Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Poll

What's your opinion on free will?

I am religious and believe in free will
- 71 (27.7%)
I am religious and do not believe in free will
- 10 (3.9%)
I am not religious and believe in free will
- 114 (44.5%)
I am not religious and do not believe in free will
- 61 (23.8%)

Total Members Voted: 251


Pages: 1 ... 360 361 [362] 363 364 ... 525

Author Topic: Railgun and Spirituality Discussion  (Read 685004 times)

Telgin

  • Bay Watcher
  • Professional Programmer
    • View Profile
Re: Religion and Spirituality Discussion: Conversion by Kirpan
« Reply #5415 on: March 31, 2016, 08:59:56 pm »

Or just a more general fear of the unknown.  You at least know how well "traditional" things work, but for all you know changing it could be disastrous.  Best to stick with what you know works, even if it's not perfect.
Logged
Through pain, I find wisdom.

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: Religion and Spirituality Discussion: Conversion by Kirpan
« Reply #5416 on: March 31, 2016, 09:32:30 pm »

#itsparentingstupid
basically
Literally

Eh. Having two parents (or at least more adults in the house so it's not one parent doing anything) is a positive for everyone. Trying to raise kids on your own, and work for a living is hard. It's hard on the kids too, who don't get as much time with their parent.
No, not two adults. Two parents, when it's just two adults that's a sign of desperation, the whole being hard on the kids thing is not an afterthought it is the primary concern - if they grow up useless or kill themselves then there's really no point in the family having ever started in the first place

And, yeah. Biology is basically irrelevant when it comes to parenting, so it's kinda dumb that people think that's important.
Oh yeah, that thing people are biologically wired to do is irrelevant when it comes to doing it, is this April Fools (???). Is this just part of that newfangled ancient arrogance that claims mankind is above biology again? What are the three behaviours a baby will first instinctively react (in the generalized "seven sense" inaccurate sense of the term)? 1. Breathe 2. Cry 3. Search for a Teat

Christian counselling is basically terrible, yeah. Along with any other ideologically-driven counselling (unless that ideology is "a secular approach to arrive at the best outcome" but that doesn't really count).
Why would Christians go to Christian counselors, if you're going for secular psychiatry you'd see a psychiatrist and if you wanted something religious you'd seek religious advice, the whole thing seems redundant unless it's just about talking to someone you trust. Yeah that makes sense

I dunno, it gets the basic points in order. OT has a very... traditional(?) approach to family structure, which to be fair is about as good as it was going to get at the time. A traditional approach that generally works is vastly easier to maintain, at least.
You're reading it the wrong way around, the Hebrews got it right. Strong families build society and make society easy to maintain. It is also not traditional unless you're being anachronistic in the definition of traditional as we use it today. If it is traditional, it is of many traditions, as whilst monogamy was the standard, there are examples of monogamy, concubinage and with marriage being a civil affair without religious rites. Amusingly the OT and Talmud says you can probably get away with Polygamy but you should take note that you'll likely create families within the family which will cause all sorts of problem, as exemplified wonderfully by the Saudi Arabian family's many, many, many, many different clans, who despite being all of one family function as independent clans.
Also lol:
Quote
Loyalties are no longer to fathers, uncles, and the other "patriarchs" of the family who once formed a veritable safety net for then eedy of the family: the ill and the infirm, and orphans, and divorcees and their children. Each family unit was hence-forth "on its own," the unit having become the parents, their children and grandchildren, and their fathers and mothers, whenever all these coexisted. It is this unit that reflects the "model family" promoted by the modern state, not only because this is the predominant European model - the exporter of this state - but also because the new "Islamic" nation-state could more easily secure the loyalty of such a nuclear family as the defined and articulated site of the good citizen. The loyalties within clans and tribes, being quasi-political, can hardly be divided. Thus, the modern nation-state, which also was fundamentally engaged in, and intertwined with, the new forms of capitalism and new economic modes of production, had a profound interest in refashioning the modern family into a family that is distinctly nuclear.
An Introduction to Islamic Law, by Wael B. Hallaq
I've always seen though the whole family unit thing as more cultural than anything, especially since I grew up in a family culture that is very different to American, Christian, Jewish or Arab Islamic units with the basis not being religion but function

In the NT family structure is a minor point, but there are strong themes around marriage of working towards closer understanding and agreement. The husband is the head of the household in the style of Roman law at the time, which today should be mostly irrelevant when the couple is in agreement, and is a waste of time when they're not.
Finally, the moral imperative of "In all things, work for the good of those around you" is plenty of justification IMO to give plently of leeway in family structure for the people involved to be happy and healthy.
And functional
No point in giving leeway to dysfunction

Orange Wizard

  • Bay Watcher
  • mou ii yo
    • View Profile
    • S M U G
Re: Religion and Spirituality Discussion: Conversion by Kirpan
« Reply #5417 on: March 31, 2016, 10:44:00 pm »

Oh yeah, that thing people are biologically wired to do is irrelevant when it comes to doing it, is this April Fools (???).
Sorry, I wasn't very specific there. I was replying to Frumple's statement about children being with biological parents being regarded as better than adoptive of foster parents.

