Quick question - what are "family values"?

I think it is quite extreme to call it "worthless". And I have never seen a definition of nuclear family that implied that one had to cut oneself off from those elements that didn't fit. Nuclear family is just a grouping of related people, no more worthless than a county.
 
I made a point of saying worthless "by itself". Within the right "village" framework, it might have some value, but focusing on the nuclear family at the expense of the cohesion of the community misses the point. Never in human history have we been so isolated from one another, and making sure that a group of four or five is well-connected is not going to solve the problem of the larger social segmentation. The nuclear family is a distraction. It's a band-aid while we've got a tumor to deal with. We need the neighborhood back.
 
I think words like "distraction" and "worthless" are misleading. It's just "not enough". That's the answer. I get what you're saying, though -- people who are focusing on the nuclear family are wasting their energy on something that can't yield enough results.
 
I get what you're saying, though -- people who are focusing on the nuclear family are wasting their energy on something that can't yield enough results.

And why can't it yield results? The nuclear family is an important part of a healthy individual, no less important than the extended family, the network of friends, the community, society at large...

To pursue any one of those groups to the detriment of others would be a poor decision. To say that the family is unimportant in the larger community would be just as foolish as saying that the family is the only social group that matters.

I don't think I'm disagreeing with this statement in general, but it seemed like a good statement to quote and respond to; I think I agree with the beginning of LucyDuke's assertion, but not so much the end. The family and the neighborhood are like diet and exercise. Both are necessary for a well-functioning community, neither more or less than the other. This isn't to say that someone from a broken home can't be a healthy and well-adjusted individual, just that it probably were not best that we all come from broken homes.
 
Yeah, it's not that it doesn't yield results, it's just that it can never yield enough. It's not worthless, just not worth enough. A little bit of grandpa and auntie could help a LOT of people.
 
I made a point of saying worthless "by itself". Within the right "village" framework, it might have some value, but focusing on the nuclear family at the expense of the cohesion of the community misses the point. Never in human history have we been so isolated from one another, and making sure that a group of four or five is well-connected is not going to solve the problem of the larger social segmentation. The nuclear family is a distraction. It's a band-aid while we've got a tumor to deal with. We need the neighborhood back.
Very well put Duke. :goodjob:
 
it seems to me that "family values" is another way to say, "i need help parenting"
 
I don't think I'm disagreeing with this statement in general, but it seemed like a good statement to quote and respond to; I think I agree with the beginning of LucyDuke's assertion, but not so much the end. The family and the neighborhood are like diet and exercise. Both are necessary for a well-functioning community, neither more or less than the other. This isn't to say that someone from a broken home can't be a healthy and well-adjusted individual, just that it probably were not best that we all come from broken homes.

I think that they are indeed like diet and exercise. If you can't do enough exercise, you go on a diet in an attempt to remain reasonably healthy, but exercise is best.
Similarly if your neighbourhood is a bad one and not cohesive you build family bonds in an attempt to have some sort of community, even though it's best to have the whole area as a community.
 
Back
Top Bottom