Liberals: Do you really hate the traditional family? - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Modern liberalism. Civil rights and liberties, State responsibility to the people (welfare).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Bertram
#13632874
Your asking us to argue against arguments that you have stated the existence of, but you haven't told us what these arguments are.
Arguing effectively against supposed existing arguments is incredibly difficult. And it prevents the use of deconstructive matter.
What exactly are these arguments?

I can't just look them up because I might find a different set of arguments and out points will not clash. Lack of clash in an argument is silly.
User avatar
By normalamerican
#13658347
Liberals probably don't hate the family, but it is an annoying inconvenience for most of their platform.

Own the minority vote forever ? Well we certainly can't bring up that "70% born out of wedlock" thing, just let it be.

Own the gay vote ? Well, better not upset them by noting that they are outside of the family norm.

Champion Abortion ? yep, better not encourage the classic family which could make somebody think twice about the joys of abortion.

Pre-school, pre-pre-school, after school care, 3 meals per day outside the family - gotta get 'em young, all day every day, into the union / liberal public school programs. Can't let the traditional family, or lifestyle, stop that.
User avatar
By yiwahikanak
#13658402
:lol:

Man, those poor kids getting six square meals a day on your fantasy island!

No wonder there is an obesity epidemic!
User avatar
By normalamerican
#13658472
You'll notice that I did not say that giving meals to hungry, poor children is bad.

What I did say is that 3 institutional meals per day, pre-pre-school starting in the toddler years, and before/after school programs that keep kids institutionalized for 8-10-12 hours per day......is a decidedly non-family lifestyle, if not anti-family.

And yeah, there are probably retarded (seriously) parents that may need this whole complement of services for their kids. But that would be a tiny, tiny %. Not growing more and more in each federal budget.
User avatar
By yiwahikanak
#13658488
normalamerican wrote:You'll notice that I did not say that giving meals to hungry, poor children is bad.

What I did say is that 3 institutional meals per day, pre-pre-school starting in the toddler years, and before/after school programs that keep kids institutionalized for 8-10-12 hours per day......is a decidedly non-family lifestyle, if not anti-family.

And yeah, there are probably retarded (seriously) parents that may need this whole complement of services for their kids. But that would be a tiny, tiny %. Not growing more and more in each federal budget.


Correlation is not causation.

As in...you have not made a case that the increase in the budget for these kinds of programs is causing more families to neglect their children, which is certainly what you are suggesting is the case.
User avatar
By normalamerican
#13658566
You'll have to dig deep to find where I said this....please start with my use of the word neglect, lol.

The only point I've made is these efforts to massively grow these programs that take family activities out of the family....are illustrating a disinterest or even disdain for traditional, nuclear family. That is all. It's about the liberal bureaucrats and programs marginalizing parents and family (topic of thread haha)......not an indictment of the parents for any reason.

But good attempt to redirect / misdirect, madame barrister !.
User avatar
By yiwahikanak
#13658628
normalamerican wrote:You'll have to dig deep to find where I said this....please start with my use of the word neglect, lol.

The only point I've made is these efforts to massively grow these programs that take family activities out of the family....are illustrating a disinterest or even disdain for traditional, nuclear family. That is all. It's about the liberal bureaucrats and programs marginalizing parents and family (topic of thread haha)......not an indictment of the parents for any reason.

But good attempt to redirect / misdirect, madame barrister !.


That's "Maitre" around these parts :P

Except you your point fails on the very obvious point that the only way these programs take 'family activities out of the family' is if you are further claiming that they are serving children who are not neglected. Children who are already NOT receiving 'family activities out of the family (ie. being fed at home)' cannot further have 'family activities out of the family' with these programs.

So. Are you claiming that these programs are resulting in more parents neglecting their children?
User avatar
By Wills
#13676565
A "family" comes in all different shapes and sizes and no one type of family is better than another.

I don't buy this argument that the traditional "nuclear" family is better than any other.
User avatar
By Dave
#13676615
Yes, nothing is better than anything else... :roll:

F@#$ing liberals :knife:
User avatar
By Wills
#13676882
[ Report ]Posted: Thu 07 Apr 2011, 02:07
Yes, nothing is better than anything else...

F@#$ing liberals


I wasn't saying that.

It's more about the people in the family than what they are (mom, dad, grandparent, aunt, uncle, etc.).
User avatar
By Dave
#13677028
Fun-fact...adopted children are many times more likely to suffer abuse and death

Step-parents are much more likely to abuse or kill children as well

Biological relationships matter no matter how much liberals hate reality
User avatar
By yiwahikanak
#13677053
Dave wrote:Fun-fact...adopted children are many times more likely to suffer abuse and death

Step-parents are much more likely to abuse or kill children as well

Biological relationships matter no matter how much liberals hate reality


But they certainly don't guarantee anything.