I agree that a well-structured family is good for raising healthy children, and that healthy children should be the primary goal of a family. I guess I'm trying to emphasise that we shouldn't be too rigid in defining that structure when other approaches are also good for the children.
Not that I'm a sociologist or whatever.
Logged
Please don't shitpost, it lowers the quality of discourse
Hard science is like a sword, and soft science is like fear. You can use both to equally powerful results, but even if your opponent disbelieve your stabs, they will still die.

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: Religion and Spirituality Discussion: Conversion by Kirpan
« Reply #5418 on: March 31, 2016, 11:19:59 pm »

Sorry, I wasn't very specific there. I was replying to Frumple's statement about children being with biological parents being regarded as better than adoptive of foster parents.
Oh right
Yeah I'd still consider that preferable, though not a prerequisite to a successful family
Speaking from London experience there is a great diff between kids who grew up being able to trace their looks back to their GGPs and those who were probably the offspring of the milkman

I agree that a well-structured family is good for raising healthy children, and that healthy children should be the primary goal of a family. I guess I'm trying to emphasise that we shouldn't be too rigid in defining that structure when other approaches are also good for the children.
Vague platitudes that might mean something, but the alternatives are not offered so there's nothing to sink teeth into :(
Bedouin clans? Western dysfunction? Nuclear units? Bamboo units? Hakka my shit up? Hebrew the next brew? Getting agoge goggly? What approaches, because if you offer none I'm gonna be a cuturally enriching fellow and export this shit up the dialogue web fam

Not that I'm a sociologist or whatever.
I was reading the other day some woman in the Medieval times of old England complaining about how Roman clerks who'd never slept with a woman in their life should have zero say in how a family should be run
Centuries of work has worked up to the keks I have today
Point being whoever she was she said nothing wrong, I dunno why you'd place your faith in men more concerned with dismantling industrial capitalism than starting functional families

Rolepgeek

  • Bay Watcher
  • They see me rollin' they savin'~
    • View Profile
Re: Religion and Spirituality Discussion: Conversion by Kirpan
« Reply #5419 on: April 01, 2016, 12:05:26 am »

The bible tells parents to raise children with love and children to obey parents. I know that people don't always do that, but I can't think of a better upbringing for the children or the parents.
Well, problem is, you can love someone and still be a horribly abusive person. Also children are usually cruel, selfish, and impulsive. Like, just naturally. Difficult to make that work with it.

Also, guys? Marriage thing worked because of STDs. It's not even about what it was meant to do; "it's tradition and culture and blah and that's why we put it in our book". The reason it happened to be part of the most successful religion ("Be fruitful and multiply"; infant mortality rates were massive, nobody was concerned with population control in an agricultural society) is because it meant fewer people got gonorrhea and died. Not, none, but fewer. Plus some advantages to do with blahblahblah childrearing it kinda pales in the face of anything that cuts down on disease, which is the biggest cause of mortality for humans in general, back then or now.

Or just a more general fear of the unknown.  You at least know how well "traditional" things work, but for all you know changing it could be disastrous.  Best to stick with what you know works, even if it's not perfect.

The Devil that you Know...

I do agree that keeping a nuclear family intact in spite of abuse, etc. is a terrible approach, but breaking it up to pre-empt that is also foolish.
Didn't say anything about preemptively breaking anything up, heh. Basically just noting that the important part isn't the kids growing up with parents, it's them growing up well with a side of fuck the parents if they get in the way of that, which is incredibly goddamn common in everything I've seen in life. Not a majority, perhaps, but far too damned often.

And to an extent OSG. It is good if the love is good and what they're being asked to obey is as well, and the both of them aren't getting in the way of various other important things. Just seems that in practice christian culture et al is pretty damn bad at actually inculcating that, y'know?
Being a parent is hard. I kinda hate it when people go 'well you deserve what you get'. From either side. Whether it's 'you got pregnant, woman up and deal with having a kid, abortion is wrong', or 'you had a kid, parent up and deal with the next 18-20 years of expenses and stress'. Especially since if you don't give 'em up for adoption in the first couple months or so, good luck living with the guilt. Oh, and those hormones won't make it easy. So you know, if you fuck up at it, at making sure that your kid grows up to be pretty alright, when you probably had less than great parents because they were dealing with much of the same shit, in a world that's as fucked up as it is - and don't get me wrong, it's a pretty nice place, relative to what it could be and has been, but I hate it for the same reason I hate the idea of 'don't be proud that you aren't [type of bigot]; sure, the default is bigot, but non-bigot is the absolute minimum to be considered a ('decent') human being and thus worthy of respect'. Right. Cuz' it totally isn't difficult or a massive effort at all times or incredibly stressful to constantly second-guess yourself and your own motivations and thoughts when you see someone of a different [X]. And there certainly isn't any feedback mechanism where the worry that comes up there means your mind associates [X] with negative thoughts and feelings, such that you have to work harder and harder just to keep up with 'decent'. No, if you want to be a good person, you need to do that for everything, and then you need to go become an advocate. Like us! Yay us! Yayyyyy

...

I may have gotten off on a tangent. Point was, kids don't grow up well on their own. It takes hard fucking work, and telling anyone who doesn't manage it to go fuck themselves is a shitty thing to do. People are people, even when they suck. That's why you call them terrible human beings. Still human beings, still deserve some modicum of respect.

Though there are people for whom I would feel very satisfied to point out that I'm better at the core tenets of their religion than they are. Which probably means I'm not, after all, but that's why I don't actually point it out.

Eh. Having two parents (or at least more adults in the house so it's not one parent doing anything) is a positive for everyone. Trying to raise kids on your own, and work for a living is hard. It's hard on the kids too, who don't get as much time with their parent.
No, not two adults. Two parents, when it's just two adults that's a sign of desperation, the whole being hard on the kids thing is not an afterthought it is the primary concern - if they grow up useless or kill themselves then there's really no point in the family having ever started in the first place
It takes a village to raise a child. Not two parents, an extended family. If it's just a nuclear family, that's a sign of desperation.

You need people who care. Guardians/what have you. Yeah, it's nice to have parents. Studies also find that shared environment, aka the way you get parented? Basically no influence on life outcome. At least for twins. Maybe it's different for everyone else, but it's hard to do studies on that when people's genes vary even by that much.

Though really, there's more to being part of a family than having kids. If you're a married couple without kids? You're also a family. If your kids grow up 'useless', but still have a good life? Oh well. I'm sure Van Gogh seemed pretty useless at the time when he was alive too, what with having only sold one painting ever while alive (I'm also aware he didn't have a good life, hush). People are biological machines, but if your primary concern is output, or some arbitrary definition of functional, because it's functioned enough ways by now that what I thought of as it's functional meaning has been made dysfunctional, then Socrates sounds great for you.

I think I may have been too...angry? To be posting here, tonight? I don't know. I didn't think I was angry when I started. I still don't feel angry...Apologies if I offend/insult anyone, or come off too hostilely. I'll try to monitor myself better on this in the future. People have made good points. I probably missed several. Sorry if I missed yours.
Logged
Sincerely, Role P. Geek

Optimism is Painful.
Optimize anyway.

Orange Wizard

  • Bay Watcher
  • mou ii yo
    • View Profile
    • S M U G
Re: Religion and Spirituality Discussion: Conversion by Kirpan
« Reply #5420 on: April 01, 2016, 12:13:21 am »

Also, guys? Marriage thing worked because of STDs. ... Plus some advantages to do with blahblahblah childrearing it kinda pales in the face of anything that cuts down on disease
That's another benefit. It's not like these things only have one reason.
Logged
Please don't shitpost, it lowers the quality of discourse
Hard science is like a sword, and soft science is like fear. You can use both to equally powerful results, but even if your opponent disbelieve your stabs, they will still die.

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: Religion and Spirituality Discussion: Conversion by Kirpan
« Reply #5421 on: April 01, 2016, 09:40:42 am »

I think I may have been too...angry? To be posting here, tonight? I don't know. I didn't think I was angry when I started. I still don't feel angry...Apologies if I offend/insult anyone, or come off too hostilely. I'll try to monitor myself better on this in the future. People have made good points. I probably missed several. Sorry if I missed yours.
Nah you're legit calm

