Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Has Jason Kenney lost the moral authority to lead Alberta?


JM_

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, ilduce39 said:

Is there any data/studies to back this up?  

 

If I’m following what you’re saying: there are measurable benefits of biological grandparents helping with child rearing versus parents who rely on day care? 

 

Or is this more about taking care of your parents?

Both.

 

Data ? About what ? That it is normative, species behavior of species homo sapiens to have 1 or more adult stay at home to raise and supervise the young ? I have not come across a 'study' as such, but i can easily make such a case based on how convergent that behavior is across almost all cultures of the world. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, canuckistani said:

No, ergo deviation from a species-istic behavior. 

There is no reason why you and your partner cannot 'give them' the care they need that billions of members of species homo sapiens has been able to afford to their aged generation for 200,000+ years. 

 

That is broken too. However, if you think that the massive amounts of identity politics and mental issues in the western world has nothing whatsoever to do with deviation from the species normalized model for family dynamics for the young and the old, then you are deliberately sticking your head in the sand.


And if you dont think that deviation from a model that has worked for us for 300,000 years and is one of few cross-culturally convergent behavior of species homo sapiens isnt breaking the system that works, then i am sorry, you have no idea what 'normative, deterministic or species-istic' behavior model means or how it impacts a species. 

I think you are taking this way too personally to see the FUBAR of the western social dynamic that it's created, mostly due to perpetuating a psuedo-classist model of economic boom. 

species-istic behaviour? what species do you think builds old age care homes, beavers? 

 

Yes there is a reason we can't give them nursing care, we're not nurses.

 

You seem to think that creating new ways of caring for people is somehow inherently bad. People have always innovated how they live, what they do, etc. Your argument is specious. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

species-istic behaviour? what species do you think builds old age care homes, beavers? 

Species-istic behavior is defined as a dominant behavior of a species. Shipping parents and ditching them at old age homes is not a dominant model for species homo sapiens - neither in terms of numbers or participants or a biologically established pattern ( 100 years is a blip in the biological spectrum. 200,000 years is not). 

 

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

 

Yes there is a reason we can't give them nursing care, we're not nurses.

You don't need to give them nursing home care unless they are in serious debilitating conditions - which is only valid for a tiny fraction of the 'shipped and forgotten' seniors of the western world. For rest of the world, unless the senior is bed-ridden long term, their medical needs are met by nurses on call. 

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

 

You seem to think that creating new ways of caring for people is somehow inherently bad.

Its not caring for people, its dumping people to die alone, outside of the people who hold active stake in well being of the people. For people who have no family, its obviously a valid and necessary option, but for people who have families, its dogmatic behavior that is overriding natural human tendency ( due to social programming), mostly out of convineince. 

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

People have always innovated how they live, what they do, etc. Your argument is specious. 

There is nothing innovative about messing with a system that is a biologically determinative behavior of a species. If that is 'innovative', then chastity belt is and lynching for adultery are also 'innovative behavior'.

 

My policy is very simple - i am a software engineer, i live by the dictum of 'if it aint broke dont fix it'. The western world is ultra pro-change, to the point where any incumbent idea is challenged to a fault. There are long term consequences for deviation from species-istic behavior that are dominant traits of a species but this is the biggest curse and biggest boon of species homo sapiens rolled into one - dogmatism to override any fundamental beahvior. Sometimes,its a good thing, but by and large, changing species-istic behavior wholesale is rarely a good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

Both.

 

Data ? About what ? That it is normative, species behavior of species homo sapiens to have 1 or more adult stay at home to raise and supervise the young ? I have not come across a 'study' as such, but i can easily make such a case based on how convergent that behavior is across almost all cultures of the world. 

 

I was just wondering.

 

I’m banking on grandparent-support to help us with our kids but as of now there’s no plans to move in together.  

 

Im sure you’ll see it as an outlier but both myself and my wife have grandmothers who live alone / independently and value that independence. One is pushing 100 the other 90.  Family obviously lives close by and helps with the odd thing but I’m not sure I’d consider them parts of a “broken” system.  They’re both super active in the community.  I think it’s been key to their longevity.  

 

Conversely, the two other grandmas who live with family (and have always lived with family) aren’t doing as well.  They just don’t do as much and spend too much time dwelling on family drama.  

 

Its just personal experience but you can’t paint everyone with the same stroke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ilduce39 said:

I was just wondering.

