41 posts shown.
Maria Booth said:Family is the way to go because it’s just better than any other way to raise kids, period. Parents always give their little ones 110% and focus all that energy right where it belongs.
Plus, family is like private property—people always take way better care of what they actually own compared to stuff belonging to someone else!
hollowtrucker77 said:Which is exactly why it’s so incredibly important for the political party to step in and take over that role instead.
So, you just send the kids off to boarding schools during the week and let them see their parents on the weekends (where they’ve been properly coached on exactly what to look out for and how to report back to their instructors regarding anything their parents might say).
By the end of the week, these kids will have learned everything they need to know about the state, specifically how the government and the Party are looking out for them, how happy they are, and exactly how they ought to behave and think if they want to maintain that happiness.
Sounds like North Korea, doesn't it?
Brenda Cook4 said:Think about it: we used to function in an expanded capacity, like a pack or a tribe. As we evolved, that structure proved itself to be the most effective foundation for society. It’s how we ensure the best possible care for our offspring. In that dystopian scenario you're painting, who actually steps up to look after the kids (even if I don't think we're headed for such a bleak future)? Just... houses?
ruggedpanther13 said:I honestly love reading these posts. They really drive home the point that we're absolutely right on this.
If you follow liberalism to its logical conclusion, it drags us straight back to pre-antiquity—back to tribes, polygamy, and polyandry. Personally, I'd much rather stick with actual civilization. 😉
Liberals love to bash Islam by calling it "barbaric" because a man can have four wives, yet now they’re trying to push out the exact same thing through a dozen different modern variations.
ruggedpanther13 said:That’s actually my point. This brand of liberalism is steering us toward some pretty dark, national-socialist style solutions. You’re actually, maybe without even realizing it, hovering right on the edge of that. Of course, your goal isn't building some perfect American nation; your goal is total individual freedom, completely stripped of any boundaries, obligations, or constraints.
The most significant milestone in the life of two adults is bringing children into this world and actually raising them. That’s what we call motherhood and fatherhood—not just "manufacturing" people. Mass-producing humans was a concept pushed by Nazis and liberal technocrats, and I think liberals are dangerously close to drifting that way too. I really hope you guys don't cross that line. Mostly, if only for your own sake.
Let me flesh this out a bit so it’s not just abstract theory.
The issue of disability:
Modern tech makes it easy to screen for disabilities, and if a condition is found, the pregnancy is often terminated. A buddy of mine who works at a hospital told me about a woman who chose an abortion simply because she found out her child would have a malformed arm. So, that poor kid—who would have lived with a disability—wasn't even born; they were eliminated before birth just because of it. The Nazis eliminated them after birth. The underlying justifications are essentially the same.
The issue of "baby factories":
A version of the Lebensborn program is resurfacing in the United Kingdom. The main drivers here are these liberal associations, excitedly announcing to the world that we'll have the first artificial womb within a few years.
It’s a tiny leap from an artificial womb to actual baby factories.
Your tendency to relativize everything is exactly what leads to the questions you're asking.
First off, you have to realize that the Church isn't really talking to you—it's talking to the faithful. You're being invited to reconsider your views.
As for government institutions, they gave up on promoting the traditional family ages ago, so you don't have to worry about that. The Church will do its own thing, and the people who follow it will follow. That doesn't impose anything on you whatsoever.
Joseph Wright4 said:What era are you talking about?? Good grief—you and Gregory Peterson2 are talking such nonsense that I honestly don't believe you actually think this stuff.
Kids obviously had names, and of course people knew who their parents were. It mattered...
Even in those tribes where wet nurses handle things instead of mothers—that doesn't mean parentage isn't important or that kids don't have names. 🙄
(Besides, you're just grasping at exceptions here, and you're totally misinterpreting the whole thing)
This whole setup is so stupid I don't even want to bother commenting anymore, and I'm pretty sure it's on the completely wrong subforum..
hollowtrucker77 said:okay, fine, let's just say we scrap marriage, relationships, sex, and children altogether and just move straight to test tubes and cloning
🙂
in what sense is that actually evolution, and what's the end goal here?
who actually wins? what does humanity even boil down to at that point?
are those things even humans anymore?
how do you people advocating for this even see yourselves fitting into this scenario?
as owners of a herd, as bipedal creatures with serial numbers stamped on them that you can command and exert total control over?
or do you see yourselves as nothing more than glorified nurseries for cloning cells...
what exactly is the plan, and how does it work?
JohnDoe-25;49840125 said:Actually, not really. Back then, kids didn't even have first or last names. It wasn't known, nor did it matter, who their parents were. A mother wouldn't be the one nursing her child; instead, any woman from the tribe would step up. You still see stuff like that in certain tribes in Africa today.
we're saying the exact same thing 😁I don't get it either. To me, it feels like pure, unadulterated fear of change and whatever comes along with it. Not all changes are good, sure, but conservatives seem to oppose everything without exception just to protect the status quo.
Exactly! Pure fear. I honestly think they're just terrified they won't be able to adapt to the modern world.
History is just one long list of examples like this. Look at how people reacted to the potato in America. The Church—which is basically the face of conservatism—rejected potatoes for the longest time. They claimed anything growing underground was straight from the devil! By clinging to that nonsense, they actually caused massive famines in places like France, which eventually helped spark the revolution.
It’s always some irrational fear of the new.
Joseph Wright4 said:Gregory Peterson2
-you honestly have no clue what you're talking about.
The nuclear family has always been the core building block of society. Everything else just evolves around it.
It’s absurd, and frankly wrong, to claim that tribal organizations were the foundation and that we've somehow shifted down to the nuclear family today. That logic doesn't hold up at all.🙄
I mean, seriously. That's just ridiculous.
Do you even get why those tribal units existed in the first place? The whole premise of this argument is flawed and, honestly, kind of laughable.
7nationarmy said:I suspect you’ve got way too much free time if you're spending it dwelling on nonsense like this. 🙂
But seriously, reading your post reminded me of a recent chat I had with a buddy about capitalism and democracy—he's unhappy with both. I ask him for the millionth time, "Aren't we just witnessing a slow, grinding evolution toward better versions of both?" But no, he’s itching for a revolution, even though he knows revolutions don't actually yield results until there's a massive, natural necessity to force a leap forward. It's just like the whole family debate. Until we start printing kids out of 3D printers, Mom and Dad are the foundation, and the family unit is sacred. No politics, no religious dogma, just the core concept.
nimblelynx7 said:Let’s move on. There was likely just as much pushback when we transitioned from tribal communities to the family unit. Back then, the conservatives were against the family; they probably called its supporters "liberal family-oriented fools" who would destroy the human race, all while claiming tribal living was somehow natural and perfect.
jademoose6 said:It's because I personally saw the sheer quality and drive of the folks who stepped up to join the National Guard back in '91.
The Department of Justice isn't really the issue—but I'll say this: those parasites would be cleared out in no time if there were a corrective force like the National Guard in place.
Dana Robinson4 said:I mean, 🙄
so you'd open a new company to compete with existing ones, and all you want is for the Government to leave you alone while they keep taxing your competitors 🙂...
Wouldn't it be nice if there were even a little financial incentive coming from the competition's pockets, too?
Brenda Lewis4 said:It would be better to organize a referendum on something concrete that actually drives economic progress☕..
James Nguyen13 said:Well, this group will finish their term too, but I'm just saying that doesn't stop the Republican Party from getting back in. In the U.S., if things keep going this way, you always find yourself voting against whoever is currently in office, at least until politics becomes a bit more civilized.
There was just as much pressure on the Republican Party before, think about the labor strikes, the daily protests, even people gathering outside the leader's house. The difference is, they weren't quite as intentional about provoking public fury by constantly digging into issues that everyone knows are just distractions—like those specific controversial figures or culture war flashpoints.
At the end of the day, both sides can be terrible, but this current administration is incredibly heavy-handed when it comes to trying to force public opinion.
James Nguyen13 said:That doesn't really hold water as an excuse, though. Look, the current administration only exists because the Republican Party was voted out, so that doesn't mean taking them out was the wrong move back then. You have to push for change whenever the people in charge are failing, even if the opposition isn't exactly a dream team either. The real headache is that we don't have much leverage to force a change outside of waiting for the next election every four years.
Beyond that, I'm not entirely convinced that new elections would automatically hand the keys to the Republican Party. It’s possible the labor unions might join the coalition and shift things around. They could make things better, or they could make them worse—it's a toss-up. Honestly, it feels like our only real option is a bit of trial and error.
Aaron Gray said:We need someone in the Oval Office who isn't afraid to slam their fist on the desk. Someone who can stare down the giants, call them out, and tell them to get lost when they try to push back. But... they also have to know when to dial it back. Not too much, not too little.
Some might say I’m calling for a dictator. I’m not. It’s just that we need a leader with enough grit to pull us out of this darkness. We need someone to end the chaos—someone who actually understands the job and has a clear vision for the country. A vision that serves the public interest. And when they set a goal, there should be an actual strategy behind it. If you ask "how?", they shouldn't stumble. They should be able to explain the logic: "we do this, which leads to that, which triggers this, and eventually, we reach our target."
But no... we don't have that here.
We're just stuck in the mud.
Richard Wilson4 said:The Middle Ages weren't actually that dark, despite what everyone thinks. Honestly, most serious historians don't even use the term "Dark Ages" anymore anymore.
Check out this link if you want to dive deeper. It's in English.
http://www.cracked.com/article_20615...dark-ages.html