Don't Read to Your Children

[Hiro Protagonist]

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.

 

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. In fact, all it does is confuse and muddy the waters by adding it. But you're right in that you being illiterate can't understand what I write. Back to school aluminiumtrioxid.

Edited May 9, 2015 by Hiro Protagonist

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

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.

 

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.

Edited May 9, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Malcador]

Whoops, damn quote pyramids suck on mobile.

 

Even so, how is that question complex in any way, hence the deception.

Edited May 9, 2015 by Malcador

[Meshugger]

 

 

asking themselves the deceptively simple question: ‘Why are families a good thing exactly?’

 

A 'deceptive' question like why are families a good thing? 

 

 

I have a better question: why do these topics attract the illiterate?

 

 

lol, what cowardice. Please try to point out who is illiterate by name instead of hiding by passive aggressiveness.

 

Topically, i would wager that the artists are better at conveying moral messages than the academia:

 

Edited May 9, 2015 by Meshugger

[Ineth]

Don't play dumb Alu.

 

That "philosopher" is endorsing some pretty stupid and illiberal ideas, all the while showing zero awareness of all the suffering and injustice which putting those ideas into practice in the past (e.g. by communist regimes) has already caused.

 

The fact that he doesn't have the guts to come straight out with his demands, and instead hides behind weasel words, hamfisted hypothetical scenarios, and duplicitous quotes, should make him more suspect, not less.

Edited May 9, 2015 by Ineth

[Hurlshort]

 

My grandmother read 'Animal Farm' as a bedtime-story when i was 9/10-ish. She thought that it had a good message for kids growing up.

I always considered Animal Farm a book for children, I find it interesting, that most people don't (?)

 

 

I read it in middle school, and then again as a middle school teacher.  It was a vastly different book the second time, and I appreciated it much more.

 

On the other hand, Catcher and the Rye was a bit of the opposite.  In High School I read it and was enthralled and fascinated, as an adult I read it and was saddened.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

That "philosopher" is endorsing some pretty stupid and illiberal ideas, all the while showing zero awareness of all the suffering and injustice which putting those ideas into practice in the past (e.g. by communist regimes) has already caused.

 

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 fact that he doesn't have the guts and come straight out with his demands, and instead hides behind weasel words, hamfisted hypothetical scenarios, and duplicitous quotes, should make him more suspect, not less.

 

 

 

 ‘What we realised we needed was a way of thinking about what it was we wanted to allow parents to do for their children, and what it was that we didn’t need to allow parents to do for their children, if allowing those activities would create unfairnesses for other people’s children’.

The test they devised was based on what they term ‘familial relationship goods’; those unique and identifiable things that arise within the family unit and contribute to the flourishing of family members.  

 

(...)

 

...reading stories at bedtime, argues Swift, gives rise to acceptable familial relationship goods, even though this also bestows advantage.

‘The evidence shows that the difference between those who get bedtime stories and those who don’t—the difference in their life chances—is bigger than the difference between those who get elite private schooling and those that don’t,’ he says.

This devilish twist of evidence surely leads to a further conclusion—that perhaps in the interests of levelling the playing field, bedtime stories should also be restricted. In Swift’s mind this is where the evaluation of familial relationship goods goes up a notch.

‘You have to allow parents to engage in bedtime stories activities, in fact we encourage them because those are the kinds of interactions between parents and children that do indeed foster and produce these [desired] familial relationship goods.’

 

 

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.

Edited May 9, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[ravenshrike]

Don't play dumb Alu.

 

That "philosopher" is endorsing some pretty stupid and illiberal ideas, all the while showing zero awareness of all the suffering and injustice which putting those ideas into practice in the past (e.g. by communist regimes) has already caused.

 

The fact that he doesn't have the guts to come straight out with his demands, and instead hides behind weasel words, hamfisted hypothetical scenarios, and duplicitous quotes, should make him more suspect, not less.

Alu is whining about how the philosopher is purportedly on the good side as he is attempting to use said philosophy to justify the need for family. While true, Alu misses the entire ****ing point. That the philosopher in question feels conflicted about this at all shows that his first principles are so far out of whack with reality as to be useless. Among said first principles being that social justice should be one of the raisons d'etre of society. Which is of course standard SJW ivory tower horse****.

Edited May 9, 2015 by ravenshrike

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Alu is whining about how the philosopher is purportedly on the good side as he is attempting to use said philosophy to justify the need for family. 

 

 

Again with the lackluster reading skills.

 

All I'm saying is that the text does not support the conclusions OP is drawing from it.

[sorophx]

I read it in middle school, and then again as a middle school teacher.  It was a vastly different book the second time, and I appreciated it much more.

my point is, you don't have to have experience with people and know history to understand what the book is about and what the moral is.

 

on the other hand, a lot of stuff marketed for kids has all kinds of details only an adult could understand.

Edited May 9, 2015 by sorophx

[Meshugger]

 

 

My grandmother read 'Animal Farm' as a bedtime-story when i was 9/10-ish. She thought that it had a good message for kids growing up.

I always considered Animal Farm a book for children, I find it interesting, that most people don't (?)

 

 

I read it in middle school, and then again as a middle school teacher.  It was a vastly different book the second time, and I appreciated it much more.

 

On the other hand, Catcher and the Rye was a bit of the opposite.  In High School I read it and was enthralled and fascinated, as an adult I read it and was saddened.

 

 

Heh, for me it was different. I read Catcher in the Rye after being a teenager and wished that i would've read it earlier, as it would've greatly helped me handling the usual teenage angst that everyone goes through.

[ravenshrike]

 

 

Alu is whining about how the philosopher is purportedly on the good side as he is attempting to use said philosophy to justify the need for family. 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Although it’s controversial, it seems that Swift and Brighouse are philosophically inching their way to a novel accommodation for a weathered institution ever more in need of a rationale for existing.

 

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****.

[Ineth]

 

That "philosopher" is endorsing some pretty stupid and illiberal ideas, all the while showing zero awareness of all the suffering and injustice which putting those ideas into practice in the past (e.g. by communist regimes) has already caused.

 

I wasn't aware that people under communist regimes were forbidden from reading to their children.

 

I was talking about the idea/assumption that whether or not the family unit should be allowed to exist, is a function of how well it reinforces "the greater good" of "equality'" and "Social Justice".

 

This loony professor is "merely" conflicted about the answer, but endorses the idea/assumption itself.

Communist regimes OTOH have taken it much farther and implemented horribly oppressive policies in its name.

 

A liberal-minded person would realize that the assumption is ridiculous in the first place, and would decisively defend the human right of people to found families and function as family units, without having to justify that lifestyle in terms of some nebulous "greater good", and without being ripped apart by an oppressive government with a penchant for social engineering.

Edited May 9, 2015 by Ineth

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

Alu is whining about how the philosopher is purportedly on the good side as he is attempting to use said philosophy to justify the need for family. 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Although it’s controversial, it seems that Swift and Brighouse are philosophically inching their way to a novel accommodation for a weathered institution ever more in need of a rationale for existing.

 

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.

[213374U]

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.

 

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

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

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.

 

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 

[Malcador]

 

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.

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

I don't know, he does want people to consider how they are disadvantaging others (seems like a BS word, never really came across it as a verb). Don't think that was unfair to stab at him for that.

 

Will have to reread it but the article does seem like looking at a problem that is not really so.

[213374U]

Saying things like that is not going to do much to dispel the spectre of "SJW ivory tower bull****" living in people's heads 

 

 

Exorcizing spectres, that's what I'm here for.

[213374U]

I don't know, he does want people to consider how they are disadvantaging others (seems like a BS word, never really came across it as a verb). Don't think that was unfair to stab at him for that.

 

Will have to reread it but the article does seem like looking at a problem that is not really so.

