Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Ireland recovering from Theocracy.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sam View Post
    Mountain Man has, once again, simply skipped that part, instead asking a question that's already been answered.
    You apparently have this notion that I read 20+ page threads from beginning to end and hang on every single word you write, even though I've told you before that I tend to skim threads and only respond to people who directly respond to me or if something happens to catch my attention. So I didn't deliberately skip anything, as you imply. Rather, I just didn't see your earlier response. Got it?

    Originally posted by Sam View Post
    I tried to state pretty explicitly that religious law, unless it strongly correlates to a secular "harm done" ethic, is not sufficient when enacting laws in a pluralistic, secular state.
    Why, as Christians, should we be willing to accept the pluralistic, secular state's notion of what constitutes "harm done" when such an evaluation is based on a worldview that rejects God and the Bible?

    Oh, and I like your little jibe that a Bible believing nation that bases its laws on the commandments of God will become the next Saudi Arabia, despite the fact that America was founded by Bible believing men who based their laws on the commandments of God, and we were the freest and most prosperous nation on earth for centuries. The real irony of your claim is that the further we move away from God and the Bible, the closer we come to the oppressiveness of a country like Saudi Arabia.
    Last edited by Mountain Man; 05-28-2015, 11:48 AM.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
      You need to follow the evidence and if it leads to a conclusion you don't like. Deal with it. Such is life.
      I try.

      And you got mine. These people are coming forth and saying they thought their childhood was missing something. We can't just ignore it because what they are saying goes against the narrative. Do they have a valid point or not?
      I have answered this before but I will again. It really doesn't matter what they "feel" they missed out on. People get brought up in great situations and still find things to rag on their parents, it's just the world we live in. Besides that, we don't know the entire dynamic of their life, and the circumstances that led to that point. Simply going "well it's a gay family that must be it!" because it fits neatly into an ideology doesn't help anybody. It goes deeper than that.

      Among the things a parent must provide for, they have to provide for their children's emotional well being too. Since both children of gay parents and single parents report they felt their childhood was missing something; does that mean that those homes are the best environment for kids to be raised in?
      Yes, but a child has to learn you can't always have the things want. I know people that always wanted a sibling or grandparent in their life, should they be accommodated? I don't know why you keep saying 'children' as if it's some sort of universal truth that kids in gay and single households turned out screwed-up (or whatever you're getting at) because it's not.

      So what is the best possible environment for a child to live and grow up in?
      You know my answer to this.

      Is it not important to make sure we get this thing right?
      Well, yeah it is. Thing is, gay couples tend to be more financially stable and are more likely to plan the actually family out more carefully, since they typically have that option.

      The variables are complex, so what?
      I'm sorry you want to be simple but it's not.

      What is the best environment for children to grow up in?

      Emotional well being doesn't compute for many people. If providing for kids was as simple as making a checklist, about anybody can be a parent. These kids are saying they are missing something. Are they right? Should we be concerned and do whatever we can to make the best situations for the most we can produce? Yes or no?
      Child abuse rate in lesbian couples:

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_781624.html

      Children of same-sex couples:

      https://youtu.be/MJnkp6D3j7c

      So what's your response to those kids, Crystal? Does their opinion have the same weight?

      Have you ever been part of one? How do you know? Besides, what measurements are we using? Good citizens? What is a 'good citizen' and how do we measure that? Likewise, how about their future career. What group performs best, when it comes to their careers? How about their relationships? What group does best, when it comes to relationships? There's more to being a parent than merely keeping them out of trouble or meeting some check marks.
      I'd like to not get too personal on my own life, but can say I know people from both single and same-sex households that are doing well. I can't get any deeper than that without revealing names I'm afraid. So believe me or don't, I don't really care.

      Finally, I never said anybodies love isn't legitimate, but love without focus or discipline or many other things isn't the best environment for raising a kids either. Even Homer Simpson, obviously loves his kids a great deal, but is he the best parent? Remember, we are trying to discover what is the bet environment for kids to be raised in and why that is the best environment.That is what we are trying to discover.
      Redundant.

      The rest was pretty much ground that we've covered already.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by seer View Post
        The bottom line is that most liberal Christians I have met are their own little gods. They know better.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
          and you have not shown any evidence that "the experts all agree".
          Seriously? I literally quoted you a statement to that effect from the joint submission of the various scientific organisations.

          I've read a review article by Loren Marks.

          The abstract goes:

          In 2005, the American Psychological Association (APA) issued an official brief on Lesbian and Gay Parenting. This brief included the assertion: “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents” (p. 15). The present article closely examines this assertion and 59 published studies cited by APA to support it. Seven central questions address: (1) homogenous sampling, (2) absence of comparison groups, (3) comparison group characteristics, (4) contradictory data, (5) the limited scope of children’s outcomes studied, (6) paucity of long-term outcome data, and (7) lack of APA-urged statistical power. The conclusion is that strong assertions, including those made by the APA, were not empirically warranted. Recommendations for future research are offered.
          I don't necessarily disagree in the sense that I think at the 2005 point of time, many of the studies that had been done specifically on same-sex parenting did suffer from these various methodological issues to differing extents. That does not make them worthless, of course, and has subsequently been corrected by numerous more rigorous studies since 2005.

          At the 2005 point in time, the APA could equally reasonably have known about what the effects of same-sex parenting would be without studying it directly, due to their knowledge of the results of past studies on single-parent families and on gender-role-filling in heterosexual families. Knowing from previous studies of heterosexual parenting that gender roles played by the parents does not affect childhood outcomes, and knowing that single parent families could equally thrive (if the parent had sufficient financial resources and if the child was not subjected to a painful divorce process), they were in a position to have largely all the knowledge necessary to know what the effects of same-sex parenting would be without having to study it directly. They knew what makes for good parenting, and they knew that same-sex parents were just as likely to be able to meet that bar as opposite sex parents.

          Also Loren Marks review article seems to have been the other half of the Regnerus study: An attempt to poison the well of previous conclusions, and set the scene for Regnerus' study to overturn the conventional wisdom, funded by the same group behind Regnerus'. Marks had previously tried to testify as an 'expert' on the subject against same-sex marriage in a California prop 8 case, and got severely embarrassed when he admitted he hadn't actually read various studies he cited and had misunderstood the distinction that they made between "biological" children and "genetic" children, so his opinions on the importance of parents raising their own genetic children were completely dis-proven by the studies he was trying to cite to prove his point, and he admitted on the stand at that time (2010) to not being familiar with existing research on gay parenting. As a result his 'expert' testimony was essentially dismissed as meaningless. So it appears that immediately after that court case he went out and researched/wrote his 2011 review article about the pre-2005 studies on same-sex parenting. I can only hope that his reading comprehension skills, and his ability to actually read studies he cited rather than assume he knew what they meant, had improved substantially in the interval... although given the apparent widespread disdain for his 2011 review article I tend to doubt it. His choice of topic for his review article also strikes me as fundamentally bizarre - why focus on the pre-2005 studies when you're writing in 2010-11? The obvious answer would seem to be that the older studies are easier to criticize compared to some of the more recent ones, which is a fundamentally dishonest way of approaching it. But clearly Loren Marks had firm beliefs on the subject before he even began studying the field.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
            I have answered this before but I will again. It really doesn't matter what they "feel" they missed out on. People get brought up in great situations and still find things to rag on their parents, it's just the world we live in. Besides that, we don't know the entire dynamic of their life, and the circumstances that led to that point. Simply going "well it's a gay family that must be it!" because it fits neatly into an ideology doesn't help anybody. It goes deeper than that.
            I'm reminded of something Mark Twain said:

            "When I was ten, I thought my parents knew everything. When I became twenty, I was convinced they knew nothing. Then, at thirty, I realized I was right when I was ten."

            I work a lot with teens first getting out of the house (that is what much of the military is made of) and I have seen lots of them ragging on their parents when they first come to the base. After awhile though (and when they've had a little more life experiences themselves) their attitudes towards their parents do tend to change (assuming they didn't come from a highly dysfunctional family to begin with). I tried to pick examples of people who have been out and about and not just a bunch of teens whining about how their parents are because teens do have a tendency to whine about their parents. From single parents and even gay parents I have noticed a common thread, even when they have grown up a bit and they have gained more of those life experiences they still believe they missed out on something by not having a dad/mom around. Not to say that two parents, opposite sex, parents are always perfect (God knows mine were not) or that you can't make the best with what you have, but it is rather interesting to discover this common thread between them all. Just as I have noticed a common thread among those who were adopted to know their birth family. Something obviously is up here and it is more than typical teenage anguish or anything of that nature.

