Baron Von PWN wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Baron Von PWN wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:BVP has an interested point, and it's an interesting position to take.
An extension of one's genes into another person grants the mother the exclusive property rights.
But, by the same token, doesn't this also grant the rapist an equal 50% share of the property rights? Or would his violation of the woman's rights thus negate his otherwise legitimate claim?
The rapist's violation would in my mind void any rights they might claim.
Though say a woman somehow illegitimately (in a rape like situation) acquires a man's sperm in order to get pregnant, in that case the man should have the right to decide.
in consensual situations. In the given scenario it seems to me the only choice would be the eviction route.
To add this debate, I read a summarized version of
The Nurture Assumption which was a long-term study conducted on biological twins with different parents (i.e. one stuck with the original parents, and the other did not). What they discovered was that the genes largely overrode their upbrining from their parents. In other words, even if a child was separated from her parent, the child's personality largely resembled the original parents'.
Then it went into the influence of peer groups--not quite "the environment," but more like one's immediate group of friends and others--a group with which the child identifies.
In conclusion, IIRC, the original parents' genes had a stronger influence over the "nurture assumption" (i.e. parental upbringing); however, the role of peer groups was perhaps equally as strong as one's genes. So in order of strength it's (genes ~= peer group), each of which > parental upbringing.
Interesting. though couldn't parents be part of the peer group or potentially be the peer group if the child is sheltered?
NOOOOOOOO!!!!! (jkjkjkjkjk)
From what I recall, the summary of that book considered peer groups to mean "persons of similar to your age with whom your identity is mutually shaped," but you do have a valid point because some very mature kids could identify with their parents.
I don't remember how the study controlled for this--assuming it did. That book is a big deal in the field of "child development"/child psychology, or whatever it's actually called. Sheltered children are beyond the scope of the study which was addressing a different general scenario which asserted the Nurture Assumption over all "normal" kids. (see the following response for more):
Baron Von PWN wrote:also if we expand the notion nurture to include peer groups this study suggests parity between genes and nurture.
Nurture for most, I think, referred to parental upbringing. They used the variable of peer groups to better isolate the influences of parental upbringing (nurture) and genes. I guess it was used as a good benchmark for comparison, thus enabling a more robust method explaining the role of these three main groups on the development of a child.
Baron Von PWN wrote:However cases of children being abused seem to suggest otherwise. For example there was a case where a child was locked away, in a basement or shed I can't remember exactly. However this child was given no social interaction and was only fed.
The result was that the child showed stunted mental development and never quite developed full communication skills.
Sure, but this could indicate that peer groups matter and/or parental upbringing (nurture) matters. Before this Nurture Assumption book, most contended that nurture (parental upbringing) primarily matters, but the study realized that peer groups and genes matter more---for "normal" kids. Extreme examples like yours require different approaches which are beyond the scope of the study, but insights from the book can be used to reveal more effective approaches to handling such extreme examples.