 

I’m banking on grandparent-support to help us with our kids but as of now there’s no plans to move in together.  

 

Im sure you’ll see it as an outlier but both myself and my wife have grandmothers who live alone / independently and value that independence. One is pushing 100 the other 90.  Family obviously lives close by and helps with the odd thing but I’m not sure I’d consider them parts of a “broken” system.  They’re both super active in the community.  I think it’s been key to their longevity.  

 

Conversely, the two other grandmas who live with family (and have always lived with family) aren’t doing as well.  They just don’t do as much and spend too much time dwelling on family drama.  

 

Its just personal experience but you can’t paint everyone with the same stroke.

To me, the fact that there is always at least 1 adult at home to care for the young,preferrably more, is a near-universal behavior outside of the western world, cross hunter-gatherers, farmers, nomads, Asiatics, Africans, Pacific Islanders, etc- to the point that it is valid to classify it as biologically determinitive behavior. Obviously creating and participating in interpersonal drama(or lack of it) is an individual personality trait that has its costs associated with it. And an active elderly person has higher life expectancy than an inactive one - whether they stay active via taking care of the new generation or by building community park, is irrelevant to their physical conditioning. But on a social level, I see a lot of the social ills of the western world to be rooted in messing with this fundamental family structure of species homo sapiens.

 

We see the cost of deviating from fundamental family structure for a species, amongst elephants for eg - where the herds that has lost its older gen prematurely are severely messed up in their pyschological makeup ( elephant trauma is far easier and far more apolitical to study). The same is applicable to species homo sapiens as well. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

Species-istic behavior is defined as a dominant behavior of a species. Shipping parents and ditching them at old age homes is not a dominant model for species homo sapiens - neither in terms of numbers or participants or a biologically established pattern ( 100 years is a blip in the biological spectrum. 200,000 years is not). 

 

You don't need to give them nursing home care unless they are in serious debilitating conditions - which is only valid for a tiny fraction of the 'shipped and forgotten' seniors of the western world. For rest of the world, unless the senior is bed-ridden long term, their medical needs are met by nurses on call. 

Its not caring for people, its dumping people to die alone, outside of the people who hold active stake in well being of the people. For people who have no family, its obviously a valid and necessary option, but for people who have families, its dogmatic behavior that is overriding natural human tendency ( due to social programming), mostly out of convineince. 

There is nothing innovative about messing with a system that is a biologically determinative behavior of a species. If that is 'innovative', then chastity belt is and lynching for adultery are also 'innovative behavior'.

 

My policy is very simple - i am a software engineer, i live by the dictum of 'if it aint broke dont fix it'. The western world is ultra pro-change, to the point where any incumbent idea is challenged to a fault. There are long term consequences for deviation from species-istic behavior that are dominant traits of a species but this is the biggest curse and biggest boon of species homo sapiens rolled into one - dogmatism to override any fundamental beahvior. Sometimes,its a good thing, but by and large, changing species-istic behavior wholesale is rarely a good idea.

Again, you are pushing a narrative with no evidence. "dumping" "dominant model", etc. I guess you forgot about things like poverty and life expectancy in all of this eh? 

 

You do realize that many millions of seniors actually chose to live that way, right? its actually a model many people like. I guess your narrative missed that small "choice" piece. 

 

Again, if you want a model that is truly old people being dumped, look to China - its the lack of things like nursing homes that are causing a crisis there: http://www.sixthtone.com/news/1000528/how-the-one-child-policy-heightens-chinas-aging-crisis

 

We did just fine before computers. Maybe you need to be more species-istic and pick up a shovel. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Again, you are pushing a narrative with no evidence.

Wrong. There is plenty of evidence that 1 or mode adult present permanently at home to take care of the young is a species-wide, dominant behavior of species homo sapiens for virtually all of its existence. 

Quote

"dumping" "dominant model", etc. I guess you forgot about things like poverty and life expectancy in all of this eh? 

There is no relevance to that towards creating such a model. Poverty is not the reason people lived together, otherwise all the kings and their castles wouldn't be housing their entire clans en masse. The poverty narrative, is a western created narrative, incongruent with objective historical data. 

Quote

 

You do realize that many millions of seniors actually chose to live that way, right? its actually a model many people like. I guess your narrative missed that small "choice" piece. 

As the famous Persian saying goes ' birds who live in a cage, think flying is an illness'. Millions of seniors who themselves were raised in a faulty system, prefer the faulty system as they don't know any better. In society where the dominant family driven behavior of species homo sapiens is present, seniors overwhelmingly choose to live in the traditional model. 

