Meshugger

Hmm, not buying it. The gravitational constant expressed in Planck units (1) is "reality". The nuclear family is, perhaps, and at most, an evolutionarily stable strategy. Meaning, subject to change as (socioeconomic) conditions change, and it is no longer inherently disadvantageous to adopt other approaches. Society will be destroyed only when people are destroyed. We are gregarious beings. Change does not imply destruction in absolute terms, even if the process is sometimes destructive. Here's the thing: men and men have simply different interests at heart. Male nurses, ever heard of them? And the "winner takes all" explanation wrt human mating is... incredibly simplistic. You mean only the CEOs and MVPs are getting some? If it's so simple, why don't you just find uglier friends? Nah, looks will do silch alone. More like people on top of hierarchies have more oppurtunities opened up for them than for others. People like winners in general after all. It's not a rigid if-else scenario. As for exceptions from the norm, that's what makes makes life so fun and unpredictable, much to the worries of all these busybodies who try plan society like a game of civilization. No one is inheritly worth less than the other. When left to their own devices in affluence and in freedom, these gender roles as you call them are strenghtened. Men and women have simply different interests at heart. Men create hierarchies and compete with each within them and women choose the winners within those. It is manifested in your work force, in sports and in your very group of friends. We see it in our democratic processes as we elect leaders representing us. Not even the Soviet was without exception as there as well an inner circle was quickly developed. It is simply reality, of which the nuclear family is the very microcosmos of. Trying to undermine that and you destroy society. Did I just write half an essay on why the argument "that's just a way it is" is both false and worthless just so you responded basically saying "that's just the way it is"? We aren't even equal in length of text, let that be a lesson for you. Joking aside, i made the argument that no one is less worth as a human being in themselves compared to another, followed how human societies work in reality. My point had little to do with wealth accumulation, which you seemed to have missed. I have derailed this long enough. Back to debating within the system of productivity, consumerism and the distributions of these, as that seems to be more essential for human progress for most of you guys.

Apparently Ted Cruz is going to debate Bernie Sanders about Obamacare on CNN tonight. Might be worth a watch.

So, if being all about "saving women" makes one a White Knight, what does wanting to "save western civilization" make you? A Teutonic Knight? A Knight Templar? #importantquestions I am the guy who likes to argue. It's fun. Which is the exact reason why science in the Middle Ages was far more advanced than it is today. How could we possibly hope to ever reach the lofty heights of technology and understanding our forebears had? I am not following, are you arguing that science and technology is hindered by the nuclear family? Clearly your inability to understand what I meant must be the result of a lack of traditional upbringing and consequent failure of education. Tee-hee, feisty.

