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.
Location: In a Galaxy far, far away called Germany
4,301 posts, read 4,415,578 times
Reputation: 2397
Advertisements
You are incorrect: Families are for the strong. The weak drop off their special needs children at an orphanage or just have an abortion. The weak are too scared to dare to love in an insecure environment. The weak are scared to have someone depend on them (again, in an insecure environment). The weak follow rather than "parent". The family is for the strong and the selfless. The weak will just worry about themselves. To call children parasites is to show how weak and scared you really are and to call your parents "suckers" just reveals how lacking in character you are. You mask your low character with a thin veil of strength. But you are not strong - you are pathetic.
One man's drug lord is another man's hero, and one man's despot is another man's leader. Look at Reagan: Iran-Contra, AIDS denying, laughing at homelessness, massive deficits etc and yet people talk about how great he was all the time.
And the only reason Escobar was a drug lord was because drugs are illegal. America made him that way. He was a decent man who exported flowers. Stalin, I admit, was a murderous bum, but he can still be admired for his effectiveness.
What, did you take a correspondence course in revisionist history?
I'm no Reagan lover, but what did he have to do with AIDS? At what point in his presidency did he murder millions of his own constituents?
Your point about Escobar is so laughably absurd that it doesn't dignify a response. To be honest, I don't even know where to start.
At this point, I can't tell if you're just yanking chains in order to be "provocative" (which you're not; you sound ridiculous, not thought-provoking) or if you're just a sociopath.
You are incorrect: Families are for the strong. The weak drop off their special needs children at an orphanage or just have an abortion. The weak are too scared to dare to love in an insecure environment. The weak are scared to have someone depend on them (again, in an insecure environment). The weak follow rather than "parent". The family is for the strong and the selfless. The weak will just worry about themselves. To call children parasites is to show how weak and scared you really are and to call your parents "suckers" just reveals how lacking in character you are. You mask your low character with a thin veil of strength. But you are not strong - you are pathetic.
There is most likely nothing beyond this life that we will survive to see (energy maybe, but to think our egos will go onto the next life is a huge display of...well, ego) This is our one life. We can either go into it all engines on full throttle, grabbing what we need to make our lives complete and forgetting the rest...or go into it like lambs, doing only what society asks of us.
It takes a strong man to look at society's values and say "all this is fraud." Family is just another idea spoon fed to us from birth. We are born alone, we die alone, and that is the truth. Family is just a lie believed in by people incapable of thinking for themselves.
There is most likely nothing beyond this life that we will survive to see (energy maybe, but to think our egos will go onto the next life is a huge display of...well, ego) This is our one life. We can either go into it all engines on full throttle, grabbing what we need to make our lives complete and forgetting the rest...or go into it like lambs, doing only what society asks of us.
It takes a strong man to look at society's values and say "all this is fraud." Family is just another idea spoon fed to us from birth. We are born alone, we die alone, and that is the truth. Family is just a lie believed in by people incapable of thinking for themselves.
Oh, well, if you say so!
I didn't know that's what you had decreed. I thought I was up on the latest philosophy from the random online poster named "victorianpunk".
My life has been a complete disaster
Is it too late to turn it around, "victorianpunk"? Please tell me it's not too late!
Really? Go to any nursing home and ask some residents how often they are visited by their "family." According to friends I have who work in nursing homes, some are lucky if their family comes by when they die.
There are also many many people who talk to their family almost every day. When I worked for the railroad, I knew guys in their 40's and 50's who called their parents practically every day. And who were married and had kids as well. Your argument isn't about whether or not a family is good or not, your argument seems to be that not all families are good. And I agree, not all families are good. I think something like 1/5th of all women will be molested as a child, mostly be family members. Which obviously doesn't foster a positive view of the family for a large group of people. But regardless of the prevalence rate, its still a minority.
So again, your argument seems to be that since there are some families which are dysfunctional, then families themselves are useless. But how can you declare that families aren't good, when the vast majority are good.
The argument in my opinion, must be because, since your family is useless, then you kind of wish other families were useless. I mean, if society is built around the family, and I don't have a family, then I'm screwed. So then its sort of unfair that people who lucked out and were born into a good family, have so many advantages over people who don't. So from the perspective of someone who has no family, it is obviously easy to attack those that do, and say that we should all be one family. Which in my opinion isn't an argument for or against the family, but rather an argument for equality.
Quote:
Don't get me wrong, ideally I'd want to be married (or more preferably a LTR) but kids are completely out of the question. If I have to take kids with marriage then I'll just stay alone thanks. I am sick of society shoving this "family" idea down everyone's throat. Having a family will not guarantee anything. I do not think everyone needs a family to have self-worth and I strongly believe I'm one of these people.
