Rep. Bachmann's Far-Right Family Pledge Argues Black Kids Were Better Off In 1860 - Polidicks

[QUOTE=RBM11;31002527]You're trying to expand what I'm saying as what my idea of that society actually was. I'm saying electric bullet's antiquated ideas would have more merit of being "true" solely for the reason of biology/hormones alone: From my first post Basically based on more strength and more testosterone alone. I never said that's the way things were. I also said this: My apologies if I ever gave the indication that I actually thought early society worked that way. I'm saying in a hypothetical reality where survival of the species was very difficult, his ideas may have merit, but definitely more merit than they do today. [editline]9th July 2011[/editline] I'm not really sure if I'm making this clear[/QUOTE] uhhh i'm really confused survival of the human species was very difficult and evidence points to gender roles coming into existence when it started to get easier so i don't even know what your point is lol

[QUOTE=Ond kaja;31002577]Yeah, there's a logical void here, why is having two parents generally better if the single parents generally don't have any problems raising their children. Your plain analysis on this issue is truly agonising to read. You are ignoring the factors to why divorces happen. The choices aren't two parents or one parent, but two parents with an unstable relationship or one parent whose possibility to take care of the child is far better than if the parent still was in the broken relationship. Divorces don't happen casually and randomly, they are serious decisions and you should treat them as such.[/QUOTE] Yeah okay, now, I believe that divorce can be appropriate, but then again, sometimes, the issue behind it can be overcome, and divorce avoided. In such cases, it is preferable. And can we just stop talking about the "inflation" issue [editline]8th July 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=thisispain;31002599]uhhh i'm really confused survival of the human species was very difficult and evidence points to gender roles coming into existence when it started to get easier so i don't even know what your point is lol[/QUOTE] what evidence is this anyway why are we so sure that gender roles didn't exist way back when

[QUOTE=thisispain;31002599]uhhh i'm really confused survival of the human species was very difficult and evidence points to gender roles coming into existence when it started to get easier so i don't even know what your point is lol[/QUOTE] My point is that his hypothetical view of men being stronger and therefore a hunter or whatever based solely on biology alone has more merit in prehistoric times than modern times. It's a polite way of saying his ideas would seem more reasonable in the stone age. The idea itself has more merit in the stone age, not that actual gender role. The idea of the gender being the way it is.

[QUOTE=RBM11;31002652]My point is that his hypothetical view of men being stronger and therefore a hunter or whatever based solely on biology alone has more merit in prehistoric times than modern times. It's a polite way of saying his ideas would seem more reasonable in the stone age.[/QUOTE] well it does sound a bit nasty when you word it like that, now doesnt it

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31002620]Yeah okay, now, I believe that divorce can be appropriate, but then again, sometimes, the issue behind it can be overcome, and divorce avoided. In such cases, it is preferable. And can we just stop talking about the "inflation" issue[/QUOTE] And now I would just like to hear an explanation to why you have a problem with single parents if you think that they generally raise their child successfully.

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31002620] what evidence is this anyway why are we so sure that gender roles didn't exist way back when[/QUOTE] plenty of studies point out that hunter-gatherer societies had not developed distinctions in gender

*sighhh* you don't seem to understand what I believe I believe that two parents are generally better than one. However, I did not go so far as to say that "single parents generally have trouble raising kids". Maybe I should've though. I dunno. What I'm saying is, ONE statement is stronger than the other. [editline]8th July 2011[/editline] regarding hunter-gatherer societies, I checked Wikipedia and found [quote]A vast amount of ethnographic and archaeological evidence demonstrates that the sexual division of labor in which men hunt and women gather wild fruits and vegetables is an extremely common phenomenon among hunter-gatherers worldwide, but there are a few documented exceptions to this general pattern. A study done on the Aeta people of the Philippines states: "About 85% of Philippine Aeta women hunt, and they hunt the same quarry as men. Aeta women hunt in groups and with dogs, and have a 31% success rate as opposed to 17% for men. Their rates are even better when they combine forces with men: mixed hunting groups have a full 41% success rate among the Aeta."[16][/quote] which would appear to be to the contrary

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31002668]well it does sound a bit nasty when you word it like that, now doesnt it[/QUOTE] I'm not really trying to sound like a dick. I'm trying to say that you should stop using the most basic biological differences to try to explain an ideal form of family in a modern society where none of that shit matters that much at all Those biological differences would matter a lot more in a much simpler time because they play a much smaller role in a modern human's life. [editline]9th July 2011[/editline] Does that sounds like it makes sense without being dickish? If so then fuck yes

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31002501]not really any effect on the child (except for the possibility of making him more likely to be polygamist himself).[/QUOTE] gay parents aren't more likely to produce gay kids so tread very carefully

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31002714]*sighhh* you don't seem to understand what I believe I believe that two parents are generally better than one. However, I did not go so far as to say that "single parents generally have trouble raising kids". Maybe I should've though. I dunno. What I'm saying is, ONE statement is stronger than the other. [/QUOTE] WHY is having two parents generally better than just one?

