|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: We youth at EvC are in Moral Decline | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Well, I thought I'd open a new topic regarding Buz's claim that we youth "don't have a clue" as to the moral decline we are in.
Buz, care to explain for us?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Hi Schraf,
But of course we are in a moral decline! Morality is subjective, so from some point of view we are in a moral... well, freefall even. You however, from your point of view, just fail to see, and rightly so, how that's bad. After all, one (nondescript) man's moral decline is another woman's / black's / homosexual's / liberal's / etc.'s moral uphill struggle. Anyway, freefall and climbing are just two aspects of the great outdoor sport that life is. Just to reassure you: I'm in your (base)camp. Cheers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5901 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Schraf: Start by getting him to define his terms. Just what is "youth" in this context, anyway?
Quetzal: The Old (but not as old as Coragyps) Fart
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
I may be old, but I can decline as good as any of you young whippersnappers!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5901 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
In fact, I'd be willing to bet us older folks could teach them young puppies a thing or two about declining. Heh - we've had a LOT more practice at moral degeneration than they have...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"In fact, I'd be willing to bet us older folks could teach them young puppies a thing or two about declining. Heh - we've had a LOT more practice at moral degeneration than they have... "
--Yes, but then again, it comes quite naturally to us
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: You are correct, of course! I just thought I'd prod Buzsaw to elaborate on what he felt constituted moral decline, and why it is that the youth are to blame. I'd also like to know if, when he was young, the old people around him were saying the same things about his generation. If so, doesn't it occur to him that this generational conflict has probably been happening for thousands of years? [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-01-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Parasomnium writes:
quote: The problem, of course, is the idea that life is a zero-sum game...that if I treat you equally and with full respect to your ability to live your life the way you see fit, that somehow means that I will be less able to live my life the way I see fit. Now, indeed, there are many such instances in life. The Tragedy of the Commons is a definitive problem. However, when one looks at things like allowing marriage to people of differing race or of the same sex, this does not in any way restrict those who want to marry within the same race or opposite sex. Too many people worry about what other people are doing. ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
quote: What is youth? How's this for the break down? Youth is up to thirty. Thirty to 55 is middle age. Senior is 55 to 70. (Coragyps -- freshman senior) Welcome Seeenyooor Coragyps. Anything after that is elderly/old. However as for my comment on youth/clue, I'd say up to 55. Why? Because the 55 year old baby boomers were beginning their teen years at the beginning of the hippy sixties when the moral, family and spiritual disintegration noticeably emerged and crime began to noticeably increase. I must quickly add though, that the younger one is, the less one would notice the decline by observation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
I forgot to note that the very important drug scene really surfaced noticeably in the decade of the sixties, a significant factor in hyppism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
quote: Now listen up here, you yung yute. Come, let us reeeeeeson together. The following also either ensued or followed as a direct result of the moral decline 1. Single parenhood. (Factual that by and large, children do better with a natural father and mother.)2. Unwanted babies and supposed need to kill the unborn. 3. Divorce, legal hassles clooging up the legal system etc. 4. Rise of need for social welfare resulting in higher taxes. 5. Decline in discipline and behaviour of children. 6. Sexual disease, the worse being aids. Again more tax dollars and social problems. 7. Incidence of drugs, crime and all the ramifications of these. 8. Need for more prisons, policemen and other enforcement personel. 9. Rise in incidence of suicide. 10. Increase in corporate, government and social corruption leading to all kinds of problems and causing financial ruin to many. There's ten to ponder, my fiesty forum friends.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
buzsaw writes:
quote: Strange...during those horrible, evil "Clinton" years, crime dropped to the lowest levels since they started keeping statistics, according to the US Department of Justice:
Violent crime rates have declined since 1994, reaching the lowest level ever recorded by the National Crime Victimization Survey in 2001. Looking at the graph, the violent crime rates were pretty flat during the 70s, declined during early Reagan, increased to previous levels during late Reagan and Bush Sr., then declined dramatically during Clinton, from about 50 victims per 1000 to less than 25. So it would seem that the country does better under "liberal" leadership. We've known this about the financial health of the country (going back to WWII, there have been 5 Democratic presidents and 6 Republicans...the country has always done better under the Democrats than the Republicans...yes, Carter did better than Reagan, whereas as Carter inherited a collapsed economy from Nixon/Ford (or am I the only one that remembers the gas crisis from the early 70s?), Reagan took an economy in recovery and ran it into the ground, handing it off to Bush who created the biggest recession the country had seen, second only to the Great Depression.) "Moral" disintegration? You mean like letting people of different races get married? Removal of homosexuality from the DSM? Admitting that rape can happen inside a marriage? Those things? "Family" disintegration? You mean like kicking gay people out of the house for being gay? You mean like preventing people who love each other from getting married? I fail to see how kicking people out or stopping the creation of families is an example of being for "family values." You still haven't shown any hard evidence as to what this "decline" is. Could you please give a concrete example? ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
buzsaw writes:
quote: So we should get rid of adoption all together? And why the attempt to prevent same-sex couples from having children?
quote: You really think abortion was invented in 1973? By the way...abortion rates are declining. They're at the lowest levels since 1974. They declined during those evil, "liberal" Clinton years. Oh, and European countries with much more "liberal" values have a much lower abortion rate than the United States. It seems if you want to lower the abortion rate, you have to drop the obsessive attitude against sex. That means getting over the idea that education about birth control causes teens to have sex. In fact, the "liberal" European countries have lower rates of teen sex, let alone teen pregnancy.
quote: "Clogging up the legal system"? Oh, please! Does the term "no fault" mean anything to you? It used to be that the only way to get a divorce was to sue for one. It is only when divorce laws became liberalized that it became unnecessary to go to a court to get a divorce.
