LAW VS. MORAL VALUES

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

The article you posted puts the blame on perception.

Yes. As it should.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

I don't think that is irony. It is just looks and feels wierd or foreign to a modern society.

0 Replies

Leaving aside the all too obvious point that Fox is providing nothing but anecdotal claims without a shred of evidence, she apparently either doesn't think the world changes, or doesn't think it should.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

I always wonder what brand of water or whatever some people drink that gives them this clairvoyant ability to presume to know what other people think.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

I said apparently. You have made statements from authority about the crime rate and the behavior of people in the 1940s and -50s, but provided no evidence. Several people have pointed out that the world has changed, but you continue to whine about it. So, it appears--it seems apparent--that you either don't think the world has changed, or don't want it to.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Leaving aside the all too obvious point that Fox is providing nothing but anecdotal claims without a shred of evidence, she apparently either doesn't think the world changes, or doesn't think it should.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Well I lived with the crime rate and behavior of people in the 40's and 50's which was also expressed by Dr. Williams in his essay used to start this thread. It is affirmed by others who have written of those times. The oldest statistics I could find (and posted) started with 1960.

I would appreciate anybody posting statistics from the 40's and 50's if you can find them though.

You need to change the brand of your mind reading potions though because I certainly do not object to change. Many things needed very much to change from the 1940's and 50's and I believe they did. I do not think change purely for the sake of change is necessarily a desirable goal however, and certainly not when the change produces a less satisfying lifestyle than existed before. It is not necessarily a good thing to change everything when what needs correcting is fixed.

0 Replies

In the first place, you have never addressed Walter's cogent observation about the population density of New Mexico now as compared to 1960. In the second place, you are playing your usual game of denying what is patently obvious--this entire thread is an objection to change. If people behaved now as they did in the 1950s, there would be nothing for you or Mr. Williams to whine about. Since the both of you are whining, the inescapable conclusion is that the two of you object to change.

It is incredible to me that you can actually write that you don't object to change, when that is the entire point of this thread. I sometimes wonder if you actually understand the English language.

1 Reply

"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers."

This comment was attributed by Plato to Socrates. These bullshit whines about the decay of morality are literally thousands of years old.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

In the first place I DID address Walter's comment about population growth and expressed my opinion that the percentage of increase in crime rate is much higher than the increase in populaton. And I posted statistics to illustrate that on a national level. I do not have statistics for Albuquerque or New Mexico going back earlier than 1980. There IS no objection to change except in those things considered negatives--increased crime, less secure environment, increased illegitimacy, etc.--despite how much some want inside that those negatives include EVERYTHING.

I'm sorry that you think it is whining to think that increase in crime, being less safe, more worried, a hugely escalated teen pregnancy rate, and more rudeness and incivility are undesirable things.

5 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Expressing your opinion is not the same as providing evidence, and anyone with half a brain knows that national statistics don't translate to regions or states. Given that you haven't demonstrated that there is an increase in crime, or that "the environment" is less secure, there is no reason to accept your claim that this is "negative" change. Your antediluvian attitude to bastardy certainly has no relevance to children in today's world, so an alleged increase in "illegitimacy" is meaningless.

Quote:

. . . despite how much some want inside that those negatives include EVERYTHING.

This sentence fragment is completely incomprehensible, so i won't attempt to answer it.

I think it is whining to claim that there is an increase in crime, that people are less safe or an increase in "rudeness" and "incivility" without being able to demonstrate that that is true. You have not demonstrated that teen pregnancy is "hugely escalated," and even if you had, you have not demonstrated that is a "negative" change in society. As for being more worried, that's hardly something which anyone other than you is responsible for.

