"Destroying the family to create a "level playing field."

This is just crazy. So if your raising a child in a loving home your giving him/her an unfair advantage?
This is a radio clip from ABC news in Australia.

soundcloud.com...

originally posted by: coop039
This is just crazy. So if your raising a child in a loving home your giving him/her an unfair advantage?
This is a radio clip from ABC news in Australia.

soundcloud.com...

I was just talking about this with co-workers in the office yesterday. Sick thinking....here is a link to the story and one of the quotes from it....

Source

‘One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family. If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field.’

He goes on to "attack" schooling and parents who read to their children at night, saying they are giving their kids an unfair advantage to the private schooled kids by reading to them....what an odd study....

‘I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally,’ quips Swift.

This approach is daft as it pushes everyone to the lowest level of advantage.

Why not remove universities so that those who could never get into one are not disadvantaged? Remove good teachers because they give their pupils an advantage over kids who are taught by mediocre teachers.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

CURRENT COMMUNIST GOALS

Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35

January 10, 1963


1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.

6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.

7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.

8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.

9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.

10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)

12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.

14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.

43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.

44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.

45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.

originally posted by: paraphi
This approach is daft as it pushes everyone to the lowest level of advantage.

Why not remove universities so that those who could never get into one are not disadvantaged? Remove good teachers because they give their pupils an advantage over kids who are taught by mediocre teachers.

Yep...I look at it as a similar approach to all kids getting trophies/awards at sports/school simply because we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings....

Wussification of America......

a reply to: infolurker

Well THAT is certainly an interesting post. Thanks!

a reply to: paraphi

Socialism works by pushing everyone and everything down to the lowest common denominator. ( I actually misspelled it "demoninator", lol?)

Welfare rules give advantage to those without family encouraging their breakup for financial survival.
Use government and the "World Community" as a replacement for family.
Remember Melissa Harris saying "our kids don't belong to us but to the community? It takes a village to raise a child"?

I can think of nothing more evil than destroying the family.
These policies have been hard at work in our inner cities for 50 years now.
Appears to be working, no wonder there is so much pent up rage.

I can't listen to the audio right now (I am not alone and it would disturb others). I am curious if there is a text version?

Because what you quoted here doesn't sound that crazy to me, but it is out of context and I don't know what else was said.

‘One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family. If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field.’

This refers to how a philosopher might take one angle of it, for the sake of full comprehension. This is not proposing practice, but an exercise in theory, intended to make clear in mind what the current reality is.

He goes on to "attack" schooling and parents who read to their children at night, saying they are giving their kids an unfair advantage to the private schooled kids by reading to them....what an odd study....

‘I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally,’ quips Swift.

I think this is a fair statement! He doesn't say not to do it, he doesn't say think about it all the time and feel guilty! He suggest that they be aware of this reality.

I kinda agree. I mean, when I was very poor and did not have parents present, I remember friends parents making a comment about my crappy clothes and why did my mom buy me such things! Without the slightest notion that I didn't have a mom buying me clothes.
I remember kids teasing me cruelly because my long hair had gotten into a huge knot at the back of my head, and all alone I could not undo it. (though I was trying). It never entered their mind I didn't have help available with that.

I remember teachers getting mad that I had trouble concentrating in elementary school, without it ever entering their minds that I was very distracted by concerns on how I would steal food for dinner for me and my siblings, and worried about my retarded sister getting off the bus alone in the afternoon.

People tend to assume all others are like their self, and it is sometimes a good idea to remind yourself and be better aware of differences.

Ironically, in my thirties, I was much slimmer and in shape than most of the women I knew, and I would constantly remind myself I was not working, so I had all my time to spend doing exercise, yoga, running, planning out my diet... they were working moms, frazzled and with no time, running between work and taking care of their family, and just couldn't spend that time on their own well being. It felt important to me to not re-create the mistakes I witnessed others do as a child, and assume we are all on a level playing field. It's not true. Our challenges differ.

But then, I didn't hear the whole thing, so might be off on this...

a reply to: coop039

Surely one question is do people want to be levelled downwards, levelled at all or levelled to rise? Disgusting ideas though that go against parental instincts.

Communism, socialism and fascism are all authored by the Father of Lies.

He must be well-pleased with how things are turning out.

By this logic we should go around sawing off everyone's arms and legs because people who have them have an unfair advantage over quadriplegics. Or eyes and ears. People with eyes and ears have an unfair advantage over the deaf and blind. This is intolerable - if everyone is equal then can't allow people to have these advantages. Go get a hacksaw right now and fix your bigotry. Right now. Do it. You hateful bigot.

‘One way liberals might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family. If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field

Fixed that quote for you.

a reply to: Bluesma

Is this kind of like watching a little porn won't start a habit
Or just smoking one cigarette won't lead to addiction?
We can't open that door and shouldn't even bother to consider it imo.

Funny, but I usually agree with your posts.
I can understand your hurt, your childhood sounds like it was very painful.
Depriving other children won't make it go away or help those in need.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
a reply to: Bluesma

Is this kind of like watching a little porn won't start a habit
Or just smoking one cigarette won't lead to addiction?
We can't open that door and shouldn't even bother to consider it imo.

Funny, but I usually agree with your posts.
I can understand your hurt, your childhood sounds like it was very painful.
Depriving other children won't make it go away or help those in need.

I guess I don't understand that comment.