            Yes, but a child has to learn you can't always have the things want. I know people that always wanted a sibling or grandparent in their life, should they be accommodated? I don't know why you keep saying 'children' as if it's some sort of universal truth that kids in gay and single households turned out screwed-up (or whatever you're getting at) because it's not.
            No you can't, but we are discussing ideals and not necessarily what actually is. Remember? Siblings are actually kind of important too and I've noticed differences between those of us that grew up with siblings (even down to our birth order, you'll be surprised how much even birth order can have some pull on us) and those who haven't. It does appear that siblings are important and it does also appear that two opposite sex parents are important too. Sure, you don't always get what you want, but we are discussing ideals and not necessarily what actually is. What is the ideal situation for children to grow up in? This is what we are discussing.

            You know my answer to this.
            And you haven't shown your answer is true either.

            Well, yeah it is. Thing is, gay couples tend to be more financially stable and are more likely to plan the actually family out more carefully, since they typically have that option.
            And there's less gay couples too, you seem to forget that little part. If making a check list was all it took to be a parents.;it would be as easy as pie, but it isn't that easy at all. Shoot, my husband and I have careers and we are not struggle for money, but it is more than simply your financial situation, that makes you a decent parent.

            I'm sorry you want to be simple but it's not.
            Never claimed it was, so what is that thing when you make up what your opponents say, in order to make it easier to refute what they said?

            Child abuse rate in lesbian couples:

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_781624.html

            Children of same-sex couples:

            https://youtu.be/MJnkp6D3j7c

            So what's your response to those kids, Crystal? Does their opinion have the same weight?
            The paper found that none of the 78 NLLFS adolescents reports having ever been physically or sexually abused by a parent or other caregiver. This contrasts with 26 percent of American adolescents who report parent or caregiver physical abuse and 8.3 percent who report sexual abuse.
            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_781624.html


            So we are taking, volunteers who came forth for this study, and trying to compare them to the nationwide average. Yep, snowballing, small sample size, and a sad attempt to fit a political narrative that they want to hear vs trying to reach the truth. Tell me, if I take 78 conservative Christian families and discover that none of them have ever reported being physically or sexually abused by a parent or caregiver, can I than publish an article about how conservative Christian families are the best families on the planet? After all, this is just what they did. Funny thing is, these sort of 'studies' are not that hard to produce and skew the results you want to hear. 78 families is such a small sample size, I'm sure I could dig up such a small family sample size from any group I want and come to the same conclusions too. Comparing the best with the average, tells me nothing. What do you know? You take the best of one group, compare them to the average of another, and the best come out smelling like a rose. Who would of thought that might happen?

            I'd like to not get too personal on my own life, but can say I know people from both single and same-sex households that are doing well. I can't get any deeper than that without revealing names I'm afraid. So believe me or don't, I don't really care.
            Never said it was impossible, but how do you determine 'doing well'? What are we looking for in order to determine that? I have a lot of cousins and I work in the military. I know a ton of families groups and sizes from those who suffered horrible abuses to ones that basically grew up in almost a lap of luxury. I don't base my conclusions upon just a hand full of data or a few studies, but from reading lots of articles on the topic and even being among lots and lots of people and their family groups, over the years.
            "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
            GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

            Comment


            • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
              I'm reminded of something Mark Twain said:

              "When I was ten, I thought my parents knew everything. When I became twenty, I was convinced they knew nothing. Then, at thirty, I realized I was right when I was ten."
              Never cared much for his literature.

              I work a lot with teens first getting out of the house (that is what much of the military is made of) and I have seen lots of them ragging on their parents when they first come to the base. After awhile though (and when they've had a little more life experiences themselves) their attitudes towards their parents do tend to change (assuming they didn't come from a highly dysfunctional family to begin with). I tried to pick examples of people who have been out and about and not just a bunch of teens whining about how their parents are because teens do have a tendency to whine about their parents. From single parents and even gay parents I have noticed a common thread, even when they have grown up a bit and they have gained more of those life experiences they still believe they missed out on something by not having a dad/mom around. Not to say that two parents, opposite sex, parents are always perfect (God knows mine were not) or that you can't make the best with what you have, but it is rather interesting to discover this common thread between them all. Just as I have noticed a common thread among those who were adopted to know their birth family. Something obviously is up here and it is more than typical teenage anguish or anything of that nature.
              It's just apart of nature, Crystal. You want to know your genes and where you came from, just like people want to know the origins of the cosmos, even though it really doesn't effect their lives. Should we force people that have children to stay together or get married since it might upset the child latter in life? Should we outlaw adoption since people might grow to wonder about their biological parents? Obviously you don't hold to that position, so don't know why you have difficulty on applying this to same-sex couples.



