edumication fael

[Ben No.3]

See how all of these are making financially. real paradise each one of them

India, Portugal, and kinda Bangladesh are doing pretty well... India is even the sixth largest economy in the world. For all of them, you have to consider the circumstances. They don't have quite the same history as Europe or America (except of course for Portugal), and they're all quite young nations. Edited February 1, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Darkpriest]

 

See how all of these are making financially. real paradise each one of them

India, Portugal, and kinda Bangladesh are doing pretty well... India is even the sixth largest economy in the world. For all of them, you have to consider the circumstances. They don't have quite the same history as Europe or America (except of course for Portugal), and they're all quite young nations.

 

 

yeah.... did you count GDP per capita for India, and been there? No thank you...

 

Portugal - recall the term PIGS of EU? how's the employment there? how's the growth?

 

Bangladesh - what is it good in? Please elaborate, cause doing well, can mean, "well i am not starving and have a running water, so I'm doing well"

[Ben No.3]

 

 

See how all of these are making financially. real paradise each one of them

 

India, Portugal, and kinda Bangladesh are doing pretty well... India is even the sixth largest economy in the world. For all of them, you have to consider the circumstances. They don't have quite the same history as Europe or America (except of course for Portugal), and they're all quite young nations.

yeah.... did you count GDP per capita for India, and been there? No thank you...

 

Portugal - recall the term PIGS of EU? how's the employment there? how's the growth?

 

Bangladesh - what is it good in? Please elaborate, cause doing well, can mean, "well i am not starving and have a running water, so I'm doing well"

You asked how the countries were doing economically, and I answered. Bangladesh has a GDP of around the size of Greece's, which isn't particularly bad for a country like Bangladesh.

 

Yes of course, the people are off far worse. But that isn't different in many capitalist countries.

Edited February 1, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Barothmuk]

India and all these countries are socialist

I think KP is going to have an aneurysm.

[Meshugger]

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.

[Ben No.3]

Ben needs to read more Orwell, Vonnegut and Huxley and less of Adorno and Marx. Talk about living in the clouds of abstraction, yikes!

.

Orwell was a Socialist, Vonnegut is central to many pacifists, Huxley's early writings are humanist and he was a teacher of orwell.

 

So, from socialist scientific work to socialist literature?

Edited February 1, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Ben No.3]

 

 

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.

You make one good point, and that is that both parents are consumed by their jobs and lack time for their children.

 

But the conclusion you reach is ridiculous at best. You correctly identify the jobs to steal to much time, yet your solution is to put women out of job and "into the kitchen".

 

What about mothers who wish to work? What about fathers who wish to stay home and care for te children? You build a strict family order that lacks any flexibility for the members to follow their preferences. You talk about freedom, yet you prefer a world in which the role children will play in society is determined at birth by their gender. It appears you really are a fan of freedom, but only for you! You wish to work and have your wife stay at home and now you wish for society to follow all your idea of a family, oppressing three freedoms:

 

-the freedom of a family to choose their lifestyle

-the freedom of a mother to work

-the freedom of a father to care for his children

 

But again, your point about jobs is correct. The solution that guarantees both freedom for the parents and time for the children is to introduce such measures as significantly shorter working times and compensation for parental care (instead of following your job) within a certain time frame. Indeed, the complete career-centrists lifestyle of our society today is dangerous, and it needs to be fought. But it needs to be fought in a way that grants us freedom, not take it away.

[Barothmuk]

And that's how you save western civilization.

By destroying it in favour of Shariah Law?

[Meshugger]

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.

[Barothmuk]

And true freedom is stripping the economic power of 50% of the population and forcing them to latch onto the first male they see to support themself. And of course all those women who don't want to be a decorative appendage of someone else are just brainwashed

(probably by (((((them)))))

 

 

Please, tell me more Muhammad.

[Ben No.3]

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.

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.

[Meshugger]

And true freedom is stripping the economic power of 50% of the population and forcing them to latch onto the first male they see to support themself. And of course all those women who don't want to be a decorative appendage of someone else are just brainwashed

(probably by (((((them)))))

 

 

Please, tell me more Muhammad.

 

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.

 

 

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.

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.

[Ben No.3]

 

And true freedom is stripping the economic power of 50% of the population and forcing them to latch onto the first male they see to support themself. And of course all those women who don't want to be a decorative appendage of someone else are just brainwashed

(probably by (((((them)))))

 

 

Please, tell me more Muhammad.

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.

 

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.

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.

Challenge accepted. I shall be back soonly.

[Barothmuk]

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.

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.

 

After all, house wives doing nothing is very rare and only reserved for the very wealthy historically.

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. Edited February 1, 2017 by Barothmuk

[aluminiumtrioxid]

A recent example is the argument over whether Intelligent Design should have been taught alongside Evolution in Texas public schools. The voters of Texas who pay the taxes wanted it. the Federal Government said no. Whether you agree with ID or not, it's still up to the voters how live in the school districts to say what or how their children are taught IMO.

 

Public education doesn't need to provide free market alternatives to scientific facts. The truth is not a commodity to be swapped out willy-nilly with whatever the consumer desires. If somebody really wants that sort of thing for their children, they can go to a private school.

 

Point being, the stronger the nuclear family, the better society and by extension the school system will be.

 

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?

Edited February 1, 2017 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Malcador]

These threads are always hilarious after the first page. Surprised Texans are into ID, never thought they were Florida type dumb

[Guard Dog]

These threads are always hilarious after the first page. Surprised Texans are into ID, never thought they were Florida type dumb

It was just an example of the Federal government overriding the will of the voters who actually PAY for the schools whose districts they live in. Allowing the governed to have a say in their governance is a radical concept I know. But I don't want this to turn into a discussion on the merits of ID. It was just an example. Looking at YOU aluminiumtrioxid!

 

But you are right about your other point. Somehow all our threads end up being derailed into the pros and cons of socialism. It does get tiring.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

These threads are always hilarious after the first page. Surprised Texans are into ID, never thought they were Florida type dumb

It was just an example of the Federal government overriding the will of the voters who actually PAY for the schools whose districts they live in. Allowing the governed to have a say in their governance is a radical concept I know. But I don't want this to turn into a discussion on the merits of ID. It was just an example. 

 

Then either bring up a better example, or accept the fact that a lot of people aren't going to shed any tears over the big bad federal government not letting snake oil salesmen peddle their garbage at public schools.

[Ben No.3]

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.

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.

[Meshugger]

 

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.

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.

 

After all, house wives doing nothing is very rare and only reserved for the very wealthy historically.

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).

 

 

Point being, the stronger the nuclear family, the better society and by extension the school system will be.

 

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?

[213374U]

And that's how you save western civilization.

 

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

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

Point being, the stronger the nuclear family, the better society and by extension the school system will be.

 

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.

[Meshugger]

 

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.

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.   

[Meshugger]

 

And that's how you save western civilization.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Point being, the stronger the nuclear family, the better society and by extension the school system will be.

 

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.

[213374U]

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.

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?