Subj : Re: Neuralink
To   : Vk3jed
From : Arelor
Date : Mon Aug 24 2020 09:10:45

  Re: Re: Neuralink
  By: Vk3jed to Arelor on Mon Aug 24 2020 07:21 pm

 > -=> On 08-23-20 08:50, Arelor wrote to Vk3jed <=-
 > 
 >  Ar> Letting the tribe look after the kids collectively sounds like such an
 >  Ar> ugly idea.
 > 
 > It worked for most of humanity's existence.  Our currently tightly controlle
 > nuclear families are a very recent development, and more of a Western idea.
 > Even today, many other cultures have much stronger extended families than we
 > o.
 > 
 >  Ar> I know who my neighbors are and I would not trust a candy bar to them.
 > 
 > Again, in the context of a very sick and unnatural society. :/
 > 
 > 
 > ... DalekDOS v(overflow): (I)Obey (V)ision impaired (E)xterminate

Not even low primates follow the self-less tribe approach. Sometimes you can
see monkeys sharing the burden of rising kids, but if you look closely they are
usually close participants of the same sex orgies (ie Jack and Joe bang Amy,
Amy has a little monkey, Jack and Joe take care of the kid).

I don't look up to most cultures that feature weak extended families.

My experience is that people who deals with common property neglects it. A
third party is never going to give a damn for your son, or if they do, it will
be symbolic.

I think wanting the tribe to educate the kid is an opt-out for parents that
don't want to deal with rising a kid. Then they are surprised because the tribe
let the Latin Kings take charge of the kid and turned him into something the
parents didn't want.

btw, why is it that people who wants the tribe to take care of the kids usually
does not want to take care of the kids of the other members of the tribe?

--
gopher://gopher.operationalsecurity.es

---
 þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

.