The argument for the family (and small community) is that it is not peaceful and not pleasant.

If you didn't understand the arguements, you really should have gone back and read the entire chapter. The first few paragraphs are interesting, i suppose, but I don't really get how they are relevant. "So in reality, the small groups are in fact peaceful, within themselves." Small groups, maybe, but small communities not so much. They might be relatively peaceful as compared to how they react to the outside world, but you won't find more friction than in a large family. I don't mean to say you won't find more disagreement. I mean to say you won't find more disagreement coming together as often as happens in a family. I'm an egg head. I could, if I chose, completely ignore the existence of the jocks in my high school. It is much more difficult, however, to ignore the jocks that are my two brothers. I might disagree more with the other jocks, but I argue far more with my brothers. "1) The family is not a human institution. You need not be a zoologist to see family structures in nature. These groups also have highly close and altruistic infragroup relations." The family might not be a purely human institution, but this arguement is purely about the human institution of the family. I am sick of all of the semantics debates that go on on this site. 2) For the most part, you just repeat what was said in the paragraph. You're last sentence loses me entirely. 3) Could you look past your atheist rhetoric to see what the author is attempting to say here? Try ignoring the first half of the paragraph and read the second half. 4) So? The point of the fourth paragraph was that your life would be much more interesting and much broader if you spent your time with your neighbors rather than your friends. (Third Paragraph) Your friends are chosen because they are like you in some way. Your neighbors are not chosen at all. "Precisely because he may be anybody he is everybody." So your neighbor is much more likely to be different from you than your friend. (Fourth Paragraph) Maybe that is not to your taste, but you cannot claim that you are made broader by your friends than your neighbors when your neighbors have considerably more variety. 5) Of course it does not need to be. That's the point. It can be, though, and that is the arguement for the small community (like a large family of your immediate neighbors). It is out of our control enough to give us adventures. "Small families and small communities are peaceful." Who said anything about small families? And you've clearly never been in a small community if you think its peaceful. I argue with my brothers more than anyone else. "Take a look at your own family. Do you trust each other with money?" Hell, no. "Do you care for each other?" That's completely beside the point. If I care for someone, there's a much larger chance I'll try to change them. I tried to stop one of my friends from drinking. You think I'm going to try that with a stranger? "Small communities are very peaceful and larger communities tend to be broken down into smaller communities (because that's the way we think)." Small communities are the source of all of the drama in my life, and larger communities are broken down into smaller GROUPS which are the source of most of the stability and comfort in my life. A group is chosen, and a community is not. The fact that you don't see any distinction is a clear indication that you have no idea what was attempted to be conveyed. "You have cited nothing to suggest that small groups are not peaceful." You're an only child, aren't you? The fact that you need this proved at all is absurd. If you look at your own life, I would be willing to bet that you agree the most common source of actual arguement is your family. You might disagree more with other people, but you argue the most with your family (assuming you're close). "It looks a lot like you aren't even arguing for anything." The same guy who wrote the chapter I took this from said that people who don't see the point in something are the last people who ought to attack it. "You seem to like a book and cut and pasted a few bits and pieces and failed to understand that that isn't an argument and certainly doesn't address the topic at hand." Really? Because you failed to understand that it is the topic at hand. You seem to have taken this debate specifically because you don't understand the Pro position. "You may notice when they annoy you more often than you do total strangers because you don't interact all the time with strangers." THAT'S THE POINT!!! FAMILIES ARE BETTER BECAUSE THEY ARE A SOURCE OF ACTUAL CONFILCT (and therefore actual variety) AS OPPOSED TO THEORETICAL CONFLICT!!! Tatarize, I've followed some of your other debates, and I respect you. However, I am a completely tactless debater and I really don't think you should have accepted this debate. There are no hard feelings on this end, and I apologize if there are on your end.