There are plenty of biological parents abusing their children.

I don't care what someone's family structure is, as long as the relationships within it are healthy.

If someone's nuclear family is abusive, I'm not going to assume it's because it's a nuclear family.
User avatar
By Dave
#13677072
I have no disagreement with that, yiwahikanak. Social science is empirical and probabilistic, not logical and determinist.

I am also most concerned with the family being healthy, but when we're discussing families in general (or anything else in general) we need to examine statistics to see what tendencies we can tease out of the data.

The data show that some family types, on average, seem to be healthier than others.
User avatar
By Wills
#13677294
[ Report ]Posted: Thu 07 Apr 2011, 16:04
Fun-fact...adopted children are many times more likely to suffer abuse and death

Step-parents are much more likely to abuse or kill children as well

Biological relationships matter no matter how much liberals hate reality


And children from lesbian parents do better academically than children with two hetrosexual parents.

So maybe men should be used for reproduction only? ;)
By CounterChaos
#13680354
I consider myself a liberal in the sense that I do not condone racial or sexual discrimination and try to look at people as equal participants in this adventure we call life. I do however hold very strong evolutionary and genetic based scientific ideologies that guides my perceptions in life. I try to use scientific logic in evaluating situations, which can sometimes cause people to consider me far right.

We are biological animals with certain inherent traits.

Fun-fact...adopted children are many times more likely to suffer abuse and death


How many of you have taken in a puppy that over time just didn't work out? Of course humans are not puppies and because we have the ability to reason most of us would handle the situation in a humane way. Some however would just take the puppy to the woods and put a bullet in his head.

There is a biological reality that we are dealing with. Because I accept the reality for what it is, it promotes understanding and tolerance for me. Liberals should not be afraid to apply science to their ideologies and I encourage it always among my friends. Once you understand the science you understand why some people just lose control...Does that mean that I condone their behavior? Absolutely not and we have social remedies to deal with such.

To me a family is wherever you find acceptance.
By dewanand
#13705610
hello,

One interesting fact of the modern Western society is that it is now easier to live alone and have no children or family support. I live in Holland and here we have the modern concept of the welfare state, where the state will care for you from cradle to grave. This means that individuals can become totally independant of their close families, because they will always have an income. In Holland many people are liberals and they have no problem with gay marriage (is legalized here) or having children in gay couples. Many women here are single and they have children from many unknown fathers. For conservative Americans I think Holland will be the devils country, sort of Sodom and Gomorra.

I think that everyone must have the individual right to live how he/she wants, even without family or faith. It is just how people feel and what they need to become happy. Family ties can block your personal development and many family members are used to put their nose into your private things. Here in Holland many people do not have family ties anymore, and they just live alone.

Maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle of being conservative or liberal.

dewanand
By CounterChaos
#13706158
One interesting fact of the modern Western society is that it is now easier to live alone and have no children or family support. I live in Holland and here we have the modern concept of the welfare state, where the state will care for you from cradle to grave. This means that individuals can become totally independant of their close families, because they will always have an income.


Hi..Yes, I agree...In today's modern industrial society, even the silliest argument can break families apart for a lifetime-because they don't need each others financial or moral support.
By Spin
#13712311
Speaking as a philsophical liberal, I feel that I can confidently say that the liberal tradition does not hate the family and certainly do not hate the nuclear family, indeed some, such as William Galston, have controversially argued that nuclear families are superior and preferable.

That said however, most liberal theorists do not take a stand on the family. They largely view it as a private institution that exists between individuals and so not subject to the realm of politics. They normally do not view the nuclear family as preferable to single parent familes, families with gay parents, etc etc because they are the result of individual choice which the state should have no concern over.
User avatar
By NYYS
#13721440
Liberals may or may not hate the traditional family, but they certainly cannot afford to put the traditional family on a pedestal like us conservatives. Liberal backing is from a variety of groups that tend not to be champions of the traditional family (homosexual couples, at-risk single parent homes, etc.), so it would be suicidal for liberals to come out and say that these "alternative" families are lesser.
User avatar
By finnbow
#13721457
Conservatives wrap themselves in the flag, religion, morality, etc. all as a marketing strategy. The fact that they're no more patriotic, moral or family-oriented doesn't really matter. It's all about the narrative, and this fiction is nothing but shiny, pretty giftwrap to cover up their foibles from the Bible-thumping rubes who form their base.

How's Gingrich doing on the nuclear family, traditional values meter anyway? Oops, I forgot. He did it for love of country.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

The photo in the article showing tunnels supposed[…]

Warnings for civilians to evacuate, including drop[…]

What interests are those? He is an honorary US […]

The tail has been wagging the dog.. Israel is a[…]