Where to start? First of all, you should understand that not everyone who likes gender equality is a Marxist, and gender equality is nothing inherent to Marxism. Now, your argument boils down to: "it has always been this way, why change a running system, everything else would be worse anyway." You see, there are problems with this mindset. The rules of the systems we create are just that: they are created, not given. And because we created them, we can change them, thus far the theory. Now, of course there is truth to that... There are countless examples of how the people radically changed the society they lived in. They did so whenever they realised that the system they lived under was inherently unfair and/or oppressive, and they seemed to resolve these issues. We saw this with the feudal system: its unfairness and the oppression seems obvious to us now, it created a society in which most people were essentially slaves. And in retrospective, we'd all agree on how problematic such a society is. Yet it lasted for centuries. So, how could. It sustain itself for such a long time without triggering rightful outrage and anger? The answer really is quite simple: systems have a tendency to be all consuming, meaning that they affect every part of the people's lives. If that happens, the people lack the basis to recognise the problems a society has, and thus never seek to change it in the first place. In the high times of feudalism, we can see this in th close tie between the feudal society and Christianity: the system gave everyone a fixed spot in society, and the church teached everyone to be happy and with that spot. Because Christianity was such a central part of life, very few would ever come to question the system they live under. Your argument, "it has always been like this and it works" is the only mindset people can develop under conditions in which the system they live under consumed everything INCLUDING culture. In the case of feudalism, it wasn't until the faith in the church crumbled that people started to question the system they lived under. What I'm trying to show here is that the argument of tradition isn't an argument at all. Rather, it is the very limitation that stops us from having actual discussion. So, let's move on to actual arguments, shall we? You bring up the successful separation of genders in older societies. I say that argument is completely useless for two reasons: firstly, we do not know how these societies would've been had the genders been judged equally, and secondly those societies are so radically different from ours that an examination of their ideology may be interesting for an historian, but it will help us very little if we wish to understand OUR world. So let's look at today's society, shall we? What does our society promise? That all men are created equal? Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Liberté, égalité et fraternité? Whatever it is, most people would agree that freedom is a central promise of our society. Freedom, and freedom for all. Here's the thing about freedom: freedom requires equality. If we are not equal, those who have more worth will always seek to oppress those with less. In theory, we already understood this as self evident. Compare our laws to that of a feudal society. While the feudal society judged the individual's worth (his freedom, his value before court,...) by his place in society (a noble would always be worth more than a peasant), we hold everyone to be endowed to the same rights, and every voice to be equally valuable before court. But while our legal equality is at an all time high, our practical equality is at an all time low. A noble and a peasant had much more equal lives than a billionaire and a beggar. These vast differences steal what we hold so precious: our freedom. And we must fight these differences until we are truly free. So, if you tell me that "Pure equality is an ideal, hierarchy is a fact", I say that you are mistaken. Hierarchy is our reality, yes, but hierarchy is not a fact as in an unchangeable fact of life. Your view is corrupted, your system broken, your society failed. Hierarchy is not a fact, hierarchy is man made, and we can change it. But as long as you defend the hierarchy that costs us all our freedom, nothing will change. So tell me, Meshugger, what arguments aside from "it's always been this way, it has been this way for a reason, that's just how it works" do you have? What rational reason can you give me as to why a woman should be worth less than a man, why a woman shouldn't be able to decide over her own fait. The truth is, there is non. No argument that isn't tradition or one of its forms. So instead of telling me that mothers should look after the children "because that's what they should do", I recommend you take a very close look at your own set of values and start to solve the contradiction between freedom and a hierarchical society. No one is inheritly worth less than the other. When left to their own devices in affluence and in freedom, these gender roles as you call them are strenghtened. Men and women have simply different interests at heart. Men create hierarchies and compete with each within them and women choose the winners within those. It is manifested in your work force, in sports and in your very group of friends. We see it in our democratic processes as we elect leaders representing us. Not even the Soviet was without exception as there as well an inner circle was quickly developed. It is simply reality, of which the nuclear family is the very microcosmos of. Trying to undermine that and you destroy society.

Quite radical. You want to purge 50% of the workforce and strip the economic power of 50% of the population. And no, noting the value of said economic power is not reducing people's "purpose" or "meaning" to being their "purchasing power", rather its acknowledging the direct correlation of one's purchasing power with one's freedom in our society. Therefore by completely abolishing the purchasing power of half the population you have effectively halved the population's freedom. But hey, at least some dumbass neet doesn't have to compete with the alleged "20% of guys" who are getting 100% of the women now that his good buddy the state is willing to play wingman. Yes, they worked as farmers, seamstresses, brewers, factory workers, midwives and so on. It's almost like, in Western society, they've always been a part of the workforce. Ah, you're almost there. But you seem still to be confused about the point itself, which is that family is and should be prioritized before work force for a stable and growing society. As already mentioned, it is not about forbidding anyone from doing labor, it's about priority. Treating purchasing power as freedom just shows how the problem cuts deeper, right into the philosophical realm (materialism). Which is the exact reason why science in the Middle Ages was far more advanced than it is today. How could we possibly hope to ever reach the lofty heights of technology and understanding our forebears had? I am not following, are you arguing that science and technology is hindered by the nuclear family?

Ah, purchasing power being the sole purpose and meaning compared to having and living with a family, what a foundation of a thriving culture i would say. No, what i am pontificating is in welcoming the family unit once more to be that which is essential, the cornerstone of society. A radical idea i know, but i am dreamer. After all, house wives doing nothing is very rare and only reserved for the very wealthy historically. When you lived out on the farm or had a small business in town, it was simply a family venture and everyone participated. But again, that's probably something vulgar nowadays compared to getting a six figures student loan in the humanities. Gender roles have little to do with the proletariat, but much to do with equality (or rather tre lack thereof). Why do you account your own position that is based on nothing but tradition and conservatism to be right? It is laughable. You failed to respond as to why your proposal helps the children. I do not consider forced gender roles to be particularly healthy for them. Pure equality is an ideal, hierarchy is a fact. You version of marxism is a thought experiment conjured for chits & giggles when you live in affluence while the nuclear family has been proven to work since civilizations started to occur, it's simply reality. It has happened in cultures who has had no communication with each other and will continue to happen in the future, just as your ideas of breaking them up are (just look at Sparta or Plato's republic). It is rather you who should bring a strong case on why break something that already works and replace it with something else. Point being, the stronger the nuclear family, the better society and by extension the school system will be.

