sapphi_snake said:
2. I thought we had already established that. 3. That's what those terms refer to. Maybe there is a subculture that behaves the way you describe, however it doesn't go by the name of 'survivalist' or 'isolationist'. If such a subculture is documented, please present proof. Isolation has only been seen as a good thing in relation to religion. In some places in the world, A. Well, if this case isn't all one big joke like balloon boy, we know that he took his 12-year-old son, and made him live in a forest. In other words, he took him out of school when he was in the 6th grade, which is illegal (he probably still has the intellect of a 12-year-old, which is a cruel thing to do to someone). That's at least one law broken, and if you add the general living conditions, there are probably otehrs too. Isolating his son from other human beings most likely caused great psychological trauma. B. In a democratic country you're free to oppose norms viewed as abusive, however you can't claim that you reject the country's culture, therefore you no longer have to follow it's laws. Minority may be allowed the possibility to be autonomous at some degree, but even then they won't be allowed full independence to do whatever they want. There needs to be a sort of common ground, else a nation will fall appart. And it's quite certain that an individual can't just decide to isolate himself from society totally (as in, he's not a memeber of any society, isn't subjected to any society's laws). As you yourself said, that can't be done nowadays in any country in the world.If you wanna live 'isolated', then all you need to do is buy some land, put a fence around it to keep any trespassers at bay, arrange for someone to take care of all your affairs in civilization, and simply live there alone and at peace (you'll still be subjected to society's laws though, but it's the closest to 'isolation' one can achieve). This guy did break laws regarding what he did with his son however (it's one thing to live in a forest, but to force a child to live like that, isolate him from society, and deny him the right to get an education is just cruel). There's also the fact that this guy probably went crazy after his wife died, so a sanatorium would've been a more appropriate residence for him. |
2) You obviously haven't understood that, afterall someone is rejecting the majority of their culture... what would you call that? You would say that... the only reason, one person rejecting the majority of their culture isn't valid, is because they're only one person? However if it's two or three it's ok... becuase.. it's two or three people?
3) Tell that to the many indigenous tribes that practice volentary isolation from the modern world? I'm sure they'd be glad to know they don't exist.
Furthermore, no, Isolation isn't only considered good for religious reasons... lots of people choose isolation for non religious reasons. Nor is Isolation really seen as harmful by itself. As there are plenty of cases of people who are stranded on islands who are perfectly healthy mentally when found.
Though yeah, plenty of survivialists DO do that, and not because of Apocolyptic tendencies, it's just not mentioned in the vaguesness of wikiepdia. It's the "Back to the Land" movement of survivalism basically, but not because of apocolyptic tendencies, but just because of the rejection of technology for a love of nature.
A) He's not mentally retarded, he just wasn't in a school. You do know that mass public schooling is only like 200 years old or so right? There were plenty of people who were smart before they needed schooling... and exactly how much of what is taught in school is useful for "Live in the woods your entire life". If we took a member of the Coruba tribe, forced them to go to highschool, do you really think it'd do much of anything for them compaired to living those years in the forest.
The Police reports say he didn't have any body odor, was completely clean and his clothes were competely clean when he reached civilization. How many 17 year olds do you think could accomplish that after spending 6 days in the woods alone?
A2) Police reports indicate no signs of abuse, isolation is not shown to have negative effects psychologically.
Neither has full solitude for that matter. The only times Solitude tends to drive people crazy is when they have NOTHING to spend their time on. IE keeping someone locked in a box alone with nothing to do like solitary confinement in jails.
B) In otherwords, your saying in fact you don't think minority views and culture should be respected at all then. What's considered to be abusive, and what can be proven to abusive are two very differnt things. That forcing a child to forgoe an education is abuse or cruel is just an opinion, there is no real proof that such a thing is abusive.
B2) Again, subjective. For all you know, the guy could of wanted to live in the forest with his son BEFORE his wife died, but the wife loved technology so much. It's like saying someone left to live in San Diego after their mother died because they couldn't stand to live in Chicago anymore, expcept.... maybe they planned to move to San Diego well before then, but didn't because they had responsibilties to take care of with their mother.
You've simply rushed headlong into a snap judgement based on a small news article, TONS of conjecture and little to zero expertise in the field.
