A new progressive idea that families must be abolished to create social and economic equality

I'm not understanding how anyone could think this kind of "equality" is a good idea. What is so great about equality anyway? How would this make things better for anyone?

a reply to: The2Billies

My wife and I don't have kids, personal choice. That being said, if we did have kids, I would do everything legally within my power to ensure that my children had a leg up on everyone else's children. I wouldn't want a child that's equal to everyone else's child, I would want a child that's superior to others in every way possible. By most measures here in the states I do well for myself, I would want my kids to do better, to have better and more than I have achieved.

It's a shame that other parents don't think that way.

a reply to: Puppylove

A steak knife becomes a murder weapon in the wrong hands.

Someone so inclined will do whatever he wants with or without religion. It just happens to be a very good disguise.


I'm a staunch atheist but by god I miss those times where other people still needed a god.

Oh, the irony.

a reply to: Puppylove

Having a spiritual center and belief in a higher power then oneself and mankind engenders a deep respect that humanism cannot compete with. It also combats materialism.

a reply to: 19Bones79

It's never the religions fault when bad things come from it's use, but it's always religions fault when good things come from it's use.

Total nonsense, the knife cuts both ways, and in either scenario it's one hundred percent the user and not the object being used.

Whenever religion is used for good or bad, it's the people using it that are to blame, plain and simple.

You're an athiest but you miss the days everyone was devout? You must have loved the middle ages then. Paradise on #ing earth.

People are and always have been responsible for society. Is why people who worship the exact same religion end up with completely different versions of it.

a reply to: ketsuko

I respectfully disagree with your opinion.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: ketsuko

I respectfully disagree with your opinion.

Not always.

And the general condition of secular society at large would seem to not prove your contention.

Most progressives are not on board with this. Totally unfair to label the entire party based on one kooks idea's.

a reply to: The2Billies
This has to be from a darker "Onion" faux media type website....right?

a reply to: ketsuko

Ha ha ha, in order for that to be true you need to compare now to every time and place religion was in power.

Can you honestly with a straight face say now is worse than every time and in every place religion was in power and was believed by the majority?

Because I personally would rather live today than most of history under religions rule. Our seclarism is what saves us from the draconic laws of places like the middle east.

I disagree with much being promoted, like what's being promoted as the topic if this thread. But I do so through logic and reasoning and wanting what's best for my fellow man.

The family is one of the main causes of morally arbitrary inequality. Moreover, it is not an inequality which makes everyone better off. … [T]he effects of the family are so profound that its mere existence may severely impede the access of individuals to equal life chances.

In the age of boys and girls get to become girls and boys,

An age where men can become women, and women can become men.

An age where a life in a womb is just a clump of cells..

Of course abolishing the family unit would make sense.

To COMPLETE and UTTER JACKSNIPS.

What the family unit really teachs people.

is a Hierarchical order. Ie an authority figure whoever it be that wears the pants in da familee.

Take that away and we've already seen what happens.

People like Lanza.

Gangs that replace mum and dad with 'Bros'.

Save the family.

Save the country.

Save the planet.

At least that's wut I tink.

a reply to: Puppylove

I would argue it's not secularism that is saving us.

China is a completely secular society, and it's very draconian, so is N. Korea for that matter.

The US was highly religious during it's most libertarian years. Yes, you can argue that women could not vote and slavery existed, but those two things were not inherently religious inventions, and they were a norm in societies all across the globe, regardless of religiosity in governance. But we had the most freedoms in how we chose to conduct our personal lives, businesses, etc., free of government regulations and intrusion into everyday matters.

PS - While I am personally a Christian, you'll note I said spiritual center because I know we live in a pluralistic society. If my neighbors won't be Christians, I would at least prefer them to believe in a higher power. There are even some types of Muslim I'd rather have as neighbors than completely secular folks mired in materialism.

a reply to: neo96

A family is also where children learn how men and women interact and treat one another and children in society in a safe and intimate setting. Dad teaches children how men behave, and mommy teaches children how women behave. And the security of family allows it to be open and completely secure and honest through all of life's moments - good and bad.