              No you can't, but we are discussing ideals and not necessarily what actually is. Remember? Siblings are actually kind of important too and I've noticed differences between those of us that grew up with siblings (even down to our birth order, you'll be surprised how much even birth order can have some pull on us) and those who haven't. It does appear that siblings are important and it does also appear that two opposite sex parents are important too. Sure, you don't always get what you want, but we are discussing ideals and not necessarily what actually is. What is the ideal situation for children to grow up in? This is what we are discussing.
              We've been discussing it and I understand completely the questions at hand.

              And you haven't shown your answer is true either.
              I feel good with what I've produced so far. Further, I fail to see exactly where you've proven an ideal situation as being necessary.

              And there's less gay couples too, you seem to forget that little part. If making a check list was all it took to be a parents.;it would be as easy as pie, but it isn't that easy at all. Shoot, my husband and I have careers and we are not struggle for money, but it is more than simply your financial situation, that makes you a decent parent.
              So why then, are you trying to make it seem as if a single variable is the biggest factor here? And if it's all down to decency then I fail to see where same-sex couples can't meet the standard for it, and that it was what you haven't shown.

              So we are taking, volunteers who came forth for this study, and trying to compare them to the nationwide average. Yep, snowballing, small sample size, and a sad attempt to fit a political narrative that they want to hear vs trying to reach the truth. Tell me, if I take 78 conservative Christian families and discover that none of them have ever reported being physically or sexually abused by a parent or caregiver, can I than publish an article about how conservative Christian families are the best families on the planet? After all, this is just what they did. Funny thing is, these sort of 'studies' are not that hard to produce and skew the results you want to hear. 78 families is such a small sample size, I'm sure I could dig up such a small family sample size from any group I want and come to the same conclusions too. Comparing the best with the average, tells me nothing. What do you know? You take the best of one group, compare them to the average of another, and the best come out smelling like a rose. Who would of thought that might happen?
              There's a reason I linked to the study. I wanted to show you that my earlier statements on statistics be fairly useless in social sciences was not without merit. Now you just have to apply this to your won studies and we'll be on the same page. So hopefully that ends that contest.

              Never said it was impossible, but how do you determine 'doing well'? What are we looking for in order to determine that? I have a lot of cousins and I work in the military. I know a ton of families groups and sizes from those who suffered horrible abuses to ones that basically grew up in almost a lap of luxury. I don't base my conclusions upon just a hand full of data or a few studies, but from reading lots of articles on the topic and even being among lots and lots of people and their family groups, over the years.
              I'm pretty well read on this topic as well and while I'm no expert, I'm knowledgeable enough to know that more than few studies have found no significant differences in child development. In fact, most child psychologists see no issue with same-sex adoption, or the idea of children growing-up in such households.

              Now, I don't know what you define as doing well but whether we like it or not it's a subjective outlook. All I can say is, I've seen the way these people have developed as humans, and would let them watch my dog.

              This is all getting rather subjective for me and I feel good about what I've brought to the table. We have different outlooks, that's just the way things are. I doubt I'm going to sway you my way, or me yours, but I'm happy to have gotten a civil conversation. I don't need to have the last word so I'll let you have it. I'll read your final post to me so go ahead reply if you wish.

              Later.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                Seriously? I literally quoted you a statement to that effect from the joint submission of the various scientific organisations.
                Hardly equivalent to "all the experts agree", as I've pointed out.

                I don't necessarily disagree in the sense that I think at the 2005 point of time, many of the studies that had been done specifically on same-sex parenting did suffer from these various methodological issues to differing extents. That does not make them worthless, of course, and has subsequently been corrected by numerous more rigorous studies since 2005.
                But (and I repeat myself for the umpeenth time) that doesn't stop you and others from using these highly limited studies to go "consensus consensus consensus!!!".

                Also Loren Marks review article seems to have been the other half of the Regnerus study: An attempt to poison the well of previous conclusions, and set the scene for Regnerus' study to overturn the conventional wisdom, funded by the same group behind Regnerus'...

