1431: "Marriage"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

Foelhe
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:07 pm UTC

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Foelhe » Mon Oct 13, 2014 6:25 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:However, it's not just a coincidence that in the plots of fairy tales, it's stepparents who show parental neglect.


...We're depending on the hard-hitting sociological research of the Brothers Grimm. Sure, sounds legit.

Hell, do we even know if stepparents are more abusive on average than bio-parents? I'm willing to be convinced, but you're not really hitting me with a ton of evidence here.

Why shall we expect the mechanisms of love be different in adoptive parents compared to stepparents?


Because step-parents are people who got married to someone with a child, so the marriage was often their first and only priority? Whereas adoptive parents wouldn't adopt kids unless they want kids? Not really hard to spot the difference, Kit. Stop and think maybe.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Oct 13, 2014 6:57 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:Why shall we expect the mechanisms of love be different in adoptive parents compared to stepparents?
We shouldn't, that's precisely the point.
Kit. wrote:So, are you supposing that if not everyone suffers from it, then it must be OK? Anyway, "more likely violence" is a minor point compared to a different, less intense degree of stepfather's affection: it's more like friendship (based on reciprocal altruism) than true parental love (based on kin selection). Of course, you can fool your own emotions, but only for so much.
Yes, I am absolutely assuming that. Car crashes are a thing that happens; I still drive a car, and I would not suggest no one should drive a car to prevent car crashes. You are making an ENORMOUS number of claims about how parental relationships work, and as someone who has studied not just animal behavior, but specifically kinship behavior in social primates, I find your assertions to be extremely frustrating to see bandied around as fact.
Kit. wrote:Oh, I've touched your taboo zone, have I? Try to cool off and find some real argument if you have a point to make. Name calling won't cut it here.
I'm quite cool; I'm extremely disappointed to see you bullshitting your way through an argument using science I care about.
Kit. wrote:Stop"? So far, I haven't even started with that!
I literally quoted the part where you said that;
Kit. wrote:The biology of another one may somehow need to be tricked into believing in their parenthood, if we want everyone (including the child, of course) to get the best from their family.
One needn't 'trick' one's biology to be a parent. I know it's a shock to you, but one of the advantages of consciousness is being aware of impulses, and sometimes even controlling them.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Oct 13, 2014 6:59 pm UTC

Foelhe wrote:Hell, do we even know if stepparents are more abusive on average than bio-parents? I'm willing to be convinced, but you're not really hitting me with a ton of evidence here.
They are, but that's not terribly relevant. That doesn't mean all adoptive parents are abusive, and it doesn't mean adoption should be stopped.
Foelhe wrote:Because step-parents are people who got married to someone with a child, so the marriage was often their first and only priority? Whereas adoptive parents wouldn't adopt kids unless they want kids? Not really hard to spot the difference, Kit. Stop and think maybe.
Exactly; One could also surmise that parents who are adopting because they are biologically incapable of reproducing as easily a heterosexual couples are more likely to be non-abusive parents, as they are deliberately seeking the experience of parenthood, instead of, say, seeking to game the system by assuming custody of a child or whatever other awful things can happen.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10262
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby addams » Mon Oct 13, 2014 7:11 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
Foelhe wrote:Hell, do we even know if stepparents are more abusive on average than bio-parents? I'm willing to be convinced, but you're not really hitting me with a ton of evidence here.
They are, but that's not terribly relevant. That doesn't mean all adoptive parents are abusive, and it doesn't mean adoption should be stopped.
Foelhe wrote:Because step-parents are people who got married to someone with a child, so the marriage was often their first and only priority? Whereas adoptive parents wouldn't adopt kids unless they want kids? Not really hard to spot the difference, Kit. Stop and think maybe.
Exactly; One could also surmise that parents who are adopting because they are biologically incapable of reproducing as easily a heterosexual couples are more likely to be non-abusive parents, as they are deliberately seeking the experience of parenthood, instead of, say, seeking to game the system by assuming custody of a child or whatever other awful things can happen.

Yeah.
That.

I'm still coming out of Africa.
It is a new idea to me.

I think it is Hysterical.
A whole new and different kind of Racism?

I doubt it. Verinoque was right.
"There is nothing new, under the sun."

Still..It New to Me!
And; It's funny.

Black people are not different.
Black people are the same.

Whites and Asians are different.
So funny.

"Hey! You!"
"We couldn't get along 65 thousand years ago."
"I walked to the Edge to get away from you."
"What the Hell are you doing in My World??"

Please, xkcd don't let a bad thing make a nest in your head.
It's funny and sweet.

What do we all have in common?
We are Brothers and Sisters.

Some of us get along.
Some of us don't.

It has very little to do with Race.
It can not be explained by Culture.

(shrug) "Why do you like That Guy?"
"He's all wrong for you."
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Kit. » Mon Oct 13, 2014 7:39 pm UTC

Klear wrote:
Kit. wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:But then we're back to "problems" that are not at all unique to same-sex couples, as last I checked straight people could be stepparents as well.

The question is not whether we can do worse, but whether we can do better.

I really don't think the kids can do much worse than growing up with no parents at all.

That's if they already exist.

But we are discussing how things could be better for children that don't exist yet. And in particular, how we could make things better for them. Because sometimes it could probably be achieved just by a blind choice between two vials, and sometimes it would require a different, more involving approach.

Foelhe wrote:
Kit. wrote:However, it's not just a coincidence that in the plots of fairy tales, it's stepparents who show parental neglect.


...We're depending on the hard-hitting sociological research of the Brothers Grimm. Sure, sounds legit.

Hell, do we even know if stepparents are more abusive on average than bio-parents? I'm willing to be convinced, but you're not really hitting me with a ton of evidence here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinderella_effect
(which, conveniently, is the first link on Google for stepparents+care+statistics)

Foelhe wrote:
Why shall we expect the mechanisms of love be different in adoptive parents compared to stepparents?

