aluminiumtrioxid

I'm sure it would require a heroic effort on your part to actually read the article instead of launching into wild and uninformed speculation. You become quite argumentative lately haven't you? More than usual! "Argumentative" is a nice phrasing of what Malc, quite rightly, characterized as "behaving like a ****". That said, I'm pretty sure everybody has a particular pet issue that just pushes their buttons the right way to induce maximal levels of annoyance. People arguing from an utterly uninformed position when all required information to educate themselves is quite literally at their fingertips oh my god they just have to look it's not that hard is one of mine.

...Do you seriously believe the state wants to take away your guns in order to make their job of taking away your children easier?

I'm sure it would require a heroic effort on your part to actually read the article instead of launching into wild and uninformed speculation.

...Which they didn't. I'm sure they indeed wouldn't mind, if, y'know, they were actually advocating for that. Which they aren't.

I hate it when people do this.

...According to you. Elaborate. Defend the opinion you have. Argue for it. Despising someone because their principles don't align with yours suspiciously sounds like thought-policing bull****. It's not the mark of someone who trusts that their values hold up on closer examination. ...Indicated in the text by what? Interesting definition of "rational person" you got there. I thought rational people questioned things before blindly accepting them. Again with the word "rational". Based on whose definition? Also, "familial good" (as in, "the good of the family", because that's what those words mean) isn't even mentioned in the discussion. A statement with no textual support in the article. Only relevant quote is this: You may have noticed that "interested in" doesn't imply "accepts as a first principle". ^Also this. It starts to suspiciously sound like the loudest critics of the article don't even have a clue as to how philosophers operate. Imagine my surprise.

Actually, no. "Conflict" is only mentioned in the text once. I see nothing inherently wrong in being conflicted over that. It's not the same as "being conflicted about coming up with justification for the family". Basically you find it objectionable that people exist who dare to think about whether the way we're doing things is optimal or not, regardless of what conclusion they arrive on. Congratulations, you have (re-)invented thoughtcrime.

Oh, I think the article is quite blameless on that front, buddy.

...before mutilating him, blinding him, and cleaving him in two.

Sadly, Resurrection needs a more or less intact corpse, and after you guys have literally hacked the poor thing apart, the chances of it succeeding are slim indeed

I suppose his dad was also massacred with the rest of his tribe, so that's actually a fairly good motivation. I'm not sure there are many people in the world who can cast Resurrection, though, and by the time Vycarion gets to the level where it's attainable, I think you're gonna be in the grand finale.

Because that's the basic premise of the OP? He's hilariously wrong, of course, but it does explain why this popped into your head.

Nah, Sharktopus is Joxnir's father. Dun dun DUNN!

He owes his life to Sharktopus. Too bad he's already your loyal slave for life. And that Sharktopus is dead.

The vibe I'm getting ITT is that some people have skimmed the article or settled for the partial quotations posted here rather than, you know, read it. It's a constant throughout history that those asking questions and trying to gain a rigorous understanding of things beyond "common knowledge" and "conventional wisdom" will be faced with, at the very least, a vitriolic knee-jerk reaction. "The philosophies of one age have become the absurdities of the next, and the foolishness of yesterday has become the wisdom of tomorrow" — William Osler Saying things like that is not going to do much to dispel the spectre of "SJW ivory tower bull****" living in people's heads

Again with the lackluster reading skills. All I'm saying is that the text does not support the conclusions OP is drawing from it. Actually it does. The second to last line rather explicitly shows the author's opinion on the idea of family and unfair advantage. The idea that family is a good thing is the idea that is controversial to Mr. Gelonesi. It is a 'weathered institution''which needs a rationale for existing. That is pretty much the prime example of insane SJW ivory tower bull****. This position is debatable enough in itself, but since I don't have the time to express myself at length atm, I'll just point out that the OP was bemoaning that the gist of the article - according to him - can be summed up as "Don't read to your children. It enhances their development and puts the children whose parents don't interact with them at a disadvantage", and that "they would rather discourage those who do to apologize to the children of the ones who don't", which "is social justice in a nutshell. Reduce everyone to the lowest common denominator". None of these statements has anything to do with family being a good idea or not. They're also exposed as being blatantly false upon even the most cursory reading of the article.

Again with the lackluster reading skills. All I'm saying is that the text does not support the conclusions OP is drawing from it.

I wasn't aware that people under communist regimes were forbidden from reading to their children. Obviously this lack of awareness is the result of the insidious indoctrination I suffered, having grown up in one, and any of my memories regarding such acts must have been surgically implanted by the SJW Illuminati. The text is repeatedly and explicitly saying "reading to your children is desirable and the gains in 'familial relationship goods' outweigh the inequality it's causing". Which is the exact opposite of what it's accused of endorsing. It's not even in the subtext, for chrissakes.

There's nothing deceptively simple about the question. Also note that I put deceptive in quotation marks to illustrate that there is nothing deceptively simple or otherwise about it. But you're right in that you being illiterate can't understand what I write. Well maybe putting "deceptively simple" in quotation marks when you meant to illustrate that there's nothing deceptively simple about it, instead of using a word that means something else entirely, might have helped getting your point across clearly. That said, poor reading skills are the entire reason for this topic's existence, see OP, so you can't exactly blame me for overreacting.

I have a better question. Why can't you form a logical coherent argument? I didn't realize I need to "form a logical coherent argument" in order to point out that "deceptively simple" and "deceptive" mean two radically different things, instead of, y'know, just pointing at the nearest dictionary.

A 'deceptive' question like why are families a good thing? I have a better question: why do these topics attract the illiterate?

You're, of course, entitled to disregard those who disagree, based on ideological grounds, but the numbers don't seem to agree with you.

[citation needed] I mean, I can see how this narrative can be appealing to a certain sort of person, but the statistics I'm aware of seem to point at this being absolute bogus.

The horror! The horror!

It did. It just... wasn't very funny