---

@alexander*beetle wrote:

I wasn't commenting on the philosphy per se. More about the fact that the article had been taken out of context and just jumped on for a few points. Without the headline it wasn't a true representation of what the article was about either. Just saying is all. 

---

I'd like to know how you think including the introduction would have affected the context of the post.

To C&P the whole article would have made the post too bulky, hence I picked out what I thought were the salient points and included the link for those who wanted to read more.

What view do you think would have changed if I'd included the introduction?

---

@icyfroth wrote:

To C&P the whole article would have made the post too bulky, hence I picked out what I thought were the salient points and included the link for those who wanted to read more.

 

What view do you think would have changed if I'd included the introduction?

 

 

---

Well for a start, the intro provided the context - Platos very famous and much discussed philosophy about the role of familes. For Swift and his team, their discussion revolved around how right (or wrong) Plato was. And then use that as a basis to research how unequal families in society can be in order to resolve inequality.Specifically where some families (such as same sex, lower socio economic, singlae parent) stand in comparison to others from an equality standpoint.

And whilst he "quipped" (and that means he did not expect to be taken seriously) in his comments about abolishing families, his conculsion was this (which you failed to include): 

Swift and his college Brighouse set to work on a respectable analytical defence of the family, asking themselves the deceptively simple question: ‘Why are families a good thing exactly?’

Not surprisingly, it begins with kids and ends with parents.

‘It’s the children’s interest in family life that is the most important,’ says Swift. ‘From all we now know, it is in the child’s interest to be parented, and to be parented well. Meanwhile, from the adult point of view it looks as if there is something very valuable in being a parent.’

He concedes parenting might not be for everyone and for some it can go badly wrong, but in general it is an irreplaceable relationship.

Yes, now I have read the whole article, I have changed my opinion of these guys. They were not advocating Abolishing Families as the OP suggests. In fact the part about sending kids to Private schools etc etc V reading small children bedtime stories - is quite correct in my opinion.

Having said that, I still agree that a lot of information that comes out of the mouths of these 'super educated'  is mainly common sense that everyone knows anyway.

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

 

 

Having said that, I still agree that a lot of information that comes out of the mouths of these 'super educated'  is mainly common sense that everyone knows anyway.

---

They aren't researchers. they are philosophers. And as she-el earlier pointed out, the job of a philosopher is to ask questions in order to help us better understand and stimulate further thought on a topic.

What these 2 have tried to initiate is a discussion on what value society equality places on family and it has already got me thinking this morning about various isues they brought up. Particularly in relation to what constitutes 'family values'. This phrase is bandied about by politicians so often and yet, as they say in the interview, the family unit is in complete flux at the moment. So does the term 'family values' conjure up an inequality almost immediately? Yes it does.

It's a discussion we need more of. So I say thank heavens for these "super educated".

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@alexander*beetle wrote:

I wasn't commenting on the philosphy per se. More about the fact that the article had been taken out of context and just jumped on for a few points. Without the headline it wasn't a true representation of what the article was about either. Just saying is all. 

---

I'd like to know how you think including the introduction would have affected the context of the post.

To C&P the whole article would have made the post too bulky, hence I picked out what I thought were the salient points and included the link for those who wanted to read more.

 

What view do you think would have changed if I'd included the introduction?

 

 

---

For a start, it would have posed a question instead of making a statement.

Secondly, the context in relation to Plato's argument would have been clear instead of implying that the philosophers were arguing that the family unit should be abolished, which contrary to the title and the OP they were not.

The Title and OP misrepresent the article, which in turn was used to attack the ABC.

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

 

 

Having said that, I still agree that a lot of information that comes out of the mouths of these 'super educated'  is mainly common sense that everyone knows anyway.

---

They aren't researchers. they are philosophers. And as she-el earlier pointed out, the job of a philosopher is to ask questions in order to help us better understand and stimulate further thought on a topic.

 

What these 2 have tried to initiate is a discussion on what value society equality places on family and it has already got me thinking this morning about various isues they brought up. Particularly in relation to what constitutes 'family values'. This phrase is bandied about by politicians so often and yet, as they say in the interview, the family unit is in complete flux at the moment. So does the term 'family values' conjure up an inequality almost immediately? Yes it does.

 

It's a discussion we need more of. So I say thank heavens for these "super educated".

---

But that's the whole point - it's got you thinking!

About whether good parenting of your child is creating inequality for another. If iit's got you thinking about it, other parents are thinking about it as well.

Do you think it does? The logical conclusion would be yes!

So what do we do?

Curtail the love and nurture? No more bedtime stories? Harsh.

Give more love to badly parented children? Hard to do.

So how do we level the playing field?

Why, take the raising of children from the parents all together. Give the over to State institutions to raise, that way everyone would be taught the same and think the same.

You and I might find that abhorrent, but I reckon it's got plenty of ppl thinking it might just be a good thing.

Stop conflicts about religion, nationalism, race etc. and create world peace for once and for all. Doesn't sound too bad, overall, does it?

And who put the idea out there?

The ABC.

So how do we level the playing field?

Why, take the raising of children from the parents all together. Give the over to State institutions to raise, that way everyone would be taught the same and think the same.

You and I might find that abhorrent, but I reckon it's got plenty of ppl thinking it might just be a good thing

And there, in a nutshell you have exactly what the article is challenging us to think about. This idea is not a new one. It was the policy behind  the "stolen generation"  It was also the policy behimd a similar scheme in Canada wherebye  first Nation children were required to attend residential schools for ten months a year. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UWSLRev/2002/2.html

 I bet all those who  thought  up both those schemes were convinced it was a good idea at the time and I suspect there are  quite a few people even today who see it as a solution (but only if it appies to "other people's" kids, of course.)

What the ABC has done in publishing this article is invite us to consider and challenge this seemingly logical  proposal. Do we agree with it? If so what benefits do we think it would bring? should it be universal or should it only apply to disadvantaged children?

  Do we find it abhorrant - as the author of the article  implied he does. If we do  find it abhorrant, what do we find distasteful about it? Why do we think it might be counter productive? What arguments would we put forward to support our views? 

The article is not offering an opinion, it is putting forward an unemotional ,purely logical proposal and inviting us to examine our reaction to it

Was Jonathon Swift genuinely proposing cannibalism when he wrote this as a solution to the extreme poverty at the time in Ireland?.

 http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@alexander*beetle wrote:

I wasn't commenting on the philosphy per se. More about the fact that the article had been taken out of context and just jumped on for a few points. Without the headline it wasn't a true representation of what the article was about either. Just saying is all. 

---

I'd like to know how you think including the introduction would have affected the context of the post.

To C&P the whole article would have made the post too bulky, hence I picked out what I thought were the salient points and included the link for those who wanted to read more.

 

What view do you think would have changed if I'd included the introduction?

 

 

---

By including the introduction, which was a question, it gives context to the answer. By only showing the answer, it looks like a statement and not someone's thoughts. 

By you picking out what you thought were salient points are exactly that. Your thoughts. And I mean no offence by that but your thoughts are just that, yours. Mine may well be completely different. Adn without the whole thing being shown it does make a difference. I understand that you were trying to minimise the amount posted to save space but it does make a difference to the way it comes across. 

I had read the article a day or so previously and so was surprised at how it was being perceived here when I had read it in a completely different way.