Because step-parents are people who got married to someone with a child, so the marriage was often their first and only priority? Whereas adoptive parents wouldn't adopt kids unless they want kids? Not really hard to spot the difference, Kit. Stop and think maybe.

I don't really see a difference between marrying a person with an already existing child and allowing the same person (which I already married) to adopt a child. Do you?

Izawwlgood wrote:
Kit. wrote:So, are you supposing that if not everyone suffers from it, then it must be OK? Anyway, "more likely violence" is a minor point compared to a different, less intense degree of stepfather's affection: it's more like friendship (based on reciprocal altruism) than true parental love (based on kin selection). Of course, you can fool your own emotions, but only for so much.
Yes, I am absolutely assuming that. Car crashes are a thing that happens; I still drive a car, and I would not suggest no one should drive a car to prevent car crashes.

You do wear a seat belt though?

Izawwlgood wrote:You are making an ENORMOUS number of claims about how parental relationships work, and as someone who has studied not just animal behavior, but specifically kinship behavior in social primates, I find your assertions to be extremely frustrating to see bandied around as fact.

So, can you bring some evidence to back up your position?

And by the way, how the animals you studied treat stepchildren?

Izawwlgood wrote:
Kit. wrote:Stop"? So far, I haven't even started with that!
I literally quoted the part where you said that;
Kit. wrote:The biology of another one may somehow need to be tricked into believing in their parenthood, if we want everyone (including the child, of course) to get the best from their family.

And...?

Izawwlgood wrote:One needn't 'trick' one's biology to be a parent. I know it's a shock to you, but one of the advantages of consciousness is being aware of impulses, and sometimes even controlling them.

Why do you believe that would be a shock to me?

Unfortunately, "sometimes even controlling" is not enough for a genuine parental relation. For one reason, your subconscious works faster, and it can be seen by a child. And if don't indulge in self-delusion, you can even see it by yourself.

Spoiler:
Or at least I can.

User avatar
azule
Saved
Posts: 2132
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:45 pm UTC
Location: The land of the Golden Puppies and Rainbows

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby azule » Mon Oct 13, 2014 7:40 pm UTC

ucim wrote:There isn't a sharp dividing line. Classification is arbitrary, and although it's useful to have one that works most of the time, it's a mistake to read deeper scientific meaning into it.
I get that. I guess I was thinking of all this in a world not full of fuzzy science.

Life is complex. Laws need to reflect that.
I probably shouldn't have said anything about not having things complex. I just meant understandable after putting some thought into it. I agree, things are complex, and sometimes the law has to reflect that. Of course, sometimes, most of the time, it doesn't have to be complex. I think too many laws are either on the edge of being this or way past.

gmalivuk wrote:If you're going to redefine species so narrowly that human beings split into even as few as two different ones, then I suspect other primate species would have to be split into dozens each, at which point it starts to look like your new definition is utterly worthless as a scientific tool.
Yeah, I probably meant subspecies. If it's true that we're absolutely the same species and nothing else, good. But I know that we're different across areas, races, whatever. Is it less controversial to say we may have more than one subspecies?

Okay, again, ninja'd. You say we are not subspecies either. Nor breeds. I don't get this part. Dogs are diverse, as stated by someone. They are breeds, maybe even subspecies. We can't be because we're too special? I don't see why we are excluded.

I didn't want to mention any specifics. It feels too "racist" to be observant or curious. addams did. I never heard of the squatting thing. I was mostly thinking, in the slightly less than serious vein, of those planets that are visited on shows like Star Trek. They're full of homogeneous people, maybe albino or something obvious. Well, aren't the Irish and Welsh, the original Britons, known for their red hair? Why were they? Did no one from elsewhere have red hair? Or, at least, very rarely? Sure, maybe this is simply selective breeding, and pigments don't make a species/subspecies(, right?). But maybe there is more to it than what we see on the outside. Are (sub)species ever determined based on the insides?

Kit. wrote:Desiring an albino is not the best option for creating strong offspring if you live near the equator.
Yeah, probably not a good idea. Or, wear sunscreen. Like the Irish. Fair skin. Should no one desire a person of Irish descent because of where they live? Should they all just go back to Ireland? Is this not an essentially racist thought? I'm pro-albino. :P
I had to call that one out, but for the rest of the thoughts...if you must, you can PM for possible further discussion. But I'm not encouraging it.

orthogon wrote:There may not be many lawyers on this forum, but there are plenty of programmers, and my guess is that what happens with legislation is the same thing that happens with code. You start off with a nice clean five-line implementation of some business logic, which looks like it should do the job. But then over time you find bugs, corner cases, various fault conditions, etc., and before you know it you've got a spaghetti of nested "if"s, "case"s and "catch"es. You generally feel that you could re-write it much more simply now you've understood, but that might just reintroduce a load of bugs that you've already fixed.
REFACTOR ALL THE CODE! I mean, *cough*, I know. I am one of those programmers..and fuck if I don't know how true that is. But, we have to work with many platforms/browsers. Isn't the law supposed to be one jurisdiction thingy? I know of the other jurisdictions, literally, the different states and regions and such. *shrug* I guess: reality.
Image

If you read this sig, post about one arbitrary thing you did today.

I celebrate up to six arbitrary things before breakfast.
Time does drag on and on and contain spoilers. Be aware of memes.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6859
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby ucim » Mon Oct 13, 2014 7:53 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:I don't really see a difference between marrying a person with an already existing child and allowing the same person (which I already married) to adopt a child. Do you?
It's pretty much the difference between wanting something in its own right, and being willing to put up with something in order to get something else.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Kit. » Mon Oct 13, 2014 7:59 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
Kit. wrote:I don't really see a difference between marrying a person with an already existing child and allowing the same person (which I already married) to adopt a child. Do you?
It's pretty much the difference between wanting something in its own right, and being willing to put up with something in order to get something else.

