Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-10-2017, 08:15 PM
 
Location: New York Area
35,045 posts, read 16,987,357 times
Reputation: 30163

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
I'd agree with you...if roughly half the straight marriages in this country didn't end in divorce. But since you feel that the strong family unit is what ensures an orderly process for creating and raising children, then I assume that you believe that children should be taken away from parents who divorce since that makes a negative environment, thus harming the well-being of children.
No I don't think so, obviously. But then there is the half that don't end in the divorce. They set a form of a norm. Where most of the family units are formed by freely copulating feral teens the role model is different.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-10-2017, 09:21 PM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
50,787 posts, read 24,289,888 times
Reputation: 32929
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
No I don't think so, obviously. But then there is the half that don't end in the divorce. They set a form of a norm. Where most of the family units are formed by freely copulating feral teens the role model is different.
Well actually half of anything isn't "the norm" by definition.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2017, 09:37 PM
 
8,011 posts, read 8,204,945 times
Reputation: 12159
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
No I don't think so, obviously. But then there is the half that don't end in the divorce. They set a form of a norm. Where most of the family units are formed by freely copulating feral teens the role model is different.
I don't think you personally know any teens. Hell parents wish they were half as feral as when they were teens. Certainly not like when I was teen. Anyway your view of modern society seems to be tempered by cynicism causing you to over exaggerate modern societies ills while putting the past on a pedestal.


Then there is your constant obsession with inner-city youths. Lord knows I live in a low-cost rural areas and it isn't pretty out here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2017, 10:54 PM
 
Location: St. Louis Park, MN
7,733 posts, read 6,455,143 times
Reputation: 10399
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
It's about weakening the family unit. Marriage has a primary reason; to ensure an orderly process for creating and raising children. If forms of couples that can't possibly create children are thrown into the mix it's a dilution. As for same-sex couples adopting children, I don't believe in experimenting with the psychological well-being of children for the sake of making a point.
You've gotta be kidding me. First of all, not everyone who marries, including heterosexuals, has kids.
Second of all... adopting kids isn't "experimenting with their well being" it's giving kids a loving home. I am not any less fit to raise children just because I am married to another man. There's a lot of gay couples who make better parents than straight couples. I have a gay married friend who has kids, none were adopted though, he used to be married to a woman. I am pretty sure his family is not an "experiment."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2017, 08:41 AM
 
Location: moved
13,646 posts, read 9,706,599 times
Reputation: 23478
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
It's about weakening the family unit. Marriage has a primary reason; to ensure an orderly process for creating and raising children. If forms of couples that can't possibly create children are thrown into the mix it's a dilution. As for same-sex couples adopting children, I don't believe in experimenting with the psychological well-being of children for the sake of making a point.
"Experimentation" aside, are you asserting that child-free (by choice) people shouldn't marry?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2017, 08:52 AM
 
Location: Washington, DC
4,320 posts, read 5,136,926 times
Reputation: 8277
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY_refugee87 View Post
Here's the problem with what I see in modern times and it all started back to grade school.

Progressive values made society weaker. In what... 1st or 2nd grade?, there was a presentation given by a lady who claimed if your parents spanked you or used a belt on you for discipline it was "abuse" and they gave us a list of phone numbers to use.

My parents were old school in how they raised me and my little sister.
I see today people who are around my age +/- 10 years, unfit to raise a puppy, having kids. These kids jump around in restaurant booths scream and carry on like they're at a gymnasium. No. If I did that, you'd get cuffed upside your head, hand placed over your mouth and locked inside the car to eat to not disturb the other patrons in the restaurant. Therfore you didn't act out like a spider monkey on bathsalts.

Middle school times, they preached more about "rights and equality". There was more emphasis on "discipline" based around what is offensive.
Ok. what's more harmful to education? In school suspension for offending someone, or allowing 2 kids to duke it out at lunch to settle their score? ISS was the "punishment" which kept kids from attending class. They were issued homework still, but you were to sit quietly the whole day in a room with other kids who also had less than favorable behavior.

9/11 occurs...

What follows, lock down drills. What's a lock down drill? Well it's when it was revealed terrorist cells may attempt school shootings.
My school's lock down drill. Sound the alarm, a message was broad cast over the intercom system to get to cover immediately. Kids closest to Windows shut the blinds and the teacher would tell us to lay on the floor, the teacher would sprint to the door and lock it. The doors had a big pane of glass. Teachers desk was in the front of the room adjacent to the door. Teacher locked the door and joined us on the floor. 10 minutes later police sirens were heard, along with ambulance sirens. 15 minutes and you could hear boots running down the hall way and the occasion bark from a K9.

After the first lock down drill occurred and we assembled in the auditorium I asked a legitimate question
"I have a problem with this drill. How exactly does making us all sitting ducks face down on the floor protect us? How? What is the teacher going to do? Chuck Norris spin kick an attacker once they break the glass and unlock the door? We are all there prime rib to a pitbull. I think the teachers should be able to carry concealed and hide behind their desk tell us to plug our ears and unload at whoever tries to break through that door"
It got many people upset and subsequently for suggesting that, I was once again, in ISS. That was 14 15 years ago?

So progressive liberals I ask, do gun free zones do anything to stop a criminal who is intent on extinguishing life from shooting a school? No it does not.

Does harsh punishments for kids and removing them from class help or hurt them because social justice is more important than knowing algebra, the history of the world, the history of the United States, or how to compose a paragraph? Apparently so, and apparently "feelings" and what is subjectively "right" is more valued than an education. I have a problem with this.

My sophomore year in highschool, the school took my idea on introducing an armed element. They didn't arm the teachers. No no, they had two (2) state troopers brought in, called them "Student Resource Officers". They were opportunistic, and wrote alot of tickets in the student parking lot. Those of us who had lifted trucks, would park on top of snow banks in the winter. They'd write tickets, and have our trucks towed. Joke on them, I knew the owner of the tow company that was dispatched. His son and I were best friends. End of the day he'd drop the truck off at the end of the parking lot
They'd write us tickets for loud exhaust. Fix it ticket so pull the glass packs off and put on a beer keg muffler, go to the town hall, had the judge and officer there sign off. Go home, pull the mufflers off put the glass packs back on.

Parents, they need to parent. Don't neuter the parents ability to discipline their child. Do you really honestly believe that taking the power cord to little Johnnie's video game for a week is punishment? HAHAHA no. I was one of the last of my generation who didn't grow up with video games. Except for desktop computer games. And it was limited use. I played outside. Contrary to popular belief, kids aren't made of glass. I fell off of my bicycles many times. Built jumps in the back yard, skinned my knees and elbows, knocked teeth loose. You fall, you get back up. Go get a band aid and go back out to keep playing. I doubt you see that anymore. Now it's rush little Johnny to the emergency room OMG he's hurt. It's true. I've been to the emergency room for legitimate emergencies. Who's clogging up the emergency room? Unfit parents with a toddler who has an ear infection.

My teenage years I spent on quads dirtbikes snowmobiles snow boarding and building and racing stock cars. Learned from alot of the "old timers" how to weld etc. I worked in trades after school, weekends and summer break saving money. I grew up with a gun cabinet in the house. The ammo was locked in the bottom of the cabinet. If I wanted to shoot, I'd ask. If I ever once "played" with a gun, a stern lecture wasn't all I received. Then again since age 5 I've been shooting.