Society has been working overtime to erode the concept of the nuclear family for decades. Most kids under 20 today no longer think of the nuclear family as nuclear. They think of it as an "option" along with 4 or 5 other "options." Sexuality is looked at similarly. So proposing the step to "abolish" the nuclear family altogether is only a natural step towards societal control....which is the end game.

The question is what are we doing about it? When we do not teach out kids how to respond to the insipid encroachment of our rights, beliefs, and values, then we do not prepare them to understand this battle and what is, ultimately, at the end of it.....

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” ― Edmund Burke

a reply to: ketsuko So all of us that don't believe in a god are materialistic. You think you can just judge us all based on lack of belief in imaginary beings? What a crock.

a reply to: ketsuko

I'd prefer my neighbor being a good decent fellow who cares about others and tries to right by others with compassion and concern long before I give two #s about whether they believe in a higher power or not.

Also again with the picking and choosing when to give religion credit or not. Nonsense. Whether religious mation or secular it's the people either withon or in charge of the nation that devides it's character. This is clearly demonstrated by monstrous actions of nations with BOTH ideals.

It's people plain and simple. There is no inherent merit to religion or secularism. There is a difference though.

Religion is unchanging. It will hold strongly to it's good ideas and morals, but likewise it will do the same with it's bad, stubbornly insisting they are good defying all reason and logic.

Secularism is an evolving system always changing. Good and bad ideas come and go, over time the more successful ideas succeed and prosper and bad ideas fail and falter.

This is simplistic versions of each, but there are benefits and failures to both. While secularism is quicker to dispose of bad ideas, it's also quicker to dispose of good ideas to try something else. At the same time with religion can be reluctant to allow for positive change and can prevent progress.

Could go on deeply into the nuances, different types of both, and variations betwern them, but this isn't even what this thread is about and is precisely why I say leave religion out of the discussion and argue the strengths, weaknesses and faults of an idea with logic and reasoning in a neutral secular fashion.

a reply to: The2Billies

Wasn't this pretty much what B F Skinner wanted, the children raised by "the village" instead of their parents?

One of those notions that sounds logical in theory but would be disastrous if implemented in a modern society.

The family as bulwark against abusers has already been terribly weakened. In some ways, the raising of children is already done by strangers.

Cheers

a reply to: Lucky109

So ... not having a spiritual center automatically equates to not believing in God? There are atheists the would be surprised to hear you say that ... offended even.

Ironically enough, it was Rabbi Geoffrey Mitelman, who best secularized the term, “spirituality” in my opinion by summarizing two Jewish theologians. The problem is that spirituality isn’t one thing; it is two things. It is the feeling we get “when we are truly in relationship with others” and that “deep sense of incomprehensibility at the wonder of sheer existence.” To put it simply, spirituality is the feeling of deep connection we have towards one another and with the universe in general.

That lack of sense of being connected to something larger than oneself is the emptiness people too often attempt to fill with material things when they lack it. It's a hole that can't be filled by stuff, but of course big business loves it when you try.

a reply to: The2Billies

Once children belong to the community and not the parents, people will stop having children.

And that is the whole idea. And from what I read, its working. There's a birth dirth with the birth rate having fallen below the replacement level. So really, these racist progressives are proposing a solution for a rapidly disappearing problem. As a result, I wouldnt worry about it too much. However, you might want to advise your own children to think twice about having kids unless they can do so out of and far away from Democrat run cities.

a reply to: ketsuko

How are you defing spiritual? Cause is not my definition. Mine involves needing to actually believe in spirits and # like that.

Following your, sense of being connected to something larger than oneself that would apply to me as well. Though I feel connected to all life and my fellow man. I have strong empathy, love and concern for others. I'm not very materialistic believing people hold far more importance than any object.

I wouldn't call myself spiritual though. Philosophically minded, sure, but spiritual, no.