Parents as "The State"

[Rick Horton]

Who thinks parents are The State, in families? I'm not sure, and I can't find it yet, but did Stefan do a show about this? It's interesting to me that parents could be called The State, in a family.

[Moriartis]

Stef references this a lot in his podcasts. I don't know which ones off the top of my head, but he makes the connection that belief in the state comes from being treated like a subject by parents and that when adults get older and feel they need a state it's merely a reflection of them trying to recreate the environment they grew up in. This is all paraphrasing and I could be taking things out of context/misquoting/missing some other point, but this is what I got from the podcasts on the subject. This is why so much of his podcasts focus on philosophical parenting; that's the only way to eliminate the state.

[Mister Mister]

   Yes it's a very interesting idea.  In the same way that religion would be very difficult to sell if children weren't indoctrinated from a young age, Stef's theory is that the belief in the goodness and necessity of the State begins with parents imposing arbitrary irrational authority on their children. 

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

As has been mentioned, it's the other way. The state is an effect of the family. Likewise, religion. Stef has made that observaiton many times and for many years. Also, Lloyd DeMause describes the Christian religion in "The Origins of War in Child Abuse". The imagery used and the heirachical structure of the religion mirror the child rearing practices of the day.

[Rick Horton]

 

As has been mentioned, it's the other way. The state is an effect of the family. Likewise, religion. Stef has made that observaiton many times and for many years. Also, Lloyd DeMause describes the Christian religion in "The Origins of War in Child Abuse". The imagery used and the heirachical structure of the religion mirror the child rearing practices of the day.

 

So an anarchist society can't exist. That confirms it, unless all kids are taken from their families by force, or their families are forced to raise them a certain way, because if not, there will, as he points out be a State until all families adopt the NAP with parenting, which won't happen naturally. The family cannot function as a voluntary, equal unit. As it is and has been since the beginning of time, parents have children and raise them. Their is no choice for the child, nor should their be, in who is the authority figure. The parents carry the responsibility for the childs very life, health, education, shelter, clothing, etc... and the child can't do that for himself. The parent can't just walk away voluntarily, and neither can the child. This bond is the very essence of dependency that the child has with the parent, and since neither parent nor child can just abandon the other without terrible outcome, the child has to obey the parent. The parent has to, in one way or another, force the child to accept the parent's rules, and the child doesn't bare any further responsibility in life besides being taught, playing, thinking, etc... The parents carry the heavy burdon, and ultimate responsibility, without the luxury of walking away. This makes the dynamic different than with two individuals whom met voluntarily and maintain a relationship until one wants to end it. A parent cannot do that when their child is disrespectful, difficult, willful, and noncompliant. 

  In short, the family "must" embody certain statist principles or else the family unit would dissolve. However that will not happen because parents inherently choose to accept the responsibility for rearing his child and shaping that child in his image. Without legal interruption in this natural cycle no family can be forced to act in any certain way. With this freedom and responsibility comes variation. With this variation comes disagreement. With this disagreement comes ethics. With ethics comes intervention. With intervention comes law. With law comes punishment. With punishment comes the State.  So that's it, really, for voluntaryism as a possible societal structure of some kind. It cant happen. Pure fantasy. There are many reasons aside from the family as STATE angle that makes Anarchy fatally flawed, but this one interests me because the concept was brought about by Stefan, whom may not have realized that he single handedly cornered the Anarchy movement into a position to face such a fatal flaw.  Oh well. It sucks, but again we are not merely Anarchists, but are philosophers "first".

[Stefan Molyneux]

Your description is not the only way parenting can be, though it is tragically prevalent.

[Arius]

I return your argument.

We cannot function as a voluntary, equal unit.  There is no choice, nor should their be, in who is the authority figure. I can't just walk away voluntarily, and neither can you. This bond is the very essence of dependency that the you have with me, and since neither I nor you can just abandon the other without terrible outcome, you must obey me. I must, in one way or another, force you to accept my rules, and you don't bare any further responsibility in life besides being taught, playing, thinking, etc... I carry the heavy burden, and ultimate responsibility, without the luxury of walking away. This makes the dynamic different than with two individuals whom met voluntarily and maintain a relationship until one wants to end it.  I cannot do that when you are disrespectful, difficult, willful, and non-compliant.

In short, the we "must" embody certain statist principles or die. However that will not happen because I inherently choose to accept the responsibility for rearing you and shaping you in my image.  So that's it, really, for you presenting this argument as a possible rebuttal of some kind. It can't happen. Pure fantasy.

[Guest darkskyabove]

 

So an anarchist society can't exist. That confirms it, unless all kids are taken from their families by force, or their families are forced to raise them a certain way, because if not, there will, as he points out be a State until all families adopt the NAP with parenting, which won't happen naturally. The family cannot function as a voluntary, equal unit. As it is and has been since the beginning of time, parents have children and raise them. Their is no choice for the child, nor should their be, in who is the authority figure. The parents carry the responsibility for the childs very life, health, education, shelter, clothing, etc... and the child can't do that for himself. The parent can't just walk away voluntarily, and neither can the child. This bond is the very essence of dependency that the child has with the parent, and since neither parent nor child can just abandon the other without terrible outcome, the child has to obey the parent. The parent has to, in one way or another, force the child to accept the parent's rules, and the child doesn't bare any further responsibility in life besides being taught, playing, thinking, etc... The parents carry the heavy burdon, and ultimate responsibility, without the luxury of walking away. This makes the dynamic different than with two individuals whom met voluntarily and maintain a relationship until one wants to end it. A parent cannot do that when their child is disrespectful, difficult, willful, and noncompliant. 

  In short, the family "must" embody certain statist principles or else the family unit would dissolve. However that will not happen because parents inherently choose to accept the responsibility for rearing his child and shaping that child in his image. Without legal interruption in this natural cycle no family can be forced to act in any certain way. With this freedom and responsibility comes variation. With this variation comes disagreement. With this disagreement comes ethics. With ethics comes intervention. With intervention comes law. With law comes punishment. With punishment comes the State.  So that's it, really, for voluntaryism as a possible societal structure of some kind. It cant happen. Pure fantasy. There are many reasons aside from the family as STATE angle that makes Anarchy fatally flawed, but this one interests me because the concept was brought about by Stefan, whom may not have realized that he single handedly cornered the Anarchy movement into a position to face such a fatal flaw.  Oh well. It sucks, but again we are not merely Anarchists, but are philosophers "first".

 

Stefan and Arius were gentle in their rebuttals. I have no such compunction.

I suggest that you endeavor upon an indefinite course of study. Start with concepts. Then move to causality. And don't forget an extra healthy dose of fallacies.

If you wish to be taken seriously, try to know what it is you speak upon. Jumbling together a bunch of words does not make an effective argument. Language can be abused, as you have shown, but its proper use is to convey meaning. What do you mean?

If you, simply, wish to read your own words in print, then say so (Woohoo, see what I posted!!!). Trying to camoflauge irrational rants with "10 dollar words" fools only the foolish. (Might want to invest in a spelling/grammar checker, as that's a dead giveaway.)

[Rick Horton]

 

 

So an anarchist society can't exist. That confirms it, unless all kids are taken from their families by force, or their families are forced to raise them a certain way, because if not, there will, as he points out be a State until all families adopt the NAP with parenting, which won't happen naturally. The family cannot function as a voluntary, equal unit. As it is and has been since the beginning of time, parents have children and raise them. Their is no choice for the child, nor should their be, in who is the authority figure. The parents carry the responsibility for the childs very life, health, education, shelter, clothing, etc... and the child can't do that for himself. The parent can't just walk away voluntarily, and neither can the child. This bond is the very essence of dependency that the child has with the parent, and since neither parent nor child can just abandon the other without terrible outcome, the child has to obey the parent. The parent has to, in one way or another, force the child to accept the parent's rules, and the child doesn't bare any further responsibility in life besides being taught, playing, thinking, etc... The parents carry the heavy burdon, and ultimate responsibility, without the luxury of walking away. This makes the dynamic different than with two individuals whom met voluntarily and maintain a relationship until one wants to end it. A parent cannot do that when their child is disrespectful, difficult, willful, and noncompliant. 

