Question Who's Online | Find Members | Private Messages
Questions
Quizzes
Articles
My Journal
Forums
Answer Questions | Question Comments | My Questions | Favorites | +Add Question
LATEST
POPULAR PRIORITY RANDOM

All | Games | Funny | Entertainment | Quizzes | Weird | Tech | People | Arts/Lit | News | Science | Sports | Places | Misc

10,039 hits 3.5 (2 votes) Share Favorite | Flag 8 years ago by AndresH

Which would you say is the fundamental unit of society?


Put This Question on Your Page (MySpace, Livejournal, Blog, etc)
[Preview] EMBED CODE:


Prev 1 2 3 4 Next (showing 1-25 of 80)

Bottom Last Post

8 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Wednesday 10/12/11 - 10:29:46 PM EST (GMT-5)
I think both are equally important. We are important to society as people, but in order to be the best people we can be I think that we need to have good supportive families to raise us. Not to say without this you will be a bad person.
8 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Wednesday 10/12/11 - 10:34:14 PM EST (GMT-5)
Family, the individual is only relevant in that they contribute to the group. They are dead otherwise.
8 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Thursday 10/13/11 - 11:08:00 AM EST (GMT-5)
The only thing that's important is money.
8 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Thursday 10/13/11 - 11:08:55 AM EST (GMT-5)
On Wednesday 10/12/11 - 10:34:14 PM Kepi wrote:
Family, the individual is only relevant in that they contribute to the group. They are dead otherwise.


Isn't 'contribution to the group' the whole idea of being part of a society? Why are an individual's contributions any less valued than the contributions of a family?
8 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Thursday 10/13/11 - 11:23:13 AM EST (GMT-5)
Family has that "greater than the sum of its parts" thing going for it, but I'd say rights are about the individual. Society, though, is about individuals' willingness to join together for the greater good.
8 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Thursday 10/13/11 - 2:20:23 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Wednesday 10/12/11 - 10:34:14 PM Kepi wrote:
Family, the individual is only relevant in that they contribute to the group. They are dead otherwise.
On Thursday 10/13/11 - 11:08:55 AM CowDung wrote:
Isn't 'contribution to the group' the whole idea of being part of a society? Why are an individual's contributions any less valued than the contributions of a family?


It's not that an individual's contributions aren't valued, it's that an individual's contributions don't add up to a sustainable survivable unit. When you measure individual units, you have to have overlap from the greater society. With a family, you can set it down and know that you're measuring their capacity to thrive.
8 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Wednesday 10/19/11 - 1:47:03 AM EST (GMT-5)
Ultimately the individual and my reasoning is apolitical.

The individual is the fundamental unit of the family which is a subset of society therefore the individual is the fundamental unit of society.

On Thursday 10/13/11 - 2:20:23 PM Kepi wrote:
When you measure individual units, you have to have overlap from the greater society. With a family, you can set it down and know that you're measuring their capacity to thrive.


A family doesn't need overlap from greater society?

lol... were you born in Alabama per chance?
8 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Wednesday 10/19/11 - 3:15:53 AM EST (GMT-5)
No, but lemme put it this way... You throw a family into the wilderness in the woods for 20 years, chances are they will survive on Average. Do the same with an individual, even an individual adult in the prime of their lives, and I wouldn't bank on it. More families is obviously better, but a single family can at least survive.
8 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Wednesday 10/19/11 - 10:56:39 AM EST (GMT-5)
On Wednesday 10/19/11 - 3:15:53 AM Kepi wrote:
No, but lemme put it this way... You throw a family into the wilderness in the woods for 20 years, chances are they will survive on Average. Do the same with an individual, even an individual adult in the prime of their lives, and I wouldn't bank on it. More families is obviously better, but a single family can at least survive.


I'm not so sure about that. I think that there is a huge variation in the survival rates that would be seen with families turned out into the wilderness. Families will always require more resources and all members may not be able to contribute (like very young children) toward gathering those resources. The individual adult can run on a minimum of resources. I would further argue that a group of individual adults would be much more likely to survive than a group of families...



