Philosophy Now Forum

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 2:03 am So transparent...

Exactly what the research shows.

VT, is it possible that IC is right about the statistical correlation between a child being raised by biological parents and generally raising children more successfully; but that there are exceptions? It doesn't mean that a single parent or a step-parent can't raise a good child, however, I would imagine that it just takes more effort and work for a single parent to raise a child because they are just one person as opposed to two and that if they are not biological then their attachment to the child might not be quite as strong? In other words, it's like a single worker doing a job that two workers might perform more thoroughly or more efficiently. And likewise, if both parents are lazy about raising a child, then they still might not raise a child as well as a single parent who is very industrious and involved with raising a child.

I suspect in the end a child can be raised well by anyone, however, it's a matter of doing the work, getting them to school on time, watching out in their social life that they behave properly in society, and ensuring that they have a healthy environment surrounded by love and friendship, etc.

Another question:

What is the better approach to raising children, letting them develop freely and explore on their own or giving them guidance?

I suspect that a completely hands-off approach to child-rearing is probably fraught with the dangers of potentially going astray into misdevelopment. I mean, it's possible a child will turn out well purely on their own by accident.

At the same time, too much guidance will likely result in a child who has problems with independence. My suspicion is that good child-rearing is a matter of finding a balance between the two. Ultimately the goal is to raise a good child and this requires some vigilance on the part of parents to keep tabs on their children so that they can intervene with guidance when and where it is necessary but leave a child to explore on their own to some degree so that they can freely develop their own unique passion and interest in things.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 3:41 am VT, is it possible that IC is right about the statistical correlation between a child being raised by biological parents and generally raising children more successfully; but that there are exceptions? It doesn't mean that a single parent or a step-parent can't raise a good child, however, I would imagine that it just takes more effort and work for a single parent to raise a child because they are just one person as opposed to two and that if they are not biological then their attachment to the child might not be quite as strong? In other words, it's like a single worker doing a job that two workers might perform more thoroughly or more efficiently. And likewise, if both parents are lazy about raising a child, then they still might not raise a child as well as a single parent who is very industrious and involved with raising a child.

As I made clear, there is a lot more to it. Statistics can say pretty much anything you want them to say. A lack of wealth doesn't turn someone into a child abuser. I thought I covered most of those points. The fact that some lowlife scumbags have children as a cashcow for foodstamps or whatever simply points to them being lowlife scumbags, except that it's going to show up 'statistically' as bad parenting by single mothers. Can you not understand this? It's a bit like saying that bacause some people go into school teaching to get access to children to abuse, then all school teachers should be tarred with the same brush. And as I pointed out, those so called 'solo mothers' generally don't have any shortage of males hanging around their children as 'role models'.

Can is a misogynistic piece of crap. He just hates women in general, like all kristian fuckwits.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 4:28 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 3:41 am VT, is it possible that IC is right about the statistical correlation between a child being raised by biological parents and generally raising children more successfully; but that there are exceptions? It doesn't mean that a single parent or a step-parent can't raise a good child, however, I would imagine that it just takes more effort and work for a single parent to raise a child because they are just one person as opposed to two and that if they are not biological then their attachment to the child might not be quite as strong? In other words, it's like a single worker doing a job that two workers might perform more thoroughly or more efficiently. And likewise, if both parents are lazy about raising a child, then they still might not raise a child as well as a single parent who is very industrious and involved with raising a child.

As I made clear, there is a lot more to it. Statistics can say pretty much anything you want them to say. A lack of wealth doesn't turn someone into a child abuser. I thought I covered most of those points. The fact that some lowlife scumbags have children as a cashcow for foodstamps or whatever simply points to them being lowlife scumbags, except that it's going to show up 'statistically' as bad parenting by single mothers. Can you not understand this? It's a bit like saying that bacause some people go into school teaching to get access to children to abuse then all school teachers should be tarred with the same brush.

Can is a misogynistic piece of crap. He just hates women in general, like all kristian fuckwits.

Well, I can understand his position a little. Not to say I agree with it but I find women frustrating too. But that's because I have psychological issues and women, quite understandably, don't like men with psychological issues. (Not saying IC has psychological issues) And of course, if women ostracize a man for having psychological issues, it just exacerbates the psychological issues, often producing resentment. Fortunately for me, I tend to choose depression over anger and resentment. I think depression is essentially anger and resentment turned inward. It's like my mind is performing scorched earth tactics on my own psyche. Rather than allow myself to become destructive socially toward the community I tend to wreak havoc within myself. It's like my mind is fighting a virus. I know what is right and what is wrong, I try not to do wrong so in order to prevent it I just wreck my brain into a dysfunctional mess instead.

And some of the worst chlld abuse has been perpetrated by couples. Think Rosemary and Fred West. Does that mean that chlldren are actually worse off in two parent households?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 4:58 am Think Rosemary and Fred West.

The Wests murdered a bunch of people they weren't related to. They weren't "parents" and werent' biologically related to any, even Fred's stepdaughter. So the West case actually has no bearing at all.

But even if you had chosen a relevant case, it would show nothing. You still don't "get" that an anecdote does not disprove a statistic.

The former is particular; the latter is general. In most generalizations, even the best ones, you're going to find exceptions -- but the presence of an exceptional case, is no stroke against the truth of the generalization.

If the question is, "Are two bio parents most likely to be better than non-bio "parents" (or complete strangers, like the Wests). The answer is "Yes." But in particular cases, nothing is guaranteed. Generalizations speak to averages, not rare exceptions.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 5:13 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 4:58 am Think Rosemary and Fred West.

The Wests murdered a bunch of people they weren't related to. They weren't "parents" and werent' biologically related to any, even Fred's stepdaughter. So the West case actually has no bearing at all.

Not true. They abused their own daughters and murdered two of them.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 4:58 am And some of the worst chlld abuse has been perpetrated by couples. Think Rosemary and Fred West. Does that mean that chlldren are actually worse off in two parent households?

Good point. I suppose if a parent has deep psychological issues it will often cause psychological issues in the child. And if two parents both possess those issues the child will turn out very badly. I wonder if it's not like the parents are performing their own scorched earth tactic on their child. Again, not to defend the killing of a child but rather to understand the psychological mechanisms at work. Sometimes I really do think that our minds have as much an immune system response to some things as our body does. And in order to prevent future infanticide, it might be best to catch the problem early and try to help the child while treating the parents as well.

Going back to my own psyche's scorched earth policy there is an African proverb that a child who is not embraced by the community will burn it down just to feel its warmth. I suppose I'd rather burn myself up than the community. But sometimes I slip and do stupid things for the community too.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 5:13 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 4:58 am Think Rosemary and Fred West.

The Wests murdered a bunch of people they weren't related to. They weren't "parents" and werent' biologically related to any, even Fred's stepdaughter. So the West case actually has no bearing at all.

But even if you had chosen a relevant case, it would show nothing. You still don't "get" that an anecdote does not disprove a statistic.

The former is particular; the latter is general. In most generalizations, even the best ones, you're going to find exceptions -- but the presence of an exceptional case, is no stroke against the truth of the generalization.

If the question is, "Are two bio parents most likely to be better than non-bio "parents" (or complete strangers, like the Wests). The answer is "Yes." But in particular cases, nothing is guaranteed. Generalizations speak to averages, not rare exceptions.

I think this approach probably presumes that it would have been a different situation had the parents been biological parents. Are there examples of biological parents killing their own children? I believe I've heard of some such cases though I don't remember the names of the people involved.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 5:27 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 5:13 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 4:58 am Think Rosemary and Fred West.

The Wests murdered a bunch of people they weren't related to. They weren't "parents" and werent' biologically related to any, even Fred's stepdaughter. So the West case actually has no bearing at all.

But even if you had chosen a relevant case, it would show nothing. You still don't "get" that an anecdote does not disprove a statistic.

The former is particular; the latter is general. In most generalizations, even the best ones, you're going to find exceptions -- but the presence of an exceptional case, is no stroke against the truth of the generalization.

If the question is, "Are two bio parents most likely to be better than non-bio "parents" (or complete strangers, like the Wests). The answer is "Yes." But in particular cases, nothing is guaranteed. Generalizations speak to averages, not rare exceptions.