  In short, the family "must" embody certain statist principles or else the family unit would dissolve. However that will not happen because parents inherently choose to accept the responsibility for rearing his child and shaping that child in his image. Without legal interruption in this natural cycle no family can be forced to act in any certain way. With this freedom and responsibility comes variation. With this variation comes disagreement. With this disagreement comes ethics. With ethics comes intervention. With intervention comes law. With law comes punishment. With punishment comes the State.  So that's it, really, for voluntaryism as a possible societal structure of some kind. It cant happen. Pure fantasy. There are many reasons aside from the family as STATE angle that makes Anarchy fatally flawed, but this one interests me because the concept was brought about by Stefan, whom may not have realized that he single handedly cornered the Anarchy movement into a position to face such a fatal flaw.  Oh well. It sucks, but again we are not merely Anarchists, but are philosophers "first".

 

Stefan and Arius were gentle in their rebuttals. I have no such compunction.

I suggest that you endeavor upon an indefinite course of study. Start with concepts. Then move to causality. And don't forget an extra healthy dose of fallacies.

If you wish to be taken seriously, try to know what it is you speak upon. Jumbling together a bunch of words does not make an effective argument. Language can be abused, as you have shown, but its proper use is to convey meaning. What do you mean?

If you, simply, wish to read your own words in print, then say so (Woohoo, see what I posted!!!). Trying to camoflauge irrational rants with "10 dollar words" fools only the foolish. (Might want to invest in a spelling/grammar checker, as that's a dead giveaway.)

 

I'm sorry. I didn't find a rebuttal there.

[Rick Horton]

 

I return your argument.

We cannot function as a voluntary, equal unit.  There is no choice, nor should
their be, in who is the authority figure. I
can't just walk away voluntarily, and neither can you. This bond
is the very essence of dependency that the you have with me,
and since neither I nor you can just abandon the other
without
terrible outcome, you must obey me. I must,
in one way or another, force you to accept my
rules, and you don't bare any further responsibility in life besides being
taught, playing, thinking, etc... I carry the heavy burden,
and ultimate responsibility, without the luxury of walking away. This
makes the dynamic different than with two individuals whom met
voluntarily and maintain a relationship until one wants to end it.  I cannot do that when you are disrespectful,
difficult,
willful, and non-compliant.

In short, the we "must" embody certain statist principles or die. However that will not happen because I inherently choose to accept the responsibility for rearing you and shaping you in my image.  So that's it, really, for you presenting this argument as a possible rebuttal of some kind. It can't happen. Pure fantasy.

 

What is your goal by distorting what I wrote and calling it a rebutall?

[Arius]

What is your goal by distorting what I wrote and calling it a rebutall?

I don't believe I called it a rebuttal.  I clearly don't understand your argument well enough to rebut.  In fact, I've come to see that I don't understand most of your arguments.  Maybe you've noticed, we don't use language in the same way.  You correct statements I make about things you've written, terms I apply to things you've written, and definitions of words you've written almost every time we talk.  I have a genuine concern that our methods of communicating may be incompatible.  You'll recall this all started with "choice".  I've been trying to write to you using as many of your own words as possible, to reduce errors in the back-and-forth.  My thinking is that your own arguments are more effective responses to themselves than anything I could ever generate.  At a minimum, I can't misstate what you've said if I reuse your words.  I just want you to see your argument the way I understand it.  Not necessarily to rebut, just so I know I understand what you've said.  To accomplish this I make a universal rule, from a special case you propose, and apply it to our relationship.  Doing this allows me to take the principle you've proposed from one context to another.  In this way, the familiar (your argument) becomes the alien (my argument), and it should be possible to look at the reflection objectively.

You produced a special case involving "the family".  I generalized to "relationships between people", and applied the rule to our conversation.  The results were bizarre but comparable.

You feel I've distorted your writing.  Again, we arrive at this point of you correcting me about something you've written.  I admit, I am experiencing mild frustration.  Please explain to me, in what way is my writing a distortion of what you've written?  I wish to understand what I don't understand.

 

 

 

[RestoringGuy]

 

What is your goal by distorting what I wrote and calling it a rebutall?

