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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 04-12-2009, 06:35 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 13,761,828 times
Reputation: 4539

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by rickmahorn View Post
Your 'general trends' are not actually backed up by facts. These are only your opinions on current culture.

Crime rate claim
United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2007

As you can see in the chart in the link, the US has seen a decrease in the crime rate in nearly every year since 1990. In 2007, the crime rate was the lowest it has been since 1969. If we are to use crime rates as a metric for 'morality', then the current generation would be morally superior.
Alright. That said, crime doubled between the late 70's and mid 90's.


Quote:
Originally Posted by rickmahorn View Post
Teen pregnancy claim
Teen Birth Rate Rises in U.S., Reversing a 14-Year Decline - washingtonpost.com

As you can see in the link above, there has been a steady decline in teen pregnancy rates since 1991 (though there has been a slight increase the last couple years).

As you can see from the chart above. The 1950's and 1960's had the highest rate of teenage pregnancies. If you insist on using this as a metric, then the current generation would be morally superior to previous generations.
Those statistics indicate births to 15-19 year olds. What about 13-14 year olds? I'd bet anything they are FAR higher now. I'd even bet the 15/16 part of the 15-19 is higher now.

Back in the 50's and 60's it was not uncommon for 18 and 19 year old girls to be married and intentionally starting families...making the statistics very flawed.

Your very own chart shows that 10% of teen girls who were pregnant in the 50's and 60's were unmarried...90% were married. Today it shows that 85% are unmarried.

Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 04-12-2009 at 08:02 AM..

 
Old 04-12-2009, 06:36 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 13,761,828 times
Reputation: 4539
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickmahorn View Post
I am going to address this one with facts as well:

Drug use claim
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus08.pdf#067

As you can see in the chart in the link above, 2007 saw much lower drug use than in 1980. 1990 did do a bit better on Marijuana and Cocaine, however. Since 1980 (earliest data I could find), there has been a general decline in drug use amongst teenagers. Therefore, if this is a metric for morality, the current generation would appear to be morally superior.

I'm seeing a correlation in declining drug use, declining teen pregnancies, and declining crime rates to another trend in the United States: a decline in allegiance to a certain set of dogmatic doctrines. This is just a personal inference I have made, and by no means am saying that the correlation is conclusive.
What about drug use amongst adults?
 
Old 04-12-2009, 06:38 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 13,761,828 times
Reputation: 4539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbledeez View Post
There is NO evidence that spanking improves behavior. None. Ever. Now there's plenty of evidence showing the negative effects of, the behavioral correlations of, and the long term impact of, spanking. But there's no study that shows how and why spanking is a good thing.
Those studies are EXTREMELY biased. I've seen enough in MY REAL LIFE that no amount of statistics will make me decide to not spank.
 
Old 04-12-2009, 07:31 AM
 
455 posts, read 885,868 times
Reputation: 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
Alright. That said, crime doubled between the late 70's and mid 90's.
False. Your statement is not based on reality. United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2007

"Double" means twice (2 times) as much.


Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
Those statistics indicate births to 15-19 year olds. What about 13-14 year olds? I'd bet anything they are FAR higher now. I'd even bet the 15/16 part of the 15-19 is higher now.
What, in reality (observable world that we live in), would give you that impression? The statistics clearly show that teenage pregnancy has been on a steady decline as time progresses. 1950's and 1960's had the highest amount of teen pregnancies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
Back in the 50's and 60's it was not uncommon for 18 and 19 year old girls to be married and intentionally starting families...making the statistics very flawed.
Teenagers are teenagers irregardless if they are married or not. You are inferring that teen pregnancies only are indices of immorality when teenagers are not married? Is teen marriage a sign of morality to you?

Your argument is extremely weak. All of your statements are qualitative rather than based on objective reality. Don't make claims(especially ones that can be tested) purely because they sound good to you.
 
Old 04-12-2009, 07:36 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 13,761,828 times
Reputation: 4539
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickmahorn View Post
False. Your statement is not based on reality. United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2007

"Double" means twice (2 times) as much..
1,085,550 in 1978. 1,932,270 in 1992.


Quote:
Originally Posted by rickmahorn View Post
What, in reality (observable world that we live in), would give you that impression? The statistics clearly show that teenage pregnancy has been on a steady decline as time progresses. 1950's and 1960's had the highest amount of teen pregnancies.

Teenagers are teenagers irregardless if they are married or not. You are inferring that teen pregnancies only are indices of immorality when teenagers are not married? Is teen marriage a sign of morality to you?
I'm not advocating teenagers being married. At the same time, there's a big difference between a "knocked up" situation and starting a family.

An 18/19 year old back in the 50's or 60's could get a good job with just a high school diploma and actually support a family. Today, they can't. They have to have education beyond high school.

There are 2 differences here:

1. Unintentional pregnancy vs. intentional pregnancy

2. Ability to support the result of the pregnancy vs. inability to support the result of the pregnancy

My mother had her first child at the age of 19 back in 1966. She was married. Things were drastically diferent then. That situation was workable...today it's not.

Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 04-12-2009 at 07:49 AM..
 
Old 04-12-2009, 07:36 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,523,609 times
Reputation: 35864
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbledeez View Post
There is NO evidence that spanking improves behavior. None. Ever.
This is simply not true. There is evidence, if you do not rely on the anti-spanking brigade to look for it for you. From Wikipedia:

However, a 2006 study in New Zealand has shown that children who were physically punished in a mild way, including light open hand spanking on a clothed bottom or leg, came out the same or slightly better than those who were never punished physically.[24] This N.Z. study specifically criticized several previous studies which did not distinguish between different degrees of physical punishment, and argued that such studies are biased from the outset to favour non-physical methods of child discipline.

Most studies conducted with the purpose of showing the effects of physical punishment have been criticized as lacking neutrality, and of being carried out by individuals who had an "agenda" and were trying to "prove something."


Personally, I swatted all my children occasionally, and it had what seemed to me to be positive effect. There is a reason for that positive effect. First of all, I never spanked a child in a way that would cause physical harm or even pain, so the swat never evinced fear or terror, and never learned that I would use fear or terror as a tool. Since spanking is a well-recognized phenomenon in our cultural lore, and children know that the objective of spanking is punishment, a modest swat on the behind tells the kids that they've done something their parent disapproves of, and is symbolic punishment. In a healthy functional family, the children in general desire the approval and the good graces of their parents, and a peremptory swat when things have gone too far serves to remind children what the boundaries are. In many cases a frown will work, but sometimes the gesture needs to be more immediate and compelling. Usually, they ran away laughing, but they got the message.

Sadly, the studies regaled by the anti-spanking league put the bar where it best served their purposes, lumping me in with the drunken sociopaths, and statistically, those like me could not neutralize the ones who terrorized their children.

Last edited by jtur88; 04-12-2009 at 08:07 AM..
 
Old 04-12-2009, 07:42 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 13,761,828 times
Reputation: 4539
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
This is simply not true. There is evidence, if you do not relay on the anti-spanking brigade to look for it for you. From Wikipedia:

However, a 2006 study in New Zealand has shown that children who were physically punished in a mild way, including light open hand spanking on a clothed bottom or leg, came out the same or slightly better than those who were never punished physically.[24] This N.Z. study specifically criticized several previous studies which did not distinguish between different degrees of physical punishment, and argued that such studies are biased from the outset to favour non-physical methods of child discipline.

Most studies conducted with the purpose of showing the effects of physical punishment have been criticized as lacking neutrality, and of being carried out by individuals who had an "agenda" and were trying to "prove something."
The first thing you've said that I actually agree with.
 
Old 04-12-2009, 07:46 AM
 
Location: Eastern time zone
4,469 posts, read 6,159,738 times
Reputation: 3481
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
For example, 16-year-old Suzie gets pregnant. She takes responsibility for her actions by not having an abortion and by getting a job and paying for medical care associated with pregnancy and eventually for supporting her child. She also takes responsibility by staying in school.

Her parents do the moral thing by helping her by babysitting while she is at work and school, allowing her and her child to live with them, and helping with finances if Suzie is trying. Her boyfriend also does the moral thing by getting a job and helping as well. Her boyfriend's parents also do the moral thing and help.

See how that works? Suzie is held responsible and accountable, yet her parents, her boyfriend, and her boyfriend's parents help.

Hold the phone here.
SUZIE is "held responsible" and HER BOYFRIEND gets to "help", which implies a far lesser responsibility and perhaps that his whole part in this is optional, only necessitated by his greater moral fiber.

This only works if Suzie got knocked up by someone other than her boyfriend, otherwise you have one ginormous double standard here.
 
Old 04-12-2009, 07:48 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 13,761,828 times
Reputation: 4539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aconite View Post
Hold the phone here.
SUZIE is "held responsible" and HER BOYFRIEND gets to "help", which implies a far lesser responsibility and perhaps that his whole part in this is optional, only necessitated by his greater moral fiber.

This only works if Suzie got knocked up by someone other than her boyfriend, otherwise you have one ginormous double standard here.
I should have phrased it differently. Suzie and her boyfriend take responsibility and THEIR parents help THEM. I apologize.
 
Old 04-12-2009, 07:49 AM
 
Location: Eastern time zone
4,469 posts, read 6,159,738 times
Reputation: 3481
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
Nope...I opened this thread because quite frankly I'm sick of two growing trends:

1) people who think the world owes them something and who refuse to accept any type of responsibility for their actions - IMO it is not moral to not accept responsibility for your choices

2) people who are unwilling to help others who are actually deserving of help - IMO it is not moral to be self-centered and refuse to help

The question is "who decides who is deserving?" I suspect that varies widely from respondent to respondent.
My personal feeling is that if sixteen year old Susie wants to live out her live baby doll fantasies, I'd just as soon it not be on my dime. I don't see her as automatically being "responsible" just because she refuses to have an abortion.
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.


Closed Thread

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
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - 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 - Top