Marriage discussion

[EM2]

If you divert a discussion on marriage into one on the value of public protests, then sew the responses together as though their consequences are concurrent, you're indulging in fallacious logic.

Read back on what the question about protest was a reply to.
Hint - it was a statement that you made about society.

 

[meridian2]

Read post 114 where you distort my emphasis on contribution to society as a way of making people feel involved (volunteering, aid, clean-ups, free donations of labour and intellect at all levels), into protest. I made no mention of protest. For people who see everything through the prism of politics, everything is political.

Post 113 is the most revealing re. the nature of the discussion.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Indeed. You just beat me to making the same point (although I don't think I'd have been as eloquent. I wouldn't have thought there would be any dispute that when marriages break up, the effect on children usually tends to be negative. For something that comes closer to evidence:

Surely it depends on the circumstance though?

Say in an abusive relationship, or cases where one of the parents is abusing the child, it certainly is very much positive for the children for there to be a break up.

 

[najaB]

Surely it depends on the circumstance though?

And that's the truth of all of this. There is no universal 'best' family structure, it all depends on circumstances and the personalities of the people involved.

 

[meridian2]

And that's the truth of all of this. There is no universal 'best' family structure, it all depends on circumstances and the personalities of the people involved.

I reject your relativism. There is an ideal, the fact people continually fall short of it doesn't make it less of one.

 

[najaB]

I reject your relativism. There is an ideal, the fact people continually fall short of it doesn't make it less of one.

So despite the fact that people raise entirely successful, productive children and engage in and contribute to society despite their 'non-traditional' family structure doesn't amount to hill of beans. They are still 'falling short' in your eyes?

 

[najaB]

Here's a really successful 'traditional' family for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyle_and_Erik_Menendez

 

[najaB]

And here's someone who was a failure in life because his parents divorced when he was three years old: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#Early_life_and_career

 

[meridian2]

So despite the fact that people raise entirely successful, productive children and engage in and contribute to society despite their 'non-traditional' family structure doesn't amount to hill of beans. They are still 'falling short' in your eyes?

No, they've made the best of a bad job, and good on them for doing it. I also know lots of children of one parent families who have managed, though most carry emotional scars and all are middle class. The working class ones have a harder time, and the ones that do well are usually driven personalities. I don't think family break up as a way of toughening kids up is a preferred option.

 

[meridian2]

And here's someone who was a failure in life because his parents divorced when he was three years old: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#Early_life_and_career

So black America has no problems, Barack did fine.

 

[najaB]

So black America has no problems, Barack did fine.

And you have the nerve to talk about strawmen and logical fallacies.

 

[WelshBluebird]

No, they've made the best of a bad job, and good on them for doing it. I also know lots of children of one parent families who have managed, though most carry emotional scars and all are middle class. The working class ones have a harder time, and the ones that do well are usually driven personalities. I don't think family break up as a way of toughening kids up is a preferred option.

And once again - it depends purely on the situation.
There are many cases where the child is emotionally better off after a divorce than beforehand.

 

[meridian2]

And you have the nerve to talk about strawmen and logical fallacies.

You've offered the President of the United States as a typical example of the options for a child of single parents, and you complain about distortions?

 

[meridian2]

And once again - it depends purely on the situation.
There are many cases where the child is emotionally better off after a divorce than beforehand.

There are some and we've covered the reasons. It doesn't alter the claim that the traditional family works better if you're promoting a traditional society. If you're offering contemporary liberalism as a panacea your mileage may vary.

 

[najaB]

I said:

And that's the truth of all of this. There is no universal 'best' family structure, it all depends on circumstances and the personalities of the people involved.

You said in reply:

I reject your relativism. There is an ideal, the fact people continually fall short of it doesn't make it less of one.

Which reads to me that you take the view that anything other than the 'traditional' family structure is less than ideal and will, in consequence, produce less than ideal results.

I gave an example of a 'traditional' family that produced a poor outcome and an example of a family which, despite being non-traditional, produced at least child who was exceedingly successful - supporting my original contention that the family structure doesn't matter as much as the results.

To which you replied:

So black America has no problems, Barack did fine.

Which is completely moving the goalposts - your argument is that the 'traditional' family structure is the best (meaning it produces the best results). I provided evidence to refute that proposition and in reply your comment doesn't address that at all and instead is an random commentary on the state of race-relations in the USA and the negative consequences of centuries of institutionalised racial oppression.

You've offered the President of the United States as a typical example of the options for a child of single parents, and you complain about distortions?

He wasn't born President.

 

[WelshBluebird]

There are some and we've covered the reasons. It doesn't alter the claim that the traditional family works better if you're promoting a traditional society. If you're offering contemporary liberalism as a panacea your mileage may vary.

I am simply saying that what is best simply depends on the situation. There is no hard and fast rule. It depends on the people involved, the specific situation, the specific problems that arise (as you have admitted, the main issue with single parents is often money) etc. I really don't think you can generalize like you have.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Surely it depends on the circumstance though?

Say in an abusive relationship, or cases where one of the parents is abusing the child, it certainly is very much positive for the children for there to be a break up.

Yes, obviously in that particular situation, the damage being caused by the abuse would completely outweigh any damage caused by breaking up, and the obvious priority would be to stop the abuse, even if it means the parents breaking up (and, presumably, one of them ending up in prison).