You feel I've distorted your writing.  Again, we arrive at this point of you correcting me about something you've written.  I admit, I am experiencing mild frustration.  Please explain to me, in what way is my writing a distortion of what you've written?  I wish to understand what I don't understand.

 

 

I have experienced this frustration also with regard to the thread "Validity and the Senses".  It is frustrating enough that two different people use words and definitions that differ, and meaning is hard to assemble.  It seems more comfortable talking with people when I try to use THEIR definitions, even if I have to invent an awkward new term or cluster of words to express my concept.   I think, Moncaloono, you could try this trick.  If somebody says a+a=b and you deduce a=2 in their language, then b=4 by deduction even if you do not like to use b as the correct symbol which you say is 4 in your mind.  The important thing is b (or 4) should not morph into something else mid-paragraph.  I make this mistake sometimes, because it is a limitation and risk of the communications system.

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

 

 

As has been mentioned, it's the other way. The state is an effect of the family. Likewise, religion. Stef has made that observaiton many times and for many years. Also, Lloyd DeMause describes the Christian religion in "The Origins of War in Child Abuse". The imagery used and the heirachical structure of the religion mirror the child rearing practices of the day.

 

So an anarchist society can't exist. That confirms it, unless all kids are taken from their families by force, or their families are forced to raise them a certain way, because if not, there will, as he points out be a State until all families adopt the NAP with parenting, which won't happen naturally. The family cannot function as a voluntary, equal unit. As it is and has been since the beginning of time, parents have children and raise them. Their is no choice for the child, nor should their be, in who is the authority figure. The parents carry the responsibility for the childs very life, health, education, shelter, clothing, etc... and the child can't do that for himself. The parent can't just walk away voluntarily, and neither can the child. This bond is the very essence of dependency that the child has with the parent, and since neither parent nor child can just abandon the other without terrible outcome, the child has to obey the parent. The parent has to, in one way or another, force the child to accept the parent's rules, and the child doesn't bare any further responsibility in life besides being taught, playing, thinking, etc... The parents carry the heavy burdon, and ultimate responsibility, without the luxury of walking away. This makes the dynamic different than with two individuals whom met voluntarily and maintain a relationship until one wants to end it. A parent cannot do that when their child is disrespectful, difficult, willful, and noncompliant. 

  In short, the family "must" embody certain statist principles or else the family unit would dissolve. However that will not happen because parents inherently choose to accept the responsibility for rearing his child and shaping that child in his image. Without legal interruption in this natural cycle no family can be forced to act in any certain way. With this freedom and responsibility comes variation. With this variation comes disagreement. With this disagreement comes ethics. With ethics comes intervention. With intervention comes law. With law comes punishment. With punishment comes the State.  So that's it, really, for voluntaryism as a possible societal structure of some kind. It cant happen. Pure fantasy. There are many reasons aside from the family as STATE angle that makes Anarchy fatally flawed, but this one interests me because the concept was brought about by Stefan, whom may not have realized that he single handedly cornered the Anarchy movement into a position to face such a fatal flaw.  Oh well. It sucks, but again we are not merely Anarchists, but are philosophers "first".

 

 

Your assessment would have merit if child rearing practices were as brutal today as they were in the past. However, they are not. Violence and authoritarianism in child rearing has been on a steady decline for as long as we can find evidence. Thus, it stands to reason that at some point in time, parenting will be non violent and non authoritarian in nature. At that point, there will be no one who enjoys the idea of statism and it is at that point that nation states will be cast aside by humanty. All of this is happening organically. Stefan and others of us who understand that trend are merely seeking to speed the process up.

[Rick Horton]

 

What is your goal by distorting what I wrote and calling it a rebutall?

I don't believe I called it a rebuttal.  I clearly don't understand your argument well enough to rebut.  In fact, I've come to see that I don't understand most of your arguments.  Maybe you've noticed, we don't use language in the same way.  You correct statements I make about things you've written, terms I apply to things you've written, and definitions of words you've written almost every time we talk.  I have a genuine concern that our methods of communicating may be incompatible.  You'll recall this all started with "choice".  I've been trying to write to you using as many of your own words as possible, to reduce errors in the back-and-forth.  My thinking is that your own arguments are more effective responses to themselves than anything I could ever generate.  At a minimum, I can't misstate what you've said if I reuse your words.  I just want you to see your argument the way I understand it.  Not necessarily to rebut, just so I know I understand what you've said.  To accomplish this I make a universal rule, from a special case you propose, and apply it to our relationship.  Doing this allows me to take the principle you've proposed from one context to another.  In this way, the familiar (your argument) becomes the alien (my argument), and it should be possible to look at the reflection objectively.