[QUOTE=Ond kaja;31002790]WHY is having two parents generally better than just one?[/QUOTE] Did you have two parents? Yes? Imagine if you only had one. How would that be? Did you have one parent? Imagine if you'd had two. Another possible source of income, or another person to care about you, to teach you things, to spend time with you when your one parent couldn't. Two parents means, in today's society, another source of income, or work around the house, and time with the family. If a divorce was involved in producing this single parent, if the divorce had not happened, it would be one less potentially traumatic event.

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31002840]Did you have two parents? Yes? Imagine if you only had one. How would that be? Did you have one parent? Imagine if you'd had two. Another possible source of income, or another person to care about you, to teach you things, to spend time with you when your one parent couldn't. Two parents means, in today's society, another source of income, or work around the house, and time with the family. If a divorce was involved in producing this single parent, if the divorce had not happened, it would be one less potentially traumatic event.[/QUOTE] Two parents can also set up a situation where the parents are more interested in each other than the kid, or the opposite, where they're always fighting

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31002714]*sighhh* you don't seem to understand what I believe I believe that two parents are generally better than one. However, I did not go so far as to say that "single parents generally have trouble raising kids". Maybe I should've though. I dunno. What I'm saying is, ONE statement is stronger than the other. [editline]8th July 2011[/editline] regarding hunter-gatherer societies, I checked Wikipedia and found which would appear to be to the contrary[/QUOTE] Sexual division of labor led to gender roles which are: [quote] the set of social and behavioral [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_(sociology)"]norms[/URL] that are considered to be socially appropriate for individuals of a specific sex in the context of a specific culture[/quote] They didn't exist at the time, but they developed out of sexual division of labor due to the most basic physical differences. Which goes back to my whole argument that your idea of gender roles are applicable in hunter-gather societies because physical differences played a much larger role.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;31002849]Two parents can also set up a situation where the parents are more interested in each other than the kid, or the opposite, where they're always fighting[/QUOTE] If they are always fighting, then a divorce may be appropriate. I'm kinda doubtful about the first being a real problem, though.

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31002840]Did you have two parents? Yes? Imagine if you only had one. How would that be? Did you have one parent? Imagine if you'd had two. Another possible source of income, or another person to care about you, to teach you things, to spend time with you when your one parent couldn't. Two parents means, in today's society, another source of income, or work around the house, and time with the family. If a divorce was involved in producing this single parent, if the divorce had not happened, it would be one less potentially traumatic event.[/QUOTE] Read my earlier post about stability. Stability is key. Large changes like you proposed cause the supposed "problems" you see with one parent as opposed to two parent because they cause stress and can exacerbate and cause mental problems in a critical period of development. If you spent your entire life with one parent, and your parent suddenly got a new partner, it may be confusing as shit to you or stressful having a new person in your life. It works both ways. What if you didn't like that new parent? What if they leached off of your old parent's income? Two people =/= two incomes. I mean you contradicted your own ideal views of the mom staying home. There aren't two incomes if the mom stays home. Sure they could care about you, or they could molest you. You just never know The problem is your thinking of ideal situations and not of all the realistic possibilities which is why it's just an ideal view. Your ideal view crumbles apart when other possibilities are viewed which is why you don't like arguing about it.

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31002840]Did you have two parents? Yes? Imagine if you only had one. How would that be? Did you have one parent? Imagine if you'd had two. Another possible source of income, or another person to care about you, to teach you things, to spend time with you when your one parent couldn't. Two parents means, in today's society, another source of income, or work around the house, and time with the family. If a divorce was involved in producing this single parent, if the divorce had not happened, it would be one less potentially traumatic event.[/QUOTE]...And now you ignore the factors to why divorces happen AGAIN... Your reactionary view of the ideal family merely represents those few who are lucky enough to be born into a nice family that gains much money and doesn't argue about a thing. In reality, many families have problems with relationships and finances, which can tear down your ideal of a family pretty quickly. And you're also not taking into account that the children might dislike one of their parents. The child is not always a victim of divorce, because it might relieve them from the stress of living in a family which have problems with their relationships. Also, it's 7am, I'm going to bed.