I'm "willing to put up with" a new child in order to "get" my wife happy. Now what?

And I haven't mentioned before that "wanting something in its own right" by itself doesn't guarantee love. Probably I should have.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10262
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby addams » Mon Oct 13, 2014 8:00 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
Kit. wrote:I don't really see a difference between marrying a person with an already existing child and allowing the same person (which I already married) to adopt a child. Do you?
It's pretty much the difference between wanting something in its own right, and being willing to put up with something in order to get something else.

Jose

Ech. Jose;
Some people are so much better than others.

Out there in the middle are people that will put up with the children for You.
Out there in the middle are people that will put up with you for the Children.

Yes. Some people are so much worse.
It is a professional responsibility to even think if them.

A Moment of Consideration for Professionals and Professional Organizations.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Foelhe
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:07 pm UTC

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Foelhe » Mon Oct 13, 2014 8:00 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:I don't really see a difference between marrying a person with an already existing child and allowing the same person (which I already married) to adopt a child. Do you?


*facepalm* Um, yes. Yes I do. Because if you're marrying someone who's already got a kid, you don't get a say in whether or not the kid joins the family, because they've already joined the family. Whereas if you're already married, and your spouse wants to adopt, you can still make your opinion known.

ucim wrote:It's pretty much the difference between wanting something in its own right, and being willing to put up with something in order to get something else.

Jose


Pretty much this. Granted, it's possible a potential adoptive parent's spouse would just be quiet about their opinions and let things go forward, but you could easily say the same thing about pregnancy.

Foelhe
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:07 pm UTC

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Foelhe » Mon Oct 13, 2014 8:02 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:I'm "willing to put up with" a new child in order to "get" my wife happy. Now what?


And if your wife is pregnant, and you would rather she get an abortion but you don't mention it? Same thing.

And I haven't mentioned before that "wanting something in its own right" by itself doesn't guarantee love. Probably I should have.


Again, just as true for bio-parents. But you asked if there was a difference between step-parents and adoptive parents. The answer is pretty clearly yes.

Edit: Oh for god's sake. Kit, did you even read your own article?

Wikipedia wrote: Buller also points out that the conclusion that non-biological parents are more likely to abuse children is contradicted by the fact that even if the rate of abuse among stepparents was disproportionate, most child abuse is in fact committed by biological parents, and that the lowest rate of child abuse is found among adoptive parents.


Added the bold. Good job disproving your own theory.

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Kit. » Mon Oct 13, 2014 8:32 pm UTC

Foelhe wrote:
Kit. wrote:I don't really see a difference between marrying a person with an already existing child and allowing the same person (which I already married) to adopt a child. Do you?

*facepalm* Um, yes. Yes I do. Because if you're marrying someone who's already got a kid, you don't get a say in whether or not the kid joins the family, because they've already joined the family. Whereas if you're already married, and your spouse wants to adopt, you can still make your opinion known.

Sorry, I was probably not specific enough. I am discussing parental love. I am not discussing whether you are going to hate that stepchild.

Foelhe wrote:Granted, it's possible a potential adoptive parent's spouse would just be quiet about their opinions and let things go forward, but you could easily say the same thing about pregnancy.

Pregnancy is a completely different thing, because it's where parental love bonds definitely have an evolutionary payoff.

Foelhe wrote:
And I haven't mentioned before that "wanting something in its own right" by itself doesn't guarantee love. Probably I should have.

Again, just as true for bio-parents.

See above. There is another mechanism responsible specifically for bio-parents love.

Foelhe wrote:Edit: Oh for god's sake. Kit, did you even read your own article?
Wikipedia wrote: Buller also points out that the conclusion that non-biological parents are more likely to abuse children is contradicted by the fact that even if the rate of abuse among stepparents was disproportionate, most child abuse is in fact committed by biological parents, and that the lowest rate of child abuse is found among adoptive parents.

Added the bold. Good job disproving your own theory.

But it doesn't disprove anything. It only proves that adoptive parent screening works.

Foelhe
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:07 pm UTC

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Foelhe » Mon Oct 13, 2014 8:43 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:Sorry, I was probably not specific enough. I am discussing parental love. I am not discussing whether you are going to hate that stepchild.


Actually we've been discussing child abuse.

Pregnancy is a completely different thing, because it's where parental love bonds definitely have an evolutionary payoff.


And I see zero reason to think evolutionary payoff is the linchpin here. Most of the things I do in my life have very little to do with me passing on my DNA.

See above. There is another mechanism responsible specifically for bio-parents love.


I see no reason to believe this.

Foelhe wrote:Edit: Oh for god's sake. Kit, did you even read your own article?
Wikipedia wrote: Buller also points out that the conclusion that non-biological parents are more likely to abuse children is contradicted by the fact that even if the rate of abuse among stepparents was disproportionate, most child abuse is in fact committed by biological parents, and that the lowest rate of child abuse is found among adoptive parents.

Added the bold. Good job disproving your own theory.

But it doesn't disprove anything. It only proves that adoptive parent screening works.


Actually it doesn't prove that either. It might be that adoptive parents are less likely to abuse because of screening, or they might be less likely to abuse their kids even without it.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10262
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby addams » Mon Oct 13, 2014 8:50 pm UTC

Klear wrote:
Kit. wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:But then we're back to "problems" that are not at all unique to same-sex couples, as last I checked straight people could be stepparents as well.

The question is not whether we can do worse, but whether we can do better.


I really don't think the kids can do much worse than growing up with no parents at all. You realize gay couples are not adopting children by tearing them away from their happy heterosexual parents, right?

