8 of 8
8
Can anyone else tell how it is ok to post something so hateful?
Posted: 22 April 2015 04:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 106 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  174
Joined  2014-10-28

So then Tim, while we both agree that a guardian’s child raising skills and love for the child that they take care of are very important, I also consider that the unique bond between a child and their biological parents has some degree of relevance that is greater than absolute zero. You on the other hand, believe that it is utterly and completely irrelevant. An utter blank slate hypothesis. Is that correct?

I should not have to convince you, then, that a connection to biological parent is more important then having someone (anyone) there caring well them, or having excellent parenting skills or whatever, since those are not necessarily things that we disagree about. I should only need to convince you that there is some relevance to the connection between a child and their biological parents, however small. Just some amount that is greater then zero. Does that sound fair?

If there is ANY small degree AT ALL to which biological relatedness can be said to have value for children then I am right and you are wrong. In order for you to be right and me wrong, you must demonstrate an “absolute zero” value.

Does that sound fair?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2015 09:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 107 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5257
Joined  2011-11-04
Other Quadrant - 22 April 2015 04:01 PM

So then Tim, while we both agree that a guardian’s child raising skills and love for the child that they take care of are very important, I also consider that the unique bond between a child and their biological parents has some degree of relevance that is greater than absolute zero. You on the other hand, believe that it is utterly and completely irrelevant. An utter blank slate hypothesis. Is that correct?

That is not correct.  My stance is that the critical bond between a child and a parent is not unique to parent/child dyads that are comprised by a biological parent and their child. Also, simply being a biological parent does not insure the parent will establish such a bond. 

So any relevance of the similarity of genes in the parent/child dyad (on establishing the bond) is secondary (to the establishment of the bond itself), and its secondary relevance depends on whether it supports or does not support the early bonding.

Another thought: Most humans may very likely be inclined, in certain circumstances to bond as a parental figure with an infant. So the prevalence of effective parent/child dyadic relationships among biological parent/child dyads, could be an artifact of the prevalence of biological parents typically being the first humans to be present and involved with their particular children.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2015 09:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 108 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5257
Joined  2011-11-04
Other Quadrant - 22 April 2015 04:01 PM

If there is ANY small degree AT ALL to which biological relatedness can be said to have value for children then I am right and you are wrong. In order for you to be right and me wrong, you must demonstrate an “absolute zero” value.

Does that sound fair?

If by “fair”, you mean just, equitable, and the whole truth, then nope, not really.  Embrace the nuance.  It is not to be feared.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2015 04:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 109 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  174
Joined  2014-10-28
TimB - 22 April 2015 09:24 PM

So any relevance of the similarity of genes in the parent/child dyad (on establishing the bond) is secondary (to the establishment of the bond itself), and its secondary relevance depends on whether it supports or does not support the early bonding.

We never necessarily disagreed about this point. But we are not talking about “establishing the bond itself.” We are comparing two situations in which that “bond” is equal, and asking if there is one is more ideal then the other.

Do you not get this or are you deliberately obfuscating?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 April 2015 03:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 110 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5257
Joined  2011-11-04
Other Quadrant - 23 April 2015 04:02 PM
TimB - 22 April 2015 09:24 PM

So any relevance of the similarity of genes in the parent/child dyad (on establishing the bond) is secondary (to the establishment of the bond itself), and its secondary relevance depends on whether it supports or does not support the early bonding.

We never necessarily disagreed about this point. But we are not talking about “establishing the bond itself.” We are comparing two situations in which that “bond” is equal, and asking if there is one is more ideal then the other.

Do you not get this or are you deliberately obfuscating?

If the bond is equal, and the ability and motivation to supply the other key nurturance is equal, then the parent/s are equally ideal, regardless of sexual orientation or degree of genetic matching. 

Do you not get this? Or do you have some other agenda?

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 April 2015 03:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 111 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6640
Joined  2007-10-05

Equal: 1. Having the same quantity, measure, or value as another.

If two things are equal one cannot be more ideal than another, Humpty.

Edit: On further reflection, by definition ideal means perfection, therefore “more ideal” is a meaningless term. OQ is arguing semantics because he has no logic to back his hateful beliefs. See post#1 in this thread to remind yourself how this started, and how far off track OQ has taken his arguments.

[ Edited: 28 April 2015 06:37 AM by DarronS ]
 Signature 

You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
   
8 of 8
8