"Family Values"

[Margno]

I like family values, but I define them differently than conservatives. Gay marriage is very much a family value. Monogamy is a family value. So is adoption. Honestly, I think communes are. Casual sex/relationships aren't really family values. Divorce is not a family value. Basically, a family value is anything that is inclined to create families, and anti family values are anything inclined to do the opposite.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

I like family values, but I define them differently than conservatives. Gay marriage is very much a family value. Monogamy is a family value. So is adoption. Honestly, I think communes are. Casual sex/relationships aren't really family values. Divorce is not a family value. Basically, a family value is anything that is inclined to create families, and anti family values are anything inclined to do the opposite.

I'm for whatever people want and consent to.

[Margno]

I like family values, but I define them differently than conservatives. Gay marriage is very much a family value. Monogamy is a family value. So is adoption. Honestly, I think communes are. Casual sex/relationships aren't really family values. Divorce is not a family value. Basically, a family value is anything that is inclined to create families, and anti family values are anything inclined to do the opposite.

I'm for whatever people want and consent to.

See, I find that position a little tricky, to be honest. I, for example, want lots of things that are against my interests.

[Scomagia]

I'm for whatever people want and consent to.

See, I find that position a little tricky, to be honest. I, for example, want lots of things that are against my interests.

Which is your problem, not society's. As long as you consent and you aren't directly harming anyone else, it's not my problem what you do.

[Margno]

See, I find that position a little tricky, to be honest. I, for example, want lots of things that are against my interests.

Which is your problem, not society's. As long as you consent and you aren't directly harming anyone else, it's not my problem what you do.

Not your brothers keeper then?

[Scomagia]

Which is your problem, not society's. As long as you consent and you aren't directly harming anyone else, it's not my problem what you do.

Not your brothers keeper then?

Not in the sense that I have a right or obligation to interfere with my brother's choices. I can offer help or give it when asked but it isn't my job to protect competent adults from themselves. That sort of nanny-like behavior is incredibly arrogant and condescending.

[Margno]

Not your brothers keeper then?

Not in the sense that I have a right or obligation to interfere with my brother's choices. I can offer help or give it when asked but it isn't my job to protect competent adults from themselves. That sort of nanny-like behavior is incredibly arrogant and condescending.

It's bad because it assumes that other people can be wrong?

[Scomagia]

Not in the sense that I have a right or obligation to interfere with my brother's choices. I can offer help or give it when asked but it isn't my job to protect competent adults from themselves. That sort of nanny-like behavior is incredibly arrogant and condescending.

It's bad because it assumes that other people can be wrong?

It's bad because it assumes that one person necessarily knows better than another adult and therefore deserves to restrict their freedom. Again, a person's decisions are their own business if they aren't infringing on anyone else's rights when making them. By your logic, I should be able to restrict my wife's diet because I'm concerned about her health whether she wants me to or not. I don't like that idea.

[Margno]

It's bad because it assumes that other people can be wrong?

It's bad because it assumes that one person necessarily knows better than another adult and therefore deserves to restrict their freedom. Again, a person's decisions are their own business if they aren't infringing on anyone else's rights when making them. By your logic, I should be able to restrict my wife's diet because I'm concerned about her health whether she wants me to or not. I don't like that idea.

I mean, if you really think that the fluoride in her water is killing her, by all means go ahead and try to blow up the fluoridation plant. If I think you're wrong, I'm gonna try to stop you though.
Basically, I don't think drugs should be illegal. That doesn't mean I'm not gonna try to stop people from doing drugs. I'm not gonna threaten you to make you stop smoking. But if I can burn the tobacco fields, I will. I fully recognize and approve of the fact that you will do the same based on your views, but I disapprove of the specific views you hold where they contradict the views I hold. I recognize and approve of the fact that you will do the same.

[Ripoll]

It's bad because it assumes that other people can be wrong?

It's bad because it assumes that one person necessarily knows better than another adult and therefore deserves to restrict their freedom. Again, a person's decisions are their own business if they aren't infringing on anyone else's rights when making them. By your logic, I should be able to restrict my wife's diet because I'm concerned about her health whether she wants me to or not. I don't like that idea.

It's restricting your right to have good sex because she ends up becoming a fat ass you could argue. Or it imposes horrible real world values on your offspring. It ends up killing her. It get's passed down to her children. All the philosophical purities and excessive limitations are idiotic, do whatever's practical, say no to ideological rigidity.

You can't control, but you can give incentives and enforce common sense regulations.

[Middle C]

I support and subscribe to traditional values as a choice, but not as something politics or policy affects. Material conditions determine that sort of thing, and trying to set up institutions that accommodate dead material conditions while in the midst of live ones is just begging for disaster. Besides, one could argue that "family values" ended when the nuclear family replaced the extended family.

[Scomagia]

It's bad because it assumes that one person necessarily knows better than another adult and therefore deserves to restrict their freedom. Again, a person's decisions are their own business if they aren't infringing on anyone else's rights when making them. By your logic, I should be able to restrict my wife's diet because I'm concerned about her health whether she wants me to or not. I don't like that idea.

I mean, if you really think that the fluoride in her water is killing her, by all means go ahead and try to blow up the fluoridation plant. If I think you're wrong, I'm gonna try to stop you though.

The fuck did I just read? That has nothing to do with what I said.

[Middle C]

"Family Values" is how certain elements of conservatism express their belief that theirs is the only right and proper form of family.

No, it's partially an iteration of opposition to leftism. Anti-family sentiments don't play nearly as big of a part in the left today, but once upon a time family was considered something to be completely abolished by the radical left, since family is the foundation of property inheritance and ideological indoctrination.

