simplicity wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 8:31 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 3:28 am
When one says they "support the
family", it IMPLIES that (1) family is NOT the default means of protection and (2)that others intentionally opted OUT of the nuclear immediate family that you think IS 'superior' universally and unqualified. The 'woke' support larger 'family' extention. The problems of THESE are due to the extension of belief that one's OWN KIND is better to stick with because they are most empowered. And if you are correct, they are then even MORE correct for embracing their aunts, uncles, ancestors, etc.
People can do whatever they want, but not supporting something as fundamental as the nuclear family is an enormous mistake. One of the problems with progressive thinking [in general] is that it assumes that everything [except what is currently working for them] needs to change. Some things are the way they are for very good reason!
What specifically is lacking support of the nuclear family?
That is, you either believe some (1) POSITIVE legislations are needed to add the power of bonding in immediate families or (2) NEGATIVE ones to remove laws you believe are interfering in the success of them or both.
If (1), what positive laws would add force to favor families?
If (2) Negative ones to remove
You point to the 'progressive thinking' here at least and so imply that you certainly dislike certain laws that NEGATE some success of immediate families and so what is affecting ...
(a) the specific success of your family personally, whether directly or indirectly? ... or
(b)the general success of any family?
Note that people do not opt out of immediate family without a reason of some degree of dysfunction. As such "People can do what they want but...." doesn't deal with 'wants' unless they are breaking potential traditional religious views in which case you need to express what these are before we look at them.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 3:28 amTo me, the problems that lead from 'family' are to those who independently opt to EXCLUDE others with the belief that one's GENETIC associations are preferred to coincide with their ENVIRONMENTAL associations. And then it is a fact that beliefs that are DEFAULT to the individual also exend to the STRENGTH of one's LOVE for that group. So the stronger one's "LOVE" is for ones own 'family', the more self preserving they are in demanding their members PERSIST in keeping that LOVE STRONG.
I am not sure what you are getting at here. Blood is thicker than water is something that has thought to been true throughout history. Obviously, it's not true all the time, but would you deny that many [if not most] have a bond with their immediate family? Thinking you can replace this is not a popular notion. Can you have other relationships, sure. Have as many as you like.
This is about how the general concentration of genetic identity for those in better economic standing increase in favor of 'family' centered laws but opposingly amplify the racial concentration of those in poor communities based not upon hate but love. This is one of those CRT factors that assert indirect unintended causes of imbalances between racial identity concentrations and their economy. Also, given those who have better economic states when raising thier families act as a deterent to the negative values you are concerned about, you have to notice how "supporting family" requires at minimal increasing their income to PAR before even considering how other additional 'supports' that are equal across economic boundaries are effective. For instance, my mother used child tax credits to buy luxuries for herself as she interpreted this as acting indirectly to grant her return against the burden she percieved from our expense. Thus, she percieved we were still the ones receiving this indirectly because she felt less negative about the 'losses'. Now of course I disagree and perhaps you and most others would share this differenc of opinion too. But it did improve how she behaved towards us during those times of struggle for the relatively short period of the benefit.
As to the concentration issue, given that we identify with those we love strongly the similar physiological identities in those we choose to have new families with, we tend to bias favor to the racial identity regardless of overt intent and derive an evasive attitude towards those by EXCLUSIONARY attention to foreign concerns outside those interests, amplified strengthening of 'family' based upon LOVE amplies at the very least, an INDIFFERENCE towards the compassion of others of physiological identities most apparently defining, such as race. Because of this, if given even the best mix of applicants for a job, especially entry level ones, those who have identities of the 'indifferent' races get passed by even by the least racist employer. This then adds force to the rejection of those races who are already dominantly poor and increases their general 'negative' reactions. Favoring 'family' thus disfavors the poor without respecting things like welfare. But even those supports are coinciding with those of you from the Right. As such, whether you admit it or not, your 'family' values concept actualy fosters racism where it is EXCLUSIVE of non-family issue supports. If you believe that 'progressive' means to aide the poor are destroying families, this is not true AND is more because of the superhyper decision of most supports for 'welfare' to be limited to NOT be fully sufficient to get by on by default. The usual supports there impose underpar survival aide with the presumption of fear that they'd lose 'incentive' to work. Unlike even on par-family struggles by the WORKING POOR, most do not get incentives enough to even FAIL at employers expectations based upon prior states. As such, if a poor person who might get a McJob, if they begin below par by the welfare considerations, as soon as they begin work, they lose the welfare supports and require a period of abscense of income for the average month they are beginning work.
Now tell me how you could function in that period without fucking up somewhere? It could be something as simple as being late once or twice. Once they either get fired or quit, they are then less likely to be able get the aide they had and thus lose twice as much. Remember that we are also talking about the racial factor. The common behavior of the poor would also add force to real stereotypes of those people.
And this is not to mention the fact that when whole families are poor and in larger concentrations, any gain of one who does get to keep a job, their relative gains are expected to be shared. I mean, imagine a poor black kid who just successfully got through the month and upon receiving his check opts to go buy himself a nice meal. How would his friends feel about just going along with him to watch him eat the meal while not expecting anything for themselves?
The racial disparities initiate the subtle discrimination that then gets worse and worse until someone somewhere explodes. And of course you should expect the likelihood of this to occur in the ones of the impoverished concentrated classes. But it actually is amplified more by those of the opposite who FEAR those who lack just as the kid in the poor community would of his relative gain among his more impoverished friends. Thus the 'hate' occurs between those who have more against those who do not with more force because where they DO help, those in need act as desperate vaccuums (regardless of intent) and, especially for those working poor who get the work successfully in contrast to the welfare poor. And since the favor of stereotypes is to the races of the wealthier, even the discrimination of those entry level working poor are concentrated with imbalances.
Favoring the 'family' is defaulted to regardless of where you are. But if the favoring is about negating the welfare of other such families, it enhances racial division and hate that begun by mere indifference.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 3:28 amThe next stage towards the problems is based upon ecomomy: there is a LIMIT to the finite resources available and so leads to disparities that ADD FORCE to favoring your own while EXCLUDING those especially where struggle exists more.
Every group is like this. People have a tendency to associate [do business with] those who they are most comfortable with. This happens EVERYWHERE. What's wrong with that? Work hard and provide a superior product/service and the vast majority will do well.
I just explained this on my last point. And given you seem to think that all 'hard' working people get paid based upon thier merit, you are deluded. Capitalism operates by exploiting the supply/demand that is not merely about product or service value but about how desperate one of the ones 'trading' is by contrast.
How you do not know this just tells me that you come from the better off communities, not that you work harder than the others or that the poor CHOOSE to be less productive. Now if we were in a Communist country, it WOULD be more about 'choice' given people begin on par with each other. They only fail where the whole community itself suffers and if they BEGUN such communism in poverty. Western styles of communism fair better and often get above average middle class benefits .....unions! Also, communes of those who have but chosen voluntarily in such societies where the surrounding world is better off also survive relatively well.
So 'welfare' aides to poorer families are not usually the issue. Rather, the means to FORCE the poor into requiring underpar aides acts to TEASE their survival. For instance, supports pre-family (single people) forces single people to live with others....other poor people in kind, and rarely gives them enough to have their own places as they get into the workforce. That alone creates tremendous problems I cannot begin to address here. But as a hint, just imagine one of your roomates has not paid some bill that you both share. That suffices to often hold liable the others and often forces them to own the debt.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 3:28 amThus, this combination leads to a counter "HATE" of outsiders when they demand those with such happy adjusted families refuse the social responsibility to support other beyond themselves, like limiting their tax burden so that is doesn't help outsiders while opposingly demanding it 'fair' for them to uniquely act as the 'governor' of the profit machine without outsiders complaining about exploiting by the profit incentive.
So the COUNTER woke movements are no different than those demanding we pay ATTENTION ONLY TO OUR OWN KIND.
Every group that came to the U.S. had to make it on their own. Special treatment has only created dependency. You work hard and you win. You live a completely dys-functional life and you exist.
Maybe you favor the foreign newcomer over those poor at home for work based on the presumption they work harder, right? But what you might miss is that those who come here NEW from other countries are defaulted to isolated groups who share in the novel conditions and that suffices to enable them to work AND LIVE together, a point I just made above that is opposite. Especially for those come FROM communist countries or are defaulted to having wealth when they get here, the ability to stick together AS 'FAMILY' operates for anyone moving to new countries regardless. But the cause of failure of those at home who fail to meet your expectations are beginning with whole communities of loss past second generation arrivals. Ghettos are not just the PLACES one comes from literally but the large 'family' classes who are impoverished by a generation or more.
