jump to navigation

Educated beyond imbecility – Australian “philosophers” question value of family, state parents should feel guilty for spending time with kids May 6, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, disaster, error, family, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, paganism, persecution, sadness, scandals, secularism, shocking, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.

There is no limit to the error and evil to which souls will descend when they reject God.  To explain the mind-numbing catalog of evils of the former Soviet system, the best Alexander Solzhenitsyn could do was to say: “people have forgotten about God.”  I can’t think of a much better one-phrase explanation for the accelerating descent into madness and barbarity that we see all around us.  This latest episode from some Australian philosophers is simply beyond description.  You have to read it to believe that people would actually think thoughts so inane.

Two Australian philosophers have posited that having an intact and healthy family life constitutes an “unfair advantage,” and that parents who spend time with children, for instance, by reading to them, should be wracked with guilt over their care, because there are other, slovenly parents who don’t do so, and isn’t it evil to create such a disparity?  This is cultural marxism to the Nth degree, courtesy of our insane academic class:

‘I got interested in this question because I was interested in equality of opportunity,’ he says.

‘I had done some work on social mobility and the evidence is overwhelmingly that the reason why children born to different families have very different chances in life is because of what happens in those families.’   [Well, duh!  We need a PhD to tell us that. Sure earning your salary there, bud]

Once he got thinking, Swift could see that the issue stretches well beyond the fact that some families can afford private schooling, nannies, tutors, and houses in good suburbs. Functional family interactions—from going to the cricket to reading bedtime stories—form a largely unseen but palpable fault line between families. The consequence is a gap in social mobility and equality that can last for generations……. [The poor you will always have with you.  But the left would destroy the family not to aid the poor as they purport, but to serve themselves. The family is the final block to ultimate leftist power.  See how the family was destroyed in the old USSR]

……One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family. If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field.’   [But at what cost?  Just because Plato argued in favor of a limited application of this theory (he was refuted by the far more moral, and brilliant, Aristotle) doesn’t make it reasonable. I know a woman who adopted a child raised in a post-Soviet Russian orphanage. There were tens or hundreds of thousands of children abandoned by their mothers in the wake of the Soviet collapse. So many of those children received the level of care one would expect from a communist orphanage. Left alone in their cribs for week, with no love, no comforting caress, the vast majority of them developed life-long attachment disorders and profound psychological problems.  The boy I know, and so many like him, will never be remotely right. They will in fact be a future source of suffering for others, either through their cruelty and criminal activities or through their inability to truly love and care for someone else. And this is what this philosopher sees as “good,” a bunch of devastated, broken human zombies.]

…..‘What we realised we needed was a way of thinking about what it was we wanted to allow parents to do for their children, and what it was that we didn’t need to allow parents to do for their children, if allowing those activities would create unfairnesses for other people’s children’. [Remember how I said this was all about power and control.  Believe me now?  So they’ll decide what parents are allowed to do.  You think homeschooling is high on their list of allowables?]

The test they devised was based on what they term ‘familial relationship goods’; those unique and identifiable things that arise within the family unit and contribute to the flourishing of family members.  

For Swift, there’s one particular choice that fails the test.

Private schooling cannot be justified by appeal to these familial relationship goods,’ he says. ‘It’s just not the case that in order for a family to realise these intimate, loving, authoritative, affectionate, love-based relationships you need to be able to send your child to an elite private school.’…… [No, of course not. All children must attend the same government-run conformity centers public schools!  You can bet they have an even more negative view of homseschooling] 

……..So should parents snuggling up for one last story before lights out be even a little concerned about the advantage they might be conferring?

‘I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally,’…… [And remember the mandatory self-flagellation for contributing to inequality!]

……Then, does the child have a right to be parented by her biological parents? Swift has a ready answer.

‘It’s true that in the societies in which we live, biological origins do tend to form an important part of people’s identities, but that is largely a social and cultural construction. So you could imagine societies in which the parent-child relationship could go really well even without there being this biological link.’ [Yes, having bored, disinterested, low-paid government employees raise children would surely be better.  Sure worked out well for my friend’s Russian adoptee!]

From this realisation arises another twist: two is not the only number.

‘Nothing in our theory assumes two parents: there might be two, there might be three, and there might be four,’ says Swift[And I think you can now see what this entire effort has been about all along – rationalizing perverse individuals adopting or making frankenstein babies and “diverse living arrangements.”  Sick.]

It’s here that the traditional notions of what constitutes the family come apart. [Only in the mind of a leftist academic.  For billions of people around the world, what constitutes family is crystal clear.]  A necessary product of the Swift and Brighouse analytical defence is the calling into question of some rigid definitions…….

We do want to defend the family against complete fragmentation and dissolution,’ he says. ‘If you start to think about a child having 10 parents, then that’s looking like a committee rearing a child; there aren’t any parents there at all.’

Oh bull!  That’s just another arbitrary distinction with no fundamental basis. If you are going to argue that groups of casually-related people (primarily through sex) can constitute a family, there is no upper limit to the number.  Saying “10 is too many” is a completely arbitrary distinction and doesn’t stand the slightest scrutiny.

None of the above does.  I am reminded of the fact that the satanic “ethicist” Peter Singer has advocated for child-murder on children up to five years old, simply because mom or dad feel like it.  Because a child’s life is worth nothing, but an ethicist’s is.  But why stop at 5?  Singer actually has a point, in that the distinction presently made between killing children in the womb or those outside it is as artificial as the limit on the number of parents above, once you destroy the concept of the family as mother, father, and children.  Singer based his entire argument on the fact that abortion is legal, so why not child murder?  Personally, I’d prefer we pare down the number of academics by a few hundred thousand.

And the critical part is that all of this insanely perverse, diabolically evil thinking stems from one central fact: rejection of God and a transcendent source of Truth.  When men try to be god and reject that truth, there is no limit to the insanity and depravity that will follow, as the above so aptly demonstrates (which, believe it or not, was part of a broader effort to somehow “justify” the existence of the family as such a horrid source of inequality.  And the (forgive me, Lord) idiotic reporter just sat there and lapped it up uncritically.  Gashats.


1. Frank - May 6, 2015

For Swift and his ilk to call themselves philosophers is as heinous as Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi et al. calling themselves Catholics. Aristotle might call them “sophists and calculators.”

The list of really disagreeable people we have to pray for keeps getting longer and more challenging, doesn’t it? Sigh.

2. Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M. - May 6, 2015

This just in… Real people from real families now question the value of Australian philosophers and their idiotic excogitations.

Lynne - May 6, 2015


Baseballmom - May 6, 2015


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: