Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

I'd take number 5 on that list up with Tack Jhompson(Jack Thompson) if I were you. It's impossible for a family with a TV that's on for more than 3 minuets a day not to slip up on that one, I don't care if you're gay,straight,asexual or a mixed marriage, it just can't be done.

_________________
RIP Nathan "Buz" Buzdor

Lahi will have kids one day. And I will be very surprised he has all five.

bless.

Lahi might not have all, but at least he'll know what he's striving for.
Personaly I think that those values will give you a good, moral family, but in order for you to gain a hevanly, perfect family (with effort on the familys part of course) you need #6:God is present in the home.

_________________
(THE ABOVE USER HAS BEEN BANNED)

No such thing.

_________________

Why did something in my brain just click?

_________________

I think you're remembering that Strong Bad Emails preview thing:

"No such thing, Stu. No such thing."

Either that or he just said something brilliant.


Or both.

_________________
So, so you think you can tell Heaven from Hell, blue skies from pain. Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? A smile from a veil? Do you think you can tell?

I think it's because...

Oh god, my brains are on the computer screen. Gotta clean that up.

Paint a happy toast. DO IT NOW!

_________________

Lots of families are fine without God in their house. Many religious families are broken ones.

It's about getting votes to get elected.

Just like the Democrats always claim they are looking out for the minorities.

Associate yourself with a large population who primarily votes on a single issue and you're guaranteed another term.

Both sides do it. It's politics. Identify yourself with your constituents. Watch as the votes pour in. It's how the system works.

btw, Religion != Ethics, Morals or Family Values

True, but religion provides more incentive for the family to have those.
(whether or not those people pursue those ends more than people without religion is another matter, however)

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Well, that only applies to religions that have a deeply vested interest in secular behaviour and ethics. Wicca is an example of the opposite--it only lays out one simple and all-encompassing rule for secular living: "An' harm no one, do as ye will." The rest of Wicca is about the actual spiritual side of religion (which I thought was supposed to be the main point of religion in the first place).

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

Those Wicans sound like they're on to something!

God bless those pagans...

The phrase "family values" really annoys me, precisely because it implies that the values these people have are the only ones which are good for families.

_________________
"They've taken Mr Rimmer! Sir, they've taken Mr Rimmer!"
"Quick, let's get outta here before they bring him back!"

good take jerome. I'm not gonna get too post-marxian on y'all (it's what we're tlaking about in one of my classes) but basically the idea that "family values" are something we all need to strive for is highly artificial, and arbitrary. because of this arbitrary nature, however, it is a very powerful force on our lives so much so that we never think to ponder why exactly families should be a certain way we think they should be.

uh, if you really take time and think about that type of stuff it can get confusing. basically, for me, personal lifestyles are about as valid as "family values". for me, i feel like some types of living are better, and i also think that there are sets of ideas which are more easy to defend than others. for example it is quite easy to defend the idea of not killing your own offspring, and most people would agree with me.

so i hope you all get my point, i can clairfy if necessary, but i didn't want to get too long winded or too involved. bascially, one person's value sets are certainly not qualified to be everyones.

I agree with you on that first part, but there are actually plenty of people who actually believe that it is not wrong to kill your offspring. They usually call themselves "pro-choice."

_________________

I could be wrong, but I somehow don't think putitinyourshoe was referring to unborn babies...though I really would rather not get into a tangent for that debate in this thread--it's already volitile enough. Yes, I realize that pro-life vs. pro-choice is one of the issues in the whole "family values" debate, but I don't necessarily see the need to go too in-depth on that issue here.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

You have a point, there Pianoguy. That's a question for another thread.

My own take on all this: "family values" is a vague ambiguous term that carries with it certain ideals and connotations. Such terms need to be avoided in favor of specific value choices. For example, while some might construe the term to mean that we need to restore the ideal of the nuclear family, I would certainly not want to demean those who, through no fault of their own, end up in other family arrangements. It's not fair to them.

_________________

thanks very much, Gidley. i was using an absurdist example to illustrate my point because my howling on about stuff without properly defining my terms is really pretty unfair. but yeah, i was referring to possibly people stabbing toddlers, then maybe eating them.

with that more absurd example, allow me to illustrate:

child-munching is a family value! why? i say so, and so does my child-munching culture. it builds healthy families and strong immune systems.

not easy to defend, but someone could claim it as their culture, that's all i meant by it.

and Didy, you're right about a lot of stuff, it's just a stupid blanket term, and that was my general point, too. i'm also glad we agree that family values should certainly not mean a nuclear family because then an astounding amount of people wouldn't have any.