I think this approach probably presumes that it would have been a different situation had the parents been biological parents. Are there examples of biological parents killing their own children? I believe I've heard of some such cases though I don't remember the names of the people involved.

It happens all the time.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 5:13 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 4:58 am Think Rosemary and Fred West.

The Wests murdered a bunch of people they weren't related to. They weren't "parents" and werent' biologically related to any, even Fred's stepdaughter. So the West case actually has no bearing at all.

But even if you had chosen a relevant case, it would show nothing. You still don't "get" that an anecdote does not disprove a statistic.

The former is particular; the latter is general. In most generalizations, even the best ones, you're going to find exceptions -- but the presence of an exceptional case, is no stroke against the truth of the generalization.

If the question is, "Are two bio parents most likely to be better than non-bio "parents" (or complete strangers, like the Wests). The answer is "Yes." But in particular cases, nothing is guaranteed. Generalizations speak to averages, not rare exceptions.

Are you suggesting that most parents who parent alone are neglectful and abusive towards their children, and that those who don't are 'an exception'? That terrible sole parents would miraculously become good parents if only there were two of them?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 5:27 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 5:13 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 4:58 am Think Rosemary and Fred West.

The Wests murdered a bunch of people they weren't related to. They weren't "parents" and werent' biologically related to any, even Fred's stepdaughter. So the West case actually has no bearing at all.

But even if you had chosen a relevant case, it would show nothing. You still don't "get" that an anecdote does not disprove a statistic.

The former is particular; the latter is general. In most generalizations, even the best ones, you're going to find exceptions -- but the presence of an exceptional case, is no stroke against the truth of the generalization.

If the question is, "Are two bio parents most likely to be better than non-bio "parents" (or complete strangers, like the Wests). The answer is "Yes." But in particular cases, nothing is guaranteed. Generalizations speak to averages, not rare exceptions.

I think this approach probably presumes that it would have been a different situation had the parents been biological parents. Are there examples of biological parents killing their own children? I believe I've heard of some such cases though I don't remember the names of the people involved.

Can doesn't give a flying rat's arse about children. His only concern is that a percentage of his tax dollars might go on welfare that helps what he thinks of as 'immoral' women. Never mind that the hypocritical old coot is probably on welfare himself in the form of an old age pension.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 12:06 pm Well if American 'nuclear' parents even remotely resemble the way they are portrayed on American TV shows then it's no wonder the population is so fucked up.
Weak, self-absorbed morons constantly apologising and asking if the hapless child 'wants to talk about it', endless angst-ridden 'psychological pep talks', 'therapy' sessions, spoilt brat kids who talk like mini adults who've spent too much time watching American TV families, nothing that even comes close to actual parenting (or normal human beings)...

So twue, so twue. I see young parents discussing things with little ones who are only intent on getting their own way, by any means necessary (toddlers). Children need structure, and a trusted authority figure, communicated by love, touch, and tone. Too much (intellectual) information just confuses them.

*

Pulling the camera back a bit for a more encompassing, spiritual, and philosophical view of marriage and family …

The bitching of the women is a gift from God. Bitching is in the nature of a woman, for pleasing a woman in order to stop the bitching is the imputus for human progress.

“It’s too hot in here!” (Man invents the air conditioner.)
“It takes forever to get there!” (Man invents the auto.)
“I need another bucket of water!” (Man invents plumbing.)
“You talk too much!” (Man invents the pub, and the confessional.)

Self-absorbed men, who are not aware of this quality going in, are prone to divorce.

But for those so inclined, there is an added bonus. In addition to spurring human progress, the bitching of the woman affords an opportunity for spiritual progress, and philosophy. Socrates knew this method of rising above the bitching, aka transcending the bitching via philosophy. Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj also knew the transcendence of bitching via realization of what, from where, and to where, for he was of The Nath, and a spiritual householder.

In the spiritual way, man learns to love the bitching in and of itself*, for he has seen the void and thus, has perspective.

* It is the intellectual way of the gnani, which cuts to the essence, aka knowing enough because too much is often just fluff.