                Marks had previously tried to testify as an 'expert' on the subject against same-sex marriage in a California prop 8 case, and got severely embarrassed when he admitted he hadn't actually read various studies he cited and had misunderstood the distinction that they made between "biological" children and "genetic" children, so his opinions on the importance of parents raising their own genetic children were completely dis-proven by the studies he was trying to cite to prove his point, and he admitted on the stand at that time (2010) to not being familiar with existing research on gay parenting. As a result his 'expert' testimony was essentially dismissed as meaningless.

                And this seems like an attempt to poison the well too. Deal with the criticism in the study.

                why focus on the pre-2005 studies when you're writing in 2010-11? The obvious answer would seem to be that the older studies are easier to criticize compared to some of the more recent ones, which is a fundamentally dishonest way of approaching it.
                Criticising the APA for using the older crappier studies to make definite sweeping statements is dishonest? What's dishonest is trying to sweep the past under the carpet.

                But clearly Loren Marks had firm beliefs on the subject before he even began studying the field.

                So one side clearly has a bias.

                Maybe eventually you'll be up to admitting that many members on both sides have strong ideological biases in this highly charged debate. This is precisely why we cannot merely rely on the 'consensus' of the 'experts'.
                Last edited by Paprika; 05-29-2015, 01:34 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                  Criticising the APA for using the older crappier studies to make definite sweeping statements is dishonest? What's dishonest is trying to sweep the past under the carpet.
                  Whether the APA went further than the evidence merited in 2004, in making such a sweeping statement as they did at that time, could well be debated. Other scientific groups at that time did not go as far as the APA did.

                  Subsequent research since 2004 has reaffirmed the APA's declaration, and all other relevant scientific bodies have similarly affirmed their own support for the APA's interpretation of the data and position on the subject. Maybe the APA took a risk and got lucky, or maybe their 2004 declaration was actually soundly based and warranted at that time... does it necessarily matter?

                  So one side clearly has a bias.
                  Absolutely. My position ten years ago was that I'd heard a lot of people making claims both ways about gay parenting being bad or okay, and that I had no opinion myself because I'd never looked at the state of the research myself. But I recall saying to a Christian friend at the time (who later came out as gay, making my comment somewhat unfortunate in hindsight) that I thought such studies, if they existed, would be a decent argument for the anti-gay crowd to use to argue for limiting gay rights somewhat because you could phrase it as "think of the children!". I've since looked at the state of the research, and subsequently have an informed opinion, and now think that the research is definitive and that the fact that same-sex parents make equally good parents on average has been thoroughly proven. So I like to think I had a neutral but thoughtful starting point, informed by subsequent evidence, leading to a rationally considered conclusion on the topic. :)

                  While on the other side of the debate we get people who are convinced before they start looking at any evidence that gay people make bad parents because they believe gay people are bad or that traditional families are better, just cos. And no amount of evidence, studies, experts, or anything else will sway them. They will cling to their existing beliefs and search for the least shadow of doubt that they can throw on the scientific research, and deny, deny, deny, deny until the sea level rise caused by climate change swallows them all.

                  Maybe eventually you'll be up to admitting that many members on both sides have strong ideological biases in this highly charged debate. This is precisely why we cannot merely rely on the 'consensus' of the 'experts'.
                  The idea that all the scientific organisations are in agreement because they're all ideologically driven is a pretty wacky conspiracy theory. The ideology they are driven by is science, and evidence. They're in agreement because the science and the evidence is in agreement.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                    Whether the APA went further than the evidence merited in 2004, in making such a sweeping statement as they did at that time, could well be debated. Other scientific groups at that time did not go as far as the APA did.

                    Subsequent research since 2004 has reaffirmed the APA's declaration, and all other relevant scientific bodies have similarly affirmed their own support for the APA's interpretation of the data and position on the subject. Maybe the APA took a risk and got lucky, or maybe their 2004 declaration was actually soundly based and warranted at that time... does it necessarily matter?

                    Of course it matters. They're supposed to be professional experts that make sound claims based on sound evidence they have at the time, and not 'taking a risk' because of whatever ideological bias they may have. Overstating the evidence is at best proof of serious error or at worst highly dishonest.

                    If they overstated their case before it's even more reason not to blindly trust them.

                    I've since looked at the state of the research, and subsequently have an informed opinion, and now think that the research is definitive and that the fact that same-sex parents make equally good parents on average has been thoroughly proven.

                    You mean you've made a surface glance at some articles and just went along with the experts which just coincidentally turned out to be the progressive view.