My teenage/highschool years, I got along with almost everybody. I was an anti bully. The dorks, the geeks, the nerds, they used to get bullied and bullied ruthlessly by guys on the varsity and junior varsity football team. You'd hear the "jocks" shout sarcastically OOPS as they'd shoulder bump these kids half their size into a locker. Or they would call them "gay" or throw stuff at them at lunch. That didn't fly with me. I also struggled in math so I saw an opportunity. In exchange for protection, they helped tutor me, they could "dumb" it down for me during study hall. Where the teacher would say they aren't going to waste that time on a problem to tie up the class. Math became one of my best performing classes. Right next to US history, shop classes, and physics (got kicked out of chemistry class. )

If someone gave them a hard time, I'd talk to them at practice. We had scrimmage matches with varsity team Wednesday or Thursday night. The older and bigger bullies, that's when I'd deal with them. They didn't get the hint to back off or laughed in my face about it. The following play, hit them as hard as possible in hitting drills or dirty in a scrimmage, and go for the knees and ruin their Friday or Saturday night. Watch them sit injured on the bench.

That myth to "privilege" sort of existed, as they'd go on with a tiny slap on the wrist, unless the athletic director caught wind of it. Athletic director viewed us and held us to a higher standard, for we were ambassadors of the school. Bad behavior at away games resulted in harsh punishments, bad behavior or poor grades (you needed a B average to be on the team) resulted in review on whether or not you'd turn in your gear and jersey.

Would it come to anyone's surprise, the nerds geeks etc I protected, and conned their parents into thinking they were spending the night to help me study, when in reality I brought them to parties up in the woods... became my investment advisor/stock broker, lawyer, and in other helpful successful endeavors? Politics aside, sexual preference aside, they still to this day, are some of my closest friends.

I'm not the typical millenial. I fought hard against what the teachers were "teaching" I mocked their utopian outlook, and in college... Oh man... a few general electives that were mandatory, well... I outright called the professors out during their lectures and threw their whole "acceptance and tollerance to all" right back in their face.
"You want campus cops to remove me from this class for a difference in outlook? You prove my point for me that your political ideology is a farce and that you are far from accepting and tollerant to all, especially ideas" I literally made one professor have a break down and cancel their lecture, and had to sit before the dean and other administrators to explain my actions facing expulsion.
Luckily for me, I don't succumb to emotional rants or tirades. I argue facts and logic. I embarrassed that professor at their own game.

My words were in front of the dean, who was a man of color, "practice what you preach. Your mentality and animosity towards me and others in that lecture hall, is befitting that of a racist. You fear what is foreign or different than you, and have a bias, a prejudice against us. Fear breeds hate. Hate breeds evil. It would do you well to take what everyone has to say and argue what you teach/preach" again that professor about had another meltdown and broke out with the crocodile tears and once again succumbed to emotion making their argument and proving my point to the dean. Sometimes the jokes write themselves and sometimes, you can give your adversary enough rope to hang themselves.
Something like this^^^^ is what Las Vegas investigators would expect to find from Stephen Paddock. Get out of your head man.

Last edited by Back to NE; 10-11-2017 at 08:52 AM.. Reason: .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2017, 08:55 AM
 
Location: New York Area
35,045 posts, read 16,987,357 times
Reputation: 30163
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
Well actually half of anything isn't "the norm" by definition.
Except that in that situation most teens would have friends who are in intact families even if theirs is not. Also, when children from intact families have more options in jobs and colleges it would educate others to consider remarriage. I agree that the "Ozzie and Harriet" days were not ideal. Women were too dependent on often dominating if not abusive husbands. But there should be a balance, a mid-point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ro2113 View Post
I don't think you personally know any teens.
My children are just turned 20 and 21 1/2. They were teens within my very recent memory. My wife and I are happily married. My children have no children (that I know of )

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ro2113 View Post
Hell parents wish they were half as feral as when they were teens. Certainly not like when I was teen. Anyway your view of modern society seems to be tempered by cynicism causing you to over exaggerate modern societies ills while putting the past on a pedestal.
See my response to phetaroi above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ro2113 View Post
Then there is your constant obsession with inner-city youths. Lord knows I live in a low-cost rural areas and it isn't pretty out here.
My so-called "constant obsession" is that others, including myself, pay for increased welfare and other subsidies, and policing. When an "inner city male" fathers multiple children through multiple women it's us who wind up footing the bill, even if the "father" goes off to jail for some robbery, drug dealing or other crime.

