our wonderful progressive society
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Stirlingsays  10 Oct 17 11.31pm |
   |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
Is this really the best you can do? Did you look at the 75 studies in Coulsdon’s link? See Simon Cheng’s rebuttal These studies included children who started in broken opposite sex relationship homes. By the way, what did Marx have to say about same sex parenting? I wasn’t aware I was following his approach until helpfully you pointed that out to me. Cultural marxism comes from after Marx himself. Again...asking me to educate you. Go learn, it's all out there.....Go learn at the Frankfurt School. Edited by Stirlingsays (10 Oct 2017 11.36pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| hedgehog50 Croydon 11 Oct 17 8.59am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
Marxist is now a term of endearment in 2017 Stirling. I can well believe it, just illustrates the depths to which we have sunk.
We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell] |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| hedgehog50 Croydon 11 Oct 17 9.16am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
By the way, what did Marx have to say about same sex parenting? I wasn’t aware I was following his approach until helpfully you pointed that out to me. Marx saw the family as a tool of the ruling class, an institution used to teach its members to submit to ruling class authority. His view is of course part of his genocidal attack on the 'bourgeoise' - you know, ordinary men and women who marry, have kids, work, try to live responsibly and morally, better themselves etc - exterminate them. Edited by hedgehog50 (11 Oct 2017 9.17am)
We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell] |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 11 Oct 17 9.38am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
You can't be serious. I'm a school teacher. I been working with children for years. Once again, you ask me to go looking for the bleeding obvious. Children from one parent families commit more crimes and so on and so on. I've sat with many a family over the years discussing the reasons for their child's behaviour. Next you will be asking me to prove that more successful people come from wealthier family backgrounds. Edited by Stirlingsays (10 Oct 2017 10.56pm) Of course divorce / separation is the biggest cause of single parent families, which suggests that there is a direct correlation between those single parent crime statistics and the failure of the 'traditional family structure' being promoted (the nuclear family by the way isn't a traditional family background its a very modern new one - extended family networks are demonstrated as being the most efficient and successful means of raising children - Turns out just a mum and dad, isn't as good as a closer family of grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins and parents. They also serve as an excellent balance for where children lose a parent (or parents), have dysfunctional families, divorce, separation etc Unsurprisingly, the more sources positive and supportive influences you have in life, the better. Indeed within extended family networks, even poor influences serve a purpose of stability (that alcoholic uncle or drug addict aunt serve as negative example, where as if its your parents, its your only example).
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 11 Oct 17 9.44am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by hedgehog50
Marx saw the family as a tool of the ruling class, an institution used to teach its members to submit to ruling class authority. His view is of course part of his genocidal attack on the 'bourgeoise' - you know, ordinary men and women who marry, have kids, work, try to live responsibly and morally, better themselves etc - exterminate them. Edited by hedgehog50 (11 Oct 2017 9.17am) Hmm bit different that what I remember from reading Marx and Engles, as they saw the bourgeoise / middle classes as a temporary stage, produced by the change of capital, that would be subsumed into either the working class proletariat (the majority) or the capitalist elite (a minority) as capitalist society progressed, and that this would be a catalyst for revolutionary change (and it would be the polarisation of the classes that would destroy the middle classes) The extermination of the bourgeoise isn't a part of Marx's writing, in fact Marx saw the bourgeoise as becoming effectively the revolutionary leaders as polarisation took effect. Most if not all of the (Communist and other) revolutionary leaders come from bourgeoise backgrounds and the middle classes.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 11 Oct 17 9.51am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Cultural marxism comes from after Marx himself. Again...asking me to educate you. Go learn, it's all out there.....Go learn at the Frankfurt School. Edited by Stirlingsays (10 Oct 2017 11.36pm) A very long time afterwards - Its part of the post-modern Marxist theory. I remember studying this as it has a massive influence on critical social psychology and linguistics. Its not really all that Marxist in terms of politics, its more based in academic Marxist theory such as discourse analysis, post-modernism, microinteractionalism in economics and the influence of existentialism in philosophy. The notion of individual/observational bias, which you mentioned earlier is also is proven within the basis of these theories. Its not really about Marxism, but based in the understanding of social conflict (seen in both Marx and Webber).