Also, guys? Marriage thing worked because of STDs. It's not even about what it was meant to do; "it's tradition and culture and blah and that's why we put it in our book". The reason it happened to be part of the most successful religion ("Be fruitful and multiply"; infant mortality rates were massive, nobody was concerned with population control in an agricultural society) is because it meant fewer people got gonorrhea and died. Not, none, but fewer.
I disagree on your STD argument, though there's not much of substance to disagree on. Which is the most successful religion? Also if you read the OT the focus is clearly not on avoiding gonorrhea (though you should you filthy degenerates), but on rearing at least two kids and then raising them well, heck one of the big exceptions I was talking about earlier with concubinage was to do with infertile wives and moral loopholing

Plus some advantages to do with blahblahblah childrearing it kinda pales in the face of anything that cuts down on disease, which is the biggest cause of mortality for humans in general, back then or now.
The Devil that you Know...
Hahahah, only if you have a death based morality, all the things you blahblahblah over are the most important in all three of the Abrahams
And anyone who makes deals with the devil they know don't even have the excuse of ignorance to explain their retardation

Being a parent is hard.
You can be a parent or take the easy route, die a childless hedonist or else abandon the offspring you have to end your days pleasurable, relaxed in excess wealth. If virtue wasn't hard, then the apathetic would be the paragons of virtue. I do not like people who hold trying to do something as immoral in any regard. It still grated me around 2010 when pretending you cared about nothing and did nothing got back in vogue.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
The fuck is this lol

I may have gotten off on a tangent. Point was, kids don't grow up well on their own. It takes hard fucking work, and telling anyone who doesn't manage it to go fuck themselves is a shitty thing to do. People are people, even when they suck. That's why you call them terrible human beings. Still human beings, still deserve some modicum of respect.
Though there are people for whom I would feel very satisfied to point out that I'm better at the core tenets of their religion than they are. Which probably means I'm not, after all, but that's why I don't actually point it out.
Religion is better as trade school than faith school, if you practice their core tenets of their religion well (I won't say better because I don't think it's healthy to have moral highground competitions, in the words of some guy who worked with Jun Seba, "I'm not better than you, I just think different"), then you probably are. Anyone who doesn't manage it because they never even tried have already fucked all those who were dependent upon them and should face the consequences of their wilful failure; failure is rarely a personal thing but for parents this is truer even moreso. No shame in failing, everyone must fail every now and then, but there's shame in not trying because you'd end up fucking kids up with neglect, and you can't unfuck that even if you learn from your mistakes. This shit be important yo

It takes a village to raise a child. Not two parents, an extended family. If it's just a nuclear family, that's a sign of desperation.
Lol I doubt you can call it a sign of desperation when it's a product of deliberate social engineering
That's a calculated attempt at creating an easily dividable unit for political and economic exploitation, running off of the bare minimum that should be feasibly possible to run a functional family on
Requoting because very relevant:
Quote
Loyalties are no longer to fathers, uncles, and the other "patriarchs" of the family who once formed a veritable safety net for then eedy of the family: the ill and the infirm, and orphans, and divorcees and their children. Each family unit was hence-forth "on its own," the unit having become the parents, their children and grandchildren, and their fathers and mothers, whenever all these coexisted. It is this unit that reflects the "model family" promoted by the modern state, not only because this is the predominant European model - the exporter of this state - but also because the new "Islamic" nation-state could more easily secure the loyalty of such a nuclear family as the defined and articulated site of the good citizen. The loyalties within clans and tribes, being quasi-political, can hardly be divided. Thus, the modern nation-state, which also was fundamentally engaged in, and intertwined with, the new forms of capitalism and new economic modes of production, had a profound interest in refashioning the modern family into a family that is distinctly nuclear.
An Introduction to Islamic Law, by Wael B. Hallaq
The West is too aversed to Patriarchal families though so maybe they could be sold a different model? Can't go back to the old agrarian ones, they're too far long gone. The nuclear model would just be back to square one of dysfunction, don't know why American traditionalists look back on a piece of shit with nostalgia but hey, maybe it worked for them. I like the Hakka, Han and Hebrew models (not just because they're H&H&H. Though that does factor :D). In reverse order the Hebrews have very nice legalistic interpretations of marriage as a functional family building (with the linguistic connotations of house building) that grows the family without breaking the clan into smaller clans or requiring all families to live under one roof and one patriarch, with the sons and daughters moving out of their parents' abode whilst still remaining in their parents' families (leaving a respectful distance between married couples and their in-laws). Also funny stuff like giving engaged men exemption from the military whilst they set up their family, countries with the draft really should consider that, funny as it is it is notable what WWI and WWII did to Europe. Also to quote the Jewish library:
Quote
Perhaps in nothing was the strength of the family bond more seen than in the paradox that whereas in theory divorce among Jews is the easiest of all processes, in practice it was, until recent times, a comparative and even absolute rarity. The powerful bond which united parents and children in one bond with mutual responsibilities and mutual consideration made it a bulwark of Judaism able to withstand all stresses from without and from within.
Where mutual responsibilities and mutual consideration cement families in foundations incredibly hard to break, whilst with Western families of disloyalty and self-serving units have divorce rates of 1/2 and kids who grow up retarded with blue hair, no roots and no value. Han family units rather specially worked in cyclical fashions. You started off with something that resembles a nuclear family, with a patriarch, wife and kids - but once the sons grow up, even after marrying they were subservient to the family's patriarch. Upon death of the patriarch the land would be split between them and their families and the nuclear stem would all branch off and start again, with the obvious problem being inter-familial rivalries could and would get intense with sons chafing under the absolute authority of their fathers vs their filial duties and obligations, and Freud would probably get a boner reading how many times mothers and daughters in law competed over the loyalty of their sons and husbands. The great benefit is everyone is fervently loyal to one another and the ties can create networks of supporting families all a part of one greater family, once or if you get past the stifling social control which can go to harmful extremes rather quickly (I do recall the anecdote where some bloke actually went to his job interview with his mother talking for him). The Hakka one is very similar to the Hebrew and Han ones with patrilinieal family units making up segments of a larger family unit, alongside the same expectations of filial duty and so on. The big difference would probably be in how they deal with social advancement, labour and the sexes, with the Hakka notably having not practiced footbinding because it would've rendered their women incapable of working in the fields, being one of the few family units that did not see domestic affairs as such a vast sphere of labour that it required making women useless elsewhere. Instead of a rigid hierarchy, it's more dynamic, changing as people are born and die; for example a family of one father, mother, two sons and three daughters may have the mother managing the properties the father earns, but if the father dies then the sons would quit education to support their sisters' education so they could advance themselves e.t.c.
And that's not a rule mind you, just an expression of the family coherence and mutual support which is pretty damn neat

You need people who care. Guardians/what have you. Yeah, it's nice to have parents. Studies also find that shared environment, aka the way you get parented? Basically no influence on life outcome. At least for twins. Maybe it's different for everyone else, but it's hard to do studies on that when people's genes vary even by that much.
Studies have also shown my lovemaking skills to be supreme in the universe towards achieving the best outcome

Shared environment is not even the way you get parented, and the way children are parented is fundamental to how they develop as adults. This flies in the way against all the scientific models we have constructed and I have not yet seen evidence to the contrary.

Quote
There have been some studies related to the researchers work on parenting and self-esteem. In a recent work done by Hetherington (2003), children in divorced and remarried families show an increased risk for internalizing problems, including higher levels of depression and anxiety, and lower levels of self-esteem compared to children in nondivorced families.
A study by Elfhag, Tynelius and Rasmussen et al. (2010) also found out that children have lower self-esteem living with a single parent than those raised by two parents. In 1991 Amato and Keith examined the 92 studies involving 13,000 children ranging from preschool to young adulthood and the overall result of this analysis was that children from divorced families are on "average" somewhat worse off than children who have lived in intact families. These children have more difficulty in school, more behavior problems, more negative self-concepts, more problems with peers, and more trouble getting along with their parents. A more recent update of the findings indicates that this pattern continues in more recent research (Amato, 2001). Naderi et.al (2009) who studied the relationship between achievement of motivation, self-esteem and gender among high school of students found that there is significant relationship between self-esteem and gender.  It was found out that male adolescents had higher self-esteem than female adolescents.
Mruk in 1995 also found that children with parents who are absent frequently or for long periods of time display lower levels of self-esteem. Krider (2002) found out that two (2)- three (3) years after the divorce, children were two (2) to four (4) times more likely to be seriously disturbed emotionally and behaviorally than children of intact families. In another study, it was found out that two years after the divorce, children displayed lower levels of social and peer functioning as well as lower self-esteem than they did immediately following the divorce (Krider 2002).
The Effects of Parenting on the Self-Esteem of Adolescents: A study
at Labadi Presbyterian Secondary School (Ghana), Literature Review
The effects on self-esteem are even affected by the power dynamics of the family unit, with the dominant parents having more importance towards the self-esteem of the children. Social development. Language acquisition. Mental health - how you are raised will most certainly determine your adult behaviour:
Quote
Parenting styles

