Re: Not when there is no humor involved

I see two flaws with this argument: First being that the nuclear family is a recent, primarily North American development, at odds with the traditional extended family or clan; and second that Nature has "designed" any number of systems for millions of species, only a minority of which might be described as "nuclear family".

It is? Okay, even extending the argument to clans (who were still by-and-large related), the children still stayed with and were raised by the family until puberty or roughly thereabouts. 'Designed' may have been the wrong word there, but the point was that the family structure of parents or a parent raising children up has been the norm across millenia for most of the planet's species, excluding those with such tiny brains that they are operational from birth. I'm talking about insects, reptiles and the like here. That didn't happen accidentally, at least not in the long run. In any case, the term 'nuclear family' is a red herring in this case. I'm describing any situation in which one or both biological parents raise a child up beyond the child's gestation period. Certainly all species of mammals would be included, as far as I know, as well as birds.

Again, you misunderstand Nature. In some species offspring are reliant on their parents; however, even in humans, which have a much longer period of reliance than most, children are capable of becoming independent by the age of four (as has been observed on many occasions in war zones or after catastrophes), and traditionally was considered an adult at about age twelve.

Of course I am not saying that parents should throw their children out of their homes when they reach the age of four - but I actually find it rather comforting to know that children are generally able to survive on their own from that age. It is of course beneficial to both children and humanity for children to remain with guardians at least until they themselves reach adulthood.

You're referring to something I mentioned in my review of 'The Blank Slate.' Yes, that can happen, but it's hardly an ideal situation.

Parents have a real genetic investment in their children, which is why they form attachments to them. Our interest is sexual, and sex is a temporary thing. I've heard people argue that the children grow away from us before we grow away from them, but that's a statement based on mere conjecture. Just because it happens to some of us doesn't mean it happens in all or even most cases. Secondly, that applies to the situation as it is now. Our emotional attachment in many cases may rely on the fact that we can't engage in sex with kids, so that may artificially extend the infatuation stage many people feel for someone they want to have sex with. What will it mean when people can sate those needs? It'll be the same as it is with many teleios--we'll take it for granted and many a child's heart will be broken. Many adults can barely handle that; how will it impact children, especially over time?

We certainly characterize them as such now, and with good reason, but that is not how they appeared within their own society at the time. While some members and most leaders were exactly that, most were simply going along with the "authorities" as they had been programmed to do in German government schools following the Prussian model - a model of schooling which was introduced to the United States about 80 years after it was introduced in Germany, incidentally. One example of the banality of evil.

I'm not sure what your point is here. If you're suggesting that evil can be done with good intentions, that's a sword that cuts both ways, my friend.

No, I think it's an indication that Dissident does not really believe that that "caution" is really caution, but a chimera. I expect that the American obsession with "safety" will eventually lead to devastation far beyond any safety temporarily obtained, as has already clearly happened with the "War on Drugs" and is now happening in the "War on Terrorism". Thus, a focus on "caution" that consistently leads to greater harm is no caution at all.

I don't think that's so, at least not completely. It might make a nice fallback defense, but from the general tone of past posts by Dissident, I've gotten pretty good at reading his intentions. Even if that's so, it doesn't minimize the reality that safety is children's safety is the most important aspect of their protection against abuse. Diss labels people with this mindset as 'protectionists,' is if they are some kind of paranoid militia group or something. That is condescending and dismissive of all people who wish to keep kids safe and happy. Not only that, in its broadest sense we are probably all protectionists. I'd wager no one here wants to put children in hazardous situations. At least I hope not.