[QUOTE=Reimu;30996657]Yes, it's not like slave mothers and fathers faced being traded away by their slave masters :v:.[/QUOTE] I have yet to see you directly respond to this, Elecbullet. You just dodge the question by saying "THIS ISN'T ABOUT SLAVERY" and continue rambling about divorce, which by the way became more common as a result of women getting the right to divorce their husbands, thus allowing women to escape abusive or irresponsible husbands, not because of any sort of cultural decay. Divorce is something that has raised significantly in every ethnic group since then, the divorce rate among white couples is high enough to be addressed with concern. In addition to the scenario I quoted slave families also sometimes had to deal with affairs, as it was not unheard of for slaveowners to use slaves, married and single, for sexual purposes. Black families living in the North had to worry about income even more than modern ones do, as they had no protection against job discrimination, and life for the working class up north was pretty bad to begin with back then.

it's 12 midnight here and I'd like to go to bed too. May I?

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31002982]it's 12 midnight here and I'd like to go to bed too. May I?[/QUOTE] yes

[QUOTE=Aredbomb;31002977]I have yet to see you directly respond to this, Elecbullet. You just dodge the question by saying "THIS ISN'T ABOUT SLAVERY" and continue rambling about divorce, which by the way became more common as a result of women getting the right to divorce their husbands, thus allowing women to escape abusive or irresponsible husbands, not because of any sort of cultural decay. Divorce is something that has raised significantly in every ethnic group since then, the divorce rate among white couples is high enough to be addressed with concern. In addition to the scenario I quoted slave families also sometimes had to deal with affairs, as it was not unheard of for slaveowners to use slaves, married and single, for sexual purposes. Black families living in the North had to worry about income even more than modern ones do, as they had no protection against job discrimination, and life for the working class up north was pretty bad to begin with back then.[/QUOTE] I didn't intend to support Bachmann. Merely defend her against the strawman set forth by the thread title. Divorce rates are in fact higher among whites than African Americans, or any race for that matter. However it is possible that the marriage might simply not occur in the first place, so we can't just go by divorce rates. Whatever. Night night.

-nevermind- He actually isn't right. It isn't much of a strawman because what Bachmann said isn't even true because they weren't even really raised in two parent households (doesn't make sense when you know anything about slave life.) But he doesn't really have to address the point about defending Bachmann because he wasn't trying to defend her.

Kay night night. Please don't post expecting further reply because I really want to go to bed around midnight and not 4 AM

sweet dreams elecbullet

You want to debate about something now Sanius

sure

[QUOTE=Sanius;31003991]sure[/QUOTE] So how about that economy?

I've only red until the end of page 3, but did Bachman just insulted her fellow GOP member Herman Caine, you know, the maffia pizza guy? Aswell on the conservative family topic on page 2-3, my granddad is like that but it always falls back to "In my time..." Me: "we had no phone, no internet, no car, no TV with this many channels.". After then he's quiet. It also makes promotes that the wife must be dependant to the husband, where is sex equallity here? If a GOP member becomes president i bet the next bill will be "only straight, white, christian males are allowed to vote".

You know Elecbullet, even though I disagreed with you all thread, you handled yourself better than most, you didn't resort to flaming. On topic, I can't believe Bachmann is accepted as a political candidate. The right has swung so far right in response to what's happened "because of the liberals" and gotten more religious and more insane, but yet I still see posters I once thought were sane defending these groups of bigots. I'm okay with differing political beliefs, but that's a lot different than what the far right seems to be chewing out. Flat out hate.

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;30996621][del]The idea of a kiddy having a mommy and a daddy, which is alien-sounding I know[/del] however that's not the point of THIS thread, so i will reduce that statement to the idea of a kiddy having two parents, which is alien-sounding I know[/QUOTE] What do slaves have to do with family size? And how is having two parents "Family values" They could be complete heroin addicts, doesn't mean they give good wholesome family values. This is the problem with Republicans, they love buzzwords that don't make any fucking sense.

[QUOTE=thisispain;31002260]it's also not true most anthropologists say that gender roles did not exist at all in the beginning of human civilization. egalitarian societies were better for survival. most evidence points to gender roles evolving out of societies that began to make divisions in their structures.[/QUOTE] [citation] A lot of anthropologists and evolutionary biologists argue that gender roles are what allowed homo sapiens to become the dominant species. These gender roles were important in the division of labour that allowed humanity to 'get going'. Of course now they are pointless.