You produced a special case involving "the family".  I generalized to "relationships between people", and applied the rule to our conversation.  The results were bizarre but comparable.

You feel I've distorted your writing.  Again, we arrive at this point of you correcting me about something you've written.  I admit, I am experiencing mild frustration.  Please explain to me, in what way is my writing a distortion of what you've written?  I wish to understand what I don't understand.

 

 

 

 

You're right. You aren't understanding me and I'm not understanding you, so why keep replying to me?  You change words in my writing and don't call it distortion. That's really fucked up, man. 

[Moriartis]

What bbeljefe said.

The idea that because parenting is an involuntary relationship it must result in a state is flawed. It used to be extremely common for children to be sacrificed in religious rituals, this is no longer true for the vast majority of humanity(if it even still exists at all). How do you explain that? According to your train of reasoning, that should be set in stone as something we will never escape and will always be a part of our culture. How, after all, do you prevent parents from sacrificing their kids when the parents have all the power?

The evidence, however, leads us to the exact opposite conclusion. Advances in peaceful parenting have brought about more intelligent parents that are even more peaceful that will undoubtedly result in more intelligent children and hence more peaceful parents. As bbeljefe said, this has been a phenomenon witnessed throughout human history. This cycle, it would seem, would inevitably have to result in a stateless society given enough time because the more intelligent a person is, the easier it is to see irrationality and emotional dysfunction in other individuals, particularly in regards to morality and "ethics", which is the basis for state justification. The hypothesis that peaceful parenting will result in the resolution of the state if given enough time is a pretty sound one given the evidence presented.  I see no reason why the involuntary nature of a parent/child relationship is a guarantee of a statist society. One could argue that it is certainly a challenge to a stateless society and I would agree with that, but I think the case for it being Anarchy's achilles heel is rather far fetched.

[Rick Horton]

 

What bbeljefe said.

The idea that because parenting is an involuntary relationship it must result in a state is flawed. It used to be extremely common for children to be sacrificed in religious rituals, this is no longer true for the vast majority of humanity(if it even still exists at all). How do you explain that? According to your train of reasoning, that should be set in stone as something we will never escape and will always be a part of our culture. How, after all, do you prevent parents from sacrificing their kids when the parents have all the power?

The evidence, however, leads us to the exact opposite conclusion. Advances in peaceful parenting have brought about more intelligent parents that are even more peaceful that will undoubtedly result in more intelligent children and hence more peaceful parents. As bbeljefe said, this has been a phenomenon witnessed throughout human history. This cycle, it would seem, would inevitably have to result in a stateless society given enough time because the more intelligent a person is, the easier it is to see irrationality and emotional dysfunction in other individuals, particularly in regards to morality and "ethics", which is the basis for state justification. The hypothesis that peaceful parenting will result in the resolution of the state if given enough time is a pretty sound one given the evidence presented.  I see no reason why the involuntary nature of a parent/child relationship is a guarantee of a statist society. One could argue that it is certainly a challenge to a stateless society and I would agree with that, but I think the case for it being Anarchy's achilles heel is rather far fetched.

 

This cannot be a serious argument. I've blown it out of the water, and yet you ignore it, and expect me to repeat my arguments over and over.... 

[lyghtningrod]

Y U feed the troll?

 

He has demonstrated that insults are his stock in trade. He accused me of being rude for not watching 17 minutes of the most hopelessly boring, muddled and illogical video, then said that since I didn't watch ALL of his tripe, I was rude AND that justifued his name calling and insults 

then decided I was too stupid to understand how brilliant he is.

Ya'll posting in a troll thread...

[Arius]

why keep replying to me?

