Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (14742)	5/28/2001 7:05:27 PM
From: 2MAR$	Respond to of 82486

This always seemed a very sensible and intriguing solution to the pressures of too much one-on-one that sometimes builds up between children and parents . On Huxely's Island , children are free to migrate, even encouraged to go live with their aunts and uncles , hehe (we are on a fantasy Island here, might as well have fun) "Escape," she explained, "is built into the new system. Whenever the parental Home Sweet Home becomes too unbearable, the child is allowed, is actively encouraged---and the whole weight of public opinion is behind the encouragement---to migrate to one of the other homes." "How many homes does a Palanese child have?" "About twenty on average." "Twenty? My God!" "We all belong," Susila explained, "to an MAC---a Mutual Adoption Club. Every MAC consists of anything from fifteen to twenty-five assorted couples. Newly elected brides and bridegrooms, old-timers with growing children, grandparents and great-grandparents---everybody in the club adopts everyone else. Besides our own blood relations, we all have our quota of deputy mothers, deputy fathers, deputy aunts and uncles, deputy brothers and sisters, deputy babies and toddlers and teen-agers." [...] "Nothing," she assured him, "could be less like a commune than an MAC. An MAC isn't run by the government, it's run by its members. And we're not militaristic. We're not interested in turning out good party members; we're interested in turning out good human beings. We don't inculcate dogmas. And finally we don't take the children away from their parents; on the contrary, we give the children additional parents and the parents additional children. [...]" Huxely was a classic ! But sometimes , very seriously it does seem so incredibly harmful for children to be raised in society in a fierce one-on-one death spiral struggle with one set of parents...or all to often only one completely overwhelmed single parent . On "Island" the duties of parenting are shared . ;-)

To: Lane3 who wrote (14742)	5/28/2001 8:30:18 PM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Pedophiles are human and they have a different view of the matter than you and I. They have decided that it is right to use children for their own gratification. If they can get four out of five dentists to agree with them, will it then no longer be morally repugnant? I would say you have a problem there, given your view of how we determine what practices are to be accepted by our society. "On my island, a law probably wouldn't be necessary." Oh we're back to the island are we? Interesting, how do you reach a conclusion like that? Of course if everyone on the island had the exact same viewpoint of morality that still would not solve the human problem that stems from the fact that we all know certain things are wrong, yet we do them anyway. Why do you expect this to change on your island? Forgive me for saying this, but this island thing almost sounds like what was attempted by Germany in the thirties and forties. A new pure race. I'm confident that hasn't even entered into your mind but there are some notable similarities. IMO you are vastly overestimating Human ability to do what is right. If such a world, even on a small scale, were in fact possible why has it not happened in the thousands and thousands of years of recorded history? If the scheme turns out to have some flaws? Your kidding right? You seem hung up on how describing how laws are enacted on a societal level. That's not the issue. What is at issue is the existence of objective, transcendent, moral standards. You seem to want to affirm that they somehow exist, and at the same time deny the clear implication that if they do there must therefore also exist, a transcendent, moral, standard giver. That's what seems to be the real stumbling block here