I'd imagine that situation only applies to a small minority of break-ups though, so I doubt it changes the issue that, on average, if parents break up, that would more often than not have a bad impact on the child.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

And here's someone who was a failure in life because his parents divorced when he was three years old: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#Early_life_and_career

Isn't that the same kind of logic that says, for example, 'My uncle smoked 20 cigarettes a day every day from the age of 16 and he was still perfectly healthy when he was 80 so that proves cigarettes don't really cause anyone any harm'?

 

[WelshBluebird]

Yes, obviously in that particular situation, the damage being caused by the abuse would completely outweigh any damage caused by breaking up, and the obvious priority would be to stop the abuse, even if it means the parents breaking up (and, presumably, one of them ending up in prison).

I'd imagine that situation only applies to a small minority of break-ups though, so I doubt it changes the issue that, on average, if parents break up, that would more often than not have a bad impact on the child.

Abuse is an extreme example I agree. But there are lot more common issues in families that can have a massive impact on a young child. Even the fairly standard unhappy marriage can have a huge impact on a child if that spills over into regular, not particularly nice, arguments. Certainly a happy home life with a single parent is better than an unhappy home life with two parents (assuming money etc isn't an issue - which sadly it often is).

Sure, in a case where you have two perfect parents in a perfect situation, I will probably agree that would be better for a child than one parent. But we don't live in a perfect world, all relationships have issues and some of those issues will have an impact on the child - the toss up of if the impact of that is less than or greater than a breakup / a single parent family simply depends on the situation.
And of course, that is assuming it was a breakup rather than a parent running away from the responsibilities (and even in that case, a parent who runs away from it is probably not going to be a good parent!).

 

[najaB]

Isn't that the same kind of logic that says, for example, 'My uncle smoked 20 cigarettes a day every day from the age of 16 and he was still perfectly healthy when he was 80 so that proves cigarettes don't really cause anyone any harm'?

It would be closer to say "...so that demonstrates that cigarettes aren't always 100% lethal.'

 

[Barn]

I don't think it's particularly controversial that the best scenario for raising children is two parents who love each other, who are committed to each other and their family, who can both contribute to the upbringing by contributing their own time and skills.

That this is the best scenario is not defeated by truisms that a single parent is better than an abusive relationship or even that sometimes a particular single parent's skills are better than the combined skills of a particular couple.

Sometimes someone making the best of a bad situation can do better than others making a pig's ear of a good situation.

 

[najaB]

I don't think it's particularly controversial that the best scenario for raising children is two parents who love each other, who are committed to each other and their family, who can both contribute to the upbringing by contributing their own time and skills.

Foster families are excluded by your definition, as are extended families.

I'd say the best scenario: "One or more adults who are able create a stable, loving environment and are capable of contributing both the time and financial resources required to allow the children to develop to the best of their potential."

 

[meridian2]

I said:

You said in reply:[/snip]

My position is simple, the traditional family unit is under threat to the detriment of society as a whole. I'm not blaming the victims of broken homes, many of whom persevere in spite of the financial constraints, severed emotional ties, and other disadvantages.

Trading wiki links to successful children of single parents vs. successful children of traditional parents is absurd. How many links would it take to discover who "won", and what's the criteria of success?

 

[najaB]

My position is simple, the traditional family unit is under threat to the detriment of society as a whole.

And my position is that it is equally likely that the breakdown of that structure is an effect of societal ills as that it is a cause. There are successful people from single-parent families and there are murderers from 'traditional' two parent, two children and a dog families.

 

[EM2]

Read post 114 where you distort my emphasis on contribution to society as a way of making people feel involved (volunteering, aid, clean-ups, free donations of labour and intellect at all levels), into protest. I made no mention of protest. For people who see everything through the prism of politics, everything is political.

You didn't mention any of those as a way of people becoming involved. I asked your thoughts on one particular way of people being involved.

 

[meridian2]

You didn't mention any of those as a way of people becoming involved. I asked your thoughts on one particular way of people being involved.

I thought "contributing to society" and "protesting" were so clearly orthogonal as to be self explanatory. Especially in light of the traditionalism I'd advocated throughout the thread.

 

[Barn]

Foster families are excluded by your definition

A child being in foster care is not ideal. Is that truly in dispute?

I am not defaming the awesome work that fosterers do by saying that.

Foster parents selflessly give up their time and their home (and often their love) to make a bad situation a bit better.

 

[EM2]

I thought "contributing to society" and "protesting" were so clearly orthogonal as to be self explanatory. Especially in light of the traditionalism I'd advocated throughout the thread.

The full phrase was 'to protest against what they see as unfairness in society?'.
You think that that is diametrically opposite to contributing? To attempt to repair society by opposing unfairness?
Even though there are a number of examples where this has happened across the world (fall of the Berlin Wall, Czechoslavakia's Velvet Revolution, the overthrow of apartheid, the almost complete downfall of Communism).

Can I clarify, then?
You believe that society is broken (or is very much on the way to it).
You believe that a key factor in this is the demise of the two-parent family.
You believe that many people feel that they cannot contribute to society (or do not know how to).
You believe that if people feel that society in its current state is in many ways unfair, and wish to protest against this unfairness, they are not contributing to society.
You believe that if those that protest do wish to contribute to society, that they should vote out the Government at the next general election, or stand for office.

 

[najaB]

A child being in foster care is not ideal. Is that truly in dispute?

The situation that lead to them being in foster care isn't ideal, I agree with you there.

 

[Barn]

The situation that lead to them being in foster care isn't ideal, I agree with you there.

Yes, and it might be the best answer to a situation that an individual kid is in.

That doesn't mean, however, that all parenting modes are equal.

Unfortunately, some kids just don't get the best start in life.