I don't like making incorrect arguments.  You keep telling me I'm making incorrect arguments.  I want you to help me make correct arguments, but you reject everything I present as wrong.  I don't understand why you are being so obstinate.

You're here, posting.  I assume you want to communicate.  So help me communicate with you.

 

 

 

 

 

[Rick Horton]

 

Y U feed the troll?

 

He has demonstrated that insults are his stock in trade. He accused me of being rude for not watching 17 minutes of the most hopelessly boring, muddled and illogical video, then said that since I didn't watch ALL of his tripe, I was rude AND that justifued his name calling and insults 

then decided I was too stupid to understand how brilliant he is.

Ya'll posting in a troll thread...

 

Insulting comment. This is why I sense you and I will not converse in the future.

[Rick Horton]

 

why keep replying to me?

I don't like making incorrect arguments.  You keep telling me I'm making incorrect arguments.  I want you to help me make correct arguments, but you reject everything I present as wrong.  I don't understand why you are being so obstinate.

You're here, posting.  I assume you want to communicate.  So help me communicate with you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Okay. I'll try that. Don't use my writings and change key words in my writings and then return my writings to me packaged to make some point that doesn't make sense anymore once you plagerize and at the same time distort my writings. For one, the point is moot outside of a parent and child and you are not my parent, nor my child. Secondly the point makes no sense in a voluntary relationship. We have a voluntary relationship. 3rd. Parents cannot have a voluntary relationship with their child AS I have pointed out. If you disagree then say why, but do it with your own words and make the point.

[Arius]

Parents cannot have a voluntary relationship with their child AS I have pointed out.

Unless a child is a rape-baby, the parent chose to produce or adopt them.  Starting a parent-child relationship is voluntary for the parent, and involuntary for the child (as the child does not yet exist and cannot give consent).  Presumably, starting a parent-child relationship is mutually voluntary in the case of adoption.

A child is only unable to care for themselves for...say the first 15 years of life (I think it's sooner, but I want a good buffer).  A parent (or child) could walk away after that without anyone dieing.  At most, the no-quitsies portion of the relationship lasts as long as the child requires something from the parent to continue living.

I suspect that you are only referring to the portion of the relationship when the child cannot tend to their own needs.  This is not the whole parent-child relationship, though it is the only portion in which the parent cannot choose to disassociate from the child.  Speaking chronologically, that portion is 30-40% of the parent-child relationship.  People live to be about 85.  Most people have kids between the ages of 20 and 35.  There are somewhere between 20 and 40 years of parent-child relationship which occur after a child has become self-sustaining.

I think we both agree that adult children are not required to be in a submissive role to their parents.

 

 

You seem to be suggesting there is an implicit relationship between dependance and dominance.  That's what I get from your statements about food, shelter, and medical care creating the foundation for a power imbalance between parent and child.  Could you elaborate on why that should be so?  Why does one person's dependance on another necessarily result in domination?

 

 

[Rick Horton]

 

Parents cannot have a voluntary relationship with their child AS I have pointed out.

Unless a child is a rape-baby, the parent chose to produce or adopt them.  Starting a parent-child relationship is voluntary for the parent, and involuntary for the child (as the child does not yet exist and cannot give consent).  Presumably, starting a parent-child relationship is mutually voluntary in the case of adoption.

A child is only unable to care for themselves for...say the first 15 years of life (I think it's sooner, but I want a good buffer).  A parent (or child) could walk away after that without anyone dieing.  At most, the no-quitsies portion of the relationship lasts as long as the child requires something from the parent to continue living.

I suspect that you are only referring to the portion of the relationship when the child cannot tend to their own needs.  This is not the whole parent-child relationship, though it is the only portion in which the parent cannot choose to disassociate from the child.  Speaking chronologically, that portion is 30-40% of the parent-child relationship.  People live to be about 85.  Most people have kids between the ages of 20 and 35.  There are somewhere between 20 and 40 years of parent-child relationship which occur after a child has become self-sustaining.

I think we both agree that adult children are not required to be in a submissive role to their parents.

 

 

You seem to be suggesting there is an implicit relationship between dependance and dominance.  That's what I get from your statements about food, shelter, and medical care creating the foundation for a power imbalance between parent and child.  Could you elaborate on why that should be so?  Why does one person's dependance on another necessarily result in domination?

