dk

Actually I still don't understand why Clutch through in a racial slur, but I can put some context around my response.

Between 1900 and 1930 millions of European immigrant workers poured into the US from Germany, Italy and Poland. When they secured work they sent for their families. Wages were so low the entire family was forced into the workplace. Children and mothers often working a 16 hour day, 6 days a week. When Child Labor laws were enacted this put 1,000 of immigrant children on the streets unsupervised with nothing to do but get into trouble. To stop the ensuing vandalism cities were quick to opened public schools that children were required by attend, and hired truant officers to clear the streets of vandals. Class sizes often bulged with 60 or more students. Truth stranger than fiction, these kids learned to read and write even though many left after grade school to reenter the labor force.

When these 1st generation kids grew up they married and made their own families. In WW II they fought proudly for their adapted country and afterwards on the GI Bill of Right many attended and graduated college. The question that lingers today is, "How did public schools of the 1920-40s teach non English speaking 1st generation immigrant kids to read and write?" when so many public schools today, equipped with all kinds of modern technology and scientific learning methods seem unable to educate children. The explanation I've offered is the much maligned nuclear family.

To test the hypothesis we have the dismal failure of inner city urban schools with African Americans, and the recent immigrants from Asia that poured in after the Vietnam War. Many inner city schools are composed almost entirely of amputated families, headed by single moms with children. These kids from the day they are born are considered at risk kids. The Asian refugee families in the same public school system have excelled. Again the Asian kids didn't speak English, and their parents were illiterate in the English tongue. The 1st generation Asian refugees have done so well many Universities erected quota barriers to keep them out, to make room for the children of single parent households. I submit this shows how important the nuclear family is to education, and generally at raising children. Perhaps someone has another theory they’d like to share, otherwise I’ve made my point.

dk

Kimpatsu,

The nuclear family is blind to race, religion, creed and nationality. The nuclear family is the great DNA mixer because its universal. I wonder, had Thomas Jefferson married Sally Hemings in France, would we live in a world free from bigotry?

Probably not, but it would be a much better world to live in for all of us.

Kimpatsu

But evidently not blind to homophobia, according to you.
Two men and a baby comprise a nuclear family. Why do you persist in opposing that?

dk

dk: Unless you bring the comment forward in the thread I can’t know what you meant to address, so I can’t possibly comment.
Jinto: Let's see: you are either too lazy or too stupid to go back one post and see what you failed to respond to, and now you expect ME to go do your work for you? God, you're insensitive. (snip)
dk: I have no idea what paragraph you’re talking about, and I’ll try to explain why?
Jinto: Again: You have illustrated that you are unable to find any part of social science, sex education or multicultural ethics that actually promotes promiscuity.
dk: hmmm, how am I to interpret this statement. It appears I’ve illustrated something. Evidently I’ve illustrated something, But what? Oh, I’ve illustrated that can’t Illustrate something. Your sentence walks all over itself, and has no meaning. But to address what I can only imagine you mean. First I demonstrated that sex education programs developed by Planned Parenthood were negligent, scandalous and incompetent, and that “Safe Sex” the label they coined for “put a condom on it” has been a misnomer. Its ludicrous to imply that sex can be safe when HPV infects > 20million Americans, and condoms don’t prevent HPV. Second: I haven’t a clue why social scientists have gone along with this “Emperor with no cloths” charade, perhaps you can explain it. I can’t? Third: I haven’t a clue what multicultural ethics might be, so I’ll hand that one off to you? Whatever it means, gays can’t get enough of it.

