LAW VS. MORAL VALUES

@aidan,

aidan wrote:
PQ said:

Quote:

I'm culturally conditioned to find the judgement of it more offensive than the act.

Quote:

I am too. And the funny thing is that the aspect of my particular culture which had the most influence in conditioning me to do that, is the church I went to-not the generation I belong to- which is the one before yours PQ.

I'm sitting here laughing as I type that (though it's totally true) because I know that people won't believe that because it doesn't fit their prescribed notion of who and what influences people to be either tolerant or judgmental.

To be honest though, I think in the main, it's a function of personality moreso than anything else. And by that I mean that two people can be exposed to the same cultural conditioning and react totally differently, because I believe that some personalities NEED to be able to measure and compare and mete out judgment while others would rather not and in fact find it uncomfortable to do so.

Which goes back to William's treatise on discrimination.
I think there's a difference in being discriminating and discriminatory.

In the deathless words of Marilyn, my ex-girlfriend:
" take the best and leave the rest."

aidan wrote:

Quote:

So judgment and discrimination are necessary. Everything SHOULDN'T be tolerated.

Hence, the need for self-defense.

David

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I went to a state university ...

Interesting.

I only went to state universities. There were no prayers - it were, as said STATE universities.
In all five universities I studied at, you got beer in the 'mensa' (cafeteria), all had pubs included in the cafeteria buildings (open only during lunch time and then again in the evening).
At one university, we had a totally right-wing nut, teaching political sciences.
No-one went to his lectures etc (we tried to get the exams via other topics in political science department and/or from a different university). He later committed suicide I've read.

But that was from 1971 onwards ...

2 Replies

@aperson,

Specifically, the group in England who started the bus sign campaign were a humanist organization. I have little to do with organized atheists, unless i happen to enjoy the company of a particular individual, precisely because they make a god of science and a religion of their atheism. In my experience, they understand their god--science--no better than the theists understand theirs.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

I was in college full time in the late 50's, early 60's. My experience was simply different. Things were much different then than they were after the cultural revolution of the 60's.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

I have little to do with organized atheists, unless i happen to enjoy the company of a particular individual, precisely because they make a god of science and a religion of their atheism. In my experience, they understand their god--science--no better than the theists understand theirs.

Very succinct, set.

Walter, would you think it's fair to say most universities are more left wing currently.

1 Reply

@The Pentacle Queen,

The Pentacle Queen wrote:

Walter, would you think it's fair to say most universities are more left wing currently.

Actually, during all our (German) history universities have been left to the average centre - that's why always some were closed in the past.

Your question certainly depends what ask: students, professors, departments/faculties etc etc

The "ideology" in the early 70's of students was certainly more to the left than today: the "program" of the students organisation of some more conservative parties/organisation was nearly identical in those days to that of the so-called student's left in the 90's (to my experience as student in the 70's and lecturer in the 90's. But that's a really very limited experience, since I only have personal experience of a couple of German universities [leaving aside the UK's Open University]).

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I went to a state university ...

Interesting.

I only went to state universities. There were no prayers - it were, as said STATE universities.

Fantastic. I went to public (state, I suppose) schools ending in 1962. Until Madlyne Murry came on the scene, we prayed. Oh boy did we pray.

1 Reply

@roger,

The original question wasn't whether you prayed...

(Let's say this nice...) Were you as chaste as Foxfyre remembers?

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

The issue was not one of chastity though. The point made was the cultural pressures, shared values, etc. related to chastity. A mutually monogamous relationship was the only culturally acceptable one in the 40's 50's early 60's before the cultural revolution. That does not mean that people did not 'violate' the cultural expectations then, but it was not socially acceptable to do so and was not something that one spoke of matter-of-factly or as if it was no big deal. It's sort of like the folks of this generation who would loudly condemn a 'racist remark' however innocuous uttered by a famous person and demand that person's head, but would privately tell a racist joke in their close inner circle.

Still, even though contraceptives were not easily available to young unmarried people and abortion was not commonly considered an option, there were far fewer pregnancies among unmarried teens in the 40's 50's and early 60's. Fear of pregnancy and the shame associated with getting pregnant outside of marriage was an effective deterrent however prudish and strange that sounds to those in the 21st century.

