A Rant.

[Salty]

Ideal parents for an ideal child living ideal life on an ideal world.
Right.

I like hyptotheticals and all...but that hardly matters. All the fuckups I know had parents more or less ideal than mine. I went through so many "father-figures" and it did nothing but turn me into a (reformed) misandrist.

The care intended and carried out by comptent parents that fulfil the needs of a child are all that matter.

God fucking dammit.  

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Ideal to who?

People? You? Me?

What is the ideal situation?

I'm sure there are people out there who just want to be single parents. Is that biological?

Ideal to the generic child. (another one of those things that doesn't really exist)

So, this is one of those unobtainable, non-existent ideals?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

as you pointed out, it can be dealt with by explicitly writing desires in a will.  failing that, why couldn't the assets of the deceased be treated under the legal framework for unowned/abandoned property?

Nice.  So everything Joe works for reverts to the state - or salvagers - when he dies.

That's awesome.  Makes me want to run right out and take part in the economy.

I don't know...
Is that what the laws say for unowned/abandoned property?

If so, that would certainly make me want to make my will explicitly known.
that would alleviate so much squabbling that ensues when somebody dies without doing such a thing...

How very nice that you can afford such luxuries.  However, with the mode income of the United States being a whopping $19,500/year (before the recession, it is likely worse now), the majority of families cannot afford to lay out money on anything more than the bare cost of living...which makes your notion all the more horrible, when the state would be able to take what little a family DOES have, for the crime of being poor.

so you're saying that the state currently owns all abandoned property by default?
what luxury are you referring to?

1.  Under the current system, unclaimed or intestate property reverts to the state.

2.  The luxury of being able to afford the costs of making and filing a will.  Simply writing down your wishes on a napkin doesn't cut it.

[BabylonHoruv]

I personally hold that the perfect ideal is a mixed sex couple

Why?

Biology.  We've evolved in a setting where children are raised by mixed sex parents supported by an extended community.  That's my assumption as the ideal setting for a child.

Do you have any evidence for the family setting/gender arrangement of Austrailopithecus afarensis or even Homo erectus? Or furthermore, even the rift valley Homo sapiens sapiens? I think you are making up many just so stories without evidence for evolutionary process. Not only that, but you fail to give evidence about /why/ it's ideal. What is it about that setting that is ideal, and what is it about same sex parenting that's not ideal? Repeating the above isn't going to cut it.

You are right, I don't know how any of those species lived.  I only know what most people know about that sort of thing.  And the reason I am saying it is ideal is not because of any inherent superiority to the arrangement, just because we have evolved into that environment.  As has been said before the brain is a black box in a lot of ways, that includes childhood development.  I wont start in on gender archetypes or the oedipus complex or any of that because there's a good chance a lot of that is funny hats and not the useful sort.  There are also a lot of obvious factors that are more important in measurable ways.  It just makes sense to me that in an evolutionary scenario the way things have been for a very long time is going to be the ideal situation.  

(also yes I do know that I am basically just repeating what I already said.  I am hopefully also clarifying it.  I want to make it clear that I am in no way trying to imply that children of same sex parents are being disadvantaged by the fact their parents are the same sex.  Any more so than children of mixed race parents are being dsadvantaged (as an example of something else that can be a challenge for the child but that doesn't mean it should in any way stand as an obstacle to it occuring.)

[NotPublished]

I think I'm getting clucky...... Well as clucky as a guy can get.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

And the reason I am saying it is ideal is not because of any inherent superiority to the arrangement, just because we have evolved into that environment.  

Evolved into it?  What?

Your evidence?

[Freeky]

You are right, I don't know how any of those species lived.  I only know what most people know about that sort of thing.

A few thousand years ago, most people knew the earth was flat.

 

And the reason I am saying it is ideal is not because of any inherent superiority to the arrangement, just because we have evolved into that environment.

As far as I can tell, we are evolving AWAY from this scenario, when alternate lifestyles are becoming more widely accepted socially.

There are also a lot of obvious factors that are more important in measurable ways.

Which makes your definition of the ideal family irrelevant.

It just makes sense to me that in an evolutionary scenario the way things have been for a very long time is going to be the ideal situation.  

Once again, if things are changing socially, then why should your ideal situation remain the ideal situation?

[BabylonHoruv]

You are right, I don't know how any of those species lived.  I only know what most people know about that sort of thing.

A few thousand years ago, most people knew the earth was flat.

 

And the reason I am saying it is ideal is not because of any inherent superiority to the arrangement, just because we have evolved into that environment.

As far as I can tell, we are evolving AWAY from this scenario, when alternate lifestyles are becoming more widely accepted socially.

There are also a lot of obvious factors that are more important in measurable ways.

Which makes your definition of the ideal family irrelevant.

It just makes sense to me that in an evolutionary scenario the way things have been for a very long time is going to be the ideal situation.  

Once again, if things are changing socially, then why should your ideal situation remain the ideal situation?

Because the ideal situation isn't based on society, it's based on biology.  And we evolve to fit in with our environment, that's how evolution works, those most suited to an environment survive and breed.