quote: "Rise of need"? Oh please! The need has always been there. It is only because we responded to it that the welfare system came into being. And note, it has been the single most effective thing at reducing poverty in the country. In the 60s, poverty had been cut in half. It was the collapse of the economy under Nixon in 1973 that caused the poverty rate to become the largest in the industrialized world. And let's not forget that for the 20 years between 1975 and 1995, the value of the money given out in Aid to Families with Dependent Children declined by 40%. Oh, and while we're at it, let's connect this point to a previous one: States with lower welfare benefits have higher out-of-wedlock birthrates. A 1994 Urban Institute study found:
Among low-income single women who were themselves raised in single-parent families, size of welfare benefits has no significant influence on first births, subsequent births, or out-of-wedlock births. This finding was repeated by the University of Wisconsin as well as UCBerkeley in 1994.
quote: Subjective. Please give a concrete example that isn't anecdote.
quote: HIV is a heterosexual disease. Three-quarters of all cases of HIV infection worldwide was through heterosexual sex, according to WHO. It is only in the West that it was primarily through homosexual sex and today, it appears that it's only in the Americas that such is the case (Europe just switched over to primarily heterosexual transmission, joining Africa and Asia.) That said, STD transmission rates declined during the evil, "liberal" Clinton years...about the same time that people's attitudes regarding sex in general and gay sex in particular became more liberalised. Note that AIDS came to the US under Reagan's watch and that he ignored it for half a decade since it was primarily seen in gay men. And think about it: If our culture had not been so obsessed with declaring gay people sick but rather treated them as everybody else, encouraging them to get married, etc., do you really think HIV would have stood a chance?
quote: All declined to their lowest levels during the evil, "liberal" Clinton years.
quote: Most of that is due to the crackdown on drug offenses. What was previously a non-jailable offense (non-violent drug possession) became one that led to incarceration. If we were to liberalize our drug laws, we'd reduce the prison population.
quote: Incorrect. Actually, the suicide rate has been fairly flat for the past 40 years. The big increase happened in 1968 (strange...wasn't that the time Nixon got elected?) It fell a bit during early Reagan but climbed back to previous levels in late Reagan and Bush and the started to decline again during Clinton.
quote: But all of that happened under "conservative" leadership. Remember, Clinton tried to get the Republican Congress to separate the advisory functions from the auditing companies in order to prevent just the sort of conflicts of interest that resulted in things like WorldCom and Enron. In fact, if you look at the history of the last 60 years, you find that the economy has always done better under a Democratic administration than under a Republican one. So in the end, every single one of your examples actually shows you that what we need is to liberalize societal attitudes, not go back to conservative ones. Every time the country swings back to a conservative leadership, the country goes into decline by most measures. Every time it swings liberal, things get better. ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4088 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
I'm not sure where Rrhain got his statistics, but a Google search got me to http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm.
There I find that from 1960 to 1990 the violent crime rate more than tripled. It has reduced since then to more than double what it was in 1960. That's per capita, not total crime, so it's a real increase. To this day I still cannot comprehend the people who suggest that dangerous crime has not increased dramatically since the 50's. It's the weirdest thing. You may be happy, as I am, that blacks are less oppressed, that there are more freedoms for women and minorities, etc., but the fact is times have changed since the 50's, and, if you live in America, you are much more likely to need to lock your doors. Drug use has increased and so has crime. If the standard is Judeo-Christian, then morals have declined since the 50's. Shoot, even when I was a teenager, in the 70's, having Judeo-Christian morals was by far the most approved set of morals. Now, Judeo-Christian morals are not even approved of (as much), much less followed. In the early 70's, I was taught--in public school--that Rome's fall had much to do with the loose morals (I don't remember what that meant to the teacher) of the city of Rome. I can't imagine that being taught now, unless the one moral being discussed was laziness (Roman citizens living in Rome didn't have to work; I understand it was a slave-based economy.) Anyway, I see Schraf's point about decline in racism and sexism, which is good, but I agree wholeheartedly with Buz that the overall "moral decline" has not been good for this nation. Our kids sit in front of electronic screens, whether computer or TV; we are way too prone to gratifying our desires instantly (well, that may be simply because we can, not because we're more prone to); way too many kids are raised in broken homes, and no matter what your opinion of divorce, it hurts kids. And, in my opinion, we also have grown some pretty stupid ideas about the rights of criminals, which means we're a little less likely to be punished for a crime we didn't commit, a little less likely to be overpunished for a crime we did commit, and way more likely to be badly harmed by a criminal who should be dead or in jail.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4088 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
I'd also like to know where Rrhain got his suicide rate statistics. I've been poking around the internet for a few minutes and doing terrible at finding anything.
Home Page - Wesley Mission says that suicide rates among 15-24 year olds has tripled in the last forty years. I assume that's Australia, but they don't say. Another teenager type web site said it's increased more than 200% over the last 40 years in America among 15-24 year olds. Another says Austria suicide rate has increased among men in the last 10 years because of a large increase in the 20-39 age group. I'm not finding real statistics to work with, though. Can anyone help me? Oh, and a graph showed that America was somewhere around 30th in the world (it wasn't numbered and I didn't feel like counting), which eastern bloc countries holding all the top 10. Southern European countries like France and Austria and Hungary were ahead of us, but some terrible weather places like the UK and Sweden were behind us. That's off the subject, though. Wait, wait, wait! Here we go! At http://www.trinity.edu/~mkearl/death-su.html:
In public interviews he noted how in 1998 for every two homicides in the U.S. there were three suicides. Since 1952, the incidence for adolescents and young adults has nearly tripled, and 90% of these cases were due to guns. Each day 86 Americans take their own lives and another 1,500 attempt to do so. Ok, so I think suicides are way up. Can you give a source for disagreeing, Rrhain?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024