bring a life into the world and agree to take care of it, but few parents in America today are good parents. Most of them get into it without thinking of the consequences.
Quote:
You only need look to the ghettos to see how dead-beat dads and welfare mothers are destroying children's lives. They create a cycle of hate and fear which propagates to the next generations, and so on, and so on. They are the definition of weakness.
I agree. And yet they have families.
Quote:
You are nothing without family, and my family is nothing without me. Friends are a cheap substitute and will abandon you in a heartbeat. Family: faithful and loyal; unquestioning and caring; loving and compassionate; family, is the polar opposite of weakness. Family will save you in a time of great personal weakness.
I would say the opposite is true. My father fought in WWII with a man whom he remained close with his entire life. When my grandfather's friend died, he was the only one at his side. Now, compare that to the welfare queen who steals from her own children.
And an argument could be made that in times of great personal weakness, the truly strong can save themselves.
I think you are absolutely right to not have children when you do not want them. Parenthood is not for all and some of the greatest tragedies are a result of people having children when they shouldn't. It does not make a lesser person to not have children. I applaud you for recognizing your own reality.
Conservatives often say liberals are "anti-family". Well, I'm mostly to the left of most liberals, but I do admit, I am anti-family.
People may say "I need the love of my family" Well, that right there is the weakness: only the weak need love outside of self love.
And the financial obligations! Why should I support my aging father? Yes, he supported me, but that was him being a sucker. Children never ask to be born. It is all vanity on the part of the parents. It is an investment that will never see a return. Why should anyone feel anything for the people whom went ahead and created them without asking for life?
snip.....
You are no doubt a follower of Ayn Rand. As for me, I've grown very fond of my family members. Sorry you never were able to acquire attachment.
Why is that the standard of health? According to whom?
Do you seriously believe that substituting random adults for parents is going to make them and children equals?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Granted, family may be necessary for financial obligations, but one could just as easily enter some other agreement devoid of the emotion baggage that comes with family. People may say "I need the love of my family" Well, that right there is the weakness: only the weak need love outside of self love. The true ubermensch is confident within himself/herself and requires no such support. Sorry, but when I hear people crying about their family I can't help but wonder if they'll start crying about their stuffed animal next. 