                    So I like to think I had a neutral but thoughtful starting point, informed by subsequent evidence, leading to a rationally considered conclusion on the topic. :)


                    While on the other side of the debate we get people who are convinced before they start looking at any evidence that gay people make bad parents because they believe gay people are bad or that traditional families are better, just cos. And no amount of evidence, studies, experts, or anything else will sway them. They will cling to their existing beliefs and search for the least shadow of doubt that they can throw on the scientific research, and deny, deny, deny, deny until the sea level rise caused by climate change swallows them all.
                    There are such on both sides. You too are clinging on to your existing beliefs and trying desperately to deflect the little criticism I have done up to this point with "but but but consensus!!!".

                    The idea that all the scientific organisations are in agreement because they're all ideologically driven is a pretty wacky conspiracy theory. The ideology they are driven by is science, and evidence. They're in agreement because the science and the evidence is in agreement.

                    Leaving aside the conflation of all the branches of science, with physics being the most rigorous and the social 'sciences' being the least rigorous, the ideological bent of the APA and social science academia in the US in general is very clearly progressive. This does not imply that what they is necessarily false, but that one cannot trust them to be "neutral".
                    Last edited by Paprika; 05-29-2015, 02:46 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                      the ideological bent of the APA and social science academia in the US in general is very clearly progressive.
                      That's not surprising if their research is leading them to progressive conclusions. If reality is biased - ie if the progressive viewpoint happens to be factually true - then anyone who studies reality and evidence (ie who does science) will be led towards a progressive viewpoint.

                      I think that studying social science, particularly cultural anthropology, is the ultimate cure for conservatism. Because once you sit down and actually look at another culture and get it into your head that they live totally differently to you, and yet it works fine for them... then you begin to realize that social change is okay and that other customs and ways of living can form a perfectly workable society. So when you see a conservative spouting off about there's going to be a moral and social apocalypse because our current culture is changing slightly (becoming less Christian / allowing same-sex marriage / allowing prostitution etc... pick your preferred 'evil'), it's simply hard not to laugh. You can't fear social change if you know that alternative ways of structuring society work fine. Conservatives will rave at length about the 'traditional family', and yet cultures throughout history have structured their families in all sorts of ways, and thrived quite successfully. The finding of modern developmental psychology that family structure doesn't matter for successful child rearing, that has developed as a result of hundreds of studies throughout the 20th century, was entirely predictable from basic cultural anthropology and observing that other cultures have successfully had every kind of family structure.

                      I submit that the social sciences are inherently progressive, because once one gains an understanding of culture that is informed by evidence, it's hard to take conservative views, that are built on speculation and fear-mongering, very seriously, because the evidence flatly contradicts them.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                        That's not surprising if their research is leading them to progressive conclusions. If reality is biased - ie if the progressive viewpoint happens to be factually true - then anyone who studies reality and evidence (ie who does science) will be led towards a progressive viewpoint.

                        I think that studying social science, particularly cultural anthropology, is the ultimate cure for conservatism. Because once you sit down and actually look at another culture and get it into your head that they live totally differently to you, and yet it works fine for them... then you begin to realize that social change is okay and that other customs and ways of living can form a perfectly workable society. So when you see a conservative spouting off about there's going to be a moral and social apocalypse because our current culture is changing slightly (becoming less Christian / allowing same-sex marriage / allowing prostitution etc... pick your preferred 'evil'), it's simply hard not to laugh. You can't fear social change if you know that alternative ways of structuring society work fine. Conservatives will rave at length about the 'traditional family', and yet cultures throughout history have structured their families in all sorts of ways, and thrived quite successfully. The finding of modern developmental psychology that family structure doesn't matter for successful child rearing, that has developed as a result of hundreds of studies throughout the 20th century, was entirely predictable from basic cultural anthropology and observing that other cultures have successfully had every kind of family structure.
                        This is rather irrelevant to our discussion, but I'll address it seriously because I do believe you're being serious.

                        Progressivism in the form of sexual liberalisation has done immense damage to societies in the West. Let me count the ways:

                        1) Through abortions mothers have killed millions of their own children.

                        2) Sexual liberalisation, aided by abortion and contraception, has led to normalisation of sex out of wedlock. This means increasingly children - those not killed in 1) - are raised by single mothers or fathers, and certain progressives have even tried to normalise such a family structure clearly harmful to the children.