 

 

 

I do agree that adults have no obligation to engage people they don't want to engage, but still we do have to in our everyday dealings. But yeah, I do agree that if you are an adult and don't like your parents you should bolt.

When someone is dependent on another person they are automatically in submission. 

[Arius]

When someone is dependent on another person they are automatically in submission. 

Why?

[Rick Horton]

 

When someone is dependent on another person they are automatically in submission. 

Why?

 

Jeez, man....

[Arius]

It's true that one person can choose to dominate another if there is some degree of dependance.  Something like "Do what I tell you or you I'll let you starve".  But that's not a reqirement of the relationship.  A person could just as easily say "I'll feed you even if you don't do what I say."

So I don't see why dependance is automatically dominance.  I see why it can be, but not why it must be.

[Rick Horton]

 

It's true that one person can choose to dominate another if there is some degree of dependance.  Something like "Do what I tell you or you I'll let you starve".  But that's not a reqirement of the relationship.  A person could just as easily say "I'll feed you even if you don't do what I say."

So I don't see why dependance is automatically dominance.  I see why it can be, but not why it must be.

 

If you are dependent on somebody for something, you are submissive to them for that thing. This is too simple to argue over. It will put me to sleep. Sorry. maybe somebody else will fill in the blanks. I'm just not in the mood right now to figure out why you don't see that dependece in itself is an admission of submission. Dominance doesn't mean, Hey I'm going to let you starve...

[Arius]

This is too simple to argue over.

We're not arguing.  You're explaining your argument to me.  I don't understand it yet.  I'm still trying to figure out exactly what it is you're asserting.  You see, conclusions are useless to me. I need to know how a particular conclusion was reached.

You've explained to me that you start from first principles and work your way up to logical arguments.  I believe you.  You should be able to explain what combination of foundational principles justify your assertion that dependance and submission are necessarily the same.

The assertion that dependance and submission are identical is just that, an assertion.  If you can't or won't support that position with some kind of argument I cannot agree or disagree with you, as I have no idea what your position is because all you've given me is the thesis.

If it's simple, explaining it should be relatively easy.

I'm just not in the mood right now to figure out why you don't see that dependece in itself is an admission of submission.

Perhaps you might consider focusing on developing the quality of your arguments rather than the quantity of arguments you can generate.  You might be in a more conversational mood if you saved a little writing energy for the back-and-forth part of the exchange.

I should add: your mood does not effect the validity of arguments you advance. Nor does it effect my ability to understand those arguments.

 

[Rick Horton]

 

This is too simple to argue over.

We're not arguing.  You're explaining your argument to me.  I don't understand it yet.  I'm still trying to figure out exactly what it is you're asserting.  You see, conclusions are useless to me. I need to know how a particular conclusion was reached.

You've explained to me that you start from first principles and work your way up to logical arguments.  I believe you.  You should be able to explain what combination of foundational principles justify your assertion that dependance and submission are necessarily the same.

The assertion that dependance and submission are identical is just that, an assertion.  If you can't or won't support that position with some kind of argument I cannot agree or disagree with you, as I have no idea what your position is because all you've given me is the thesis.

If it's simple, explaining it should be relatively easy.

I'm just not in the mood right now to figure out why you don't see that dependece in itself is an admission of submission.

Perhaps you might consider focusing on developing the quality of your arguments rather than the quantity of arguments you can generate.  You might be in a more conversational mood if you saved a little writing energy for the back-and-forth part of the exchange.

I should add: your mood does not effect the validity of arguments you advance. Nor does it effect my ability to understand those arguments.

 

 

You should start with a dictionary, then go to an encyclopedia if you still can't make the connection between dependency and submission. I really can't help you with how I reached the conclusion besides saying that the words actually rely on each other. The words wouldn't exist without each other. Dominant wouldn't exist without Submissive either, and neither can be gotten rid of no matter "what" system is created. That would be changing the mechanics of Biology itself according to evolution. It's like saying " We can evolve passed evolution " It's a bizarre, religious ideology to claim that kind of thing, since there's no evidence to support it in any way shape or form.