8 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Wednesday 10/19/11 - 6:44:03 PM EST (GMT-5)
There would be variances in family survival rates, of course. However, individuals would have variances as well. It's just a significantly larger portion of individuals. would fail in comparison to families.

As for groups of individuals, I don't think they'd be as successful, either. Groups of individuals raise questions of who owes what and who deserves this or that. The blood is thicker than water principals, however make room for more natual and swifter decision making processes. Families will always survive both natual and man made events that disolve other groups/guilds/organizations because they work on a naturally occuring mentality to preserve the group rather than to preserve the individual. While other organizations can foster such a mentality temporarily, it will not, on average be as strong or permenant as family.
8 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Thursday 10/20/11 - 4:22:09 PM EST (GMT-5)
lol.. what?

Kepi stop making up scientific studies and results.

Furthermore.. even IF what you say is true.... you define the fundamental unit of society on relative self-survivability?

Seems flawed to me.
8 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Thursday 10/20/11 - 5:01:47 PM EST (GMT-5)
the hypothetical scenario i lay out will result in this fashion because i opinionate it so
8 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Thursday 10/20/11 - 6:15:49 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Thursday 10/20/11 - 4:22:09 PM newtownninja wrote:
lol.. what? Kepi stop making up scientific studies and results. Furthermore.. even IF what you say is true.... you define the fundamental unit of society on relative self-survivability? Seems flawed to me.


Self survivability and sustainability are the only long term measures that actually matter in terms of society. If your society is unable to replicate itself, it's going to be relegated to anthropology.Likewise family has built in context you can look at over time. You can glean much more information on a society by looking at 3 or 4 generations of the same family than you can 3 to 4 generations of random individuals.
8 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Thursday 10/20/11 - 7:32:12 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Thursday 10/20/11 - 6:15:49 PM Kepi wrote:
Self survivability and sustainability are the only long term measures that actually matter in terms of society.


I'm not disputing that. Maybe you should read the question AndresH posed?

Your argument that the family is the fundamental unit is based on RELATIVE self-sustainability is flawed

Because sustainability still requires INDIVIDUALS from other families to reproduce with.

Unless you think f*cking your sister is normal in your society. (Hence why I asked if you were born in Alabama just in case you didn't get the joke)
8 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Thursday 10/20/11 - 7:55:09 PM EST (GMT-5)
Normal, no, but it is survivable and sustainable. Not a good thing and nothing I'd ever want to deal with... But again, Further support that the family, not the individual, is the fundamental unit of society: if you attempt to remove the individual from family roles, you're more likely go go out and bang your sister because you don't know who she is.
8 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Friday 10/21/11 - 1:36:48 AM EST (GMT-5)
Wait what?

All you've said is that it is not ideal for a family to sustain itself nor is it ideal for an individual to sustain itself in a community without a family?

I still don't understand how that makes the family unit the fundamental unit in society.

You still haven't really addressed the real problem of your reasoning thus far though.

That being that your argument that the family is the fundamental unit is based on RELATIVE self-sustainability is flawed.
8 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Friday 10/21/11 - 1:54:30 AM EST (GMT-5)
how hot is this sister?
8 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Friday 10/21/11 - 3:13:24 AM EST (GMT-5)
No, it's really not. It's relatively sustainable by comparison. That's really all that matters. Individuals so NOT team up like family does, that's just the truth. Right now, that's how America is surviving. Most of those people that lost their homes and their cars? They moved right in with family. The entire reason that Jewish folks tend to weather bad times much better than the rest of us? Tighter family structure, which means they don't see shortfalls nearly as often as other communities, and are much more willing to support eachother. Tighter and larger family structures have shown to have less domestic violence, lower suicide rates and lower divorce rates. A family is a measurable unit and can guage long term success and can be an easy barometer for the success of a society. A random sample of individuals won't be as obviously measurable.
8 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Friday 10/21/11 - 5:40:13 AM EST (GMT-5)
are you saying the family should tag team the sister?
8 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Friday 10/21/11 - 5:42:25 AM EST (GMT-5)
You're not wrong for your opinion, kepi. You're wrong for being unable to accept others' opinions as being correct, also.

The family is the first level of society, so it's already a society in and of itself. The individual is the building block of the family. I guess an analogy that would support you, kepi, w/o totally disregarding the other perspective, is that of a brick home: If the home is society and the bricks are families, the individual is.. whatever the bricks are made of... clay, I guess. Now, technically the home is made of clay... but you're going to get there faster if you're using bricks that have already been formed as opposed to raw clay.
Or consider atoms. They are not the smallest particles, but they are the smallest particles to take on actual elemental identity. The individual is the proton, neutron, electron (I can't work quarks into this analogy).
8 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Friday 10/21/11 - 6:38:34 AM EST (GMT-5)
I think I have a particular hateon for the individual argument because I see it as a strong backdrop for a lot of the social ills that precipitate through our society today. I'm not even particularly fond of the nuclear family system, and prefer the extended family systems because of it. A lot of the hiring practices in the guilded age were implemented to keep labor from having a natural power structure, and therefore the labor movement was weakened as well, and the plight of the worker today is also hindered by this practice of separating family life from work. The individual is strongeest when they're plugged firmly into an extended family network and devaluing that has been to our significant detriment.
8 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Friday 10/21/11 - 7:09:44 AM EST (GMT-5)
Fair enough, but you do recognize that plugging the individual into a family is what constitutes the shift from "fundamental unit" to "society" in the first place, right?
8 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Friday 10/21/11 - 3:48:19 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 10/21/11 - 3:13:24 AM Kepi wrote:
No, it's really not. It's relatively sustainable by comparison. That's really all that matters. Individuals so NOT team up like family does, that's just the truth.


What? Way to not make any sense.

Also... you do realize that their are other collectives OUTSIDE of the family unit that individuals organize themselves into right?

You might have an argument that the family is the fundamental collective in society but not the fundamental unit.
8 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Friday 10/21/11 - 4:12:37 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 10/21/11 - 5:42:25 AM IRLIteach wrote:
You're not wrong for your opinion, kepi. You're wrong for being unable to accept others' opinions as being correct, also.


I maintain that HIS opinion as stated is wrong in itself.

There is an argument that the family the should be seen as the fundamental unit in society in a political sense (see Confuscious)

But Kepi isn't making that argument.
8 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Friday 10/21/11 - 6:37:26 PM EST (GMT-5)
It's totally the fundamental unit. People may organize themselves into other groupings, but outside of fairly catastrophic conditions, they start in the family and receive their most basic human indoctrination. Take a look at humans raised by wolves or otherwise left in the wild from a young age. They're feral, majorly developmentally stunted, and they never really recover. Even organizations that are there to assist orphans or children who're unwanted/unable to be cared for are set up to mimic families. There's just never a point where you can have a society without family. Individuals may make up the families, but take a look at IRL's example, a brick isn't a house, a proton is not the same as an atom. While individuals are significant, they're only significant within the context of a greater society, and the basic unit therein is family.

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next (showing 1-25 of 80)



You need to be logged in to post a reply

New to YT? Create a Free Account ~ Have an Account? Log In

Top



10 Most Popular Questions Today
1 If a defendant is found `not guilty`, do you assume that they are innocent?

2 Should transgender people use the bathroom of the gender on their birth certificates, or by what gender they most look like?

3 Have you ever gotten a small loan of a million dollars?

4 Have you ever been in a fist fight before?

5 Is Rock and Roll here to stay?

6 Would you rather have no elbows or no knees?

7 Do you think Donald Trump will become the president of the United States?

8 Is Squidward`s skin color blue or green?

9 Has anyone from youthink ever been on Jeopardy?

10 Are you a dedicated follower of fashion?

More Questions
Friends
Daily Moment of Joy
Personality Quizzes
Funny Videos
I-Am-Bored.com
Free IQ Test
The Impossible Quiz
Intelligence Test
Relationship Test
Doodie Cartoons
 
Edit