Not to be auguemeitve, but this is the internet, after all.

Kids as in the goats, we can argue the point.
Kids as in Human Children, can do worse than no parents at all.

Feral Children....
Not all that uncommon, some places.

Unpredictable, infantile adults are worse than No Adults at all.
I know this to be a Fact from experience and from a child's point of view.

I thought Adults were a Great Idea.
I was interested in meeting some.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6859
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby ucim » Mon Oct 13, 2014 8:54 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:I'm "willing to put up with" a new child in order to "get" my wife happy. Now what?
I don't understand the question.

If you are asking whether the child is guaranteed to have a happy upbringing, the answer is pretty obviously 'no'. But that was not the point of contention.

Kit. wrote:And I haven't mentioned before that "wanting something in its own right" by itself doesn't guarantee love. Probably I should have.


If you are looking for guarantees, I'll give you one.

You will die.

That's it. (I can't even guarantee you'll pay taxes).

Adoption is more likely the result of people wanting a child.

Stepchildren are more likely the result of people wanting each other.

Now it's true that I'm stating this as obvious, with no supporting scientific studies. I suppose it's possible that there are perverse forces at work that overwhelm what appears to be reasonable. But Occam's razor suggests that the burden of proof is elsewhere.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10262
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby addams » Mon Oct 13, 2014 8:55 pm UTC

Klear wrote:
Kit. wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:But then we're back to "problems" that are not at all unique to same-sex couples, as last I checked straight people could be stepparents as well.

The question is not whether we can do worse, but whether we can do better.


I really don't think the kids can do much worse than growing up with no parents at all. You realize gay couples are not adopting children by tearing them away from their happy heterosexual parents, right?

Not to be auguemeitve, but this is the internet, after all.

Kids as in the goats, we can argue the point.
Kids as in Human Children, can do worse than no parents at all.

Feral Children....
Not all that uncommon, some places.

Unpredictable, infantile adults are worse than No Adults at all.
I know this to be a Fact from experience and from a child's point of view.

I thought Adults were a Great Idea.
I was interested in meeting some.

I have spoken to Adults that had worse Adults than I did as a child.
I was Stunned into Silence. Honeys; That's unusually bad.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Oct 13, 2014 8:56 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:But it doesn't disprove anything. It only proves that adoptive parent screening works.
Which is... a point I made as a counter point to your claim that increase rates of abuse non-biological children experience is likely offset by adoptive parents.

Kit. wrote:You do wear a seat belt though?
Indeed; just like, perhaps stated above, Child Services does screen adoptive parents. It's almost like if you understand the risks, and take steps to mitigate them, things that can have dangerous outcomes are both doable, and rendered less likely to produce dangerous outcomes! Le gasp!

Kit. wrote:And by the way, how the animals you studied treat stepchildren?
Many treat them quite well. There is an increased rate of violence towards stepchildren, but, then, there is also extremely high rates of parental instinct, even cross species.

The thing I'm objecting to here so strongly is your insistence that because there is a risk of violence, that the whole thing is bunk. Which is why I used the car analogy. Yes; the rate of violence towards non-biological children is higher than towards biological children, but you're already talking about a level of compassion grossly higher than what most organisms experience in the first place. It's like worrying about drowning when you're 10,000 feet above sea level. Yes, there are above sea level lakes, so you should be aware of them, but that's not really reason to stop hiking, nor is it really something to use in an argument against someone who wants to go hiking.

Kit. wrote:Unfortunately, "sometimes even controlling" is not enough for a genuine parental relation. For one reason, your subconscious works faster, and it can be seen by a child. And if don't indulge in self-delusion, you can even see it by yourself.
I'm more convinced than ever that you haven't interacted with a child. One of the principal requirements of being a parent is the ability to not react to certain things on purely subconscious or instinctual impulses. Shaken baby syndrome is a thing for precisely this issue. Yet, not surprisingly to anyone but perhaps you, not all parents shake their babies, and the fact that Shaken Baby Syndrome is a thing, is not a point in the side of 'Why we shouldn't reproduce'.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Kit. » Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:36 pm UTC

Foelhe wrote:
Kit. wrote:Sorry, I was probably not specific enough. I am discussing parental love. I am not discussing whether you are going to hate that stepchild.

Actually we've been discussing child abuse.

I, in particular, was pointing out that some of Crosshair's arguments, if addressed, can make some lives better. Even though these arguments don't mean what Crosshair wanted them to mean.

Foelhe wrote:
Pregnancy is a completely different thing, because it's where parental love bonds definitely have an evolutionary payoff.

And I see zero reason to think evolutionary payoff is the linchpin here. Most of the things I do in my life have very little to do with me passing on my DNA.

Most of the activity of human beings is indeed just a mental masturbation on the things that were initially "selected" for their role in passing on their DNA. However, it doesn't make those things any less "real".

Foelhe wrote:
See above. There is another mechanism responsible specifically for bio-parents love.

I see no reason to believe this.

No one asks you to believe this. However, the theory of parental investment is both falsifiable and too good at explaining a lot of stuff we observe about mating behavior, parenting and the corresponding emotions, so ignoring it right where it is supposed to work would be unwise, unless you can show that it doesn't apply.

Izawwlgood wrote:
Kit. wrote:But it doesn't disprove anything. It only proves that adoptive parent screening works.
Which is... a point I made as a counter point to your claim that increase rates of abuse non-biological children experience is likely offset by adoptive parents.

Sorry? What my "claim that increase rates of abuse non-biological children experience is likely offset by adoptive parents"?

Izawwlgood wrote:The thing I'm objecting to here so strongly is your insistence that because there is a risk of violence, that the whole thing is bunk.

And where exactly did you get that "my insistence" from?