Ah, the usual stuff. Traditional family roles are oppressive systems manifested out of vacuum onto the poor prolitariat and not something that has emerged organically when people have freedom to choose themselves. Carry on, let's all be unique individuals fueled by narcissism and outsource any responsibility or accountabilty to the state or private enterprise where these values are throughly analyzed, automized and optimized to solutions benefitted to someone called "person". Now that's how you build character.

Ben needs to read more Orwell, Vonnegut and Huxley and less of Adorno and Marx. Talk about living in the clouds of abstraction, yikes! As for schools, it is just the sign of the times. Both parents are working, often overtime and has left the education, both didactically and morally, to the schools. When the kids are at home, it is the internet and TV who teaches them what is right of wrong, which nurtures anti-social behaviour. All while the irony is that the parents cannot even trust the teachers or schools to do the parenting job outsourced to them, so it becomes a negative feedback loop of distrust. Since no one trusts each other to know anything, knowledge and the curriculum suffers, quality is diminished, standards are lowered and in order to get a grip of it all, more money is poured in to build teaching centres instead of schools and the curriculum is centralized to people outside the local community, furthering the cycle of individuals who have no real connection to their fellow peers, parents or society. So it is time we admit that we made a mistake and acknowledge that the smallest microcosmos of civilization is the family, not the individual, and welcome women back into the kitchen and as loving mothers of their family instead of having them running a fool's errand of them being necessary in the work force. Children will have a normal loving upbringing which instills basic trust for each other and the school no longer need to act as a surrogate parent. This trust will make sure that the school's administration have to take into account the wishes of families instead of individual whims. This in turn will be reflected on the political process, not only on education, as you now have to take account to the wishes of households and families and no one else. Within 2-3 generations, you will have grownups and children caring about themselves, their families, their extended families and their societies. And that's how you save western civilization.

I am finding it too funny that the president that actually lives up to his campaign promises is apparently the most hated one or viewed most unfavourably. What a time to be alive.

Whats that you say Gfted1? Why bother waiting for a nomination before deciding your course of action? Senate Dems will filibuster Trump’s Supreme Court nominee. I wonder if he will put up Ted Cruz for chits & giggles.

Interesting how the NGOs, the think tanks and the media are up in arms over Trump banning entry for people coming from countries that Obama bombed. Perhaps he should go back to to sending drones to yemeni weddings, at least then will the blood lust of these agitators satisfied. Add Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi to the list though. Countries whose cultural exports consists of 9/11, Bacha Bazi and the Rotherham child prostution scandal should be banned from entering any other civilization, not just western.

Alright, i get that but doesn't this all mean that the US was racist and based on fear until recent history? What i am getting at is that will racism dissappear once the identity of a people is no longer tied to a nation/ethnic group but rather to their individual hobbies or self-actuation? gonna disagree. people in the US is as nationalistic today as they were before ww1, but racism and general bigotry towards foreigners is much different today. our grandparents woulda' been mighty perplexed by micro-aggression and triggers. we still got a long way to go before we can say racial bigotry is a thing o' the past, and cultural bigotry will, we suspect, last much longer. ain't gonna get rid o' various kinds o' bigotry by diminishing the identity o' self people already gots. best way to overcome bigotry is simply to foster greater peaceful interactions. is one reason Gromnir is kinda saddened by the trend towards on-line universities. go to a major university and chances are you is gonna have considerable interaction with people who got diverse backgrounds. even if you is from the most homogenous town in rural _______, go to university and have classes and study groups and labs with folks different from self goes a long way towards dispelling basic misunderstandings and fears. is our pov that we need not try and diminish nationalism. get rid o' national identity is gonna be a Long time remote from us, much more remote than the +50 years since we passed the civil rights. have made much progress already w/o diminished nationalism, so... HA! Good Fun! ^This is why i find United States so interesting. It's one big experiment of which no one is really sure on where it goes.