The problem you are having is that you are trying to fight against human nature itself. Wanting kids is not based on some desire by society. It is ingrained in you because you are a human being. And while the desire for children tends to be weaker in men, it tends to be very very strong in women. And since men want women because they are men, then they need to take the feelings of the woman that they care about into consideration.
The "nesting instinct" a lot of times doesn't start developing till later in life. But, sometimes it never comes about whatsoever. There are even people who are considered "Asexual", who have no real attraction to anyone at all. But maybe you will get married, and you might even find a woman who also doesn't want any children, but that might change later in her life. Many women in their mid to late 30's start realizing that their window for having children is closing, once menopause hits, they are sort of screwed. So, many times they start to feel differently about the prospect of having children, and so to does many men who feel more "settled".
So what happens when the woman you are with starts pressuring you to have children? Or what if you want to have children and your wife is infertile? A lot of times, this growing division can cause a rift in the relationship that eventually destroys it. Life is a weird thing.
I myself get torn. I don't have any children, and 90% of the time I don't want any at all. In fact, I constantly throw around the idea of getting a vasectomy. But then the other 10% of the time, I wish I had 10+ kids. I came from a big family, and I would never only want to have one or two children. I think a big family is wonderful, the bigger the better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
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.
Being in a tribe is not a way of thinking, its a genetic predisposition. It isn't like lions and wolves simply got together one day and said, hey it might be a good idea of we stick together rather than run around by ourselves. The "pack" instinct is in you, you were born with it, its why men vie for dominance once they hit puberty. Its because we have naturally lived in tribes since before we were even evolved into modern humans. Neanderthals lived in tribes, homo erectus lived in tribes, gorillas and chimpanzees live in tribes. To say that your very nature is "outdated", would be the people saying we all need to be celibate, it simply is silly talk, its not normal, and you are fighting against human nature itself. It is the nature that has allowed us to survive and prosper into what we are today.
There is a reason "nationalism" is so strong. It is an extension of tribalism. And I know most people hate tribalism. But I find it to be a very positive force. Tribalism spurs competition. That "US vs them" mentality, where you are basically fighting for your own survival. No one fights harder than the man with everything to lose. This "we are the world ****", is breeding us weak and dumb.
I think it also heavily increases the rate of suicide. If you have no one you are responsible for, if no one needs you, then what does it matter if you are even alive? People with dependent children rarely kill themselves. Its always the old, who feel like they are a burden on others, or the young and the socially alone.
Where in the world do you have the highest rates of suicide? Simple, in those countries that are heavily socialist. In the countries with low birth rates, where the family plays a minimal role in peoples lives. And who kill themselves at the highest rates? Men. In fact, men kill themselves at about four times the rate of women. Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
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.
I'm not saying you must love your family, if they really are worthless, then obviously they aren't worthy of your love. But that isn't the argument you are making. You are trying to argue that people who rely on their families are weak, and that you want to basically destroy the very structure of society by destroying the family. But you don't seem to understand why the family has been so important for so long. Things are the way they are, because it simply works, and works well.
Does it mean that everyone is going to be happy in a society built around the family? No. But the majority of people will be better off. The problem we have in this society these days is, we cater too much to the minority. We basically sacrifice the good of the many, to protect the few.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
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.
It is an interesting situation in regards to capitalism and the family/tribe. It is certainly true that free-market capitalism intends to promote individualism. But in reality, the core of the free-market is the family or to some extent, religious organizations. And it is certainly true that family and religion tends to be extremely communal in nature, so you could argue that capitalism is much more like communism than what people give it credit.
The difference in free-market capitalism is, competition. Competition is such a wonderful thing. Each person competes with each other, but also families compete, religious groups compete, everyone competes. But nothing is necessarily forced upon anyone either. It might be easier to become wealthy by sticking with your family, but it isn't necessary. So its sort of a voluntary form of communism, nothing is forced. And people are allowed to choose what path they believe is best for themselves. When you have the state being the family, then there is no freedom, it is nothing more than a paternalistic all-powerful state, which forces upon everyone the values of the majority(or sometimes even the most militant minorities). With no options for escape.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
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.
You obviously have no understanding of what evolution is. You are talking about adaption. Evolution is genetic. We are not "evolving" right now btw. And we certainly aren't evolving to be more "independent". The people having the most children, tend to be very socialist/communist/family-oriented. The independent people like yourself have no children. So if there was actually a genetic anomaly that is causing your disdain for the family, then it isn't being passed on, so it dies with you.