                        3) Normalisation of divorce and sex out of wedlock has led to marriage being denormalised, therefore many many children are being raised in unstable families, which has clearly been shown to be harmful to them.

                        4) All the above have led to meaning being emptied out of marriage and therefore the family. With no-fault divorce disincentivising marriage for men, and women being encouraged to go for careers over raising a family demographics across the West has been a trainwreck in slow motion ameliorated only by massively importing immigrants, which is bound to lead to sever ethnic conflicts in the future.

                        5) Let us not also forget the AIDS in the West with the main cause being normalised homosexual sex, and high rates of other STIs caused by sexual liberalisation in general.

                        The only reason why progressivism hasn't done more damage to societies through the above vectors (and others) is the mercy of God, and we're supposed to buy the idea that redefining marriage to include any number of loving parties is going to not follow the destructive trend.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
                          Never cared much for his literature.
                          We agree on something at least...
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                            Progressivism in the form of sexual liberalisation has done immense damage to societies in the West. Let me count the ways:

                            1) Through abortions mothers have killed millions of their own children.
                            People's ideological opinion on abortion may of course vary. When you speak of "immense damage to societies in the West" you need some sort of empirical objective measure of damage beyond your personal feelings about abortion.

                            2) Sexual liberalisation, aided by abortion and contraception, has led to normalisation of sex out of wedlock. This means increasingly children - those not killed in 1) - are raised by single mothers or fathers, and certain progressives have even tried to normalise such a family structure clearly harmful to the children.
                            The consistent findings of the social science research throughout the 20th century have been that family structure itself has zero impact on the well-being of children. It is only indirectly harmful if the single parent lacks financial resources to care for the child, or if the child goes through an experience of the relationship between its caregivers breaking down (eg a divorce). But so long as the child is raised in a loving environment with sufficient resources, the actual family structure itself has no impact.

                            So progressives are, factually speaking, totally right to be accepting of alternative family structures. And the conservatives are the ones hurting the children insofar as they tend to like minimize financial aid given to single parents.

                            3) Normalisation of divorce and sex out of wedlock has led to marriage being denormalised, therefore many many children are being raised in unstable families, which has clearly been shown to be harmful to them.
                            If the relationship between the caregivers has broken down, and become acrimonious, the children suffer regardless of whether a divorce occurs or whether the parents remain together. It is not the divorce itself that is the problem, it's the breakdown of a loving relationship between the child's caregivers. Children are sensitive to not only the quality of the relationship between themselves and their caregivers, they're sensitive also to the quality of the relationship between the caregivers. A society which forces parents who have come to hate each other to remain together does worse for the children than if those parents were allowed to divorce, as it forces children to endure a dysfunctional relationship for longer. Whereas parents who have a divorce but remain on good terms will have minimal negative impact on children, if any.

                            4) All the above have led to meaning being emptied out of marriage and therefore the family. With no-fault divorce disincentivising marriage for men, and women being encouraged to go for careers over raising a family demographics across the West has been a trainwreck in slow motion ameliorated only by massively importing immigrants, which is bound to lead to sever ethnic conflicts in the future.
                            Hmm, standard conservative waffle about how changing social norms is going to lead to a moral and social apocalypse. Try actually studying some other cultures and realizing that societies can function perfectly fine in lots of different ways and that change is not bad.

                            The only thing I agree with you on that high immigration can lead to ethnic conflict. Progressives tend to be pretty good paying attention to evidence on most issues, but anytime race is mentioned in any way, there's a giant leap taken into ideology and all interest in basing views on evidence tends to go out the window. It becomes like trying to talk to conservatives at that point.

                            5) Let us not also forget the AIDS in the West with the main cause being normalised homosexual sex, and high rates of other STIs caused by sexual liberalisation in general.
                            AIDS has killed vastly more heterosexual Christian Africans than it ever has homosexual Westerners. Seems hypocritical of you to not blame heterosexual Christians and instead blame progressives. Overall, AIDS in the US has killed about as many total people over the years as who died in the influenza epidemic of 1918... it's a lot, but it's an amount typical of a major disease outbreak. I can't find any estimates of what the total Syphillis deaths were in Christian Europe in the 1400s, but by all accounts it was pretty large.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                              People's ideological opinion on abortion may of course vary. When you speak of "immense damage to societies in the West" you need some sort of empirical objective measure of damage beyond your personal feelings about abortion.
                              We were talking about "moral and social" damage, were we not? Abortions: millions upon millions of women killing their own children falls under massive moral damage..