Pretty clearly at the moment we are not in our ideal environment, we evolved for a situation that is more similar to the environment of a chimpanzee troupe.  One of those aspects is the fact that we don't generally live as a part of an extended family anymore and that is, in my opinion, a lot more important than whether children have 2 or 1 parents or what sexes those parents are.  You are right, it's pretty irrelevant in the face of other more important factors.  However, being an arguementative cuss I'll keep defending my position as long as people keep attacking it.

[Cainad (dec.)]

Babs, doesn't your ass get tired from all that talking?

[Elder Iptuous]

as you pointed out, it can be dealt with by explicitly writing desires in a will.  failing that, why couldn't the assets of the deceased be treated under the legal framework for unowned/abandoned property?

Nice.  So everything Joe works for reverts to the state - or salvagers - when he dies.

That's awesome.  Makes me want to run right out and take part in the economy.

I don't know...
Is that what the laws say for unowned/abandoned property?

If so, that would certainly make me want to make my will explicitly known.
that would alleviate so much squabbling that ensues when somebody dies without doing such a thing...

How very nice that you can afford such luxuries.  However, with the mode income of the United States being a whopping $19,500/year (before the recession, it is likely worse now), the majority of families cannot afford to lay out money on anything more than the bare cost of living...which makes your notion all the more horrible, when the state would be able to take what little a family DOES have, for the crime of being poor.

so you're saying that the state currently owns all abandoned property by default?
what luxury are you referring to?

1.  Under the current system, unclaimed or intestate property reverts to the state.

2.  The luxury of being able to afford the costs of making and filing a will.  Simply writing down your wishes on a napkin doesn't cut it.

This is a topic that i certainly need to learn more about, having had a brush with death recently, where it would have become very relevant...

what constitutes 'unclaimed' property?  if there is no will, i would fully believe that the state would take all it could get its mits on that is worth anything, but i'm assuming the family of the deceased gets an opportunity in probate court to claim some of it, right?

the cost of making and filing a will should be negligible.

these deficiencies in our system of inheritance should be addressed rather than making an institution that should be private a matter of the state as a 'fix'...

[Freeky]

 

You are right, I don't know how any of those species lived.  I only know what most people know about that sort of thing.

A few thousand years ago, most people knew the earth was flat.

 

And the reason I am saying it is ideal is not because of any inherent superiority to the arrangement, just because we have evolved into that environment.

As far as I can tell, we are evolving AWAY from this scenario, when alternate lifestyles are becoming more widely accepted socially.

There are also a lot of obvious factors that are more important in measurable ways.

Which makes your definition of the ideal family irrelevant.

It just makes sense to me that in an evolutionary scenario the way things have been for a very long time is going to be the ideal situation.  

Once again, if things are changing socially, then why should your ideal situation remain the ideal situation?

Because the ideal situation isn't based on society, it's based on biology.  And we evolve to fit in with our environment, that's how evolution works, those most suited to an environment survive and breed.

Pretty clearly at the moment we are not in our ideal environment, we evolved for a situation that is more similar to the environment of a chimpanzee troupe.  One of those aspects is the fact that we don't generally live as a part of an extended family anymore and that is, in my opinion, a lot more important than whether children have 2 or 1 parents or what sexes those parents are.  You are right, it's pretty irrelevant in the face of other more important factors.  However, being an arguementative cuss I'll keep defending my position as long as people keep attacking it.

I'm pretty sure that humans won't be going back to trees any time soon,  which means that society IS our environment now. and we keep inventing more ways to render biology out-of-date.  As long as the current status of humanity remains (that being society is our natural habitat), your 'idea family' is not ideal.

[NotPublished]

Hmm ..

If you give animals the ability to talk and be sentimental - would they slowly change their own habbit and stop with the Food Chain? This would cause alot of problems in itself.

For some reason, humans are the dominant species, and its because they're soo damn adaptive. Meeting and crushing many challenges that they are faced with.

I forget where I was going with this ... heh.

I just know I can't take most of it serious, I love it when my very existance itself is put down to chemistry and reaction in the brain ... I get too bored hearing it.

... Also I don't want to go live in a tree Unless tree is a metaphor for a 2-3 story house?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

 if there is no will, i would fully believe that the state would take all it could get its mits on that is worth anything, but i'm assuming the family of the deceased gets an opportunity in probate court to claim some of it, right?

You're so cute when you're all naive.

[Freeky]

Hmm ..

If you give animals the ability to talk and be sentimental - would they slowly change their own habbit and stop with the Food Chain? This would cause alot of problems in itself.

For some reason, humans are the dominant species, and its because they're soo damn adaptive. Meeting and crushing many challenges that they are faced with.

I forget where I was going with this ... heh

... I don't want to go live in a tree Unless tree is a metaphor for a 2-3 story house?

I wish.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Pretty clearly at the moment we are not in our ideal environment, we evolved for a situation that is more similar to the environment of a chimpanzee troupe. 

That's precisely what we're in.