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 11 Oct 17 9.55am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Of course divorce / separation is the biggest cause of single parent families, which suggests that there is a direct correlation between those single parent crime statistics and the failure of the 'traditional family structure' being promoted (the nuclear family by the way isn't a traditional family background its a very modern new one - extended family networks are demonstrated as being the most efficient and successful means of raising children - Turns out just a mum and dad, isn't as good as a closer family of grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins and parents. They also serve as an excellent balance for where children lose a parent (or parents), have dysfunctional families, divorce, separation etc Unsurprisingly, the more sources positive and supportive influences you have in life, the better. Indeed within extended family networks, even poor influences serve a purpose of stability (that alcoholic uncle or drug addict aunt serve as negative example, where as if its your parents, its your only example). I would mostly agree with that. However, in truth, they are nuclear family plus.....They are a version of the same model. Extended family set ups also come with issues. Many of them don't have the best characters leading them. They can be more controlling, insular and allow less freedom than the nuclear unit which, normally requires more external social contact. As with most things....it's more about the people involved than the system. But the system type helps.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 11 Oct 17 10.38am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Cultural marxism comes from after Marx himself. Again...asking me to educate you. Go learn, it's all out there.....Go learn at the Frankfurt School. Edited by Stirlingsays (10 Oct 2017 11.36pm) FYI, I read the originals. I think you may mean Marxian rather than Marxist. If I am too lazy to have been a teacher how come you have so much time to get onto the HOL? Clearly teachers don't work very hard. In fact I taught at a well known local august establishment, now operating under a different name. Many, many years ago.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 11 Oct 17 10.51am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
FYI, I read the originals. I think you may mean Marxian rather than Marxist. If I am too lazy to have been a teacher how come you have so much time to get onto the HOL? Clearly teachers don't work very hard. In fact I taught at a well known local august establishment, now operating under a different name. Many, many years ago. Full time teachers work very hard, don't even go there....Full time workers in many public sector jobs work just as hard if not harder. I do get more free time now. I'm doing a lot better than when I was constantly working sixty hours a week just to stand still. I don't really want to talk about it. I doubt that anyone who genuinely worked as a teacher would say that they don't work hard....unless you worked in the seventies or something like that.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 11 Oct 17 11.31am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Full time teachers work very hard, don't even go there....Full time workers in many public sector jobs work just as hard if not harder. I do get more free time now. I'm doing a lot better than when I was constantly working sixty hours a week just to stand still. I don't really want to talk about it. I doubt that anyone who genuinely worked as a teacher would say that they don't work hard....unless you worked in the seventies or something like that. Hmm, your ironydar seems to be switched off. You should spend more time in Croydon.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 11 Oct 17 11.51am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
Hmm, your ironydar seems to be switched off. You should spend more time in Croydon. Nope, you're just desperately looking for any and manufacturing. Having grown up in Stockwell, I've no need for reinforcing echos of realities I'm quite aware of. It's for people in positions of responsibility to promote ethical and healthy attitudes. You may disagree with what those are but that's, partly, what debate is for. Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Oct 2017 11.53am)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 11 Oct 17 11.52am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
I would mostly agree with that. However, in truth, they are nuclear family plus.....They are a version of the same model. Extended family set ups also come with issues. Many of them don't have the best characters leading them. They can be more controlling, insular and allow less freedom than the nuclear unit which, normally requires more external social contact. As with most things....it's more about the people involved than the system. But the system type helps. The Nuclear family is a break down of the extended family - occurring largely from the post war period which saw increasing migration within the country based around work. Nuclear family consists of two primary adults, and children, usually distanced from their extended family, reducing the effectiveness of an extended family. The reality of a Nuclear family and extended family that's not dysfunctional is pretty much the same - no real impact on development. It where there is dysfunction that the differences are pronounced, because the extended family is a more effective at providing a support network that reduces the impact of dysfunction on development (and the provision of surrogate parents and influences outside of the direct family unit, that can resolve those problems). Of course a dysfunctional extended family is going to produce dysfunctional adults - such as seen in organised crime - however its worth noting that these tend to produce 'functional dysfunction' (i.e. people who grow up in and around criminal families, tend towards structured, and socially functional criminality - and often non-criminality is rewarded - a lot of people from criminal families such as organised crime families also do very well outside of criminality (often very successful criminal families phase out over generations, as their kids tend towards more legitimate roles in society, typically due to the wealth advantage obtained by criminal parents). Oddly, in criminology there are socially dysfunctional and functional crime.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.