                              The consistent findings of the social science research throughout the 20th century have been that family structure itself has zero impact on the well-being of children. It is only indirectly harmful if the single parent lacks financial resources to care for the child, or if the child goes through an experience of the relationship between its caregivers breaking down (eg a divorce). But so long as the child is raised in a loving environment with sufficient resources, the actual family structure itself has no impact.
                              And progressivism has both de jure and de facto promoted instability (through divorce and denormalisation of marriage) and single parenthood, causing great harm to the children. Therefore progressivism has caused great social harm.

                              If the relationship between the caregivers has broken down, and become acrimonious, the children suffer regardless of whether a divorce occurs or whether the parents remain together. It is not the divorce itself that is the problem, it's the breakdown of a loving relationship between the child's caregivers.
                              It is the normalisation of divorce, especially no-fault divorce, which has created massively instabilities in the social institution of marriage since a wife or a husband could walk out at any time. Divorce provides a get out of jail "free" card (that can have terrific impact on the children) which seduces to take the easy option when things get tough. In addition, normalisation of divorce by emptying the meaning of marriage and also by destabilising marriage reduces overall rates of marriage and hence more children born out of wedlock, since a) marriage has decreasing significance and b) children who've grown up in families torn apart by divorce are more averse to marrying.

                              Hmm, standard conservative waffle about how changing social norms is going to lead to a moral and social apocalypse.
                              Nah, you're just trying to deny the obvious fact that progressivism has caused demographic apocalypse. This hemorrhage been staunched by massive immigration, which only will create other serious problems, as you note.

                              AIDS has killed vastly more heterosexual Christian Africans than it ever has homosexual Westerners. Seems hypocritical of you to not blame heterosexual Christians and instead blame progressives.
                              We're discussing what social harm progressivism has done, so what harm other systems promote is rather irrelevant.

                              So where are we now? We've established that progressivism has done a massive amount of social and moral harm in the West, despite Starlight's denials and deflections. Why should we expect any better from any other social changes it promotes?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                                We were talking about "moral and social" damage, were we not? Abortions: millions upon millions of women killing their own children falls under massive moral damage..


                                And progressivism has both de jure and de facto promoted instability (through divorce and denormalisation of marriage) and single parenthood, causing great harm to the children. Therefore progressivism has caused great social harm.


                                It is the normalisation of divorce, especially no-fault divorce, which has created massively instabilities in the social institution of marriage since a wife or a husband could walk out at any time. Divorce provides a get out of jail "free" card (that can have terrific impact on the children) which seduces to take the easy option when things get tough. In addition, normalisation of divorce by emptying the meaning of marriage and also by destabilising marriage reduces overall rates of marriage and hence more children born out of wedlock, since a) marriage has decreasing significance and b) children who've grown up in families torn apart by divorce are more averse to marrying.


                                Nah, you're just trying to deny the obvious fact that progressivism has caused demographic apocalypse. This hemorrhage been staunched by massive immigration, which only will create other serious problems, as you note.


                                We're discussing what social harm progressivism has done, so what harm other systems promote is rather irrelevant.

                                So where are we now? We've established that progressivism has done a massive amount of social and moral harm in the West, despite Starlight's denials and deflections. Why should we expect any better from any other social changes it promotes?
                                It must have been wonderful to have lived in this utopia of yours where there was no abortion, legal or otherwise, where marriages were enduring because couples knew about the “meaning of marriage” and loveless marriages didn't exist. Where divorced women were stigmatized as "divorcees", homosexuals locked firmly in their closets and blacks knew their place. Everybody must have been so happy. When and where exactly did this wonderful society of yours exist, before dreaded "progressivism" caused the "demographic apocalypse" and spoiled it for everybody?
                                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 08:05 PM
                                8 responses
                                43 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 04:42 PM
                                7 responses
                                46 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seanD
                                by seanD
                                 
                                Started by Cow Poke, 09-25-2021, 02:40 PM
                                24 responses
                                127 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Stoic
                                by Stoic
                                 
                                Started by NorrinRadd, 09-25-2021, 01:16 PM
                                28 responses
                                204 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Stoic
                                by Stoic
                                 
                                Started by Cow Poke, 09-25-2021, 11:32 AM
                                24 responses
                                122 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Stoic
                                by Stoic
                                 
                                Working...
                                X