- 18 Aug 2012 03:16
#14034747
...so I was arguing with some conservatives earlier about family values and how modern conservatism seems to sell itself out by not teaching children social values just so parents can be workaholics. They were saying that children should be treated like property because children can't be "forced" into existence since they didn't previously exist. Therefore, if a parent wants to treat a child like crap with tough punishment in forcing a child to learn from experience, so be it.
I was really shocked that they were so blunt about this. They also didn't care about how different parents can parent their children differently, and therefore, those children can come away with different social values such that a conflict of interest arises when different children grow up. Tough children with tough parents, and soft children with soft parents, will grow up aggressive. Tough children with soft parents, and soft children with tough parents, will grow up reserved.
The implication is a society where different adults have different interpretations of "respect". Aggressive children grow up to believe that people innately pressure one another. Reserved children grow up to believe that people innately admit one another. When pressure and admission come together, that leads to misunderstandings in how people should exercise manners...
...so I pushed the envelope and asked about abortion. How could someone who tolerates aggressive parenting see a problem with abortion? After all, aggressive parenting doesn't see a problem with pressuring or forcing people to learn from experience. Anyone who can't endure pressure is simply forgotten on the basis of natural selection.
The response I got was laughter, and I actually persuaded a few conservatives on accident to believe that abortion was OK. They took the "property" concept to heart, and figured it's fine since the preborn haven't achieved geographic or economic independence.
Fucking hell.
I was really shocked that they were so blunt about this. They also didn't care about how different parents can parent their children differently, and therefore, those children can come away with different social values such that a conflict of interest arises when different children grow up. Tough children with tough parents, and soft children with soft parents, will grow up aggressive. Tough children with soft parents, and soft children with tough parents, will grow up reserved.
The implication is a society where different adults have different interpretations of "respect". Aggressive children grow up to believe that people innately pressure one another. Reserved children grow up to believe that people innately admit one another. When pressure and admission come together, that leads to misunderstandings in how people should exercise manners...
...so I pushed the envelope and asked about abortion. How could someone who tolerates aggressive parenting see a problem with abortion? After all, aggressive parenting doesn't see a problem with pressuring or forcing people to learn from experience. Anyone who can't endure pressure is simply forgotten on the basis of natural selection.
The response I got was laughter, and I actually persuaded a few conservatives on accident to believe that abortion was OK. They took the "property" concept to heart, and figured it's fine since the preborn haven't achieved geographic or economic independence.
Fucking hell.
______________
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream.
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream.