1) Social and Cultural Anthropology are basically the same thing.  And they're both basically "micro sociology."

2) Yes, I can imagine someone named Ben starting his own counter culture movement.  Afterall, if there are three people stranded on a desert island, are you saying Ben is forced to see things almost exactly the same way as John and Anne's culture wise, just because there are only three of them? 

He can't have different opinions then the other two?  How about an Island of five with two people opposed.  (Cause you know, his son.)

3)  Also again, this isnt' new.  It's essentially just woods based survivalism and isolationism.  So it's not even like this one guy (And his son, so you know... two people) would be creating their own culture or counter culture, but just adopting one that already exists.

...just wanted to say that while i almost always disagree with you i'm in 100% agreement with everything you've said in this thread.  color me surprised.  xD

2. Ben can't have his own counter-culture movement, if he's the only person that's part of it. Culture refers to civilizations/societies, and you can't have a society that only has 1 member.

You're also misunderstanding what culture is. Sharing the same culture as other people doesn't mean 'having the same opinions as other people'. If that were true than people indoctrinated in a certain culture would all be exactly the same, which is obviously not true.

Do you have the same opinions as your parents? Obviously not, but you do share the same culture as they do (language, institutions, basic practices, certain views of the world etc.). Culture refers to fundemental things that build a social universe, not mere 'opinions'.

Funny how in your island examples you always have more than 1 person.

3. Survivalists are people who prepare for potential apocalyptic scenarios. They're the crazy people who build fallout shelters in their backyards. This guy is not a survivalist (we have no information regarding that, plus it's obvious that an apocalypse did not take place 5 years ago).

Isolationism is a policy a country adopts when it decides to isolate itself from the affairs of other nations (no more alliances, economical commitments, international agreements etc.). It does not refer to individual people, and has nothign to do with this topic.

I'd also like to know why you think this guy should've been allowed to break a countries laws (take his son out of school, break several laws regardign child safety etc.), because he decided to become a hermit.

2) A counter culture is a culture that rejects the main culture of society.  IE The majority of their beliefs are different from the main cultures.

3)  No, not all survivalists prepare for apocolyptic scenaios, nor due all isolationists have to do with the affairs of other nations.

Your relying too far on what you can read on wikipedia because you lack any real world expierence.

There are plenty of people who forgoe technology and "move back to the woods..." and in general, Isolation was often seen as a good thing culturally, even in the west before we got so modernized, look at monks and shit.

Aside from which

A) You have no proof he did break any of those laws.

B) Because he isolated himself.  "If you don't like this culture you can move" essentially a xenophobic rightwing statement as you can get... along the lines of "If you don't like America you can move to russia." really only applies if the country is willing to pay for your ticket and if there is free kand available.

Not everyone can afford to just move to another country, and there really aren't ANY countries that follow an isolationist live by yourself belief... nor is there any unclaimed land left on earth. Outside of like, a couple of desert pieces of land which are pretty unhelpful at this point.  Hell even the artic is being heavily claimed by russia right now.

Meaning that by specifically going to unused parts of land that nobody noticed for, for like 5 years, suggests he did about as well as he could have to avoid breaking any laws.

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.

2. A person is free to do that. That doesn't mean that he's starting a counter-culture, because culture only exists on a group level. Culture has no purpose outside of a society (i.e. a group of people).

3. Tribes? You mean groups of people?

Regarding the 'stranded on a desert island' thing, wouldn't it also just be a matter of time?

It seems to me that what you're calling 'survivalists' actually refers to a sort of hippies.

A. The thing is, the boy obviously doesn't want to live in the forest. So the lack of an education (and his extended isolation from social interactions with other humans) won't be easy to overcome. It's also irrelevant that in the past mass schooling wasn't practiced. It's a necessity in contemporary society.

Regarding that police report thing, you are aware that that's just a sign that this whole story is bogus, no? There's simply no way that could be true if he had spent the last 5 years in a forest. But for the sake of argument, we'll just overlook that one.

A2. Ignoring what I said above, isn't the fact that he has no memories of his life before the forest a sign of abuse. I assume perfectly balanced individuals don't forget usually extended parts of their life, no?

B. Just because minorities shouldn't be allowed to do whatever they want (e.g. human sacrifices), doesn't mean their views aren't respected.

Forcing a child to forgoe an education is considered abuse in our society, and also provable. It's simply impossible to properly fuction in a society if don't have a minimal level of education (e.g. if you can't read, it's unlikely you'll find any kind of job, not to mention that most jobs these days require a high school diploma).

B2. Yes, this surely is so probable. *rolls eyes*

I also am quite sure that any social worker would deem 'the forest' an unfit environment to raise a child (and there's also the education thing). Not to mention that you are essentially saying that a person can do whatever he wants , and if that thing is illegal (i.e. vandalize a a store) he can just say he's 'rejecting the dominant culture' and is now a minority and can't be touched. You are aware that the world isn't the Libertarian dystopia of your dreams, no?