Jinto: Even planned parenthood (your deamon, not mine) will tell you first and foremost that the only 100% effective protection against pregnancy and STDs is abstinence. Further, you have yet to establish the existence of a "gay marketing program," admitted that so called "Gay culture" does not describe the majority of gay people, and frankly made an ass out of yourself by continuously claiming to have established things that you have merely asserted To which you responded:
dk: I can’t believe you’re still denying the existence of gay culture. If you want proof that the “Gay Rights Movement” exists, go to google, type “”Gay Rights Movement” site:edu”. Select from the returned list of URLs and start reading. I got 10 pages, but if that’s not enough I’m sure there are more.
dk: Here’s the sequence in context…. You didn’t ask? You should have asked how does the “Gay Rights Movement” market their agenda through the social sciences, sex education and multicultural ethics? Then I would have been obliged to answer. Instead you blustered on and on about a bunch of nonsense. I did leave you with a challenge, to which you never responded. I still don’t have a clue what you’re ranting on about.

dk: Your comment remains a non-sequitur, there’s nothing ad hominem about syntax or context (snip)
even when you talk out of the other side of your face, two face. is most certainly an ad hominem, baka.(snip)
Related but not equivalent. (snip)
Jinto: Thus the actions of one cannot be generalized to the other, which means that you admit that your whole fucking argument is based on a converse accident fallacy.
dk: I still have no clue what you’re talking about.

dk: Gay culture values anonymous promiscuous sex, then gay people die from it. Show a little integrity, please
Jinto: Gay culture (which Dr. Rick refuted the existence of, you might want to check that out when you decide to debate honestly) cannot be generalized to gay people, any more than the actions of the U.S. Government can be generalized to the U.S. public. The general public is generally honest, the government hasn't been honest since... well ever.
dk: You and Dr. Rick would deny you own nose. The denial is simply not credible. Today they teach classes about gay culture. I have no idea why you’re ranting about government, or what it means.

dk: I have no idea what you’re talking about,
Jinto: Of course not, you're not actually bothering to read it.
dk: I read it.

dk: Who adopted these kids, married couples, grandparents, foster parents....? What happened to the kids biological parents? How long and $much did it take to adapt these kid? How many failed adoptions were there? These numbers say nothing, tell no story, are disconnected from the issue, and have no context.
Jinto: People, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, and the context is the fact that more children are in need of adoption than there are families willing to adopt. WHICH HAS BEEN MY POINT, WHICH YOU HAVE IGNORED FOR THE ENTIRETY OF THIS DEBATE, INSTEAD SUBSTITUTING FUCKING RED HERRINGS ABOUT THE ADOPTION SYSTEM ITSELF IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY IGNORING THIS ONE SIMPLE FACT. 10:1 that you don't bother to read that either, and instead ignore the point and criticize me for using all caps.
dk: I’m sorry, but you’ve got to ask the contextual questions to make a meaningful statement, you haven’t as we’ve already discussed. .

dk: I’m saying most kids in the system are unavailable for adoption, most are placed with blood relatives (snip)
Jinto: You just can't look at the point, can you? What part of There are more kids in need of adoption than there are families to adopt them do you not understand?
dk: I understand what a mess the Foster Care System has become, you don’t. You need to educate yourself. There’s a reason thousands of people in the US go to private adoption agencies to adopt kids from all over the world.

dk: I meant empathy alone, is not substantial or always positive. For example, a person with great empathy for a dog, might swerve their car swerve to miss the dog, only to kill an entire family in a head on collision
Jinto: That's not what you said, flyboy. I submit, empathy hemorrhages from the guilt people feel when they commit themselves to a lie. You just can't admit that you are wrong, can you?
dk: Maybe if you weren’t so ignorant and arrogant, then I wouldn’t be so curt.

dk: No, you misrepresented the gay x-family with the nuclear families.
Jinto: Where, pray tell, does this alleged misrepresentation occur?
dk: You paraphrased me incorrectly, I corrected you, no big deal. You should have replied, but you’ve been way to big an asshole on this thread for me to let that slide. .

dk: Not only did I argue it, but argued it substantively
Jinto: No, you didn't. In fact, all you said is, essentially "Well if the supreme court tells state legislators to stop violating the 14th amendment, then I'll just whine that they don't have that right, even though the constitution specifically grants them that right." Essentially.
dk: That doesn’t remotely resemble what I said.

dk

I think the movie was, "Three men and a baby", but no that's not a nuclear family. For two men or twenty men to have a baby, they must take it from the mother. By the way, Sultans used to raid surrounding Christian villages, kidnap the young boys, castrate them, educate them, and train them to guard thier herems.

Kimpatsu

I wasn't thinking of any movie. BTW, the original, of which the Hollywood version was a remake, was "Trois Hommes et un Couffin", starring Daniel Auteil.
The two men don't "take" the baby from the mother; they can adopt; one can father the child in vitro, making the mother no more than a carrier, and then the child is raised by said two men in a stable loving environment. Again I ask, what is your objection to that?

lpetrich

I've come to think that some people get their sexual jollies by denouncing others' sex lives. I won't name names, but there are some individuals in this thread who fit this profile very well.

Also, this pious talk about "family values" seems like a convenient stick to beat disliked people with -- just accuse them of being "anti-family".

It also reflects some men's fear that their harems will run away. A term I use because some men perceive their families as their harems.

Also, if Bill Clinton and his ladyfriends practiced Biblical Family Values, Bill Clinton would have several wives, including Hillary Rodham, Monica Lewinsky, Gennifer Flowers, and Elizabeth Gracen.

dk

dk: have no idea what you’re talking about, and pointing to this website is a fallacies attempt at misdirection. Please address your responses directly to what I post.
Jinto: I did. You asked what a red herring was, I posted a link to a website answering your question, and you said "Read what?." My assumption was that you were too stupid to click on the hyperlink.
dk: I asked…. What red herring? When I call a foul, like a red herring, then I’m obliged explain the foul.

dk: The extended family follows the form of the nuclear family, get a brain.
Jinto:I have one, and mine actually works. If the only thing you can do is make unsupported assertations and ad hominems in response to actual evidence, then perhaps you should reconsider your position. And by the way, since you have demonstrated a habit of ignoring your own ad hominems, it's the GET A BRAIN comment that is an ad hominem.
dk: Ok, what branch of the extended family tree do you not consider a replication of the nuclear family?

dk: So you content that gay marriage can be legitimized absent an act of law? Absurd
Jinto: Strawman. I said that it will not result in the domino effect that you seem to be postulating without support for your assertation. If the only thing you can do in response to my points is make strawmen out of them, then perhaps you should concede the debate.
dk: You said, “All it(gay marriage) means is that instead of the bonding of two people under the law being restricted to opposite sex couples, you now have same sex couples as well” Your statement is fallacious, the fallacy of Illicit Major. To demonstrate the fallacy I listed some predicate members your statement excludes.

dk: Follow me hinto, gays can marry like every else, any woman that agrees
Jinto: Really? And just where is lesbian marriage recognized in the law, I'd like to see this.
dk: Hey? It’s Gays(male) and Lesbians(female)…, not Gays are Lesbians.

dk: The logic is fallacious. Interracial Marriage was colloquial not universal. Interracial, interfaith, and inter-cultural marriage take their form and structure from the nuclear family. Gay marriage and inter-specie marriage take other forms altogether, from what I’ve described as the x-family.
Jinto: No, you just blindly assert "but gay marriage has to be different, even though it follows the same exact form of a union of two people in holy matrimony." Gay marriage also takes exactly the same form as the so-called "nuclear family" by any reasonable definition. The problem is that you have defined "nuclear family" to mean "any marital act except marriage of two people of the same sex." which is NOT a reasonable definition. Also, I'd like you to answer a couple of questions:
dk: I never said, “Gay marriage also takes exactly the same form as the so-called "nuclear family"…” Gay marriage is a hypothetical. I can’t define marriage any more than I can define husbandry. If I want to know what these words mean I look them up in a dictionary with context. Marriage means, “the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family.” ----- © 2003 by Merriam-Webster

Treacle Worshipper

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dk,
Thanks for the extra info
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Btw, I would still be interested in an explanation of why it's ok for me to marry if I fall in love with a man, but not ok if I fall in love with a woman. Any takers?

TW

Clutch

That's it? That's your answer to being caught red-handed, trying to hide the poverty of your view by changing key terms? Are you really incapable of intellectual shame?
And using leaded gasoline; don't forget leaded gasoline. And not having Compact Discs; America became great in the absence of Compact Discs...

Now, let's go back and look again at my prediction for what your argument that nuclear=stable would amount to:Ah, I should play the stock market; I can read the future.

Anyhow, don't worry -- you should be able to sit down again in a week or so.