Izawwlgood wrote:
Kit. wrote:Unfortunately, "sometimes even controlling" is not enough for a genuine parental relation. For one reason, your subconscious works faster, and it can be seen by a child. And if don't indulge in self-delusion, you can even see it by yourself.
I'm more convinced than ever that you haven't interacted with a child.

That tells a lot.

About you.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:46 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:And where exactly did you get that "my insistence" from?
That you keep arguing this notion that adoption is bunk due to biological reasons. Which you've neither supported, nor defended.
Kit. wrote:That tells a lot. About you.
Yes, a riveting counter point. You're making it ever increasingly clear that you are incapable of doing much aside from repeating your claims while ignoring counterpoints, sometimes even those counterpoints supported by actual research, so good luck maintaining your world view gleaned from a freshman biology philosophy or biology text.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Kit. » Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:57 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
Kit. wrote:And where exactly did you get that "my insistence" from?
That you keep arguing this notion that adoption is bunk due to biological reasons. Which you've neither supported, nor defended.

Then maybe I'm not arguing it? Maybe it's just a straw man in your head?

Izawwlgood wrote:
Kit. wrote:That tells a lot. About you.
Yes, a riveting counter point. You're making it ever increasingly clear that you are incapable of doing much aside from repeating your claims while ignoring counterpoints,

Listen. When I clearly say something about my own experience, and your "counterpoint" is that you try to insist that I don't have such experience, it's not even funny.

Foelhe
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:07 pm UTC

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Foelhe » Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:59 pm UTC

Yeah, we're going around in circles.

Kit, you've got a ton of assumptions which completely fall apart if you consider the possibility that humans can prioritize goals above "pass on genes. You have no proof for your core premise. Scientifically your argument's dead in the water.

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Kit. » Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:50 pm UTC

Foelhe wrote:Yeah, we're going around in circles.

I hope that we are still getting closer to the destination.

Foelhe wrote:Kit, you've got a ton of assumptions which completely fall apart if you consider the possibility that humans can prioritize goals above "pass on genes.

Sigh...

Humans don't have "pass on genes" as a goal. "Passing on genes" is what used to be shaping human goals and their priorities. But anyway, that's too much to explain.

Just tell me how fast you can produce a positive emotion when you reason tells you that your partner would want to see it, but the subconscious part of your brain fails to produce it on its own. Are you sure your partner won't subconsciously detect your "insincerity", even if the intentions of your reason are only good?

You say "humans can prioritize goals" as if it's a panacea against all things that humans cannot do. What if it's not?

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10262
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby addams » Mon Oct 13, 2014 11:08 pm UTC

Are humans manipulative bastards with a talent for duplicity?

Oh, Yes.
Many of us are.
Not all of us are.

With extra special care we can be taught to value and honor uplifting ideals.
Of course, that takes extra special effort and care.

People that are playing some kind of fucked up Emotional Chess,
are not likely to be in the class taking care to Not Be Bastards.

Do we make laws and social convention to satisfy our need to be safe from the Worst Bastard you can imagine?
Or; Do we make laws to support us as we stumble though our lives falling in and out of Love with one another?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Oct 13, 2014 11:23 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:Just tell me how fast you can produce a positive emotion when you reason tells you that your partner would want to see it, but the subconscious part of your brain fails to produce it on its own. Are you sure your partner won't subconsciously detect your "insincerity", even if the intentions of your reason are only good?
This is you repeating the assumption that has already been addressed.

Are you certain that humans are incapable of caring for their non-biological offspring? Because the entire argument you are presenting is that adoption is bad because it is impossible to fully care for a non-biological ward. Which is what I've asked you to back with evidence, and have provided counter evidence for, which you ignored.

Kit. wrote:Then maybe I'm not arguing it? Maybe it's just a straw man in your head?
And to repeat myself, I literally quoted back the thing you wrote.
Kit. wrote:Listen. When I clearly say something about my own experience, and your "counterpoint" is that you try to insist that I don't have such experience, it's not even funny.
You have said nothing about your own experience. You've repeated a point, sans evidence for said point, and have ignored counter points and counter evidence. This is now the second time I've said this to you. You are ignoring a lot of discussion points here when convenient for you.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3630
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby rmsgrey » Mon Oct 13, 2014 11:36 pm UTC

Bio-parents bonding with bio-child: okay, the mother can usually be pretty confident (though there are those stories circulating of mix-ups at the hospital) but the "father" has a decent chance that the kid ain't his - has anyone done a study on paternal bonding and correlations with bastardry?

There's even a clear survival advantage for an inability to tell whether "your" baby is actually your child - if you have two groups, one where the males can tell and one where they can't, and a degree of infidelity in both groups, then in one group every child is accepted by its mother's mate and grows up carrying the genes that promote that behaviour, while in the other, the "cuckoos" get killed off. In-group altruism is strongly pro-survival because your personal genes get the reciprocal benefit when you need it, and the (closely-related) genes of the people you help get the direct benefit now.

***

Law needing to account for complex cases:

The law needs to recognise the existence of complexity in real life, but it doesn't need to reflect it - when it comes to legal systems, there are three goals that are in competition:
A) Being fair - we want our laws to produce the "right" outcome where possible - or at least a reasonable/sensible one
B) Being comprehensive - we want our laws to provide a definite answer for every situation
C) Being comprehensible - we want to be able to understand our laws without specialist training and a lifetime of study

Pick any two - you can't have all three. In my view, the law should cover the simple cases, but, recognising that life is messy, should allow for uncertainties and ambiguities, and allow those responsible for enforcing and interpreting it to use their discretion - sure, there will be injustices due to individual biases, but if you try to keep every ruling consistent with every relevant precedent, you end up needing to wade through a mountain of case law in order to get a better understanding of what the outcome "should" be in any given circumstance than you'd get from a less rigid, but more accessible law...

