Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 06, 2022 11:23 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Jan 06, 2022 11:14 pm Didn't I just say I wasn't interested in your religiously motivated garbage (which has nothing to do with reality)?

I didn't say a single thing "religious." I was speaking merely of sociological fact. You might not like them, but those are the facts.

See previous.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Jan 06, 2022 11:27 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 06, 2022 11:23 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Jan 06, 2022 11:14 pm Didn't I just say I wasn't interested in your religiously motivated garbage (which has nothing to do with reality)?

I didn't say a single thing "religious." I was speaking merely of sociological fact. You might not like them, but those are the facts.

See previous.

I saw. And remained unimpressed.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 06, 2022 9:59 pm"Nuclear" has nothing to do with America or the '50s. It simply means, "having a nucleus," or "formed around a core of members." Historically, most families have had a mother, a father and a set of children of two sexes.

That's because historically most men could only afford one wife. The rich and powerful in the old testament, for example, frequently had more than one spouse.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 06, 2022 9:59 pmAnd yes, members have sometimes been removed from that by circumstances, choice or death; but the rule has been one mother, one father and some children. That's been the norm for the entire course of history, across all cultures.

Bollocks: "Worldwide, different societies variously encourage, accept or outlaw polygamy. In societies which allow or tolerate polygamy, in the vast majority of cases the form accepted is polygyny. According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook (1998), of 1,231 societies noted, 588 had frequent polygyny, 453 had occasional polygyny, 186 were monogamous and 4 had polyandry"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 06, 2022 9:59 pmIt's only recently that we've substantially questioned the necessity of it...

You clearly haven't read Plato's Republic.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 06, 2022 9:59 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Jan 06, 2022 9:43 pm ...this 'nuclear family' (even the name is a ridiculous, meaningless concoction) has never existed except in American sitcoms.

Actually, it's the mainstay of civilization.

"Nuclear" has nothing to do with America or the '50s. It simply means, "having a nucleus," or "formed around a core of members." Historically, most families have had a mother, a father and a set of children of two sexes. And yes, members have sometimes been removed from that by circumstances, choice or death; but the rule has been one mother, one father and some children. That's been the norm for the entire course of history, across all cultures. It's only recently that we've substantially questioned the necessity of it...and never to good effect.

Sociology is an academic discipline of recent date. Veg's point of view on the nuclear family is a worthy one. Glorification of the nuclear family has has had both good and bad repercussions. The cause of the collapse of extended family and rural tribes was industrialisation and urbanisation which followed technological advance.

Workers had to leave their extended families and rural villages so as to get paid work in city slums. The invention of the nuclear family was compounded of mystification of individualism and the need of the industrial machine for social stability.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 1:29 pm Glorification of the nuclear family has has had both good and bad repercussions.

Nobody's talking about "glorification." We're just noting that the basic unit of civilization is a family unit with two parents of opposite sex. And that's just a simple fact:it's not even possible to reproduce any other way. It's a biological reality.

The cause of the collapse of extended family and rural tribes was industrialisation and urbanisation which followed technological advance.

This is true, of course...at least in some cases: but the extended family and the tribe simply express an expanded view of the nuclear family. It's not its opposite. Nuclear families happen within the group or tribal structure. And in point of fact, the nuclear family was also reshaped by the removal, first, of the males from agrarian and home industry situations to work outside the home, and later of the removal to the workplace of the women as well.

None of this has been remotely good for children, of course.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 3:36 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 1:29 pm Glorification of the nuclear family has has had both good and bad repercussions.

Nobody's talking about "glorification." We're just noting that the basic unit of civilization is a family unit with two parents of opposite sex. And that's just a simple fact:it's not even possible to reproduce any other way. It's a biological reality.

The cause of the collapse of extended family and rural tribes was industrialisation and urbanisation which followed technological advance.

This is true, of course...at least in some cases: but the extended family and the tribe simply express an expanded view of the nuclear family. It's not its opposite. Nuclear families happen within the group or tribal structure. And in point of fact, the nuclear family was also reshaped by the removal, first, of the males from agrarian and home industry situations to work outside the home, and later of the removal to the workplace of the women as well.

None of this has been remotely good for children, of course.

Your biological claim is nonsense.

To claim with no historical or anthropological justification that the the nuclear family is the basic unit of society. Whatever the case for the nuclear family's being a constant social reality, the nuclear family is not a biological reality as babies can be conceived and reared with no input from any human with a penis.

It is a biological possibility that a society can be almost entirely female while a few male studs are kept in captivity by the females for reproductive purposes only.

Your claim that male workers always and everywhere precede female workers during the process of urbanisation may be correct, but it's a claim that requires you to cite a respectable source for your information.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 9:04 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 3:36 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 1:29 pm Glorification of the nuclear family has has had both good and bad repercussions.