Are you saying we should close our eyes and not remain aware of our good circumstances, in relation to what others have, because it would make us become them?
By being aware that others have challenges we do not, we would fall into having those same challenges?
How does that work? Remind yourself there are poor people, and you'll become one?

a reply to: Vasa Croe

41 sums it up for this topic:

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals



Maybe I didn't really understand the gist of what you wrote, my apologies.
Of course we should think about how others may not enjoy the same things and privileges we might have.
People without empathy are little more than clever animals.
I took it to mean parents who read to their children at night should consider not doing so because other kids don't enjoy the same.

My mother read to me every night at bedtime and I think I was getting touchy in defense of that.
I apologize for misinterpreting your post and we do need to not only consider the conditions of those less fortunate but to take action to help remedy that when possible.

originally posted by: Bluesma
I can't listen to the audio right now (I am not alone and it would disturb others). I am curious if there is a text version?

Because what you quoted here doesn't sound that crazy to me, but it is out of context and I don't know what else was said.

‘One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family. If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field.’

This refers to how a philosopher might take one angle of it, for the sake of full comprehension. This is not proposing practice, but an exercise in theory, intended to make clear in mind what the current reality is.

He goes on to "attack" schooling and parents who read to their children at night, saying they are giving their kids an unfair advantage to the private schooled kids by reading to them....what an odd study....

‘I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally,’ quips Swift.

I think this is a fair statement! He doesn't say not to do it, he doesn't say think about it all the time and feel guilty! He suggest that they be aware of this reality.

I kinda agree. I mean, when I was very poor and did not have parents present, I remember friends parents making a comment about my crappy clothes and why did my mom buy me such things! Without the slightest notion that I didn't have a mom buying me clothes.
I remember kids teasing me cruelly because my long hair had gotten into a huge knot at the back of my head, and all alone I could not undo it. (though I was trying). It never entered their mind I didn't have help available with that.

I remember teachers getting mad that I had trouble concentrating in elementary school, without it ever entering their minds that I was very distracted by concerns on how I would steal food for dinner for me and my siblings, and worried about my retarded sister getting off the bus alone in the afternoon.

People tend to assume all others are like their self, and it is sometimes a good idea to remind yourself and be better aware of differences.

Ironically, in my thirties, I was much slimmer and in shape than most of the women I knew, and I would constantly remind myself I was not working, so I had all my time to spend doing exercise, yoga, running, planning out my diet... they were working moms, frazzled and with no time, running between work and taking care of their family, and just couldn't spend that time on their own well being. It felt important to me to not re-create the mistakes I witnessed others do as a child, and assume we are all on a level playing field. It's not true. Our challenges differ.

But then, I didn't hear the whole thing, so might be off on this...

But that's nonsensical. Reading to your children and caring for them and raising them right, does not disadvantage or negatively effect anyone else, in any way, shape, or form. That is typical flawed Marxist thinking--that you and yours doing well is only achieved by pushing someone else down.

So if you have 10 people taking a test, and 5 fail, then it is the fault of the 5 that passed and they should fail in order to bring about equality.

Sounds about right.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals

Maybe I didn't really understand the gist of what you wrote, my apologies.
Of course we should think about how others may not enjoy the same things and privileges we might have.
People without empathy are little more than clever animals.
I took it to mean parents who read to their children at night should consider not doing so because other kids don't enjoy the same.

Oh okay, no problem!

I don't want to call them people with no empathy, only that they might be mistaken, they might be ignorant, they might even be in denial about their good fortune because they don't want to feel guilty!

The quote posted, at least specifically said

‘I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally,’ quips Swift.

Which doesn't say they shouldn't do it, nor that they should constantly think about it, just that they should be aware of it as being a benefit not all have.

Though the rest of the comments here give the idea he said they shouldn't do it.. which has me a bit confused.

... also the interpretation posted, that he proposed as a practical action, that family structure be destroyed to make a level field, doesn't fit the quote posted either.
Philosophy deals with gymnastics of mind, looking at a situation or idea from many different angles, in order to have a full comprehension of it. Liberals are a political stance, who are concerned with real life action.



It would be rather funny to present the theory of Schrodingers cat and get a full of page of outrage that a cat be put in a box with poison, just for the sake of science!

originally posted by: NavyDoc

But that's nonsensical. Reading to your children and caring for them and raising them right, does not disadvantage or negatively effect anyone else, in any way, shape, or form. That is typical flawed Marxist thinking--that you and yours doing well is only achieved by pushing someone else down.

Could you please write out what was said on this in the audio?
I am limited to the quotes put up here, which specifically said he does not think parents shouldn't do it,
nor does he think they should always think about those that can't and feel guilty about it,
only that they should remind themselves once in a while that some others can't, and they have an advantage to be grateful for.

Did he contradict himself in the audio?

ETA- Okay, I ran and found a way to listen to this.
Shame on those who posted that he proposed parents be not allowed to, or choose not to read bedtime stories to their kids!
People, listen to this before commenting, I highly suggest doing so.

He specifically said there is evidence that such acts provide a huge advantage to children, he doesn't consider it should be stopped by anyone, and in fact encourages parents to do it.

Though he said one possible philosophical stance could be breaking apart families to make a level fielding field, he immediately went on to say that just about everyone, (including himself) agrees that would be a horrible and unacceptable idea.

originally posted by: beezzer
So if you have 10 people taking a test, and 5 fail, then it is the fault of the 5 that passed and they should fail in order to bring about equality.

Sounds about right.

Welcome to Progressive Liberalism (Neo-Socialism) in it's exposed form.

Now, taking the "common sense" comment you just presented, they will twist the narrative with "social psycho babble" to actually convince the young and the weak of mind in our society that "this is a good thing".

The phrase I use is "Penalized For Success".