The Davos Answer

[angelmarauder]

Oh wow. I feel like a child genius because I've been saying this same thing since I was young! haha

Of course, I would just say 'Family'. ;-D

[skyaglow]

also, in a way we are all family with one another.

I am single, so my family is mostly with those whom I come in contact with. So I love my friends as family. and the link of love goes on and on....

[Nemiji]

sir, you only restated what Martha Nussbaum stated, "Citizens who cultivate their humanity need, further, an ability to see themselves as not simply citizens of some local region or group but also, and abolve all as human beings bound to all other human beings by ties of recognition and concern."

The davos question asks how, this might sound "overly simple," (haha) but how can we see ourselves as a global citizen with a mindset of value of family in mind?

[HiveRadical]

How can we not? The foundation of the transmission of humanities memetics, or a failure of such, centers around what is or isn't received in the early stages of life in the context of a family. Patterns or ideas that are inferior, if embedded at such a developmental stage, will have the potential to create negative feedback through the life of the individual.

[Nemiji]

how..can we not? well, "this" is how. i see your point about the family thing. children interact with family and learn from them the most. however, inferior patterns or ideas you're referring to are inevitable, though your argument hints that we should and can do something about it? but how can this all be connected to being a global citizen? there is a faint connection there, as in how you're brought up in a family affects your whole life, and thus the society, but this is way too broad for me

[HiveRadical]

Of course inferior manifestations are inevitable, but so to is death, disasters, infractions against the law, substance abuse and essentially every general malevolent manifestation. That does not mean ideals are not beneficial or even needful. If you look into my ongoing dialog w/BigEvasive you'll see much of this addressed.

[soldier4242]

Well you said yourself that your idea is seen as overly simplistic and simply put that is true. There is no panacea (or "cure all" for those don't know the word) that will solve all the worlds problems. The question is flawed because it asks for one thing. The main flaw in your answer is that everyone has their own concept of family. If you are saying that the world needs to adopt your concept of family well that brings with it more problems. You can't tell people what to think.

[HiveRadical]

Your response to mine is what suffers from simplicity that removes from context. The simple fact that everyone has their own perception on how the universe works doesn't mean that there's a numberless ways in which the universe works. And while I can't tell people what to think, the truth is independent of everyone's, and anyone's, erroneous constructs attempting to describe such.

[HiveRadical]

Is there some pleasure derived from an all caps post with random use of quotation marks?

[RiceTees]

The large meaningless words and run-ons really killed this response.

[kkk963]

i cant stand to listen to him talk slow doesn't have his ideas lined up or even a script that he has written so its not so cut up.

[HiveRadical]

I think it's ironic that you would have such criticism when you, yourself, don't take the time to edit your comments with proper punctuation and grammar. And editing a composition of less than thirty words doesn't take that much time.

[kkk963]

you should have written a script and read it with some enthusiasm so it doesn't skip and it would be more believable cuz its one clip. you could have at least made the clip smooth insted of jumpy...your just a (for lack of a better word) noob.

[HiveRadical]

Well if you want to see this defended, and with a script, then watch my responses to BigEvasive's response to this.

And, again, if I'm a noob for such, then aren't you also? I mean you put down less than thirty words and yet you can't take the time to properly format them. But you're getting on me for not taking an extra half hour to an hour on a six minute clip.

[HiveRadical]

If anyone is lacking excuses for choppy communication it's you and your sloppy 29 word comment.

Did you submit an answer to the Davos Question?

[kkk963]

you really just did that, ON THE NUMBER OF WORDS. man come on its not how many words you get down its the information and honestly why the hell were you counting my words, your just ignorant and you obviously think that the amount of information is critical to you quality of an answer. (is that long enough for you you queer?)

...don't be such a bitch about that kind of thing

[HiveRadical]

My pointing out the number of words is just as irrelevant to judging the quality of the underlying message as your criticism of the nature of this video. If it seems shallow and irrelevant that's because it is, but no more so than your initial point. If rhetoric and presentation is key to the quality of the message in a video then what changes the standards when you're typing a comment? Why are your deficiencies less egregious than mine?