Anyone who defaults to success from labor always looks back at their success in a better light than those who do not. NOBODY who succeeds would say "I was a lazy person who somehow got lucky." Or do you know of such? Your judgement of OTHERS failures relies on some assumption of equality by the standards of initial conditions.....'equity' was the word as it means "capital ownership equality".
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 8:23 am
The FACT of evolutionary biology in ALL species is that a MINORITY of them are PREFERRED based upon their genetics while the rest are expected to find second-hand glory in supporting them without complaint. In other words, those who interpret the value of family HAVE at least something genetic of interest by others and so are NOT simply DOING something that merits their virtue of HAVING good families.
That's the way it goes. You play the hand you are dealt. The good news is that in many society's, you can still achieve quite a bit if you work harder. The best way to give the greatest number of people the greatest opportunity are strong families. This has been known forever...
You are biased to not recognize that this is not in isolation of initial capital equality or by those who come from prior states of systems you hate in principle who CAN live together when novel to the capitalist system. But it is also competing families of distinctly different cultures who create isolated mobs that get them ahead in generations to come against other groups of the same.
You are ignorant of your reflective superiority in merit. Also IF your mentality to "play that hand you are dealt" is
fair, you are playing poker and not
asshole. !
Games of chance actually apply when you consider the distinct power of those who play based upon their prior state of wealth and how the house's odds are always against the player.
In fact, if you were to play poker, do you not have to begin with each other having the same initial input or they are excluded without some unusually unfair lender capitalizing on the neediest?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 3:28 amThis is an example of the reflection of the one WITH power advising the worth of being WITHOUT as though they are on par but as DISTINCT SPECIES. Should a poor person accept the fate as though they are distinct species? Are wealthy or successful people born as 'lions' while the impoverished or unsuccessful born to be 'mice'? This is tending towards the justification for thinking in terms of "Supremacists" as though everyone regardless of what income they have started with, the 'lions' will always arise to success and the rest will always fall to prove their innate 'mice-hood'!
There will always be those with advantages. It's just the way it is. Again, the good news is that we live in a time where the majority can do something about their station in life. It's a hell of a lot better than it used to be.
Equality of outcome is never going to happen nor would you want it to happen. To make this occur would involve creating the ultimate dystopian nightmare. The USSR was a little glimpse into such a future. Those who push for such outcomes become the most vile authoritarians.
You guys always use "equality of outcome" to imply that this places the horse before the cart. The 'equality' is of INITIAL STATES that require granting an adjustment to the head start due to the default head start of the more fortunate. You refuse to allow taking away your advantage so you have to grant the right of the one defaulted to a weakened original state the advance head start as you do to adjust the starting gate around oval race tracks where the inner track has a smaller distance than the outer one.
As to the failure of the Communist states comment, they BEGUN their system in dire circumstances and it favored those of such pre-impoverished communities the particular ones who managed to get IN the inital positions from relatively devious origins. If 'communism' begins in an established ghetto without external original wealth then the gangs would represent the 'union' leaders who create the problems by their prior state of relative power. They 'capitalize' on their ability to delude the masses that their intentions are sincerely for community interests but they favor their own in the same way. North Korea is technically 'Communistic' for a lower class but 'Capitalistic' of the leadership class given they pass their powers through INHERITANCE! without the same right of the rest.
Simplicity wrote:
Scott, you make your own happiness in this world. You don't seem like a person who would dwell on all the things that can present a problem. People who are successful do what they have to do regardless of all of these challenges. Make your own life. Nobody cares if you don't want a family but standing in the way of having strong families is an enormous mistake. Personally, I am a philosophical anarchist but that doesn't mean that I don't support the most functional government possible.
? NO ONE chooses to default to be without family. They only ADAPT to either seek alternatives or die off regardless. No one OWNS their own 'happiness' EXCEPT FOR THOSE WHO STILL SURVIVE WITHOUT family supports and who don't BLOW their brains out.
I ADAPT because I have NO CHOICE but to or I die. I ADAPT in spite of whatever unhappiness I have due to the lack of supports and HOPE to adapt to be happy. But successful people do NOT 'earn' their happiness. They either ARE happy or are NOT as an accidental biological reflection of their present conditions. So only those who are forced to adapt ALWAYS 'own' any happiness IF they survive and adapt.
This is where you are so wrong. People do earn their own happiness. The vast majority of people raised int so-called normal homes are not overly happy. Happiness [or contentment] is something each individual can create by doing the things that bring balance into their lives. Do you have a better chance at success growing up in a better environment. Of course, but you also have a better chance if you are good looking, smart, in good health and physical condition, educate yourself, be a nice person, etc. It's not just about being born into a "good' family.