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Oct 14, 2014 12:30 am UTC

Non-paternity rates.

It's worth pointing out that given how social we are, it is quite easy to envision how it is more advantageous for parental behavior to develop than infanticide.

I'm not sure why you assert that we can only have two of the three conditions you've listed though.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Mikeski
Posts: 1099
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Mikeski » Tue Oct 14, 2014 3:01 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:I'm not sure why you assert that we can only have two of the three conditions you've listed though.

Assuming you want any laws, I don't think the "comprehensive" part is possible in a species with free will, regardless of the other two. There will always be something else that should be illegal that isn't on the list. Something allegedly simple and comprehensive, like Matthew 7:12, falls apart the first time a sociopath shows up.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10262
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby addams » Tue Oct 14, 2014 3:45 am UTC

Mathew 7:12
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

An often quoted and argued sentence.

It helped me when Oscar Wilde freshened it up a bit.
Do not do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
You may not share the same the tastes.

Oscar Wilde.


To allow others self determination is the right and proper thing to do.
As long as they don't have Victims.

Does the idea of a dyad bonded Until Dead seem like a Victimless Crime to you?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Kit. » Tue Oct 14, 2014 9:12 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
Kit. wrote:Just tell me how fast you can produce a positive emotion when you reason tells you that your partner would want to see it, but the subconscious part of your brain fails to produce it on its own. Are you sure your partner won't subconsciously detect your "insincerity", even if the intentions of your reason are only good?
This is you repeating the assumption that has already been addressed.

And how it was "addressed"? By handwaving at your own straw man?

Izawwlgood wrote:Are you certain that humans are incapable of caring for their non-biological offspring?

Where did I say so?

Izawwlgood wrote:Because the entire argument you are presenting is that adoption is bad because it is impossible to fully care for a non-biological ward.

And where did I say so?

Izawwlgood wrote:Which is what I've asked you to back with evidence, and have provided counter evidence for, which you ignored.

Why should I provide evidence for a straw man in your head?

Izawwlgood wrote:
Kit. wrote:Then maybe I'm not arguing it? Maybe it's just a straw man in your head?
And to repeat myself, I literally quoted back the thing you wrote.

But how about you actually read the thing you quoted back? And not just fantasied about what could be written there?

Izawwlgood wrote:
Kit. wrote:Listen. When I clearly say something about my own experience, and your "counterpoint" is that you try to insist that I don't have such experience, it's not even funny.
You have said nothing about your own experience.

Oh, here we go again.

rmsgrey wrote:There's even a clear survival advantage for an inability to tell whether "your" baby is actually your child - if you have two groups, one where the males can tell and one where they can't, and a degree of infidelity in both groups, then in one group every child is accepted by its mother's mate and grows up carrying the genes that promote that behaviour,

It carries the genes that promote the "cuckoo" behavior, thus reducing the frequency of the genes that promote the "altruistic cuckold" behavior. If there is no mechanism inside the group to counteract this frequency increase, the group is going to lose the genes responsible for the "altruistic cuckolding", and it doesn't matter whether there is any competing group nearby.

Killing people is taxing (especially people you have indirect emotional attachment to), and human males don't benefit as much as lions or gorillas from killing their stepchildren, because human females are fertile again in a month after childbirth, while lions and gorilla females are still infertile when they give care to their offspring.
Last edited by Kit. on Tue Oct 14, 2014 9:54 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

MGitsfullofsheep
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 3:16 pm UTC

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby MGitsfullofsheep » Tue Oct 14, 2014 9:34 am UTC

Argument weakening alert

I've read the conversation up to now. There are less fuel-to-fire words like "utterly irrelevant", and some interesting arguments. People noticed in recent posts a decline in quality.

<pedantic-mode>
* vague phrases, prone to easy rejection that alas are written by also vague phrases, then apologies, diluting interesting exchanges
* citing Wikipedia, where someone cherry-picks a debated counter-argument like it were just truth
* fallacies (I think I spotted base rate fallacy and ad hominem, there may be others.)
* some interesting paths of discussion drown out when people react on superficial areas

How about :

* trying to spot fallacies in one's train of thoughts, then think again ;
* reading one's writing before posting ;
* double checking if words are clear, not prone to misunderstanding or otherwise weakening the discussion.

IMHO these are good practice for oneself and others we interact with.
</pedantic-mode>

Not claiming I'm perfect. I fell, fall and will fall into some pits, like everyone, thanks gmalivuk for explaining one of my mistakes.

One could quote examples of terms above but I'm not sure if it would rather feel like finger-pointing (upsetting people rather than making the conversation more interesting, and I definitely want the latter). Drifting in meta-discussion would also lessen the discussion.

Actually, the latter posts reminded me about the Argument Clinic. That sketch is more than funny, I think it's actually interesting on the logical side and on the human relation side. But not an example of good practical argument!

Back to topic

Several paths for discussion were opened. We've seen how the meaning of marriage and has evolved through time and is different among current people.

I found enlightening the part of the debate about species and history of life and humanity. There's a parallel between the idea of species and the idea of marriage, both are rooted in some pre-existing reality (in the sense of: something that exists whatever we think about it).

Getting clear in one's mind that species have blurry contours and corner cases reminds that "species" we're discussing about are a simplification of reality (in the sense that actual individuals live a lot of details we leave aside when discussing, but what details are okay to leave aside ?).

When we're arguing about marriage, we're trying to make sense of the facts we observe, question our own ideas and opinions, which are simplifications of reality.

Simplification of reality is a useful and powerful tool that allowed humanity to build the civilization we live in. Yet simplification of reality also leads people to sometimes ignore important areas and take wrong decisions that sometimes backfire sooner or later. I fail at this (sometimes painfully) like all of us.