Most seniors i know in the western world who choose that system, do so because their kids make them feel like a burden and they don't wanna be a burden. Yet to find very many seniors who choose the dump and forget model when their kids express interest in caring for them ( they exist, but are very very rare).

Quote

 

Again, if you want a model that is truly old people being dumped, look to China - its the lack of things like nursing homes that are causing a crisis there: http://www.sixthtone.com/news/1000528/how-the-one-child-policy-heightens-chinas-aging-crisis

Again,  throwing red herrings to this debate is largely irrelevant. Chinese breakdown of family system is also due to dogmatic adoption of western family planning models- something they are actually starting to rectify, thankfully, for them. 

Quote

 

We did just fine before computers. Maybe you need to be more species-istic and pick up a shovel. 

Computers have aided in calculations. Dump and forget elderly phenomenon has aided in mass uptick of childhood & developmental issues of children in the western world. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

Wrong. There is plenty of evidence that 1 or mode adult present permanently at home to take care of the young is a species-wide, dominant behavior of species homo sapiens for virtually all of its existence. 

There is no relevance to that towards creating such a model. Poverty is not the reason people lived together, otherwise all the kings and their castles wouldn't be housing their entire clans en masse. The poverty narrative, is a western created narrative, incongruent with objective historical data. 

As the famous Persian saying goes ' birds who live in a cage, think flying is an illness'. Millions of seniors who themselves were raised in a faulty system, prefer the faulty system as they don't know any better. In society where the dominant family driven behavior of species homo sapiens is present, seniors overwhelmingly choose to live in the traditional model. 

Most seniors i know in the western world who choose that system, do so because their kids make them feel like a burden and they don't wanna be a burden. Yet to find very many seniors who choose the dump and forget model when their kids express interest in caring for them ( they exist, but are very very rare).

Again,  throwing red herrings to this debate is largely irrelevant. Chinese breakdown of family system is also due to dogmatic adoption of western family planning models- something they are actually starting to rectify, thankfully, for them. 

Computers have aided in calculations. Dump and forget elderly phenomenon has aided in mass uptick of childhood & developmental issues of children in the western world. 

again, none of that proves your statement.  You haven't given anything other than your opinion that the current western model of raising kids using daycare is inferior. You have not backed that up with anything other than a strange concept of "species".  Nothing you've said proves the system is "faulty"

 

My parents didn't do it from the pov of "burden" they liked their independence. Like most of their friends. 

 

You just have nothing to back up your hypothesis. 

 

You can't really be suggesting China's 1 child policy is due to adoption of western ideas. Thats beyond laughable. And it isn't a red herring, you're claiming the 'rest of the world' is dominant in a certain behaviour. I gave you an example where 1 billion people arent doing that.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

again, none of that proves your statement. 

So you mean a behavior that is dominant trait across all cultures of humanity, with the exception of ONE socio-culture zone ( western world) for a blip of human history ( 100 years), that is STILL not the dominant mode of behavior, is not evidnce of it being species-istic behavior ?!?

1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

 You haven't given anything other than your opinion that the current western model of raising kids using daycare is inferior. You have not backed that up with anything other than a strange concept of "species". 

A model that by default flouts the dominant, species-wide behavior towards raising its young, without any tangible benefits but a lot of noticable ills in society ( higher drug usage, drop out rate, psychological problems, etc) that are correlative to the situation, is plenty for a smoking gun. 

 

There is nothing strange about defining a behavior as species-istic when it meets the biological and chronological parameters to be considered as such. 

1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

 

My parents didn't do it from the pov of "burden" they liked their independence. Like most of their friends. 

 

You just have nothing to back up your hypothesis. 

Again, birds who grow up in a cage, think flying is an illness, paradigm at play. 

And if your parents were raised in a similar environment, then obviously, they are not gonna see whats wrong with it either. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, canuckistani said:

So you mean a behavior that is dominant trait across all cultures of humanity, with the exception of ONE socio-culture zone ( western world) for a blip of human history ( 100 years), that is STILL not the dominant mode of behavior, is not evidnce of it being species-istic behavior ?!?

A model that by default flouts the dominant, species-wide behavior towards raising its young, without any tangible benefits but a lot of noticable ills in society ( higher drug usage, drop out rate, psychological problems, etc) that are correlative to the situation, is plenty for a smoking gun. 