As Williams said, is the high incidence of 'illegitimate' children, a large percentage of which are raised in poverty, are neglected, abused, or otherwise disadvantaged, and millions of abortions, preferable to those old fashioned taboos? And apart from those taboos, what would be a reasonable recommendation as a way to reduce 'illegitimate' pregnancies that result in so many societal problems that we have today?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

Still, even though contraceptives were not easily available to young unmarried people and abortion was not commonly considered an option, there were far fewer pregnancies among unmarried teens in the 40's 50's and early 60's.

I guess all those girls were getting pregnant and married

Teen Birth rates 1940-2006
The highest teen birth rates were from 1948-1963.

1 Reply

@parados,

The teen birthrates you are citing do not distinguish between married teens and unmarried teens. I have asked several of you who keep posting those same statistics to come up with something showing that most of those teen births were outside of marriage. So far nobody has.

Yes, women got married much younger in the 40s and 50s than they do now, and many if not most were engaged not long out of highschool. But pregnancies almost all involved at least a ring and a date if not marriage, and/or a ring and a date were usually quickly produced if an unwanted pregnancy occurred.

The times were simply different then. And the result is that most kids had a mom and a dad at home with measurable social advantages involved in that.

Again:
As Williams said, is the high incidence of 'illegitimate' children, a large percentage of which are raised in poverty, are neglected, abused, or otherwise disadvantaged, and millions of abortions, preferable to those old fashioned taboos? And apart from those taboos, what would be a reasonable recommendation as a way to reduce the high number of 'illegitimate' pregnancies that result in so many societal problems that we have today?

Those must be really uncomfortable questions for some since nobody has presumed to touch them.

5 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

The times were simply different then

finally, a rational observation by foxfyre.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

This is all nonsense. I've pointed out, and supported it with evidence (something you never do), that the teen pregnancy rate was at its highest in the 1950s, and that it has declined ever since. I've also stated, from the same source, that the number of children born out of wedlock has increased, i have no problem acknowledging that. So what? Does that mean that they are somehow worse people than children born to a married couple? As i've pointed out again and again, all we have here is evidence of your prejudice against bastards--it does not constitute evidence that things have changed negatively.

All you have to offer is your unsupported opinion that children are better off living with a mother and father who are married to one another. What evidence do you have that this is so? Apart, of course, from your preference for that scenario--do you have any evidence that such children are better off? Is there any reason to assume that they will be better cared for? Is there any reason to assume they will be less likely to be abused? Is there any evidence that they are likely to better fed, clothed, housed and educated?

We'd all sure like to see some plausible evidence from you--but all we get is your opinion, which is not evidence of anything.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

And the result is that most kids had a mom and a dad at home with measurable social advantages involved in that.

Words have meanings. If there were measurable social advantages, what is the form of measurement? What evidence do you have of this measurement?

2 Replies

@Setanta,

I would also point out that there is a difference between a baby being conceived out of wedlock, and a baby being born out of wedlock. I suspect that social pressure meant that there were fewer of the latter than the former.

Whether this phenomenon had "social benefits" is questionable at best.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

I suspect there are measurable social benefits to being born to an old parent, as well.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

http://www.heritage.org/research/family/cda0306.cfm

http://www.divorcereform.org/crime.html

http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/child-poverty-and-its-consequences

http://www.demography.state.mn.us/resource.html?Id=2272

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_44.htm

2 Replies

@dyslexia,

dyslexia wrote:

Quote:
The times were simply different then
finally, a rational observation by foxfyre.

The 1940s n 50s were my favorite decades.
Life in America had a different flavor.

David

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

And what are those links supposed to show Fox?

I don't see any of them supporting your claim about pregnancy not being as prevalent among unmarried teens in the 1950s as today.

1 Reply

@parados,

I was wondering the same thing. The data in her articles seem to undercut her argument. Not even during the Reagan years did the child poverty rate rise to the level of the late fifties

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/assets/images/cr44_f1.gif

0 Replies

LAW VS. MORAL VALUES

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know