See The Other Wes Moore: One Name, Two Fates by Wes Moore. Two kids with the same name lived in the same decaying city. The book author went on to be a Rhodes Scholar, decorated combat veteran, White House Fellow, and business leader. The other is serving a life sentence in prison. The book revolves around their life stories and ultimate meeting when the successful Wes Moore visited the other in prison.

Are you really going to tell me these are isolated occurrences?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2017, 08:58 AM
 
8,011 posts, read 8,204,945 times
Reputation: 12159
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
Except that in that situation most teens would have friends who are in intact families even if theirs is not. Also, when children from intact families have more options in jobs and colleges it would educate others to consider remarriage. I agree that the "Ozzie and Harriet" days were not ideal. Women were too dependent on often dominating if not abusive husbands. But there should be a balance, a mid-point.

My so-called "constant obsession" is that others, including myself, pay for increased welfare and other subsidies, and policing. When an "inner city male" fathers multiple children through multiple women it's us who wind up footing the bill, even if the "father" goes off to jail for some robbery, drug dealing or other crime.

See The Other Wes Moore: One Name, Two Fates by Wes Moore. Two kids with the same name lived in the same decaying city. The book author went on to be a Rhodes Scholar, decorated combat veteran, White House Fellow, and business leader. The other is serving a life sentence in prison. The book revolves around their life stories and ultimate meeting when the successful Wes Moore visited the other in prison.

Are you really going to tell me these are isolated occurrences?
Again you should really take a trip out to the rural area where I live as well as many rural areas in the country. You'll see this isn't only an inner city problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2017, 09:01 AM
 
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,470,414 times
Reputation: 12187
I see history as cyclical, see sawing between extremes but always returning to the middle. In the 1950s no one in the majority population questioned the American creation myth and anything negative was swept under the rug. Since then it's been moving the other direction and now we've reached the other extreme where young people often people the US is uniquely evil and is the only nation to ever have slavery or steal land from weaker neighbors. Neither extreme is healthy or accurate. I am confident that soon things will return to the mean.

By the same token the 1950s appeared to have ideal nuclear families because people stayed in terrible marriages and everyone focused on image. Many women (including my mom and many aunts) where beat to a pulp and constantly cheated on by their husbands because society said "stand by your man". None of siblings or myself were born out of wedlock but our childhoods were hell. Today people are more open about their flaws and don't hide the fact that they only want sex. Again, neither extreme is good.

I agree with JBG on Trump and Obama. Both were at other extremes, only difference being Obama was a polite and well mannered extremist while Trump is a bull in a china shop. I think America needs another Eisenhower, a boring moderate who gets things done. Would have been a great time to have a John Kasich or Jim Webb as president.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2017, 09:05 AM
 
Location: New York Area
35,045 posts, read 16,987,357 times
Reputation: 30163
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
It's about weakening the family unit. Marriage has a primary reason; to ensure an orderly process for creating and raising children. If forms of couples that can't possibly create children are thrown into the mix it's a dilution. As for same-sex couples adopting children, I don't believe in experimenting with the psychological well-being of children for the sake of making a point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadgerFilms View Post
You've gotta be kidding me. First of all, not everyone who marries, including heterosexuals, has kids.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant View Post
"Experimentation" aside, are you asserting that child-free (by choice) people shouldn't marry?
I said "primary" reason for marriage, not sole reason. Please don't put words in my mouth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadgerFilms View Post
Second of all... adopting kids isn't "experimenting with their well being" it's giving kids a loving home. I am not any less fit to raise children just because I am married to another man. There's a lot of gay couples who make better parents than straight couples. I have a gay married friend who has kids, none were adopted though, he used to be married to a woman. I am pretty sure his family is not an "experiment."
Children, for generations, have been raised by mixed-gender families, some nuclear, some extended. Seeing different genders and their roles is educational. I don't know why anyone in their right mind would voluntarily experiment with "alternative."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:54 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top