Anyone to refresh the debate in light of this ?

Sincerely,

Foelhe
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:07 pm UTC

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Foelhe » Tue Oct 14, 2014 11:56 am UTC

Kit. wrote:Just tell me how fast you can produce a positive emotion when you reason tells you that your partner would want to see it, but the subconscious part of your brain fails to produce it on its own. Are you sure your partner won't subconsciously detect your "insincerity", even if the intentions of your reason are only good?

You say "humans can prioritize goals" as if it's a panacea against all things that humans cannot do. What if it's not?


Why would the subconscious part of your brain not be able to respond positively to a child you've raised from birth and adopted as your own? Why are you assuming humans subconsciously think genetics is the most important thing?

Izawwlgood wrote:
Kit. wrote:Just tell me how fast you can produce a positive emotion when you reason tells you that your partner would want to see it, but the subconscious part of your brain fails to produce it on its own. Are you sure your partner won't subconsciously detect your "insincerity", even if the intentions of your reason are only good?
This is you repeating the assumption that has already been addressed.

Are you certain that humans are incapable of caring for their non-biological offspring? Because the entire argument you are presenting is that adoption is bad because it is impossible to fully care for a non-biological ward. Which is what I've asked you to back with evidence, and have provided counter evidence for, which you ignored.


To be fair, Izawwlgood, I don't think Kit's arguing that it's impossible to care for adopted kids, just that the drive to love someone you've adopted isn't as strong as the drive to love someone you're related to. I disagree with it, but it's not quite as simple as what you're saying.

rmsgrey wrote:Law needing to account for complex cases:

The law needs to recognise the existence of complexity in real life, but it doesn't need to reflect it - when it comes to legal systems, there are three goals that are in competition:
A) Being fair - we want our laws to produce the "right" outcome where possible - or at least a reasonable/sensible one
B) Being comprehensive - we want our laws to provide a definite answer for every situation
C) Being comprehensible - we want to be able to understand our laws without specialist training and a lifetime of study

Pick any two - you can't have all three. In my view, the law should cover the simple cases, but, recognising that life is messy, should allow for uncertainties and ambiguities, and allow those responsible for enforcing and interpreting it to use their discretion - sure, there will be injustices due to individual biases, but if you try to keep every ruling consistent with every relevant precedent, you end up needing to wade through a mountain of case law in order to get a better understanding of what the outcome "should" be in any given circumstance than you'd get from a less rigid, but more accessible law...


I'd prefer laws try to address uncertainties to the best of their ability. Honestly, that's probably going to be what happens even if you don't try to handle it that way. Edge cases are generally what end up making it to a judge - there's a reason precedent is such a major part of how law is practiced, since if the law doesn't handle one specific case well, you end up jamming several other laws together to deal with the ambiguity, and precedent will show you how other judges have done that. Lawmakers have to give an answer on these things somehow, "the situation is ambiguous" is not a court ruling.

Kit. wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:There's even a clear survival advantage for an inability to tell whether "your" baby is actually your child - if you have two groups, one where the males can tell and one where they can't, and a degree of infidelity in both groups, then in one group every child is accepted by its mother's mate and grows up carrying the genes that promote that behaviour,

It carries the genes that promote the "cuckoo" behavior, thus reducing the frequency of the genes that promote the "altruistic cuckold" behavior. If there is no mechanism inside the group to counteract this frequency increase, the group is going to lose the genes responsible for the "altruistic cuckolding", and it doesn't matter whether there is any competing group nearby.


Can't help but think this is an incredibly simplistic understanding of genes.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Oct 14, 2014 1:13 pm UTC

Foelhe wrote:To be fair, Izawwlgood, I don't think Kit's arguing that it's impossible to care for adopted kids, just that the drive to love someone you've adopted isn't as strong as the drive to love someone you're related to. I disagree with it, but it's not quite as simple as what you're saying.
Kits repeated statements of 'how will you control your subconscious when trying to care for your adopted children', coupled with statements about 'what is best for children and the couple adopting' are all saying adoptive parents cannot care for their wards the same way they can care for their biological children. Statements like;
Anyway, "more likely violence" is a minor point compared to a different, less intense degree of stepfather's affection: it's more like friendship (based on reciprocal altruism) than true parental love (based on kin selection). Of course, you can fool your own emotions, but only for so much.
Unfortunately, "sometimes even controlling" is not enough for a genuine parental relation. For one reason, your subconscious works faster, and it can be seen by a child. And if don't indulge in self-delusion, you can even see it by yourself.
Just tell me how fast you can produce a positive emotion when you reason tells you that your partner would want to see it, but the subconscious part of your brain fails to produce it on its own. Are you sure your partner won't subconsciously detect your "insincerity", even if the intentions of your reason are only good?
Are all Kit saying that adoption cannot work, because subconsciously, you do not love the child sufficiently, and the child and your partner will see that.

Because parenting only works if you're the biological parent due to some handwavy bullshit biological reasons, or something. Kit has so far linked the Cinderella effect, which no one has disputed, and ignored cross-species maternal care being a thing, as well as handwaved away a rebuttle to the point that adoptive parents demonstrate lower rates of abuse than biological parents ("Parental screening works"... Indeed).

EDIT: And to back up, this is what I responded to initially from Kits gibbering:

Still, currently it's no more than one gay parent from both is a biological one. The biology of another one may somehow need to be tricked into believing in their parenthood, if we want everyone (including the child, of course) to get the best from their family.


This is an unsubstantiated and absurdly sophomoric interpretation of how biology works.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3075
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby orthogon » Tue Oct 14, 2014 1:21 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
orthogon wrote:However, I don't believe that these incentives apply anything like as much in the case of statutory legislation...
Statutory legislation is very much affected by special interests, who want to get their favors passed without opposition. You think there isn't an incentive to bury stuff in there?

