The Decline of the Family

Started by Imperial_Samura3 pages

I wonder if Edward Gibbon's views are relevant to this.... He, in his rather brilliant work "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", placed a good deal of the blame for Roma's tumble on declining morality and virtues of the Roman citizens. The important thing though is he believed this decline of moral standards rested largely with the ascent of Christianity. It was internal barbarism, just as much as external barbarism that laid the Romans low. Gays, had nothing to do with it - essentially Christianity was something the Roman Empire couldn't exist with - thus a slow death, and eventual fall due to many, many factors often linked to religion.

Same with Steven Runciman - noted scholar of Byzantine history, who believed the blow that really leads to the Eastern Empire's fall came not so much on the Islamic hordes, or the Byzantines own rather complex inner society, but on Christian Crusaders, and the values of western Christianity - not family values, but rather political values, and social outlook based upon Biblical morality and guidelines.

But it's always funny such things are rarely brought up - when conversations turn to such things in such a way, it's often with a pro-Christian sentiment at the detriment of an often unfairly maligned group - gays. Muslims. Abolitionists. Communists. Manichean's. Liberal thinkers. Philosophers. Reformists. Feminists. They come in, things change - WE ALL DIE!!!

That said few experts these days blame a single factor for nation death (even in cases of simplu be conquered) - it's often a mulitude of cause, social, ecnonomic, enviromental, and I've never seen any really plausible argument put forward that changing family structures destroy civilisations - in fact the opposite. Family change and power shifts often went with a culture becoming more civilised. Then families would often change with new religions. New philosophies. New concepts. No theories. Many, many times. Little changes, big changes, but never are these the single cause of a culture going belly up. Nations through history fall, yes, but always with a large number of issues when it's internal. Never just one easy scape goat like - "Gadzooks! This is because we let gays marry" or "damn, premarital sex has brought our awesome culture down on our heads!" or "Criminy, letting our women folk work is the end of us!"

And yes, I am quite confident that the US will either one day be gone, or will be changed from what it is now. At the very least I am sure it won't always be a super power. And I am certain this is a fate that most, if not all, current nations will face. As will those in the future. I'd chuck around words like entropy and that thing about the inherint nature of decline, but that's beside the point - I don't see changing family structures playing a part in this - many other causes though. And I am pretty sure God wont be stepping in to save any of them. Not a one. Because a. He doesn't exist of if he does then b. that's not what God does.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Did everyone understand this post? There is no representative Woods being quoted. The only Rep Woods on teh ways and means commitee is the one I posted a link to. This "Bill Wood" is a private citizen.

Actually I didn't even notice that. I figured that since it was posted on the Goverment Ways and Means website, it was referring to the Representative "Woods" that was actually on the commitee. Regardless, the individual who made the statement made some valid points none the less.

Moving along past semantics, I'm interested in your thoughts regarding Sorokin and Unwin's theories. Thus far my friend your argument has consisted of little substance, and is centered around attacking credibility..rather than the argument actually being presented.

Why do you believe that they're opinions are "bullshit"? Specify what you believe to be "untruthful" about what has been posted.

Re: The Decline of the Family

Originally posted by whobdamandog

I think that thing is absolutely correct, other than the religious gibberish.

Aaauuuggghhh!!! Why does it keep doing that thing?!

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Actually I didn't even notice that. I figured that since it was posted on the Goverment Ways and Means website, it was referring to the Representative "Woods" that was actually on the commitee.
😬 What Representative Woods on the committee?