Nobody's talking about "glorification." We're just noting that the basic unit of civilization is a family unit with two parents of opposite sex. And that's just a simple fact:it's not even possible to reproduce any other way. It's a biological reality.

The cause of the collapse of extended family and rural tribes was industrialisation and urbanisation which followed technological advance.

This is true, of course...at least in some cases: but the extended family and the tribe simply express an expanded view of the nuclear family. It's not its opposite. Nuclear families happen within the group or tribal structure. And in point of fact, the nuclear family was also reshaped by the removal, first, of the males from agrarian and home industry situations to work outside the home, and later of the removal to the workplace of the women as well.

None of this has been remotely good for children, of course.

Your biological claim is nonsense.

To claim with no historical or anthropological justification that the the nuclear family is the basic unit of society. Whatever the case for the nuclear family's being a constant social reality, the nuclear family is not a biological reality as babies can be conceived and reared with no input from any human with a penis.

It is a biological possibility that a society can be almost entirely female while a few male studs are kept in captivity by the females for reproductive purposes only.

Your claim that male workers always and everywhere precede female workers during the process of urbanisation may be correct, but it's a claim that requires you to cite a respectable source for your information.

You've skewered him, but he's too vain and arrogant to concede (a very male thing). He will only try to wear you down with repetition and selective hearing loss.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 9:04 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 3:36 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 1:29 pm Glorification of the nuclear family has has had both good and bad repercussions.

Nobody's talking about "glorification." We're just noting that the basic unit of civilization is a family unit with two parents of opposite sex. And that's just a simple fact:it's not even possible to reproduce any other way. It's a biological reality.

The cause of the collapse of extended family and rural tribes was industrialisation and urbanisation which followed technological advance.

This is true, of course...at least in some cases: but the extended family and the tribe simply express an expanded view of the nuclear family. It's not its opposite. Nuclear families happen within the group or tribal structure. And in point of fact, the nuclear family was also reshaped by the removal, first, of the males from agrarian and home industry situations to work outside the home, and later of the removal to the workplace of the women as well.

None of this has been remotely good for children, of course.

Your biological claim is nonsense.

Nope. It's just obvious and certain.

To have a child, you need one parent of one sex, and one of another. And no other arrangment is even capable. One egg, one sperm. End of story.

...babies can be conceived and reared with no input from any human with a penis.

Genetic engineering may now have reached a stage where that can be manipulated in the lab. But it's not historically possible, nor is it possible without the lab. That sort of procreation is both recent and engineered, not natural. What the consequences will be, we can't tell yet, because it's not being done in any numbers. But we have good reasons to suspect that that, too, will turn out badly for children.

It is a biological possibility that a society can be almost entirely female while a few male studs are kept in captivity by the females for reproductive purposes only.

For each child, there would still be only one man and one woman who was the parent. It just doesn't work any other way. (Besides, Amazons are a silly fiction: no society has even been like that.)

Your claim that male workers always and everywhere precede female workers during the process of urbanisation may be correct, but it's a claim that requires you to cite a respectable source for your information.

Any historical account of the Industrial Revolution should do it for you. It's factually the case: males left first, and women did not leave the home for the workplace in great numbers until the World Wars, when there was a period of it, and didn't get there in anything like their present numbers until after that. But here you go: https://www.brookings.edu/essay/the-his ... or-us-all/

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 12:54 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 9:04 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 3:36 pm
Nobody's talking about "glorification." We're just noting that the basic unit of civilization is a family unit with two parents of opposite sex. And that's just a simple fact:it's not even possible to reproduce any other way. It's a biological reality.


This is true, of course...at least in some cases: but the extended family and the tribe simply express an expanded view of the nuclear family. It's not its opposite. Nuclear families happen within the group or tribal structure. And in point of fact, the nuclear family was also reshaped by the removal, first, of the males from agrarian and home industry situations to work outside the home, and later of the removal to the workplace of the women as well.

None of this has been remotely good for children, of course.

Your biological claim is nonsense.

Nope. It's just obvious and certain.

To have a child, you need one parent of one sex, and one of another. And no other arrangment is even capable. One egg, one sperm. End of story.

...babies can be conceived and reared with no input from any human with a penis.

Genetic engineering may now have reached a stage where that can be manipulated in the lab. But it's not historically possible, nor is it possible without the lab. That sort of procreation is both recent and engineered, not natural. What the consequences will be, we can't tell yet, because it's not being done in any numbers. But we have good reasons to suspect that that, too, will turn out badly for children.

It is a biological possibility that a society can be almost entirely female while a few male studs are kept in captivity by the females for reproductive purposes only.

For each child, there would still be only one man and one woman who was the parent. It just doesn't work any other way. (Besides, Amazons are a silly fiction: no society has even been like that.)

Your claim that male workers always and everywhere precede female workers during the process of urbanisation may be correct, but it's a claim that requires you to cite a respectable source for your information.

Any historical account of the Industrial Revolution should do it for you. It's factually the case: males left first, and women did not leave the home for the workplace in great numbers until the World Wars, when there was a period of it, and didn't get there in anything like their present numbers until after that. But here you go: https://www.brookings.edu/essay/the-his ... or-us-all/

Your claim that nuclear families are biologically necessary is not true. Sexual reproduction is the norm for humans to date but it is now biologically possible to clone animals. Cloning apart, biological reproduction does not determine family structure. You must be aware that there are single parent families, same sex parents, adoptive parents, child minders, foster parents, creches, and boarding schools with teachers in loco parentis. All of those affect family structural norms.

You confuse "natural" with biological. Everything that happens is natural whether you approve of it or not.Your usage of 'natural' is the same as that of people who sell ingredients for toiletries.

Whether you like it or not a society where women rule over men is a biological possibility. This being so cultures may change within a much wider range of possibility than you think. To respect the momentum of cultural tradition is one thing but to confuse it with biology is stupid.

Urbanisation is not to be confined to the period of European industrial revolution. There are other places and other times when people have migrated to developing cities.

Since women were "Liberated"....

We had the invention of the microchip. Moon Landings. The Hubble Space telescope. Nuclear Disarmament. The fall of the Berlin Wall. Mobile Phones. Car Stereos. ABS brakes. Digital Watches. The films taken from the books The Lord of the Rings. Two invasions of Iraq. The fall of the Twin Towers of the WTC on 11/09/2001. The rise of Islam.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 11:48 am Your claim that nuclear families are biologically necessary is not true. Sexual reproduction is the norm for humans to date but it is now biologically possible to clone animals.

Human beings are not presently being cloned. Or if they are, it's in some illegal lab somewhere, because that practice has been banned in almost all countries...for very good ethical reasons, I might add. https://cbhd.org/content/why-human-clon ... banned-now

But even supposing the practice were to become common, it would be no argument against the natural primacy of sexual reproduction. Not only in the human world, but in the entire mammalian world, there is no other standard, no other norm, and no other historical practice. Moreover, even a cloned child will be produced with either an XX chromosomal pair, or an XY chromosomal pair: so even with cloning, the two basic sexes will reassert their identity immediately.

You must be aware that there are single parent families, same sex parents, adoptive parents, child minders, foster parents, creches, and boarding schools with teachers in loco parentis. All of those affect family structural norms.

You're missing the point, or working like fury not to face it: these are merely alternate "child rearing" arrangements. They do not produce children. A single parent cannot produce a child without a sperm-donor. Same sex people are infertile. Adoptive parents take on a child they did not create. And so on.

Once again, human sexuality is male-female. It always comes back to that.

Whether you like it or not a society where women rule over men is a biological possibility.

It's a theoretical possibility, maybe, but not a realistic one. It's never been a reality. I suspect it's practically impossible, since the vast strength difference between men and women would imply. The recent spate of "trans" athletes scandals pretty much illustrates that.

Urbanisation is not to be confined to the period of European industrial revolution. There are other places and other times when people have migrated to developing cities.

This is true: but the same patterns have shown themselves in all cases. The men are extracted from the domestic scene first, and later the women. And that's unavoidable, because women are the child-bearers. They end up with the kids, almost every time, just through circumstances.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 1:43 pm Since women were "Liberated"....

We had the invention of the microchip. Moon Landings. The Hubble Space telescope. Nuclear Disarmament. The fall of the Berlin Wall. Mobile Phones. Car Stereos. ABS brakes. Digital Watches. The films taken from the books The Lord of the Rings. Two invasions of Iraq. The fall of the Twin Towers of the WTC on 11/09/2001. The rise of Islam.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.

duct (duck) tape, don't forget about duct (duck) tape

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 6:00 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 1:43 pm Since women were "Liberated"....

We had the invention of the microchip. Moon Landings. The Hubble Space telescope. Nuclear Disarmament. The fall of the Berlin Wall. Mobile Phones. Car Stereos. ABS brakes. Digital Watches. The films taken from the books The Lord of the Rings. Two invasions of Iraq. The fall of the Twin Towers of the WTC on 11/09/2001. The rise of Islam.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.

duct (duck) tape, don't forget about duct (duck) tape

Yes and fish fingers too!!

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 8:38 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 6:00 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 1:43 pm Since women were "Liberated"....

We had the invention of the microchip. Moon Landings. The Hubble Space telescope. Nuclear Disarmament. The fall of the Berlin Wall. Mobile Phones. Car Stereos. ABS brakes. Digital Watches. The films taken from the books The Lord of the Rings. Two invasions of Iraq. The fall of the Twin Towers of the WTC on 11/09/2001. The rise of Islam.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.

duct (duck) tape, don't forget about duct (duck) tape

Yes and fish fingers too!!

and ramen