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

what about the suppressive influence of states??

really, weather it be communism, facism, corporatism, or capitalism, they all have the ability to raise up the entire population but none of them ever have. and weather children are raised within a family structure or by the state in the quest to "balance the playing field" would not make any difference.
regardless of what form a gov't takes on or what way our children would be raised human nature is bound to reign supreme and well that means that those who are hungry for power will raise to the top echelons of the gov't and those that hunger for wealth would raise also. and well the two groups will work hand in hand to accumulate power and wealth.
so well even if we did find a way to level the playing field, those two groups would soon find ways to siphon the money from those things that were designed to level it and ensure that the "level playing field" was continually falling below the playing field that they had designed for themselves and their friends.

We could amuse ourselves all day reducing this argument down - I mean, why don't we all go and sit in caves and stare into space doing bog all until we all starve equally?

And starve quickly before someone complains that we got the nicer cave...

Families are not always the advantage they are made out to be and, in some cases, can be a distinct disadvantage.

I was lucky (ish) for my early years were spent in a stable family where I was taught some valuable lessons. Sadly, things deteriorated between my parents and I was witness to some goings on that a child ought not to see.

I was spared not the slightest detail when I got a blow by blow account of the court cases after they separated. My mother was never the same after all that and things went downhill badly.

I was at a distinct disadvantage compared to kids who did not come from broken homes. Life was challenging and difficult.

But, I knew I was better off than kids in the local children's home and, for all the problems, wouldn't have wanted to have to go there.

I don't resent anyone who had more advantages than I had. Society is like that - some do better than others. I save all my resentment for the Bastard who caused all the trouble in my home and, effectively, deprived me of my mother. Because she hadn't been doing too badly until the depression and stress transformed her into what could sometimes be a monster.

My opinion is that people need to focus their resentment, envy, fear, loathing whatever on to the real people who cause their problems and confront them.

Don't take a big stick to society as a whole and try and force it into their idea of a Utopia.

And if you* can't confront those who are making your life a misery or causing a disadvantage then sort yourself out until you can deal with it.

*generic you

a reply to: Bluesma

He also is quoted saying:

So should parents snuggling up for one last story before lights out be even a little concerned about the advantage they might be conferring?

‘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.

So, because I read bedtime stories to my kids every night I guess I should feel bad occasionally? Retarded.

As well as this zinger:

‘We think that although in practice it makes sense to parent your biological offspring, that is not the same as saying that in virtue of having produced the child the biological parent has the right to parent.’

a reply to: coop039

This is classic equality of outcome sophistry.

I don't understand why people allow themselves to be seduced by such horrendous and ugly ideas.

"To act on the belief that we possess the knowledge and the power which enable us to shape the processes of society entirely to our liking, knowledge which in fact we do not possess, is likely to make us do much harm."

-Friedrich Hayek

Families have the right to educate their child whatever way they wish.

Comparing that bedtime stories are more advantageous to the developpement of the child than going to an elite school is about the stupidest, most absurd thing I ever heard.

The problem isn't parenting, it's the access to those elite schools. Education should be free, period.
Now THAT'S leveling the playing field.

But imagine the outrage if rich parents would realize that their own child isn't smarter than the child of a poor family. The elite stay elites not by getting better and better, they stay there because they step on everyone that tries to surpass them. They are detrimental to society and it's evolution.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
a reply to: Bluesma

So, because I read bedtime stories to my kids every night I guess I should feel bad occasionally? Retarded.

That interpretation of the quote is not how I understand it. As I explained. I see nothing mentioned about "feeling bad".

‘We think that although in practice it makes sense to parent your biological offspring, that is not the same as saying that in virtue of having produced the child the biological parent has the right to parent.’

Ah well, I guess we disagree. I think parents who are abusive, or neglectful, or incapable of providing for their offspring should have their children, and their rights to parent taken away from them. Not as "punishment" to them, but simply, for the well being of the child..... and with less kids so terribly disadvantaged, it wouldn't make a level playing field, but it might make the slant a bit less extreme.

originally posted by: theMediator

Comparing that bedtime stories are more advantageous to the developpement of the child than going to an elite school is about the stupidest, most absurd thing I ever heard.

Not for me. I have read and witnessed too much evidence that the psychological balance and formation of behavior and personality is highly linked to the loving family relations and interaction than anything else, as he said.

A child may go to an elite school, have all the abundance of possessions and opportunities money can buy, but if they parents who are physically or emotionally absent to him/her, they still end up disadvantaged psychologically.

I have a half brother (different father) who was raised pretty rich, went to a private school, always had everything he wanted .... except his parents who were always out working and never saw him.
Now? He's homeless, in prison more often than not, and addicted to oxy and meth. Good lot all that money and fancy schools did him!

The problem isn't parenting, it's the access to those elite schools. Education should be free, period.
Now THAT'S leveling the playing field.
.

