[frkksptn]

"Family Entertainment" is a large arguement that ends in someone going to A&E.

[DianaDrk]

A family is one or more adults nurturing one or more children.

[xqdrocherz]

A family to me is my parents and my close cousins ages ranging from 7 to 30.
We are close nit and look after each other.

Family entertainment to me would be something all of us can enjoy no matter the age.

[anolbom]

Originally posted by VetLegion
What is a "nuclear" family? I don't hear that much anymore. Mom, Dad & a couple of kids....an Ozzie & Harriet "I Like Ike" kinda family.

[greeferweq]

What counts as family is culturally relative. It's not a scientifically or philosophically respectable concept.

[tmobmobfil]

What counts as family is culturally relative. It's not a scientifically or philosophically respectable concept.

That's a non sequiter.

Morality is culturally relative, so it's not a philosophically respectable concept?

Also, family is easy to define scientifically, both absolutely and in terms of degree.

[desmond001]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
What counts as family is culturally relative. It's not a scientifically or philosophically respectable concept.

That's a non sequiter.

Morality is culturally relative, so it's not a philosophically respectable concept?

Also, family is easy to define scientifically, both absolutely and in terms of degree. You can be a tiresome person. And you can't spell "non sequitur" properly.

To say that ethics is culturally relative is to make a somewhat controversial claim. But even if it is, that doesn't mean that the concept "morality" cannot be strictly defined. You're making the mistake of confusing the definition of a meta term with the definition of an object term. You could crudely define "morality" as "a system of human conduct dependent upon the concepts of the good and the right" without accepting that the good and the right are going to be the same in all cultures.

It's no different than defining the concept of "board game" and noting that there are many different board games that fall under the concept.

Scientific definitions of the family are irrelevant here, since the use of the term "family" in ordinary language does not necessarily track the scientific use of the term. When people ordinarily talk about family, they are not using the term in your sense, but in the sense provided by their culture. For example, the Maori word "whanau" is their term for family (but is closer to the Greek term "genos" in meaning). That's because Maori people have a different conception of the term family than Europeans do. There's no meta definition of the term "family" that captures what is common to all these concepts that is going to be anything other than otiose. In other words "family" is not like "board game" or "morality".

Although we might follow Wittgenstein and accept that "family" is what he calls (ironically) a "family resemblance concept".

Science students can be so dense...

[favwebbb]

Originally posted by Agathon
To say that ethics is culturally relative is to make a somewhat controversial claim. But even if it is, that doesn't mean that the concept "morality" cannot be strictly defined. You're making the mistake of confusing the definition of a meta term with the definition of an object term. You could crudely define "morality" as "a system of human conduct dependent upon the concepts of the good and the right" without accepting that the good and the right are going to be the same in all cultures.

You can make a similar definition of family. "A relationship in human societies based primarily on genetic ties, which binds a group of individuals into a cohesive unit (as viewed by others in the society)" or something like that. And my point stands anyway, that cultural relativity is not sufficient to make a concept not respectable.

Scientific definitions of the family are irrelevant here

I was addressing the other part of your claim, that it's not a scientifically respectable concept, so they are.

[Anydayhybeall]

Originally posted by Agathon
What counts as family is culturally relative. It's not a scientifically or philosophically respectable concept. Surely it makes more sense to stop looking at what a family is and ask instead what it's function is?

A quick stab at an answer would be the raising of children in a given society.
Assuming that to be true, family = the manner in which a society raises it's kids.

I would have thought that this was a very important philosophical area since it effectively describes how cultural knowledge, language, ethical systems, religions, etc, are transmitted. I'm partial to the idea of memetics but perhaps I'm more predisposed to think this way about the family. Nevertheless, I don't believe it's so easily dismissed.

[ManHolDenPoker]

If you're still reading at this point, you'll be pleased to know that you've qualified for the "Wading through unutterable tedium" award for 2007.

[famosetroie]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
If you're still reading at this point, you'll be pleased to know that you've qualified for the "Wading through unutterable tedium" award for 2007. At least I'm not a plagiarist.

[RokeIdeadioke]

"Hi! I'm Agathon! I can bore you in ways that no person has bored you before! Please may I put my hand up your blouse now?"

[bubbachew14]

This is Spartaaa! That's too bad because I am BEOWULF!

I don't think that works either. Are a married couple who are childless not part of a family? I wouldn't say that they are. Are a couple living together a family? What about two friends living together? At that point, cohabitation becomes the key factor. Or, one could define family by marriage but I dont think that's satisfactory because I think most people would agree that an unmarried couple with kids are a family.

[DumnEuronoumn]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Congratulations on achieving genuinely original tedium. Why are you spamming the thread? You obviously have nothing to contribute other than bitterness and ignorance, so why bother?

[Soresbox]

Originally posted by Agathon
Are a married couple who are childless not part of a family? Nope. They're in a marriage. They won't be in a family until they have children (or unless they've moved in with mummy & daddy).

[Glanteeignile]

West Virginia

[chechokancho]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
"Hi! I'm Agathon! I can bore you in ways that no person has bored you before! Please may I put my hand up your blouse now?"

[raspirator]

Agathon is going to drive Laz away

[clubcughSheet]

Originally posted by DaShi
The word family is thrown around a lot in America. Usually by megacorporations like Disney or conservative politicians like. . .well all of them. But clearly their definitions of family differ from that of other people. Republicans will consider a father, mother, and children a family, but a father, father, and children not one. And what is called family entertainment by Disney is usually a codeword for sentimental tripe involving children and talking animals.

It's the Disney definition that I find the most troubling. Perhaps because it's more insidious. It leads us to believe that family life must be devoid of intellectual pursuits or challenging issues. Of course, part of this is an attempt to not offend anyone and to promote "christian" values. But it's these values that allow common people to cheer behind Republicans who narrowly define families. Gays, blacks, and just about everyone non-white are placed into their modern stock roles, if present in these types of shows. And we're all told that this is good for us because it's a family film.

So do you agree that the types of programs on channels like ABC family or Disney movies are suitable for your families? Or do you have another definition of family and what should be called family entertainment?

Merry Christmas to you and your families!
In our culture, children are, typically, raised with adults to whom they are related by blood or marriage. Which households we'uns call families (despite the fact that we also use the term for "extended families", lineages, etc - and that we even folks whove never studied phil or anthro are aware that the borders of "family" border by culture - note, no English translation for machatanim, long noted for example). Ergo, adults in such households, when looking for entertainment that all members of the household can enjoy, look for entertainment that is suitable for children, by the lights of their culture. To the extend that what they consider suitable for children varies from the cultures (for ex, we never showed POTM movies about teh Baby Jesus, when she was younger) they need to take that into account, however the term "family movie" generally still imparts useful information.