We were just incredibly racist back then. It got a bit better in 1965. the civil rights act of 1964 were kinda the sea change moment, but change didn't happen instantaneous. has been a slow and painful process and more than a few patriotic and earnest americans wish we could turn back the clock to 1964, or 1954, or even 1861. HA! Good Fun! I wasn't talking about civil rights as that was about the people already living there, i was talking about immigration policy. Which according to the arguments at hand, was based around fear until 1965. P.S. I see what you mean about the other years, care to clairfy about what was significant about 1954? civil rights act represented a sea change in the way the country, through their democratic elected representatives, made a choice 'bout how we were no longer gonna tolerate discrimination based 'pon race, creed, or national origin. 1954 one reason we is one o' the few folks willing to call brown v. board of education a failure o' law and policy is 'cause it actual resulted in increased racial tensions, particular in the south. Court did the moral right thing, but they did the wrong way, and they compounded by using fuzzy kinda legal reasoning. states such as mississippi and tennessee actual saw dramatic increases in the number o' segregated schools after brown. keep in mind that, even today, many southerners see the civil war as having mostly been 'bout the north trying to impose its will 'pon the south. when the Court dictated desegregation w/o any kinda democratic process, there were reflexive resistance. is hard to believe, but even in the south, previous to brown, most folks in the US were actual in favor o' desegregation. representatives were a bit slow in changing the culture o' each state, but the change were taking place and the rate o' change were ever increasing. perhaps irrationally, brown actual gave the south an excuse to increase racial animosity and resurrect old hatreds. anyways, 1954 were significant. HA! Good Fun! Alright, i get that but doesn't this all mean that the US was racist and based on fear until recent history? What i am getting at is that will racism dissappear once the identity of a people is no longer tied to a nation/ethnic group but rather to their individual hobbies or self-actuation?

You haven't explained how your "higher principles" aren't just another ideological framework. When i speak of pure ideology, i speak of ideology based on pure intellect instead virtues to transcend to. Hence it harking back to different philosophies already mentioned. If you cannot see the difference then there's little i can help with. Of course with nominalist thinking, virtues are just another imaginary construct, trolol000l.

We were just incredibly racist back then. It got a bit better in 1965. the civil rights act of 1964 were kinda the sea change moment, but change didn't happen instantaneous. has been a slow and painful process and more than a few patriotic and earnest americans wish we could turn back the clock to 1964, or 1954, or even 1861. HA! Good Fun! I wasn't talking about civil rights as that was about the people already living there, i was talking about immigration policy. Which according to the arguments at hand, was based around fear until 1965. P.S. I see what you mean about the other years, care to clairfy about what was significant about 1954?

Was the United States a nation based on fear until 1965? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965

....and Trump just signed an executive order for a Wall to be built, sanctuary cities being defunded and hiring 5000 more ICE agents.

Of course the communist party supported racial equality. As a death cult, it makes sure that everyone is welcomed and where we will all be truly equal in the end.

Step 1: Make a provocative statement Step 2: Cause a media uproar: "What can change the nature of a fact?" Step 3: Accuse media of being unreasonable about the nature of facts, escalating the issue to an outrage Step 4: Work on stuff that matters like TPP, Keystone, EPA and NAFTA in peace while enjoying the lime light on facts that don't matter Step 5: The few reporters who report on facts that matter are drowned in the sea of those that don't Step 6: Smile

Why are you guys mad at the press and the political power hating each other? It's as it should be.

who is discouraging you to give away your stuff? Why are you still talking about 'them'? (well I suppose your family may say you are idiot but still) again, lets say I have business with 10 employees, how you going to 'convince' me to give it up? What kind of business do you have? This is important. And I'm not asking you to give it up, by no means. I encourage you to work harder in fact. But I ask you to change your motivations: work for te people, not for the profit. I am not a people? My family are not people? And why it matters what business it is? so lets say farmer? it will be interesting then the land on which you build your farm is the people's. So, you do your work, every year. You keep what you need. The rest, you give away. In return, you get back all the goods you need but can't provide yourself with. Who is deciding on who needs what? Who is the people and who is not? What metrics will be used to quantify the needs a human being?

Perhaps labour will fall, but man will never stop working.

Whatever happened to the mantra of there are no truths or facts, just different narratives? Those were much more simpler times

Also, we should all be happy that, once again, the media and the political power are being at odds with each other, as it should be.

Interesting how stuff that have a much greater impact is brushed to the side (ACA and TPP).