It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 5
36
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove


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.


Ever heard the saying, "If it's not broke, don't fix it?"

This entire thread is the very epitome of a secular society wanting to dispose of a good idea (nuclear family) to try something else. They even admit this is something that works because they are whining about how kids with a nuclear family gain advantages ... "privilege" (who would have thought that word would ever be a pejorative?).

But hey, it ain't religious because God said the family was good, so we better break it, amirite? Everything old that has lasted for cebturies clearly needs to be changed for the sake of changing because ... reasons ... because change.

Sometimes, thing are that way because they simply work and not for any other reason, not religion, not patriarchy, but because people are people and this is how we are. You might as well as well tell beavers they need to build square lodges out of grass because round wood lodges contribute too much to climate change for reasons.




posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

No this is just a bad idea in general. I'm secular and arguing against it. Does my being against it not count because I'm secular and not religious?

See that's my point, you're trying to link an idea to religion and religion only and another idea to seclarism and seclarism only. Which is bull#. I'm secular and the ideals of family has always been important to me. It's been important to me for good, logical and well reasoned reasons, and there is literally no necessity for religion in any form to make family and the very concept of it important.

Same as this is a bad idea, and as a secular person I'm against it, and can argue against it using the same logic and reasoning I do to defend family.

Again it's #ing PEOPLE arguing for and against crap. You religious folk do it the same as everyone else, look how splintered all the damn religions are.

We can't even be on the same side, because you view everything as an attack on your religion by the non religious.

Many of us agree with you on many topics, but it's fricken hard because you all try to twist everything into promoting your damn religion instead of simply why an idea is bad.

edit on 12/4/2019 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/4/2019 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
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.


That's a good description of how I think of things as well.



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

But you're buying into the schtick that secular is superior. This is a secular academic idea. This is the type of BS it leads to. Secularists eventually put themselves on the pedestal the rest of us reserve to God, and it leads to this kind of social engineering madness. This idea that you can perfect your fellow humans and society by forcing them to go against their natures.



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: sligtlyskeptical

The kook (philosopher) who actually had the idea was and is being dragged out of context by the article referenced in the OP and roughly 75-percent of the posters who have commented on the OP. The original kook doesn't even think children should be raised by the state in the case of child abuse -- unless there are no viable / qualified family or friends to take care of the child.

The problem, as always, is tribal affiliation, reading comprehension, lack of due dillegence and wilful misunderstanding to make some kind of weird point.

It's the ATS way.



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lucky109
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?


Some kids actually have terrible parents. Is it fair that they end up living a life of misery because they came out of the ass end of a moron?
edit on 4-12-2019 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Sounds like a page from the Chinese re-education camps, the funny part is that with them they are using it on the minorities to kill their cultures and transform them into the Communist norm.



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
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.


I was kind of hoping for a relaxed chat. Not a pissing competition.



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: Lucky109
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?


Some kids actually have terrible parents. Is it fair that they end up living a life of misery because they came out of the ass end of a moron?


It's like everything where you try to use the law to lift up some. It always comes at the expense of others, and you always end advantaging some more than you intend and hurting others more than you intend. It's how Affirmative Action works out now.



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I'm the only one on here that argued the merits and flaws of both, and that regaurdless of secularism or religiosity, people are people.

I'm not picking a side, everyone else is by arguing absurf things like everything was better when everyone was religious, or all seclarists believe this kind of crap.

My only point has been to argue ideas on their merits and lack therof and not use it as a podium to promote one's religion and make nonsense claims about better times.

There are benefits and failings to modern society, # I argue against our failings from my perspective all the time, overall though, we've come a long way.

I was all on the side of how bad an idea this was. I am secular. Then someone had to come along and make this into a pro religion, anti secularism issue.

Which it's not. It's a bad #ing idea promoted by psychopaths with an agenda vs. everyone else, issue.

Not everyone who's secular is for such nonsense. Secular is be definition an exceptuonally varied distinction with wildly different views and ideals. Not that that's limited to secular people. I've seen massive variations in belief between people in the same religion.



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: Lucky109
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?


Some kids actually have terrible parents. Is it fair that they end up living a life of misery because they came out of the ass end of a moron?
I was one of those kids. And no, it isn't fair. I'm not going to suggest everyone else should have an equally terrible childhood to make it more fair either. That doesn't make things better for anyone.



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

I didn't say all secularists did, but I am saying that some things should not be messed with. One of the safeguards we had to keep us from tampering with those things was our sense of the spiritual (for you; to me it's God, nothing else), that sense of connectedness to something bigger than ourselves. Without that tempering effect, that respect, we tend to fall prey to hubris like these academics clearly have - a sense that society is their clay to mold and shape, an arrogance that they are superior to and therefore entitled to shape the minute details of the lives of their fellow human beings like so many cattle.



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Sounds like the same kind of hubris many religious leaders, or politicians, or billionaires, or serial killers have had.

It's power drunkenness and psycho or sociopathy.

It's a people with issues in positions of authority or power problem.

Not a secularism vs. religion problem.
edit on 12/4/2019 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

There is the idea that you shall have no other Gods before me in religion. It's also called idolatry. People who take off like that generally seem to be lacking that spiritual faith. Remember, just because a person owns religion doesn't mean they're spiritually religious.

The movie The Book of Eli, besides being a bad@ss post apocalyptic tale, skirts around that theme. Remember, I am talking about a true, spiritual faith/connection - that connection to something larger than yourself that helps engender that respect. Not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" on that day will be recognized, meaning not all who own religion are where they think they are.



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Ok hows this for hubris. Thinking you're somehow superior from others due to your belief in spiritual superiority.

Think carefully about our two arguments.

I'm arguing people are people, and to judge them by their actions.

You're arguing to ignore all that, and first judge if they have a certain sense of spirituality as defined by you. Specifically and prefereably a belief in your God.

Only one of us is claiming any kind of superiority towards others.



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: CrazeeWorld777

If you never read Lois Lowry's book, The Giver, try it on for size. It seems to be a mix of it and 1984 the proggies are aiming for. And the movie is no substitute for the book.



It is possibly the best book I have ever read. The movie pablum's it up. Read the book.

It is written for children and received many awards.

So no excuse for not reading it!



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 02:20 PM
link   

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


No party has been mentioned. It is the progressive movement that was mentioned in the article.



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 02:20 PM
link   

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



NOPE

Try these on for size:

www.thenation.com...

www.jstor.org...

www.salon.com...


edit on 12/4/19 by The2Billies because: addition



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 02:27 PM
link   
This premise has essentially decimated the black USA community.



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: F2d5thCavv2
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


Absolutely true.

Psychological Science (I taught it in Univ, now retired) proved over decades now that children raised by strangers in group settings do not learn love, lack empathy, lack the ability to form bonds with other people. This is especially true from birth to age 5. If no one loves you before the age of 5, and group government paid highly regulated caregivers will not love all the children equally, or at all, it may be forbidden as giving a child privilege - then the child most likely will never learn to love or have the ability to truly care about others.

Think about what that will mean for society if this "nuclear family privilege" is taken away and children are reared by the government.


PEOPLE: as the OP Please read

www.thenation.com...
www.jstor.org...
www.salon.com...

I did not intend this to be a religious discussion. I know the opinion was written from a Christian perspective.

HOWEVER, this is NOT a Christian issue at all! I appreciate all your religious input,
but remind you that this was not to be the focus of the thread.

Thank you kindly for keeping this in mind for the future.

edit on 12/4/19 by The2Billies because: addition



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join