0 Replies

From the Wikipedia article on teenage pregnancy:

Quote:

The teenage birth rate in the United States is the highest in the developed world, and the teenage abortion rate is also high. The U.S. teenage pregnancy rate was at a high in the 1950s and has decreased since then, although there has been an increase in births out of wedlock. The teenage pregnancy rate decreased significantly in the 1990s; this decline manifested across all racial groups, although teenagers of African-American and Hispanic descent retain a higher rate, in comparison to that of European-Americans and Asian-Americans. The Guttmacher Institute attributed about 25% of the decline to abstinence and 75% to the effective use of contraceptives. However, in 2006 the teenage birth rate rose for the first time in fourteen years. This could imply that teen pregnancy rates are also on the rise, however the rise could also be due to other sources: a possible decrease in the number of abortions or a decrease in the number of miscarriages, to name a few. j j(emphasis added)

The article is annotated, and the source for the line i have highlighted above is given as the Guttmacher Institute, a not-for-profit organization which works in the area of reproductive health.

EDIT: Click here for the Wikipedia article which i cited above. They give their sources.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

What about lower pollution, greater freedom, better medicine, and higher standards of living?

Further, you haven't really shown that people are less safe, that escalated teen pregnancy is bad, or that there is actually more rudeness and incivility.

You haven't even addressed that this feeling of yours could be nothing more than selective memory on your part:

DrewDad wrote:

http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Positivity-effect

Quote:
...compared with younger adults' memories, older adults' memories are more likely to consist of positive than negative information and more likely to be distorted in a positive direction.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

From Historical Data (the source quoted in the link gives much more information: go to the library):

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

What are we looking at there, Walter?

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

What are we looking at there, Walter?

United States Murder Rate, 1900"1998

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

Sorry. I was a kid in the 50's and there were no inhibitions of any kind on reporting anybody who was behaving improperly. And we did. And I think we had a much better sense of what was right and wrong too, and we were perhaps more naturally inhibited from getting into compromising situations just because of a strong sense of right and wrong. Prudish? Perhaps some of it was. But in a day where abortion was mostly illegal and the schools would never pass out (or even discuss) condoms, teenage pregnancy and/or STD was extremely rare and, as I said, we were safe.

Foxfyre, I find this response-- which you made in the context of the sexual abuse of children, particularly troubling.

First, you seem to be denying that sexual abuse was a significant problem in the 1950's.

This discounts the painful experiences and the brave actions of victims of sexual abuse in your generation-- some of whom, by bravely speaking up, have changed society for the better and probably saved countless kids the pain of living in a society that didn't deal with uncomfortable problems.

Second, you are discounting the important work that has been done in the past few decades to address and counter the problem of sexual abuse.

The fact is that before the social reforms in the 1970s, no one spoke about sexual abuse-- even though, based on the experiences of your peers, it was a painful problem for far too many kids.

Bringing this problem out into the open meant removing the stigma for victims. The problem is still with us, but kids are far less vulnerable and when they are victims, families and victims have many more resources to turn to.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

I think having to remember to lock my door when I go out is a small price to pay to be able to have sex with whoever I want and get free contraception from the NHS. Cool

No, really am joking.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

Sorry. I was a kid in the 50's and there were no inhibitions of any kind on reporting anybody who was behaving improperly. And we did. And I think we had a much better sense of what was right and wrong too, and we were perhaps more naturally inhibited from getting into compromising situations just because of a strong sense of right and wrong. Prudish? Perhaps some of it was. But in a day where abortion was mostly illegal and the schools would never pass out (or even discuss) condoms, teenage pregnancy and/or STD was extremely rare and, as I said, we were safe.

Whose version of knowledge is this?
You're just citing the ideology.
Fair enought to say you were safe, but if sexuality was a taboo and never talked about, then how do you know 'we' were safe?

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

Well that is an entirely different subject than what Williams was talking about, but why should my opinion be troubling? All I am saying is that we weren't as inhibited or dark ages as you seem to think. We did report any improper behavior by adults and social pressure to behave oneself pretty well kept the kids in line. And because most of America was living in rural, small town areas in those days instead of mostly in big cities, neighbors knew neighbors and secrets were hard to keep. Kids who didn't feel like they could explain something to adults would tell other kids and those kids didn't have a problem explaining it to anybody. Mostly we knew who the 'funny uncles' were in town and we knew to stay out of reach. The rare person who was a serious danger to kids or anybody else would just somehow decide to leave town.

0 Replies

LAW VS. MORAL VALUES

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know