Bill Thomas, CA (Chairman)
E. Clay Shaw Jr. , FL
Nancy L. Johnson, CT
Wally Herger, CA
Jim McCrery, LA
Dave Camp, MI
Jim Ramstad, MN
Jim Nussle, IA
Sam Johnson, TX
Phil English, PA
J.D. Hayworth, AZ
Jerry Weller, IL
Kenny C. Hulshof, MO
Ron Lewis, KY
Mark Foley, FL
Kevin Brady, TX
Thomas M. Reynolds, NY
Paul Ryan, WI
Eric Cantor, VA
John Linder, GA
Bob Beauprez, CO
Melissa A. Hart, PA
Chris Chocola, IN
Devin Nunes, CA
Charles B. Rangel, NY
Fortney Pete Stark, CA
Sander M. Levin, MI
Benjamin L. Cardin, MD
Jim McDermott, WA
John Lewis, GA
Richard E. Neal, MA
Michael R. McNulty, NY
William J. Jefferson, LA
John S. Tanner, TN
Xavier Becerra, CA
Lloyd Doggett, TX
Earl Pomeroy, ND
Stephanie Tubbs Jones, OH
Mike Thompson, CA
John B. Larson, CT
Rahm Emanuel, IL

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Regardless, the individual who made the statement made some valid points none the less.
That remains to be seen.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Moving along past semantics, I'm interested in your thoughts regarding Sorokin and Unwin's theories. Thus far my friend your argument has consisted of little substance, and is centered around attacking credibility..rather than the argument actually being presented.

Why do you believe that they're opinions are "bullshit"? Specify what you believe to be "untruthful" about what has been posted.

Semantics or deliberate misrepresentation. Past precedent favours the latter. What argument? Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V equates to an argument?
Originally posted by KidRock
this reminds me of a Deano thread.

*cut and paste cut and paste cut and paste*

I find myself agreeing with KidRock... and it sickens me...

Talk about a thread that could get me on my soapbox and have me typing for hours. Seriously, the decline of the family is very evident.

Once you have a group where the needs of the individual are put above those of the group (family, state, country, whatever), the group begins its slow dissolution.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
😬 What Representative Woods on the committee?

Bill Thomas, CA (Chairman)
E. Clay Shaw Jr. , FL
Nancy L. Johnson, CT
Wally Herger, CA
Jim McCrery, LA
Dave Camp, MI
Jim Ramstad, MN
Jim Nussle, IA
Sam Johnson, TX
Phil English, PA
J.D. Hayworth, AZ
Jerry Weller, IL
Kenny C. Hulshof, MO
Ron Lewis, KY
Mark Foley, FL
Kevin Brady, TX
Thomas M. Reynolds, NY
Paul Ryan, WI
Eric Cantor, VA
John Linder, GA
Bob Beauprez, CO
Melissa A. Hart, PA
Chris Chocola, IN
Devin Nunes, CA
Charles B. Rangel, NY
Fortney Pete Stark, CA
Sander M. Levin, MI
Benjamin L. Cardin, MD
Jim McDermott, WA
John Lewis, GA
Richard E. Neal, MA
Michael R. McNulty, NY
William J. Jefferson, LA
John S. Tanner, TN
Xavier Becerra, CA
Lloyd Doggett, TX
Earl Pomeroy, ND
Stephanie Tubbs Jones, OH
Mike Thompson, CA
John B. Larson, CT
Rahm Emanuel, IL

That remains to be seen.
Semantics or deliberate misrepresentation. Past precedent favours the latter. What argument? Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V equates to an argument?
I find myself agreeing with KidRock... and it sickens me...

No misrepresentation on my part, I should have checked exactly who was on the ways and means commitee before assuming that the comment was made by an actual representative. Apparently there is no Rep Wood's.

The statement was actually submitted to the ways and means commitee by and individual by the name of "Bill Woods", and posted on the commitee's website. Obviously, this essay must have had a pretty profound effect on the commitee..seeing as how it was posted on their site. So moving along againg..past semantics..how is this bullshit? Why should the opinions of Sorokin..and like minded socialogists..be disregarded in this day and age. Sorokin was around for quite a bit of this century, so I believe he does have a somewhat modern view on this topic..