The dominant model in research on parent–child relationships is most loosely associated with the early work of Diana Baumrind in the 1960s (e.g. Baumrind, 1991) and has been elaborated on by several subsequent teams of investigators (Maccoby and Martin, 1983; Steinberg et al., 1994b; Hetherington et al., 1999). Baumrind, in her naturalistic study of interactions between parents and young children, described important dimensions of parenting. These were warmth (as opposed to conflict or neglect) and control strategies. Parenting typologies were, thus, constructed from a cross of warmth, conflict and control: ‘authoritative’ (high warmth, positive/assertive control and in adolescence high expectations), ‘authoritarian’ (low warmth, high conflict and coercive, punitive control attempts), ‘permissive’ (high warmth coupled with low control attempts) and ‘neglectful/disengaged’ (low warmth and low control).
These four typologies have been repeatedly associated with child outcomes. Children and adolescents of authoritative parents are consistently described as most prosocial, academically and socially competent, and least symptomatic. Children whose parents are described as authoritarian, permissive and disengaged show significantly worse outcomes, with children of authoritarian parents showing typically the most disturbed adjustment of the four parenting types
Kings College London, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation
And for that matter, physical health. Fucking hell, Freud's whole entire work basis is that childhood traumas internalize an form as adult psychoses.
I really hope Western academia has not got us to the point where people are advocating for neglectful parenting because no one wants to take responsibility for their actions anymore and have finally found the dubious justification needed to
Are we really at the point where we reject nature and nurture and leave in its blank void an empty pit of disregard
Because that is a sad thing

Though really, there's more to being part of a family than having kids. If you're a married couple without kids? You're also a family.
Of course there is more, but there's more to family than being a mere partnership. Family is not some innate good, it is a structure from which everyone can support each other and continue the family.

If your kids grow up 'useless', but still have a good life? Oh well. I'm sure Van Gogh seemed pretty useless at the time when he was alive too, what with having only sold one painting ever while alive (I'm also aware he didn't have a good life, hush). People are biological machines, but if your primary concern is output, or some arbitrary definition of functional, because it's functioned enough ways by now that what I thought of as it's functional meaning has been made dysfunctional, then Socrates sounds great for you.
How can they live a good life whilst useless? What irresponsible parent expects a useless child to grow to be a happy adult? How on earth will they ever start a family of their own?
And do not confuse commercial success with being utterly useless, lest we define the Kardashians as the pinnacle of without uselessness (I am translating from a foreign concept into English, being without uselessness is the closest translation, with additional connotations of purpose as in "what's the use" sort of use, in addition to having ability). For example Vincent Van Gogh was a very successful art trader and made a conscious choice to abandon commercial success in the pursuit of his own artistic endeavours - resentful of how art was treated as a commodity, even though he was making more money than his father. His contraction of gonorrhea, syphilis, smoking, his cold childhood, his quarreling with his father, his rejection by his cousin, his developing alcoholism, his self harming and mutilation leading to his eventual death by suicide. A lot of wasted potential, wasted, dying alone in melancholy with no friends or family by his side, at death or before it. He is not a model to be followed, but one to be remembered.

origamiscienceguy

  • Bay Watcher
  • WELL! OK THEN!... That was fun.
    • View Profile
Re: Religion and Spirituality Discussion: Conversion by Kirpan
« Reply #5422 on: April 01, 2016, 09:43:53 am »

holy wall of text batman.
Logged
"'...It represents the world. They [the dwarves] plan to destroy it.' 'WITH SOAP?!'" -legend of zoro (with some strange interperetation)

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: Religion and Spirituality Discussion: Conversion by Kirpan
« Reply #5423 on: April 01, 2016, 09:55:19 am »

holy wall of text batman.
Wall strong make good argument like well-raised infant

Also, guys? Marriage thing worked because of STDs. ... Plus some advantages to do with blahblahblah childrearing it kinda pales in the face of anything that cuts down on disease
That's another benefit. It's not like these things only have one reason.
Tbh I think it's like natural selection when degenerates start bugchasing, there is a selection pressure against them

TempAcc

  • Bay Watcher
  • [CASTE:SATAN]
    • View Profile
Re: Religion and Spirituality Discussion: Conversion by Kirpan
« Reply #5424 on: April 01, 2016, 10:22:11 am »

A good wall of text though, one of the most sober and realistic kinds I've seen in this thread. Specially in face of the huge western trend in families of generally making parents care more about their own self pleasure and neglect their children.

Granted, in that specific case, it didn't result in neglect, but you get my point.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2016, 10:32:46 am by TempAcc »
Logged
On normal internet forums, threads devolve from content into trolling. On Bay12, it's the other way around.
There is no God but TempAcc, and He is His own Prophet.

Frumple

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Prettiest Kyuuki
    • View Profile
Re: Religion and Spirituality Discussion: Conversion by Kirpan
« Reply #5425 on: April 01, 2016, 10:57:02 am »

... weird to say that's a trend when just about everything I've personally seen shows pretty much the exact opposite. I hear (and see) a lot more these days about parents giving a shit about their kids than I do from talking to older generations, where beating the shit out of your kid and/or kicking them out of the house at 18 (or younger) with no fucking support was common enough most folks in my area, at the very least, didn't look at it much in askance. Also plenty of lovely tales of kids barely seeing or interacting their parents, because one was away from the house almost always and the other was swamped trying to take care of 4+ children. And so on, and so forth.

Frankly, the concept is kinda' bullshit on the face of it. It's far from a perfect metric, but spending on kids has been skyrocketing over the years, not going down, or being allocated more towards parents' amusements. That trend of "neglect" is a trend of massively increased material investment, and even bloody better is that a lot of the newer generations are specifically looking for jobs and whatnot they can work around to take care of kids and family. Trend you're talkin' about ain't happenin' to any degree worth noting, daily mail is again bullshit of the highest degree.
Logged
Ask not!
What your country can hump for you.
Ask!
What you can hump for your country.

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: Religion and Spirituality Discussion: Conversion by Kirpan
« Reply #5426 on: April 01, 2016, 12:00:24 pm »

... weird to say that's a trend when just about everything I've personally seen shows pretty much the exact opposite. I hear (and see) a lot more these days about parents giving a shit about their kids than I do from talking to older generations, where beating the shit out of your kid and/or kicking them out of the house at 18 (or younger) with no fucking support was common enough most folks in my area, at the very least, didn't look at it much in askance. Also plenty of lovely tales of kids barely seeing or interacting their parents, because one was away from the house almost always and the other was swamped trying to take care of 4+ children. And so on, and so forth.
Are we going to use personal anecdotes now? Come now Frumple, there is little use in this, lest you be interested in hearing my personal anecdotes of modern Western family units failing whilst those around the world enjoy some more successes. What you see or hear is what you sea or hear, and I am interested in how you divide the unit structure based off of generation. What unit are you ascribing to older generations and newer generations?

Frankly, the concept is kinda' bullshit on the face of it. It's far from a perfect metric, but spending on kids has been skyrocketing over the years, not going down, or being allocated more towards parents' amusements. That trend of "neglect" is a trend of massively increased material investment, and even bloody better is that a lot of the newer generations are specifically looking for jobs and whatnot they can work around to take care of kids and family. Trend you're talkin' about ain't happenin' to any degree worth noting, daily mail is again bullshit of the highest degree.
What are your numbers? Are you judging this by spending to justify expenses as a viable replacement for parenting? Do you believe that rising costs and fewer children is significant of parents increasingly concerned with the welfare of their children? Do you deny that the breakup of already broken family models is not significant of dysfunction, and that the ever increasing divorce rates to 40-50%? Good signs? What of suicide rates amongst the young rising to levels unprecedented, in the UK alone it is the leading cause of death amongst young men and:

Quote
Community-Based Epidemiologic Studies

Few population-based, longitudinal studies have examined family and peer risk factors associated with suicidal ideation and suicidal attempts among adolescents. As such, findings from the longitudinal birth cohort study of children born in New Zealand (Christchurch Health and Development Study; CHDS) and the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (ADD Health) in the United States are of substantial importance.

Using CHDS data spanning a 21-year period, Fergusson, Woodward, & Horwood (2000) examined relationships between childhood circumstances (social background, family functioning, parental and child adjustment), mental health and stressful life events, and suicidal ideation and behavior in adolescence and young adulthood (15–21 years). Their analyses were based on 965 CHDS participants with data about suicidal ideation and behavior. They found that childhood sexual abuse, poor parent-child attachment, and problems of parental adjustment were associated with suicide attempts. However, several of these variables (e.g., parent-child attachment, childhood sexual abuse) did not predict suicidal behavior after adolescent stressful life events and mental health were included in models. The researchers suggest that the effects of these childhood variables were largely mediated by later occurring mental health problems and exposure to stressful life events.