[kkk963]

fuck you don't make your message an underlying one. make it open and don't pussy foot around things so much. your balls are small

[sabot96]

Families only have a very limited perspective of the world. They can't pass on all the advances of a past culture. It would be more effective to have an effective educational system that passes on this knowledge no matter what the family situation.

[HiveRadical]

You are correct.

That's why we have the written word. Such beats out any institution you can devise and pass as an 'effective educational system.'

[jewster1]

Wake up man,

[HiveRadical]

Watch my ongoing defense/dialog with BigEvasive on this man. Unless you're cool with keeping your mind closed.

Heck--you could even try and counter my points.

[neotoy]

Family is obviously important, but I think you have made it to exclusive limiting it to heterosexual couples. The core of the family concept is love and support, I don't really see how gender is relevant.

[HiveRadical]

Look at my conversation with BigEvasive if you wish to see my defense of my position and it's exclusivity.

[HiveRadical]

Did you submit your video through the link in the Davos channel page? I know you have to do that to enter it. As far as time it takes I'm not sure. I really didn't pay close attention to that.

[rowsdowersavesus]

So you hate gays, then? Opposing gay marriage means you hate gay people. I hope you get no votes

[HiveRadical]

I don't hate people with same gender attraction, I just don't think they have a right to redefine societal institutions.

Why is it that you accuse someone of hating simply because they wish to keep meaning in a social institution? Seems like a rather effective rhetorical device, anyone who calls for an institution to mean something 'hates' those who wish to eliminate the meaning of that institution.

[rowsdowersavesus]

You're wishing to keep them as second class citizens, as you're hoping that they will have less rights than the upper class (heterosexuals). Why would you do this if you didn't hate them?

[HiveRadical]

No. I want them to have the same rights I do, which they do. I can marry someone of the opposite gender and so can they. There's no difference in treatment or rights allocated, those who seek to have marriage include same gender arrangements are not seeking equality but superiority, they seek to alter something to advantage them above me-to give them more rights than myself.

[rowsdowersavesus]

Yeah, and whhile we're at it, let's ban interracial marriage too. I mean, them nig-um, black folk have the same rights as I do to marry someone of my own ethnicity.

I HOPE you see the parallel.

[HiveRadical]

There is no parallel because the differences in gender vs. the difference in ethnicity is to compare apples to oranges. Women have different Physiological make-up, not merely skin pigmentation or a slight alteration in anatomical features, our sex organs developed completely in opposite directions. Generally I can have offspring produced from copulation with a woman of any ethnicity. Yet same gender acts could be carried out forever and not effect a single child.

[rowsdowersavesus]

There is a parallel. You don't choose your ethnicity any more than you choose your sexual orientation. In both cases, you penalize someone for being born a particular way.

Anyway, do you seriously think that allowing gays to marry would do anything more than allow maybe 10% of the population (at most) marry who they wish? It wouldn't erase the other 90+%

[HiveRadical]

There's no penalizing because there is no difference in allocated rights. Do you feel that nature is penalizing women by having them be the ones upon which the primary burden of conceiving and incubating children is placed?

[rowsdowersavesus]

Yes there is a difference. You can marry who you want to, a gay person can not.

Nature can't be changed. Society can.

You never answered my question.

[HiveRadical]

I cannot marry who ever I want to. I can marry the same people any man, regardless his tendencies, can marry.

RE your question

That isn't the issue.

[rowsdowersavesus]

Yes, you can marry whoever you want to (obviously assuming that you can get her). But a gay person in any country that hasn't allowed gay marriage can not marry his or her lover, and that is a crime.

It is the issue. This is, according to you, THE answer to the world's problems. So, I ask how.