As for being "evolved" at the age of sixteen to be separate from the family, I don't know what you are talking about. I assume you mean, at a certain age you have the ability to get a job and provide for yourself. Sure, but that has basically always been the case. And in many cultures, people "became a man" at an even earlier age than sixteen. But that still doesn't have anything to do with evolution.
If you take "intelligence" for instance, a persons IQ peaks at around 25 years of age. So an argument could be made a person isn't really an adult till that age. I mean, lets pretend you had children, and you were very wealthy. And lets pretend you created a trust fund for them at a young age with millions of dollars in it. Tell me, how old would you require your children to be before they could "cash out" their trust fund?
My sister and I have had this discussion, and we agree on the age of 30. I simply would not trust a 16-year old with that kind of money, I wouldn't trust an 18-year old either, or a 21-year old. By 25, you generally are starting to actually understand the world, and by 30, you have finally had the experiences and knowledge to make about as good of decisions as you're ever going to make.
As for family, I think people misunderstand what love really is, and how much love people have for their family, without really understanding it.
My friend has this game he plays. He says, lets pretend that someone you knew was going to die unless you paid some amount of money to "save their life". Think about a person that you know, and ask yourself, how much would I be willing to pay to save their life?
Sure, you might wish to save everyone. But lets pretend that in order to save someone else's life, you had to lose your house and live on the streets, or maybe to save someones life, you would have to give up your own life.
Lets take the bum on the street corner, how much money would you pay to save his life?
How about one of your co-workers?
How about your uncle or aunt? Your cousin? Your best friend? Your sister/brother? Your mother? Your father? Your child?
Most people, I simply wouldn't pay much at all. And there are a few people, who you would practically give everything you have to save. And there are some people you might even sacrifice your own life to save.
Most parents would not only give all of their possessions to save, they would sacrifice their own life to save their child. Many people also feel roughly that way about their own parents. And some even that way about their friends.
If I had a million dollars. I would have given it all to save my mothers life, or my sisters life. I would have given up my life to save my mothers, and some of my nieces and nephews. I might pay $100k to save my fathers life. I would probably give $500k to save my best friends life. I might give the bum a hundred bucks to save his life.
It is simply silly to believe that you would give up everything you've worked for your entire life to help people you don't even know, and don't have any responsibility towards. That is human nature, that is the basis of tribalism, that is the basis of human attachments and love. It would be great if we could all love everyone, but not only is it against our nature, it is actually impossible. You should read about "Dunbar's number", and the "monkeysphere", to understand what I'm saying.
But I want to add, family itself doesn't have to imply people who are blood relatives. My mother had a friend who I called "aunt" my entire life, and I see them as being part of my family, even though they aren't. Traditionally, people who marry into a family become part of that family. Family has to do with the social dynamic of the relationship between different people and different families.
People belonging to the same church, might identify themselves as all being one family. The concept of the family is based on a sort of social/legal unbreakable commitment. A commitment to work together, and do whats best for that family.
The problem with the concept of family is, humans are incapable of identifying very many people as basically unique individuals, and making emotional attachments to each of them.
Its like this, lets pretend you had one dog, you gave it a name, you became very attached to it. It dies, you are sad.
Lets pretend you had three dogs, you gave them each a name, one of them dies, you are sad.
Lets pretend you had 1,000 dogs, you gave them all a name, one of them dies, its hard to appreciate it. You might be sad to an extent because you understand the dog died, but its impossible to have a relationship with every single dog when you have 1,000 dogs, and so if one dies, its less an emotional loss, but rather simply a statistic.
When your mother dies, it is painful and something you'll never forget. When 45 million people die in WWII, its just too big of a number to really understand it. Its just a number.
There is an ethical question, that says, if a train is barreling down a track, and there are five people on that track, who will die if nothing is done. Well luckily, you are standing next to a switch that you can pull that will change the track the train will go down, except the alternative track has one person on it. So the question is, what do you do?
If you do nothing, five people will die. If you pull the switch, only one person will die. Do you pull the switch?
But lets change it, instead of five people, there are a thousand people on the track and only one on the other track. Would you pull it then?
Lets pretend that there are five people on the track, but the one person on the other track was your mother. Would you pull the switch to save five people if it means your mother dies? Is your mothers life worth any number of people? What if you could save a million people for your mothers life, is it worth it then?
My point is, the family or at least a family-like relationship system is core to being human. And it most of the time is very beneficial. If you look at the most successful people throughout time, they almost always came from good families, and/or had very strong family-like support systems.