Yes, cruft grows in law as easily as in software. But politicians exist to get reelected, and that means getting votes and getting money. Where the two collide, obfuscation rules.

And politicians come from the legal profession. There's no incentive for them to put their friends out of business.

Jose

OK, but I stand by my assertion that the incentives to obfuscate are nothing like as strong. A contract, once signed, is binding and if a party signs something without realising there's an unfavourable clause for them or a favourable loophole for the other guy, they just have to suck it up (or prove that it was an illegal contract). Legislation is a bit different: there's a lot of talk in public about the aim of each Bill, and it's not great for the politician if the Act turns out to have unintended consequences. If the consequences were unintended by the politicians that advocated the bill, that's embarrassing, and if they were anticipated by the politicians but not by the public then the public will feel betrayed. Politicians are accountable to the electorate for the laws that they pass, and voters will punish politicians at the ballot box for enacting laws that don't do what the politicians promised they were supposed to do. Finally, unpopular legislation can be repealed or amended pretty quickly if there's public demand, so it's not like the "you signed it, you have to lump it" nature of a contract.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

Foelhe
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:07 pm UTC

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Foelhe » Tue Oct 14, 2014 1:56 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
Foelhe wrote:To be fair, Izawwlgood, I don't think Kit's arguing that it's impossible to care for adopted kids, just that the drive to love someone you've adopted isn't as strong as the drive to love someone you're related to. I disagree with it, but it's not quite as simple as what you're saying.
Kits repeated statements of 'how will you control your subconscious when trying to care for your adopted children', coupled with statements about 'what is best for children and the couple adopting' are all saying adoptive parents cannot care for their wards the same way they can care for their biological children. Statements like;
Anyway, "more likely violence" is a minor point compared to a different, less intense degree of stepfather's affection: it's more like friendship (based on reciprocal altruism) than true parental love (based on kin selection). Of course, you can fool your own emotions, but only for so much.
Unfortunately, "sometimes even controlling" is not enough for a genuine parental relation. For one reason, your subconscious works faster, and it can be seen by a child. And if don't indulge in self-delusion, you can even see it by yourself.
Just tell me how fast you can produce a positive emotion when you reason tells you that your partner would want to see it, but the subconscious part of your brain fails to produce it on its own. Are you sure your partner won't subconsciously detect your "insincerity", even if the intentions of your reason are only good?
Are all Kit saying that adoption cannot work, because subconsciously, you do not love the child sufficiently, and the child and your partner will see that.

Because parenting only works if you're the biological parent due to some handwavy bullshit biological reasons, or something. Kit has so far linked the Cinderella effect, which no one has disputed, and ignored cross-species maternal care being a thing, as well as handwaved away a rebuttle to the point that adoptive parents demonstrate lower rates of abuse than biological parents ("Parental screening works"... Indeed).


I'd argue he's saying adoptive parents care less than bio-parents, not that they don't care at all. Still terrible, but not quite the same. (Not like I'm defending the guy, but I like to be accurate when I'm pointing out why someone's an idiot. For fairness sake.)

EDIT: And to back up, this is what I responded to initially from Kits gibbering:

Still, currently it's no more than one gay parent from both is a biological one. The biology of another one may somehow need to be tricked into believing in their parenthood, if we want everyone (including the child, of course) to get the best from their family.


This is an unsubstantiated and absurdly sophomoric interpretation of how biology works.


On that point you'll find no argument.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Oct 14, 2014 2:08 pm UTC

Foelhe wrote:I'd argue he's saying adoptive parents care less than bio-parents, not that they don't care at all. Still terrible, but not quite the same. (Not like I'm defending the guy, but I like to be accurate when I'm pointing out why someone's an idiot. For fairness sake.)
Oh, yes, I agree. Hence me summarizing his position as: "adoptive parents cannot care for their wards the same way they can care for their biological children." and "...adoption cannot work, because subconsciously, you do not love the child sufficiently, and the child and your partner will see that."

I don't believe that Kit is suggesting you cannot love a non-biological child of yours, but I do believe he is saying you cannot love an adoptive child AS MUCH.

Which I find absurd, let alone when 'supported' with freshman level evolutionary psychology.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Foelhe
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:07 pm UTC

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Foelhe » Tue Oct 14, 2014 2:14 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
Foelhe wrote:I'd argue he's saying adoptive parents care less than bio-parents, not that they don't care at all. Still terrible, but not quite the same. (Not like I'm defending the guy, but I like to be accurate when I'm pointing out why someone's an idiot. For fairness sake.)
Oh, yes, I agree. Hence me summarizing his position as: "adoptive parents cannot care for their wards the same way they can care for their biological children." and "...adoption cannot work, because subconsciously, you do not love the child sufficiently, and the child and your partner will see that."

I don't believe that Kit is suggesting you cannot love a non-biological child of yours, but I do believe he is saying you cannot love an adoptive child AS MUCH.

Which I find absurd, let alone when 'supported' with freshman level evolutionary psychology.


Ah, sorry, I misread. Fair enough.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Klear » Tue Oct 14, 2014 2:35 pm UTC

Maybe Kit. has personal experience which colours his understanding?

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Oct 14, 2014 2:38 pm UTC

Kit has insisted as much a few times. Clearly anecdotes make for science, and a few of my buddies with adopted kids are just 'tricking their biology', because Kit says so.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10262
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby addams » Tue Oct 14, 2014 2:48 pm UTC

Maybe Kit is the Devil's Advocate.
It bled over from a nearby Thread.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1431: "Marriage"

Postby Klear » Tue Oct 14, 2014 2:58 pm UTC

Maybe Kit. is the devil.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 80 guests