 

What I gathered from the article was that some philosophers are trying to understand what in a family and how exactly it affects a child's opportunities and what that means for equality. If there is "X" that is creating an advantage, it follows that someone without access to "X" is at a disadvantage. The bedtime stories thing is just chosen as an example of something that is (according to Swift) helping create this advantage while at the same time being non-renounceable in a family context, unlike schooling in private elite institutions.

 

Controversial indeed.

Edited May 9, 2015 by 213374U

[Walsingham]

 

I have to say I ****ing LOVE this post Iraq "forieign policy is hard and we shouldn't do it" philosophy.

 

What the giddy f*** do you think is going to happen if you don't shape events abroad?

You'll need to be more specific if you want to know what will happen in a given country. For the US though, we'll save a huge amount of money assuming we reduce our defense budget to reflect our more conservative defense strategy.

 

 

Because the rest of the World is like a sleepy friendly bear. It only causes trouble when you poke it. ...*sigh*

[Malcador]

 

I don't know, he does want people to consider how they are disadvantaging others (seems like a BS word, never really came across it as a verb). Don't think that was unfair to stab at him for that.

 

Will have to reread it but the article does seem like looking at a problem that is not really so.

What I gathered from the article was that some philosophers are trying to understand what in a family and how exactly it affects a child's opportunities and what that means for equality. If there is "X" that is creating an advantage, it follows that someone without access to "X" is at a disadvantage. The bedtime stories thing is just chosen as an example of something that is (according to Swift) helping create this advantage while at the same time being non-renounceable in a family context, unlike schooling in private elite institutions.

 

Controversial indeed.

Oh it makes sense, I guess I took that statement as if the people are actively doing a negative act to others.

[Namutree]

 

 

My grandmother read 'Animal Farm' as a bedtime-story when i was 9/10-ish. She thought that it had a good message for kids growing up.

I always considered Animal Farm a book for children, I find it interesting, that most people don't (?)

 

 

I read it in middle school, and then again as a middle school teacher.  It was a vastly different book the second time, and I appreciated it much more.

 

On the other hand, Catcher and the Rye was a bit of the opposite.  In High School I read it and was enthralled and fascinated, as an adult I read it and was saddened.

 

I read catcher in the rye in high school and thought it was garbage. You know what else is trash? The Burn Journals and The Perks of being a Wallflower.

[Hurlshort]

 

 

 

My grandmother read 'Animal Farm' as a bedtime-story when i was 9/10-ish. She thought that it had a good message for kids growing up.

I always considered Animal Farm a book for children, I find it interesting, that most people don't (?)

 

 

I read it in middle school, and then again as a middle school teacher.  It was a vastly different book the second time, and I appreciated it much more.

 

On the other hand, Catcher and the Rye was a bit of the opposite.  In High School I read it and was enthralled and fascinated, as an adult I read it and was saddened.

 

I read catcher in the rye in high school and thought it was garbage. You know what else is trash? The Burn Journals and The Perks of being a Wallflower.

 

 

I had to look up both those books.  They were published after I was in High School.  I am now going to guess that your age range is 19-22.  

 

 

I still remember when a professor at my university spoiled the ending of Catcher in the Rye.  I simply did not catch on to the fact that the whole narrative is being told while in the confines of a sanitarium.

[Namutree]

 

 

 

 

My grandmother read 'Animal Farm' as a bedtime-story when i was 9/10-ish. She thought that it had a good message for kids growing up.

I always considered Animal Farm a book for children, I find it interesting, that most people don't (?)

 

 

I read it in middle school, and then again as a middle school teacher.  It was a vastly different book the second time, and I appreciated it much more.

 

On the other hand, Catcher and the Rye was a bit of the opposite.  In High School I read it and was enthralled and fascinated, as an adult I read it and was saddened.

 

I read catcher in the rye in high school and thought it was garbage. You know what else is trash? The Burn Journals and The Perks of being a Wallflower.

 

 

I had to look up both those books.  They were published after I was in High School.  I am now going to guess that your age range is 19-22.  

 

 

I'm 24.

[Hurlshort]

I meant 19-24.