Post a response:
|
ok, but this sounds like he just sat down and made some shit up. Even if its true ( and I dont think any of it is), what is he saying? ditch the family? Im not surprised he has your support then. This appears to be Human reactions to rape culture and queer performativity at urban dog parks in Portland, Oregon levels of making stuff up. As I have pointed out before ( and others have echoed similar things), why do you think that doing any such thing would be "progress"? You can have no idea of what society would be like, and theres no reason to think it would be better, and some reason to think it would be worse, especially if these things are baked in. [N]ationalistic sentiments are the direct continuation of the family tie and are likewise rooted in the fixated tie to the mother. This cannot be explained biologically. For this tie to the mother, insofar as it develops into a familial and nationalistic tie, is itself a social product. Even if this is true, so what? Why is something being a social product bad? Anything you are advocating for is also a social product. In puberty it would make room for other attachments, i.e., natural sexual relations, if sexual restrictions would not cause it to be eternalized. It is as this socially motivated eternalization that it becomes the basis of nationalist feelings in the adult; it is only at this stage that it becomes a reactionary social force. Why is nationalism bad? And what makes you think that what would replace it if we could somehow surgically remove a specific part of culture/society/human nature would be any better? |