Discuss

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Why should the opinions of Sorokin..and like minded socialogists..be disregarded in this day and age. Sorokin was around for quite a bit of this century, so I believe he does have a somewhat modern view on this topic..

Discuss

Article from the Florida State University College of Criminology and Criminal Justice

Sorokin's work expanded beyond present-day criminology and sociology into historical analysis and the nature of cultures. His statistical methodology has been attacked, as has his use of nonscientific and even mystical categories in his classifications of ideal and sensate cultures. He has also been attacked as being non-objective, showing preference for one model over the others and injecting personal philosophy into his works. These are harsh criticisms for the author of a book on the problems of research techniques by other researchers.

Increases in rates of suicides, insanity and criminality are caused by the changes in society from ideational values to more sensate ones, according to Sorokin (1992: 184-186). Merton and Barber raised serious methodological questions about his techniques, challenging Sorokin's use of statistics in his work. They point out the author of a critical work on the problems of quantitative research should have a higher level of statistical expertise in his other works (Johnston, 1995: 242-243). Sorokin has also been accused of being unscientific in his approaches and "stacking the deck" to produce results needed to achieve his analysis of ideational and sensate trends by others (Cuzzort and King, 1995: 158).

He saw sensate culture as being morally bankrupt and relativistic, having abandoned ideational aspirations and controls. Broken homes and unstable families led to self-destructive tendencies and crime for the sake of feeding sensate desires (Sorokin, 1992: 130-131, 185). ...Usher reviewed Sorokin's volume on ethics and law, and found Sorokin's reliance on ideal types to be poorly conceived and prone to reification. This undermined the value of his sorting of criminal and other tendencies in cultures (Johnston 1995: 122).

Science, philosophy, law and music all give indications of the leanings of a culture between the two poles of sensate and ideational, and anything could be categorized for analysis (Bierstedt, 1974: 28-30). Usher found Sorokin's analysis arbitrary and dogmatic, with issues of bias and credibility in implementation (Johnston 1995: 122). Munford also accused Sorokin of being guilty of reification in his categories, and noted his lack of objectivity (Johnston, 1995: 117). Sorokin's constant injection of his personal philosophy and his open preference for ideational culture were seen as indicating less than total objectivity.

Sorokin has been criticized for including religious concepts operationally in his work in a field that prides itself on scientific objectivity. The ideational is drawn from sacred or higher law and the norms of the ideational system are above such considerations as pleasure or utility. Coming from holy writ, it cannot be questioned or mitigated (Sorokin, 1992: 121-127).

...Sidney Hook attacked Sorokin's work as metaphysical and unscientific, saying the principles Sorokin uses have no explanatory power and are tautological in nature. Sorokin's judgments were made from visceral reactions to the material, not on an analysis of objective traits (Johnston, 1995:115).

Robert Bierstedt was a former student of Sorokin's, and his criticisms sum up most of the criticisms of Sorokin in one arena (Bierstedt, 1975: 12-27). ...He accused Sorokin of setting up "straw men" and ignoring contrary issues in analyzing sensate and ideational trends (Bierstedt, 1975:15-16). He attacked Sorokin's use of terms like '"feelings" and "senses" as operationally poorly defined and inappropriate for classifications of traits, essentially a mystical method and not a scientific one. Sorokin's arguments conclude as tautologies, in a "stale and meaningless hypothesis" reinforced by circular arguments (Bierstedt, 1975:19). He also accused Sorokin of seeking answers in mysticism rather than science to discover and classify trends (Bierstedt, 1975: 19).

Bierstedt allowed Sorokin a refutation, which sizzles with animosity and denigration. Sorokin countered that if Bierstedt had the proper mentality, knowledge of the facts, and better logic, he would have actually understood the theories (Bierstedt, 1975: 27-30). Regrettably, this is a representative example of the storms that surrounded Sorokin.

This article could easily be about you. It is no wonder that not only do you not see that he is wrong, but that you also agree with him.