[HiveRadical]

A key problem is your assumption that marriage is about providing sanction to lovers, that's not the primal purpose of marriage, never has been. Marriage is about providing the best and closest to ideal environs in which the children of the next generation can be raised. You seek to deprive children of the right to a mother and a father for the sake of the selfish desires of consenting adults.

[rowsdowersavesus]

No, marriage has always been a social institution, and it currently allows people to reap many benefits (insurance, etc.)

Gay people generally don't have kids. Disallowing them to marry won't make them attracted to people of other sexes, nor will it make heterosexuals gay. Even so, single parent households are much more common in places that don't hate gays, shouldn't you seek to outlaw those first?

[HiveRadical]

This isn't about altering the attraction had by individuals. It's about creating an ideal. Setting a speed limit will not make it so that there are never disastrous accidents. But generally setting such ideals, and having society act on them, is the best policy for society to take. Children deserve a mother and a father, society has a vested interest in promoting such because 'children are our future.'

[rowsdowersavesus]

So why not illegalize single parent households? Illegalize divorce! That's a more logical approach, if you actually believe this. But no. You're simply justifying your hatred.

[HiveRadical]

That's as silly as making suicide or accidents illegal. Anyone who would successfully infringes either can't be held to any law or they can't, in any way, avoid infringement. Divorce should be, in my view, harder to effect, but I would not ever want it to imperil someone in an abusive relationship just as I wouldn't want abortion laws to cause the loss of a woman

[HiveRadical]

who's health was seriously imperiled by a pregnancy.

There's only so much that can be effectively legislated for, but to say that since the ideal can't be achieved that there should be no effort is a non-sequitur. Such would be like saying that removing speed limits would not effect an increase in the average speed people drive at.

[rowsdowersavesus]

You haven't even shown that it's actually better to have 2 parents at all, let alone 2 who happen to be the same sex. You're only assuming this because you're religious, and your religion tells you this.

You'd never want to imperil someone in danger, but keeping gay people as second class citizens is cool?

By the way, how long did it take to get this video on the ballot? Mine is not showing up there yet...

[HiveRadical]

Well of all the silliness. You haven't shown it's better to have parents instead of some governmental institution raise kids, do you need a study for everything? I'm assuming this because the most successful groups are those adhering to the memes that give emphasis to the import of mothers and fathers. One need but look to Sparta to see

[rowsdowersavesus]

Governmental institutions raising kids? What the fuck are you on about?

Do we need to study everything? YES! Yes we do!

Name a society that didn't have the "traditional" household of mother and father. Sparta, Mormon Utah, and that's about it.

[HiveRadical]

what happens when you go a route outside of the traditional family. Do you think it's just coincidence that the most successful memetic strains, in terms of durability, have emphasized fertility and obligation to insuring a proper inculcation of the rising generation?

[rowsdowersavesus]

Do you seriously think keeping gay people from marrying other gay people will magically make them reproduce and raise kids with people of the other sex? You're being stupid!

[MagdaMagda01]

Yes, family is important, I agree with that, but according to you only the "traditional model" will bring peace and happiness.

Sorry, but your idea is too conservative and discriminating. I will not be voting for you.

P.S. At 3:38, it sounds like he says: "...pass on our mayonnaise..."

[HiveRadical]

MEMES is what I say at 3:38

I'm curious, have you seen my response to the critique I received on this? It's a four part response entitled "We Are" I believe it addresses your claims of my being 'conservative' and 'discriminating.'

[rowsdowersavesus]

It's pronounced "meems"

[HiveRadical]

thanks.

[HiveRadical]

I was going off the way you pronounce memetics, but I suppose we wouldn't pronounce gene the way we do if we based if off of the word 'genetics'

[Legit92nick]

video is gay

[HiveRadical]

Happiness is the aim.

[HiveRadical]

I'm planning on answering Bigevasives vid response today. He brings up some things I think would be real concerns for many with regard to my answer.

[MikeSarno]

Amen, brother! Agree 100%! 5*