 

There is nothing strange about defining a behavior as species-istic when it meets the biological and chronological parameters to be considered as such. 

Again, birds who grow up in a cage, think flying is an illness, paradigm at play. 

And if your parents were raised in a similar environment, then obviously, they are not gonna see whats wrong with it either. 

 

without actual studies and numbers to back up your claim you are just flapping your gums. Bring some evidence, if you can. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

without actual studies and numbers to back up your claim you are just flapping your gums. Bring some evidence, if you can. 

Your comment is evidence that rationalism in the west, is a dying science.

 

There is plenty of evidence to classify ' 1 or more adult at home all the time' as the dominant child-raising strategy of species homo sapiens for the entirity of its existence outside of 1 small anomalous phenomena of 'the western world in the last 100 odd years' scenario. Barring this, this model has 99.999% purchase in species homo sapiens across all cultures and all time-frame. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, canuckistani said:

Your comment is evidence that rationalism in the west, is a dying science.

 

There is plenty of evidence to classify ' 1 or more adult at home all the time' as the dominant child-raising strategy of species homo sapiens for the entirity of its existence outside of 1 small anomalous phenomena of 'the western world in the last 100 odd years' scenario. Barring this, this model has 99.999% purchase in species homo sapiens across all cultures and all time-frame. 

you claimed its a better system. I want to see the proof. 

 

You've decided on an outcome and simply keep throwing ideas at it, if you want to prove something how about begin with some evidence? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

you claimed its a better system. I want to see the proof. 

First lets linearize the discussion, shall we ?

Do you agree that it is a species-istic behavior of species homo sapiens ( to have 1 or more adult at home to raise children) or not ? 

4 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

 

You've decided on an outcome and simply keep throwing ideas at it, if you want to prove something how about begin with some evidence? 

Evidence of far higher cases of psychological issues in the western world than its counterparts qualifies.


For memetic behavior of a species ( and this is memetic behavior, not genetic), it is extremely hard to build a causative case without invoking plethora of correlative phenomena. 

PS: 'memetic' in this discussion, does not pertain to the internet phenomena of 'memes'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

First lets linearize the discussion, shall we ?

Do you agree that it is a species-istic behavior of species homo sapiens ( to have 1 or more adult at home to raise children) or not ? 

Evidence of far higher cases of psychological issues in the western world than its counterparts qualifies.

 

Sure. There's no reason that adult can't be a non-parent caregiver. 

 

Maybe there's more cases because we're actually looking. Most of the world doesn't have access to health services the way we do. 

 

And if you want to continue lets tie this back to the AB election or start a new thread or make a status notification, this threads been derailed enough. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Sure. There's no reason that adult can't be a non-parent caregiver. 

Vested interest is a big reason. Again, dominant behavior in species homo sapiens, is far greater positive bias towards those biologically related to us than not. 

11 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

 

Maybe there's more cases because we're actually looking. Most of the world doesn't have access to health services the way we do. 

Speculative nonsense. Diagnosis services in non-western first world countries show equal purchase. Yet, those who have shifted their family doctrine to the nuevo-western systems show similar skyrocketing mental issues in their system. 

11 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

 

And if you want to continue lets tie this back to the AB election or start a new thread or make a status notification, this threads been derailed enough. 

Fair enough. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quality daycare for many kids is actually an improvement in their learning environment.....

For many kids  being around other kids is very stimulating and teachers all kinds of social skills.

 

This discussion reminds me of Brady Bunch or Happy Days reruns.

Are you kidding me ?    It's 2019  not 1950  or . 1850 ?  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/28/2019 at 10:22 PM, kingofsurrey said:

 

Quality daycare for many kids is actually an improvement in their learning environment.....

For many kids  being around other kids is very stimulating and teachers all kinds of social skills.

 

 

 

It almost seems as though the old adage, that didn't originate in the "West", of it taking a village to raise a child, don't apply to the "West" when said adage is applied.

 

It's probably the fault of all those in the "South"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

O Canada...  ooh la la . ....

 

Children in France will start school at the age of three instead of six, under new reforms announced by President Emmanuel Macron.

 

The change will give France one of the lowest compulsory school starting ages in Europe.

.

Mr Macron said the change was intended to reduce inequality in education, as parents in poorer areas of France and in overseas territories are less likely to send their children to nursery school.

 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43562029

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...