Cultural programming at its finest...

a reply to: DanDanDat

I totally agree. Not only do we need a cultural change to make sense economically but we need a cultural change to make sense of how we manage our finite resources.

I also advocate for the coming together of resources to our extended family as well.

The more we learn to operate as a unit, the more resources we pool together, the more processing power our collective mind has to perform calculations the faster we enter into the age of infinity and love.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: DanDanDat

Here's my question for you..

How do you tell the difference between your kid really needing help and your kid needing to learn responsibility in today's world?

Wheres the line drawn?

When you draw the line do you involve yourself in your child's life or do you send them off on their own to solve their problems alone?

The answer is that not a fine line: and I’m sure finding it isn’t always going to be easy.

But it’s also not something you can start answering when the “problem” arises. If a child lacks responsibility than that child wasn’t taught responsibility from a very young age. Its not something you learn once you become an adult, responsibility is something you first learn when you’re a toddler – everything else is just reinforcement.

There is something to be said for living with less means when you’re young; it’s easier to learn responsibility. unless your family is # (and that does happen) you see everyone around you working hard and making tough choices every day. But when you live a more comfortable childhood those lessons become fewer and father between. I see the shakiness of it now with my children; sometimes I find myself having to invent lessons for my children and stress the points to make them clear – and that can be hard to do when you’re tired from working all day.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: VoidHawk

What's a telly? Television?

Yes, or often known simply as - The Box.

I think you still didn't get the point. What I mentioned is verifiable, economically supported, and culturally relevant across the world. Sorry, your pithy "refer to my signature which dismisses you as youthful naivety" is far from a response.

In reality for most people worldwide, including parents, it is FAR more economical to live in large multi-generational homes. And this is precisely one of the main reasons it such a widespread phenomenon across both the world and history..

It is this concept surrounding everyone being islands unto themselves and needing to be completely independent that is entirely a western and largely modern phenomenon.

But thanks for playing.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

You might not realize this either, but in most countries of the world poverty is much higher and standards of living are lower. You can't afford to have everyone living alone in most countries.

Furthermore, this was true in America and Europe not too long ago. Around the time of the American colonies, the economic level was such that people living there had the average income, including purchasing price parity, of Africans today.

Thanks for those gems. See my sig.

originally posted by: TycoonBarnaby

who WOULDN'T let their child move back in with them if they needed help? (I do not have a grown child for the record, but if I did I would obviously help them if they needed it.)

Obviously. That's a fairly comfortable position for you to take. That's called "having no dog in this fight" but weighing in anyway at no cost. You SAY you'd do that, but what if you had to, and you did not have an extra couple of grand to feed them? You're being pretty cavalier with my money. The issue is not just providing needed help. The issue is a lifestyle choice not based on need, but based on attitude. I see a lack of ambition, a lack of wanting to tackle the issues because it's just easier to live with Mom & Dad. In other words, is that "help" necessary, or is it just the path of least resistance? Is this the result of nefarious NWO conditioning or is it simply bad choices? Did you take out student loans to get a B.A. in English only to turn up your nose at a job with McDonalds? Like John Wayne said. "Life is hard. It's harder if you're stupid."

The parents did their job. They raised the kids. They didn't think they'd have to raise the kids until age 50 and jeopardize their own retirement to do so. That's what the original article was addressing. It doesn't really matter what some "other" cultures do or did. An "extended family" situation is probably more common than not, anthropologically speaking, but that's not the way it is here.

What I see is kids making stupid choices where the parents have been careful and frugal. Then the kids turn around and see the parents are doing okay and expect the parents to bail them out. So the parents wind up losing their own position to bail the kids. And the kids have learned nothing.

a reply to: onequestion

While thats a fluffy sounding ideology... that only works when everyone in the hive is in agreement. Because to be honest when a lot of people are living together it is a hive situation. The more hive minded families are in co-operation to the same beliefs they more apt they are to perpetuate them generation after generation... whether they be factual or beneficial to life or not. Fine and dandy but when one in the family hive sees through the hives hippocracy and cognitive dissonance and ignorance of that hive mind, and gets labeled as a black sheep...

the real question becomes who is at fault? Is it the family unit where if everyone hives to these beliefs and perpetuates them into society at large via their locus of influence, even though it is not beneficial to the larger whole that the black sheep is aligned with? It becomes easier to see how indeed the family unit could come under attack.

Generational hives living together and spreading their influence not conducive to society or its progress because of differing ideals. While a staunch critic and advocate of governments and people; I can see the frustrations of both sides... on the one hand there are masses of people with belief of a god specific to their belief system that perpetuates what they felt was a life of purpose and shun science where it's population operates mostly out of fact and not belief and the tried and true methods that cause progress in society.

In one sense the unit of society tries to drag it's feet and hit the rewind button against progress as an ideal for living need not be so complicated as it slips out of their understanding looking like a world they cant even recognize. Despite time constantly marching forward and new information out dating the old at a rapid pace towards a vision of progress to ease human suffering.

While one family group drags feet another ushers... and well moderation and tolerance is the job of many that negotiate between these two sides to keep peace, those evolving and adapting to the adversity in the name of progress, and those fearful based on mythologies and denial of even evolution itself.

So all of this sort of thing in society is one big sticky situation called the present; those fearful of the unknown looming future and those nostalgic for a past that was safe simply because it was known and nothing needed answering in order to live... just something to beleieve in so that their time as a cog in and for society was worth living, as without that faith they held in order to get there was the only thing making it feel worth anything.

So theres a lot more to this than just programming and various hive mentalities as far as ideology goes.

a reply to: onequestion

Hegelian dialectic most articles set the stage and sell an idea its programing on top of programming