A) Says who?  The only reason he left the forrest was the death of his father which was likely quite sudden.   Kid was 17.  If he wanted to not live in the forest he eaisly could of just left and found his way back to society.  Like you know... he did after his father died.

Also... no that isn't a sign that it's definitaly bogus.  Soap dates back to Ancient Babylon.  Someone well trained enough could eaisly make their own soap, live in a tent and wash their own clothes and appear just as clean as someone living in regular society.

A2)  Somwhat hippes, but not really since hippes don't reject most technology.  Hippies just care more about respected the land.  With Isolationists, it's more "Modern technology is a corruption of evolution, makes you weak and is unreliable by coddling us and making us unable to deal with real problems without it... or sometimes even with it."

B)  Then prove it... so far your proof is "Illeterates can't get jobs."  Except, they can... you have no proof he was an illerate and if he was at 12... chances are school wasn't doing him any good anyway.... oh yeah and THEY WEREN'T PLANNING TO LIVE IN MODERN SOCIETY.

B2) Again with the appeal to authority.... I guess when people ruled that "black people weren't fit to vote" that was perfectly ok then?  What makes respecting this man's desire any different then a specific ethnic groups desires to do the same?  I'm not talking about "Anyone should be able to do what they like."   I'm asking why someone is restricted from doing something with no proveable harm, that other groups of people do get to do, based apparently soley on there being more then two of them.

You've yet to prove any actual damage done to the kid while living in the forest, largely because you don't even know what it was like living in the forest... and considering the above thing about how clean he was... you probably don't even think he lived in the forest at all.

If we're going to do deductive jump to conclusions reasoning... we now have only two cases.

A) The Boy, who was perfectly clean, was either making this up... or

B) The Boy, after his father died, buried him in a shallow grave, and walked and survived all the way to Berlin, while keeping himself as clean as an ordinary person, with no signs of abuse or malnutrition.

Possibly all the way from Czechlsovakia if you believe the German police who think he likely came from Czech Republic via the Bavarian National Forest... and up to a year ago since the police are asking for info on any bodies found in the woods for the last year.

Seems like his father was teaching him SOMETHING.

Do you think he really has less knowledge then your average 15 year old? 

Hell, do you even know what the penatly is for holding your kid out of school in Germany or Czech? 

As far as I can tell... custody can't be removed for it.

I think you mixed up what points you were answering, because they don't add up.

A. Or he didn't let the kid leave. You know, crazy unstable people are capable of forcing poor impressionable children to do what they want.

B. Education wasn't doing him any good?

B2. Well fine, let's just let parents beat their kids to death. And what's thie 'two of them' you talk about? Do you have any proof the son wanted to live in a forest? Considering that the first thing he did after his father died was to go back to civilization, it's pretty clear he didn't wanna spend his life in forest.

And I repeat, is the fact that he has memory problems not an indicator that he's suffered some form of abuse abuse?

There's also a third possibility: the old man died (or the boy killed him), the boy was happy that he was finally free and got as fast as he could back to scoiety.

And I'm quite sure the average 15-year-old does have more knowledge than him.

Oh, and when a parent is mentally unstable, that is grounds for losing custody.

A)  He stopped him from leaving.... how exactly?  He's one person.  One person tends to need to sleep, and the father couldn't spend eternity watching him, outside the fact that you know, the boy was clearly trained how to survive based on his condition.

B)  Not if he wasn't living in a modern society.  Aside from which "Taking away something that helps your kid" isn't child abuse.   Considering though that "his father taught him how to read".  Doesn't sound like it was doing him any good.

B2)  You've yet to show any abuse.  Do you have any proof he DIDN'T want to?  Looking at the post below, it looks like he wants to go back now.

If you actually paid attention to the story you were making a snap judgement on, you'd note the fact that the Father said "If anything happens to me and there is an emergency, go North and get help."

I'd guess that's why he went north to get help.  Who knows why the dad told him that, or what the dad planned on doing in the woods, or if he planned to get others to go with him or not.  Noone knows.

To suggest he should lose his kid just because he wanted to live in the woods with his son is ridiculious.

C) His Amneisa is about the time before he was in the woods.  So.... no... no it doesn't. 

If anything, it suggests that the death of his mother is what caused his memory loss.  In such cases it's even possible to lose reading and writing skills.  Hence MAYBE why his father had to teach a 13 year old to read, who knows though.

D) Lets put the average 15 year old in the woods, and see how clean they come out... if they come out of the woods at all.  Considering how many adults aren't "Smarter then a 5th grader" i think you overestimate how much knowledge is retained by the average person.

E) You have no proof he went insane.  Again you took "Went into the woods after his wife died" as "He went crazy and took his child into the woods."   How do you know that he didn't always want to do that, but his wife didn't, and after she died, he thought it'd be a good way for the family to heal.

You don't because your quite literally pulling stuff out of your ass to fit your worst case scenario sitaution.

I don't know the situation either, the difference is... I'm not trying to judge someone or instantly take away their children assuming that ANYONE that wants to live in the woods away from technology is some insane person who should be locked away.   (Even though, I personally find such an idea crazy, cause technology rules.)