[Scomagia]

It's bad because it assumes that one person necessarily knows better than another adult and therefore deserves to restrict their freedom. Again, a person's decisions are their own business if they aren't infringing on anyone else's rights when making them. By your logic, I should be able to restrict my wife's diet because I'm concerned about her health whether she wants me to or not. I don't like that idea.

It's restricting your right to have good sex because she ends up becoming a fat ass you could argue. Or it imposes horrible real world values on your offspring. It ends up killing her. It get's passed down to her children. All the philosophical purities and excessive limitations are idiotic, do whatever's practical, say no to ideological rigidity.

You can't control, but you can give incentives and enforce common sense regulations.

First, sex with big women is just as good, IMO.

Anyway, she's an adult and is free to make her own decisions. I can give my opinion, but I have no right to restrict what she can or can't do if it isn't harming me directly.

[Buse]

According to Wikipedia, family values are traditional or cultural values (that is, values passed on from generation to generation within families) that pertain to the family's structure, function, roles, beliefs, attitudes, and ideals.

Like anything else in sociology, many things are left open to interpretation. Conservative Christian fundamentalists say that a "traditional family" involves a middle-class family with a breadwinner father and a homemaker mother, raising their biological children. Any deviation from this family model is considered a "nontraditional family".

What say you, NSG? What are "family values?"

the bolded part is wrong. for conservatives the traditional famly=father+(working or what ever she wants to do) mother+kids. everything outside this is not normal

[Laerod]

I mean, if you really think that the fluoride in her water is killing her, by all means go ahead and try to blow up the fluoridation plant. If I think you're wrong, I'm gonna try to stop you though.

The fuck did I just read? That has nothing to do with what I said.

That certainly was one of the more ridiculous strawmen I have ever seen.

[Des-Bal]

"Family Values" are individual values regarding family couched in different terms. Mine are slightly different than the norm. I like my space so ideally my wife would live in a different house. I despise children, especially when they're young so in a perfect world I would purchase/adopt one hopefully after it's old enough to survive twelve hours on it's own. So basically two people who interact periodically and sort of take turns watching after one child that they bought/adopted.

edit: Also probably not monogamous.

[Laerod]

"Family Values" is how certain elements of conservatism express their belief that theirs is the only right and proper form of family.

No, it's partially an iteration of opposition to leftism. Anti-family sentiments don't play nearly as big of a part in the left today, but once upon a time family was considered something to be completely abolished by the radical left, since family is the foundation of property inheritance and ideological indoctrination.

Sounds more like an iteration of opposition to a nonexistant bogeyman.

[The Sons of Adam]

leftists are the last people who should call out anti-individualism.

You do realize that, without "leftists", individualism wouldn't be a thing...The first Enlightened thinkers, individualists, "proto-socialists", etc sat on the "left", and the conservatives on the "right".

Actually at that time, the Enlightenment thinkers were center right for that time, and right now. The conservatives were considered as far right, according to the beliefs of leftist and rightest.

Left and Right is an entirely different subject than conservative or liberal. Just look it up on Wikipedia.

You can have a left leading conservative government (preserving their traditions)

And a right leading liberal revolutionary, (Following values of hierarchy, but against their societies tradition)

[Eagalya]

Family values: Any committed and loving couple (regardless of race, gender, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, background, or religion) raising a family, with both partners begin faithful to each other, and acting in the best interest of their children and their family as a whole. Can also apply to single parents, a great number of whom have to toil even harder for their family.

[Margno]

I mean, if you really think that the fluoride in her water is killing her, by all means go ahead and try to blow up the fluoridation plant. If I think you're wrong, I'm gonna try to stop you though.

The fuck did I just read? That has nothing to do with what I said.

Sorry, when people do this I'm out. Have a nice day.

[Middle C]

No, it's partially an iteration of opposition to leftism. Anti-family sentiments don't play nearly as big of a part in the left today, but once upon a time family was considered something to be completely abolished by the radical left, since family is the foundation of property inheritance and ideological indoctrination.

Sounds more like an iteration of opposition to a nonexistant bogeyman.

That's not a non-existent bogeyman, that's a basic tenet of communism.

"Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists."
-The Communist Manifesto

Communism is no longer an important element of the left, but back in the 19th Century, when the whole family values mantra started, it was. Napoleon III's campaign slogan was "Religion, the family, property," which is a way of opposing communism on all its concerns. "Family" again was an important slogan of opposition against unions in the U.S. who had leftist ties.

"Family" continues to exist as a slogan, but more out of habit than anything else.

[Middle C]

Family values: Any committed and loving couple (regardless of race, gender, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, background, or religion) raising a family, with both partners begin faithful to each other, and acting in the best interest of their children and their family as a whole.

Just a couple? Why not an extended family? or a polyamorous union of parentage?

[Scomagia]

The fuck did I just read? That has nothing to do with what I said.

Sorry, when people do this I'm out. Have a nice day.

When people do what, point out your strawmen? This is pretty bizarre.

[Laerod]

Sounds more like an iteration of opposition to a nonexistant bogeyman.

That's not a non-existent bogeyman, that's a basic tenet of communism.

"Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists."
-The Communist Manifesto

Communism is no longer an important element of the left, but back in the 19th Century, when the whole family values mantra started, it was. Napoleon III's campaign slogan was "Religion, the family, property," which is a way of opposing communism on all its concerns. "Family" again was an important slogan of opposition against unions in the U.S. who had leftist ties.

"Family" continues to exist as a slogan, but more out of habit than anything else.

Reading that in context I'm utterly convinced I was right. The whole section that's from is Marx taking various accusations leveled at communists and explaining them away. Furthermore, it can hardly be argued that adherence to "family values" was the reaction, since the "abolition of the family" clearly was a response to the "traditional" nuclear family with the husband lording over the household.