That's what he said.

a reply to: theMediator

or... imagine how better things would be if the gov't invested more time in nuturing families and education and less on preserving the wealthy's wealth through wars, corporate tax shelters, tax breaks, ect.
just why is it that our educational system is so bad that the rich want to pull their kids out and pay good money for their education to begin with? we had plenty of money to fight how many wars the past decade? how much money have we given other countries in aide? there is no reason why the schools in this country aren't the best in the world. and there is no reason why our families are so stressed out after both parents working 40+ hours that they can't give their kids a proper upbringing. and there is no reason why our kids should have to exchange the prospect of buying their first home for a college education!

a reply to: coop039

This truly is liberal progressivism taken to it's most extremem form. It sucks to frame everything in that light but.......that's where we're headed.

Conservative self reliance may be harsh and not compassionate but at least no one's going to tell you you're wrong for raising your kids right.

It's also probably racist to tell your kids to wear their pants around their waist. We should also probably not teach our children good values because that's unfair to kids that weren't

a reply to: Vasa Croe

I don't know if he is exactly trying to attack the time parents spend with their children. I admit that it is a bit confusing to me though. There are times when he seems to be talking out both sides of his mouth, or kind of... skirting the idea that he thinks that just having children raised in state institutions would be more "fair", which I suppose it would level the playing field as he said. I think he is also saying that this sort of child rearing ideology would certainly not be supported by the public and has been rejected many times, largely because it would not be conducive to a stable, productive society; although he doesn't really go into the "why" for that rejection. He does focus on the importance of that one on one time (bed time stories) and focuses on the "unfair" advantage children of wealthy parents may have because they have access to better education.

The one on one time that he talks about is part and parcel to raising confident children and the "authoritative' parenting style that he references is the ideal, and that one on one time is part of that. I just didn't get that he was attacking that per se, he seemed to think that it was important in the interested parents vs. disinterested parents sort of way. I could have that wrong, I only listened to the excerpt provided. He also seems to be saying that the elite educations for children of wealthy parents just about equals that one on one time from an authoritative (vs. authoritarian, permissive, or disinterested) parent even for poor children. I don't know if I necessarily agree with that, there are other social factors involved but I guess I can see where he is going.

He is using a lot of child psychology lingo (particularly focused on parenting styles) in passing and it confuses his communication even more. I don't know if he is (quite) saying what everyone thinks that he is saying, but he does seem to dance around some weird, almost statist ideas that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. He comes across as exceedingly clinical and lacking compassion or even basic empathy.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: theMediator

or... imagine how better things would be if the gov't invested more time in nuturing families and education and less on preserving the wealthy's wealth through wars, corporate tax shelters, tax breaks, ect.
just why is it that our educational system is so bad that the rich want to pull their kids out and pay good money for their education to begin with? we had plenty of money to fight how many wars the past decade? how much money have we given other countries in aide? there is no reason why the schools in this country aren't the best in the world. and there is no reason why our families are so stressed out after both parents working 40+ hours that they can't give their kids a proper upbringing. and there is no reason why our kids should have to exchange the prospect of buying their first home for a college education!

So your opinion is that government should take more money from rich people and corporations and spend that money teaching all the poor people how to live and how to raise their kids correctly? I know a place you'd love, It's a little country In Asia, west of Japan and north of south korea. They have strong social programs and an excellent values teaching school system.

originally posted by: Bluesma

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
a reply to: Bluesma

So, because I read bedtime stories to my kids every night I guess I should feel bad occasionally? Retarded.

That interpretation of the quote is not how I understand it. As I explained. I see nothing mentioned about "feeling bad".

‘We think that although in practice it makes sense to parent your biological offspring, that is not the same as saying that in virtue of having produced the child the biological parent has the right to parent.’

Ah well, I guess we disagree. I think parents who are abusive, or neglectful, or incapable of providing for their offspring should have their children, and their rights to parent taken away from them. Not as "punishment" to them, but simply, for the well being of the child..... and with less kids so terribly disadvantaged, it wouldn't make a level playing field, but it might make the slant a bit less extreme.

How exactly do you interpret this then:

‘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.

And he never specifically states a certain type of parent...I agree with you that those that abuse the privilege of being a parent, should not be a parent, but that line is neither drawn nor inferred in this.

a reply to: infolurker

Wow, looks like they're winning on all fronts. Of course with the dumbing down of the masses...how could they lose?

I am being a buttinsky here and it's rude and I have every faith that Bluesma has this well in hand, but I really think that people are misinterpreting what he was trying (albeit kind of badly) to say.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
How exactly do you interpret this then:

‘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 interpret that as human beings should be mindful of the ever-present hierarchy and that in spite of that we still have a responsibility to those less fortunate. It was a weird way to say it though.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
And he never specifically states a certain type of parent...I agree with you that those that abuse the privilege of being a parent, should not be a parent, but that line is neither drawn nor inferred in this.

