Quantcast

Comments about ‘Linda & Richard Eyre: Why the world needs to make family a top priority’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Aug. 12 2014 3:45 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

So many false claims and erroneous assumptions were does one even begin? Let start with the most basic, nature, it is blatantly false to claim that everything is born into families, the most familiar example would be sea turtles. In terms of sociology I an tell you as a professional sociologist that claims that your claims about sociology are likewise blatantly false. As I said before there are so many false claims and erroneous assumptions are made in this article that it would take an entire article length comment to refute them all.

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

sorry that should be I can not I an

dr.bridell
mclean, VA

Tolstoy,
I think the Eyres are talking about Human Beings, not Sea Turtles

intervention
slc, UT

@drbridell
From the article "In nature, everything that grows is in a family" reading the article before commenting can move the conversation along much more smoothly. They do also make the same claim about humans but as we all know children are not always born into families and are often born to single mothers.

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

Families are indeed important, but the Eyres would do well to choose better examples to support their thesis. As Tolstoy points out, their last bullet point is patently untrue and betrays an ignorance of basic biology. Within nature, there are thousands of "family" structures, ranging from mitosis and vegetative reproduction to polygyny and polyandry to nest parasitism (cuckoos) and parthenogenesis. The "Mom and Dad nurturing offspring through the formative stages" model is by far the exception in nature, not the rule. Even within the mammals (or just the primates), many different family structures exist. (Perhaps the Eyres were referring to taxonomy, where every species does exist within a family, but that is an entirely different meaning of the word.)

The American character does not revolve around the family. "Rugged individualism," not "rugged familialism," is the defining American trait. Nathan Hale regretted giving only "one life," not "one family" for his country. It's "one man, one vote," not "one family, one vote." Adam Smith's capitalism is based on individual self-interest, not the interest of the group. If families are the atomic nucleus, then individuals are the neutrons and protons that comprise it.

Light and Liberty
St. George/Washington, UT

Lagomorph. The Family, as the Eyres have clearly stated, do not supplant "Rugged individulism!" "Rugged individulism" conflicts with family only when it becomes more important than family, which it obviously has for many fathers, mothers and society. Society has tried to replace "rugged individualism" with "Equality," something that has been very destructive for families. Men and women, ignorantly, foolishly, or sometimes wantonly, pursue government answers and legislation that is laughable in its failure. Society decries the disappearance of fathers as if this is a surprising phenomena. Just look in the mirror, instead of using the lazy man's approach to patriotism and solving problems--just paying taxes and supporting another dead end government program!

marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

"In economics, markets and enterprise are driven by family 
needs, attitudes and perceptions." Nice try, Eyres, but markets and enterprises are driven by the need for profit under capitalism. Modern capitalism no more has a need for families than did slavery before it.

raybies
Layton, UT

families transcend political structures, and fads, and have been around since the first of us... so it's hard to characterize their importance to modern concepts like technology or our current political whimsies. People just assume that since they've been around forever, they'll still be around when the frenzies of the latest social innovations die down.

Light and Liberty
St. George/Washington, UT

Marxist: I wonder if anyone will confront you on the fact that Marxism is responsible for close to 100 million deaths in the 20th Century. The irony is those who believe, "but this time it will be different!" Naive, if utterly foolish!

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments