Timeline for Is it true that a technological society has to weaken family ties and local communities if it is to function efficiently?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 19 at 1:28 | comment | added | Mark_NoBadCake | @ScottRowe I would be happy to discuss the pros and cons of urban life with you, however I've been previously chastised by moderation for not using Chat for prolonged discussions. I will say I have not read the book you refer to, but I did post an answer today regarding existentialism, which is not the one above. | |
| Feb 18 at 23:50 | comment | added | Scott Rowe | Have you tried searching for a job or a mate without using websites, or confined your search to a small village? Cities bringing us in to contact with a greater and more varied group of people is extremely helpful. Have you read "No Exit"? Care to spend eternity with just a few unchosen people? | |
| Feb 10 at 17:11 | comment | added | Mark_NoBadCake | @Community done | |
| Feb 10 at 17:08 | history | edited | Mark_NoBadCake | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 836 characters in body
|
| Feb 10 at 14:27 | comment | added | CommunityBot | As it’s currently written, your answer is unclear. Please edit to add additional details that will help others understand how this addresses the question asked. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center. | |
| Feb 8 at 8:29 | comment | added | J D | That point of disconnect should come w the discovery that the contention over "traditional family values" stems from the motivation to politicize the term within the context of contemporary American politics and is rendered disingenuous by a rhetorical ploy to characterize this answer's author as committed to the proposition that slavery is good. Ideologues curiously find themselves compelled to shoehorn discourse into a false dichotomy with a lack of awareness of their own motivation to do so. Such is discourse on the Interwebs, alas. | |
| Feb 7 at 20:01 | comment | added | Mark_NoBadCake | @NotThatGuy "Given your apparent admission that slavery was indeed a good thing," I did NOT say slavery was "good." I said it was understandable and I say inevitable. We do agree we've reached a point of complete disconnect in our discussion. | |
| Feb 7 at 19:42 | comment | added | NotThatGuy | Given your apparent admission that slavery was indeed a good thing, I don't think I need to say anything more to demonstrate to others how completely absurd, inhumane and callous your position is. You also contradict yourself in every second sentence, and you have some very, very incorrect ideas of how evolution works. I'm sure you can find someone who'll argue with you about whether slavery was good, but I'm not going to argue with someone who thinks it's okay to treat human beings as property. | |
| Feb 7 at 19:29 | comment | added | Mark_NoBadCake | "Are you saying slavery was a good thing?" I'm saying that in the context of history it is understandable. That if you or I had been born in ancient Athens to a rich family, we would have been slave owners. Before Ind. Revolution the labor required to produce enough food for a society to survive likely required labor organized as slavery. Since that time the rich have discovered more humane ways to organize labor. Not all slaves were poorly treated. Consider Aesop, Epictetus, and Joseph(from the Bible). Then as now it's better to be useful! | |
| Feb 7 at 19:19 | comment | added | Mark_NoBadCake | @NotThatGuy "What does traditional family values have to do with the golden rule?" Both are products of evolution. The golden rule is the basis of all virtue (see Aristotle's doctrine of the mean) which are attributes of Character. Character enables human beings to get along, to develop sincere, caring relationships that is not possible if we rely on an impersonal authority haphazardly enforcing specific laws. Character is destiny said Heraclitus and per my experience he's still correct. | |
| Feb 7 at 19:07 | comment | added | Mark_NoBadCake | @NotThatGuy"do you concede that "traditional family values" has not been around for 10000+ years?" I'm saying basic or nuclear family = man/woman+kids is the result of evolution driving the species survive and hence, procreate with notable exceptions amongst royalty and the otherwise wealthy. | |
| Feb 7 at 18:36 | comment | added | NotThatGuy | "Slavery ... made sense in the historical context that they existed - until they didn't and there was push for change" - I really didn't expect to have to argue against slavery today. Are you saying slavery was a good thing? If not, how then did it "make sense"? It also sounds really naive to say that slavery is "impractical" today. Also, you can't have both "this has stood the test of time" and also "historical context changes what makes sense" - those things are directly opposed to one another (and you do seem to be trying to apply both to the same idea of family values). | |
| Feb 7 at 18:36 | comment | added | NotThatGuy | What does traditional family values have to do with the golden rule? If by "traditional family values", you mean anything other than 1 man married to 1 woman, with kids, the man works and the woman is a stay-at-home mom - if you mean anything other than that, then you might want to use a different term, because that's how it's commonly used. And if you do mean that, then I'm sure you wouldn't want to only be allowed to have relationship with people you're not attracted to, and/or you're forced into a role in that relationship that you don't want. | |
| Feb 7 at 18:35 | comment | added | NotThatGuy | So do you concede that "traditional family values" has not been around for 10000+ years? | |
| Feb 7 at 18:09 | comment | added | Mark_NoBadCake | @NotThatGuy My position is that all organisms have a survival instinct and evolve against a hostile environment. Sticking with "traditional values," these are summed up in the Golden Rule(Treat others...). From the survival instinct we have drive to reproduce from which the basic and extended "family" developed. Slavery, women's historical roles, etc. all made sense in the historical context that they existed - until they didn't and there was push for change. Consider the likelihood of slavery existing today if it weren't for the Industrial Revolution which made slave owning impractical. | |
| Feb 7 at 17:51 | comment | added | NotThatGuy | If you mean "traditional family values" in the sense that modern conservatives are promoting, that absolutely haven't been around for anywhere close to 10000+ years. Family values have varied greatly across time. The "traditional" values people speak of mostly originate from the 1950s or so. That period is also correlated with oppression of women and gay people. Just because something happened for some period in the past, doesn't mean it's better than what we have today. We were dying from any one of many easily treatable ailments for many millennia - does that mean that was good? | |
| S Feb 7 at 17:38 | review | First answers | |||
| Feb 10 at 14:27 | |||||
| S Feb 7 at 17:38 | history | answered | Mark_NoBadCake | CC BY-SA 4.0 |