Actually he does state a certain type of parent, the Authoritative parent. It's the "ideal" parenting style by the Baumrind theory of parenting styles, which is hugely popular in child psychology. I personally dislike the paradigm, but that's just me...

a reply to: coop039

Really? This is what random people on the Internet concern themselves with?
This is a debate about theory, philosophy, social structure, and it's all nothing more than an expressed opinion.

Too many people here see a story like this and instantly seem to think it's all about to be forced on them by their "evil NWO" government, overreacting to the most simple little thing as if it's all a personal attack on you.

How deep into news sites and blogs do members here have to dig to find things to get scared/angry/irrational about?

originally posted by: redhorse


I am being a buttinsky here and it's rude and I have every faith that Bluesma has this well in hand, but I really think that people are misinterpreting what he was trying (albeit kind of badly) to say.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
How exactly do you interpret this then:

‘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 interpret that as human beings should be mindful of the ever-present hierarchy and that in spite of that we still have a responsibility to those less fortunate. It was a weird way to say it though.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
And he never specifically states a certain type of parent...I agree with you that those that abuse the privilege of being a parent, should not be a parent, but that line is neither drawn nor inferred in this.

Actually he does state a certain type of parent, the Authoritative parent. It's the "ideal" parenting style by the Baumrind theory of parenting styles, which is hugely popular in child psychology. I personally dislike the paradigm, but that's just me...

Yeah, I get what you are saying, but he is implying that those that can send their kids to private schools are less fortunate, simply because their kids are not getting the time with their parents, but those that CAN spend time with their kids should feel bad occasionally because they CAN spend time with their kids.

I am fortunate enough to be able to do both, but my kids go to public school, simply because it gives them a better sense of those they will encounter in the world when they grow up. Socializing them to the diversity of the world around them. I am also authoritative with them, and my wife is more sympathetic.....

I think what it comes down to is just being a good parent....

I just don't like someone saying how people should feel in certain situations.....if he is going to state stuff like this, then it is best left at an individual level as we are all unique and have all had different experiences in life.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: redhorse


I am being a buttinsky here and it's rude and I have every faith that Bluesma has this well in hand, but I really think that people are misinterpreting what he was trying (albeit kind of badly) to say.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
How exactly do you interpret this then:

‘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 interpret that as human beings should be mindful of the ever-present hierarchy and that in spite of that we still have a responsibility to those less fortunate. It was a weird way to say it though.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
And he never specifically states a certain type of parent...I agree with you that those that abuse the privilege of being a parent, should not be a parent, but that line is neither drawn nor inferred in this.

Actually he does state a certain type of parent, the Authoritative parent. It's the "ideal" parenting style by the Baumrind theory of parenting styles, which is hugely popular in child psychology. I personally dislike the paradigm, but that's just me...

Yeah, I get what you are saying, but he is implying that those that can send their kids to private schools are less fortunate, simply because their kids are not getting the time with their parents, but those that CAN spend time with their kids should feel bad occasionally because they CAN spend time with their kids.

That's fair enough. I don't necessarily think that parents who can afford to send their kids to private school are not as interested and involved and it certainly does seem like he is implying that, which again, is weird and potentially points to another agenda in what he is saying. I'm just not willing to jump to any conclusions on what that agenda might be just yet.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe


I just don't like someone saying how people should feel in certain situations.....if he is going to state stuff like this, then it is best left at an individual level as we are all unique and have all had different experiences in life.

Again, fair enough. I do think that the Baumrind theory lends itself to the sort of judgmental perspective that he is espousing here. It seems to me that he is going with his education and the thrust of his research, which can make for a rather myopic outlook.

I didn't think this thread would become an excuse to bash socialism.

I'm very liberal myself and I don't want people to live the by the lowest denominator. I would certainly want to lowest denominator to be enhanced and given the chance but not by removing the chances of the people that succeed.

Once again, ATS poster really really don't understand how liberals think.

originally posted by: hammanderr
a reply to: coop039

This truly is liberal progressivism taken to it's most extremem form. It sucks to frame everything in that light but.......that's where we're headed.

Conservative self reliance may be harsh and not compassionate but at least no one's going to tell you you're wrong for raising your kids right.

It's also probably racist to tell your kids to wear their pants around their waist. We should also probably not teach our children good values because that's unfair to kids that weren't

no it isn't where we are headed...why?...because even a vast majority of democrats/liberals in this nation don't believe in that crap. but, why spoil a thread lumping all liberals/ progressives into one scary group.....

originally posted by: theMediator
I didn't think this thread would become an excuse to bash socialism.

I'm very liberal myself and I don't want people to live the by the lowest denominator. I would certainly want to lowest denominator to be enhanced and given the chance but not by removing the chances of the people that succeed.

Once again, ATS poster really really don't understand how liberals think.

well of course not, it's like telling the populace that all republicans and conservatives think like rush Limbaugh...they don't.