I am kind of an entrepreneur(or at least I try to be), and it is easiest to build up a business with family members, or friends who feel like they are basically your family, and who have a sort of obligation to help you and stick with you. I don't even want to discuss my business ideas with people who I feel have no obligation to "stick with me". I love employing people who I wouldn't think twice of letting them live in my house with me. I love employing people who I don't have to worry about trying to "go after my sister, or my nieces, etc". I love employing people who are OK with a mutual partnership and the possibility of failure, without the potential of totally destroying our relationship.
Its just difficult to find that outside of the family.
Oh boy, more pseudo-intellectual ramblings of a progressive, who has experienced little, knows less, but is only too willing to help us to a better understanding of the world.
Location: Huntersville/Charlotte, NC and Washington, DC
26,700 posts, read 41,794,567 times
Reputation: 41392
Quote:
The problem you are having is that you are trying to fight against human nature itself. Wanting kids is not based on some desire by society. It is ingrained in you because you are a human being. And while the desire for children tends to be weaker in men, it tends to be very very strong in women. And since men want women because they are men, then they need to take the feelings of the woman that they care about into consideration.
The "nesting instinct" a lot of times doesn't start developing till later in life. But, sometimes it never comes about whatsoever. There are even people who are considered "Asexual", who have no real attraction to anyone at all. But maybe you will get married, and you might even find a woman who also doesn't want any children, but that might change later in her life. Many women in their mid to late 30's start realizing that their window for having children is closing, once menopause hits, they are sort of screwed. So, many times they start to feel differently about the prospect of having children, and so to does many men who feel more "settled".
So what happens when the woman you are with starts pressuring you to have children? Or what if you want to have children and your wife is infertile? A lot of times, this growing division can cause a rift in the relationship that eventually destroys it. Life is a weird thing.
If bolded text happens, she can hit the door and find someone else who wants kids, won't be my problem anymore. I'm not having a child for ANYONE. I do not want to support a child. I don't want to deal with the frustrations of parenting. I want no part of parenthood.
What I'm saying is that the worship of the family unit my popular society is nauseating for those of us who have other aspirations in life than having a family to take care of 24/7. That is all I'm saying.
If bolded text happens, she can hit the door and find someone else who wants kids, won't be my problem anymore. I'm not having a child for ANYONE. I do not want to support a child. I don't want to deal with the frustrations of parenting. I want no part of parenthood.
What I'm saying is that the worship of the family unit my popular society is nauseating for those of us who have other aspirations in life than having a family to take care of 24/7. That is all I'm saying.
THANK YOU!
I'm sorry, but everyone says the whole "you'll change your mind on family," or the great "don't let your bad experience ruin you."
First, let me say this to all you breeders screaming on about the "fambly": would you ever become a Zen Monk? Walk away from your job, your precious "fambly" including the crotchcritters and the cow you call a wife, shave your head and go somewhere far into the woods, spend all day working in the garden (HEAVY garden work for food, not picking flowers) meditating, sleeping on the floor, no beer, no sports, no TV, no Music, and only simple vegetarian food?
Of course you will! Someday you will want to be a monk/nun. It will happen, trust me.
Sound crazy? Well, that's the way I am with kids. I have just as much likelihood to have kids as you do to become a monk...would I become a monk?...
I hate children, politicians, and families. I am against most intimate relationships, hate sports, don't like sunshine, I think babies are ugly and like making jokes about them dying and vomit at the idea of Christmas. I hate almost everything the overrated human race has created...except mystic religions.
I am more likely than I am unlikely to become a Zen monk someday...and I know, that makes me crazy
Now, as for the lame "just because your family was bad" argument, I say this: what if someone enjoyed war? As in they loved killing innocent people and watching their body's die? Well, that guy would be pretty sick huh? That's what I say about adults who love their families, they are SICK. What, you like being around the people who wiped your backside when you were a baby? You enjoy having conversations with the person who pushed you out into this pain and suffering we call life? You enjoy spending time with siblings, whom genetically you should be programmed to kill to keep the resources to yourself?
From my point of view, you people have issues. Just as you enjoying your family doesn't make the concept of family for the weak and sick, someone enjoying their war doesn't mean war isn't a worthless undertaking (like parenting)
And yes, we all "need" a family in the sense of two people to create us...and we all need to defecate too, but that doesn't mean I want to cuddle up with what comes out of my backside after a burger. Just as the wise flush away their bodily waste, the wise flush their families from their lives when they are no longer useful to their own ends.
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.