Absolutely disagree. This is a "religious" and arrogant imposition of people that says if someone fails, it must be due to their innate evil as though they earn it. It works for the con artists who require keeping up the motivation of their victims to continue investing when they are skeptical. Pyramid schemes focus on selling 'motivation' literature and conventions because it acts as signicant means to INVERT the onus of the con artist to the one they are conning.
It IS about being born in better relative fortune. It works even better when those groups EXCLUDE membership to only their own kind. Sorry, but I am immune to this type of con.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 3:28 amI don't approve of the 'positive' think movements that propose such delusions of 'owning' credit to themselves is earned.
But there are exceptions: The motivativing con artists who 'succeed' by selling the very story of their 'success'. The likes of an Anthony Robins to me is a joke when just his physical stature alone suffices to make others GIVE in to the scheme. That is, he is no different than how Marylin Monroe was propped up for success except that she happened to prefer people love her for what's in her head and not its color. And Marylin is a good example of how the successful also do not 'own' their happiness in principle.
IT IS DARWINIAN: If your environment FITS with what you are born with inherently, this alone determines your longevity and the improved but not guaranteed happiness upon that fitness as supported by the environment (appeal to your 'fitness'), then you get the fortune to have sex and thus, 'family'.
You really believe this way? How old are you?
What? why? Besides being likely your senior, what does age have to do with this? Perhaps I should be asking you this because unless you can demonstrate your own actual argument for what I said was wrong, then you are evading the issue prematurely!
Scott Mayers wrote:
These are all very complex issues. Human beings are strange animals.
I've never met anybody against the idea that society should be structured to support maximum opportunity for the maximum amount of people. As I stated originally, most all the professional women [with younger families] I have known over the years have been miserable people. The pressure to do it all has taken a great toll on their husbands, their children, and especially themselves. There is nothing liberating in being a single mom in her forties dropping the kids off at day care in her leased Lexus while sporting the latest handbag and a modicum of jewelry salvaged from her failed family relationship.
This experiment has been a massive failure.
You never heard of "utilitarianism"?: To appeal to the maximum satisfaction of the most people. It is a main principle underlying liberal democracies and DEFINES it.
The way your wrote that last part seemed oddly less discriptive of the majority but a caricature of the 'poor' person trying to salvage a prior relative state of comfort. ....like one who initially wins a lottery but loses it all in some freak accident! [That's the 'privilege' misinterpreting poverty as the dynamic suffering of loss but not the direct meaning of poverty given that is the bottom, whether born there or not.]
Those are not an 'experiments' unless you interpret all progress as such. Then you shouldn't mind proving it by giving up the 'progressive' luxuries and going back to nature, if you can find any space left!
Scott, it's not about self [in a higher sense]. After you get your own act together, then you try to help others. What you see as progress is only on a very superficial marginal level. Look at the bigger picture. Take a step back and look at generations. In the midst of all this technology, human beings are falling apart.
Oh, you mean like how the conservative can step back to see the whole picture of how the Earth is being destroyed by man? Tell me, do you believe that mankind's selfishness has contributed to Global climate changes that are creating havoc on us of late?
As long as the capitalist has not volunteered laws that CAP the wealth, you have no proof that people who supposedly improve pay it back. "Progressive" luxuries was referencing the advances that those of you on the Right exploit without respecting the social systems that have granted you your head start.
Your thinking is like demanding that the turtoise in a race with Hercules should not have been given a head start or the tortoise is the one being unfair.
Did you know, by the way, that the conniving capitalist inverts the story to favor themselves as the tortoise? In the Tortoise and the Hare, the virtue is given to the tortoise as being the wiser representative of the 'hard working capitalist' who KNOWING THAT THE HARE IS SO SELFISH that he'd greedily take a counter-confidence in himself as to go take a nap BY CHOICE. The ambiguity of the hare as being to the 'progressive' representative of the democratic majority with the tortoises' own steady confidence as a minority 'conservative' comes from a time when Kings interpreted their superior minority RIGHT to rule as based upon the stupidity of the masses!
Well, if that's not how it is, Scott, then explain to me why you think Canada's very Left leaning political parties -- which really describes the whole Canadian political spectrum, from (Progressive) Conservative to Liberal to NDP and Greens, with the possible exception of the PQ, the PPC and the Freedom Party -- is actually "conservative." 