Although more regional or selected in terms of sample representativeness, several other longitudinal, community-based studies have examined relations between adolescent suicidality and variables such as family support, peer support, and social integration. McKeown et al. (1998), for example, examined predictors of suicidal behaviors and 1-year transition probabilities for movement across suicidal behavior categories (attempt, plan, ideation, none) in a sample of 247 adolescents in southeastern United States. They found a negative association between family cohesion and suicide attempts. They also found that decreasing family cohesion was associated with risk for more severe suicidal behavior.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2989173/
Not even going into the increased diagnoses of mental illnesses amongst children.
Speaking from personal observation of London's Western parents, in contrast to the Ashkenazi Jewish/East Asian/South Asian/Nigerian/BritChrist parents, where the wealthy Westerners have fewer children capable of supporting each other (I still wonder what it is like for an only child to have grown up alone, with absent parents and no siblings, can't be healthy yet that is common for Westerners), their adults in the majority choose to take pleasure in self-gratification over responsibility and work (because it is hard) and seem to think that spending money on children is a substitute for parenting. Given that the Westerners of London are a cosmopolitan bunch from everywhere across the Western world, I am inclined to think they are bringing a piece of their home values here and demonstrating what is valued - the unit of self is of prime importance. Isabella Dutton is not the only person I've seen calling children parasites, from personal experience. If it's not outright antagonism or immaturity towards having children, then it's apathy and procrastination.
Quote
"For as long as I can remember, I have wanted to have kids. But in my younger years, I foolishly assumed that unlike certain accomplishments like a career, the marriage and kids thing would just happen.

"Well, they didn't. I dated plenty of people but never even thought about making family a priority. Then, in my late 30s, a bout with ovarian cancer left me permanently infertile.

"I think about the kids I never had every day, several times a day. I have a great relationship with my nieces and nephews, and volunteer at a children's hospital on a regular basis, but it's just not the same to be around other people's kids. I would love to adopt or be a foster mother, and hopefully be in a financial and domestic situation that would make this feasible one day.

"But again, not the same. And it pisses me off when people say, "You're lucky you don't have kids, they're so much work, blah blah blah." Yes, but a lot of things in life that are worthwhile are also so much work.

"I think the mothering instinct is so strong in some women that the knowledge that one will never get a chance to give birth and raise their own child goes beyond regret. One that a bar chart cannot capture. I can deal with most of my other regrets in life but am having a hard time dealing with this one." —Caroline Zelonka
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/what-are-your-greatest-regrets-survey-unearths-heartbreaking-answers-a6797301.html

Quote
Also, guys? Marriage thing worked because of STDs. ... Plus some advantages to do with blahblahblah childrearing it kinda pales in the face of anything that cuts down on disease
Quote
"But again, not the same. And it pisses me off when people say, "You're lucky you don't have kids, they're so much work, blah blah blah." Yes, but a lot of things in life that are worthwhile are also so much work.
See, this attitude that child rearing is just blahblahblah is not uncommon, and that the only thing one should fear are facing personal consequences is even moreso. Consider that despite several thousand years of practice and received wisdom and the last two hundred years of scientific endeavour determining the importance of good parenting, people maintain that parenting has no bearing on the outcomes of children.

One only has to look at Germany, specifically West Germany, where their broken units grew to be very commercially successful and accomplished, childless individuals. I'm sure they enjoyed their success well, lived happy, pleasurable lives, coasting off of the casual sex and short partnerships of the sexual revolution, and now their time is up and what do they leave in their wake?
Who do they leave in their wake?

Graknorke

  • Bay Watcher
  • A bomb's a bad choice for close-range combat.
    • View Profile
Re: Religion and Spirituality Discussion: Conversion by Kirpan
« Reply #5427 on: April 01, 2016, 12:46:33 pm »

If the only thing you can hope to contribute to the world is your genetics that's pretty fucking sad m8.
Logged
Cultural status:
Depleted          ☐
Enriched          ☑

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: Religion and Spirituality Discussion: Conversion by Kirpan
« Reply #5428 on: April 01, 2016, 01:37:20 pm »

If the only thing you can hope to contribute to the world is your genetics that's pretty fucking sad m8.
Lol who said fuck all about genetics, we're talking about kids

Graknorke

  • Bay Watcher
  • A bomb's a bad choice for close-range combat.
    • View Profile
Re: Religion and Spirituality Discussion: Conversion by Kirpan
« Reply #5429 on: April 01, 2016, 02:10:48 pm »

I cannot read:
One only has to look at Germany, specifically West Germany, where their broken units grew to be very commercially successful and accomplished, childless individuals. I'm sure they enjoyed their success well, lived happy, pleasurable lives, coasting off of the casual sex and short partnerships of the sexual revolution, and now their time is up and what do they leave in their wake?
Who do they leave in their wake?
in any way that isn't trying to imply the value of children as a legacy.
Logged
Cultural status:
Depleted          ☐
Enriched          ☑
Pages: 1 ... 360 361 [362] 363 364 ... 525