DescentBB

Top Gun wrote:Someone that is going to argue that gay couples can make a good family are in violation of logic...

"Logic." LoL.

The core question here is the legality of redefining marriage. At least a couple of the Scotus have raised this question during oral arguments.

tunnelcat wrote:When people have nothing, they have nothing to lose. So once people have nothing, they will resort to crime just to survive. Isn't that what survival of the fittest is all all about in a dog eat dog society?

I find the “nothing to lose” argument to be invalid, because going to prison or worse is not “nothing to lose”.

I believe that crime and violence is a cultural process, not economic, but I doubt if I could ever convince anyone of that, because everyone has their “studies” to provide conformation bias.

An example of what I am saying…take the financial crisis that was caused by a failure of ethics, those ethics were discarded because of a culture within the banking industry that condoned…no…encouraged, bad behavior.

Take Isaac’s second link for example, I watched a documentary on those very types of studies, and have read others, and the one common error made with all of them is when you remove these families from poverty, and their behavior changes, they forget to factor in that they have not only been removed from poverty, but have been transplanted into a completely different sub culture.

I have the unique perspective of having been raised in a slum, and also now live in a semi-slum, and believe me, I see the kinds of things that screw up a child’s development on a daily basis.

Example:

I often see a mother screaming and yelling at a kid while dragging them down the street, that’s not poverty that is ★■◆●ing up that poor kid’s childhood, that’s culture. That’s how you take perfectly normal smiling little children and turn them into monsters.

Now remove that family from the group, place them in a new culture that doesn’t condone such behavior…and you get different results.

Depends on whether or not that child was crying because he didn't get his way.

In that case I don't believe it does, Ferno. One of the biggest failings in instances like this is the lack of love the child receives growing up. You can't treat your children like that, and if it could be argued that it becomes in any way necessary then that is evidence of failure on the part of the parent to discipline in the past. Children don't need to be monsters, and parents don't need to be terrible, angry, aloof authority figures.

My sister is raising 5 children right now, and they're all great kids. Kind, respectful, honest, loving, ... You don't see my sister yelling at her kids or threatening them at the store. That's because every time they got out of line and did something they knew was wrong (and she made sure they knew), when they were younger, they were disciplined consistently. She spanks her kids, and has done it from a very young age. It was the same when we were growing up. Our parents loved us, and it was never a question, but we walked the straight-and-narrow because there were immediate consequences if we got out of line.

Children need love as much as they need discipline. It's a sign of the insanity of our culture that the latter has become officially taboo, resulting in damage to the former.

Ok, I have to point out right here…I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THE CHILD CRYING.

I made a comment, and the mental picture becomes that the child is the one throwing the tantrum…is my English really that bad? No it is the parents throwing the tantrums, I watched a parent verbally abuse their child just for walking too slow.

Spidey wrote:I made a comment, and the mental picture becomes that the child is the one throwing the tantrum…is my English really that bad? No it is the parents throwing the tantrums, I watched a parent verbally abuse their child just for walking too slow.

well, I wanted to try and figure out the cause of the incident. But if it's the parent throwing the tantrum, that's a problem.

Sergeant Thorne wrote: Children need love as much as they need discipline. It's a sign of the insanity of our culture that the latter has become officially taboo, resulting in damage to the former.

I generally agree with the overall point, although with two asides. First, one need not resort to physical punishment, if one is really good at discipline. My father needed to merely LOOK at me a certain way, and the effect was every bit as strong(if not far more so) than any spanking. Interestingly, the hundreds of people who worked for him at DuPont noted the powerful effect of that same look. Second, there has been an increasing body of research that shows a DIRECT correllation between violent discipline in childhood, and tendency towards violence as an adult. There was a very good University of New Hampshire study about 6 years ago which tracked that over a few decades with hundreds of children. Very strong data.

Love is as important as discipline…

That is one of the best points I have heard in a long time.

Discipline can take many forms, if you show your child enough love, showing the child that “you” are hurt when they misbehave is very effective, because a child will not want to cause a loving parent harm.

Violence should always be used only as a last resort.

callmeslick wrote:I generally agree with the overall point, although with two asides. First, one need not resort to physical punishment, if one is really good at discipline. My father needed to merely LOOK at me a certain way, and the effect was every bit as strong(if not far more so) than any spanking. Interestingly, the hundreds of people who worked for him at DuPont noted the powerful effect of that same look. Second, there has been an increasing body of research that shows a DIRECT correllation between violent discipline in childhood, and tendency towards violence as an adult. There was a very good University of New Hampshire study about 6 years ago which tracked that over a few decades with hundreds of children. Very strong data.

So let them eat cake? So your father was stern. Great. My father was probably a little less so, but had much the same effect on me. A spanking from dad was a rare thing. More often he had a talk with me. Your cite study doesn't support your assertion. I could do a similar study in a different avenue to support an assertion that "marriage as an institution ends in divorce." Violence begets violence, but only in the presence of injustice. If corporal discipline is administered properly there is no cause for negative side-effects. I was never struck as a child outside of a disciplinary format, and never without having my wrong clearly laid out before-hand. If the little people you advise can't handle that, it's certain they won't master your father's stern gaze. At least you can enjoy the view from up there, right?

actually, Thorne, the UNH study showed a direct correlation of ANY physical contact as a child. Remember, violence as an adult can mean a propensity for fighting, spousal or child abuse, violence towards authority, etc.

and, as for my Dad, I think he was an example of what was alluded to earlier. He established the love part early on, and thus, merely letting him down was a punishment in my eyes. Not so much stern, as much as establishing the bond first, both at home and at work, and maintaining a certain level of expectations. In my experience, I find the only corporal punishment ever needed was little taps to the wrist in toddlers. After that age, I managed to succeed with mere disapproval. Worked most of the time, at least. Even with my nephew, who we raised from age 13, all I had to do was establish that I was bigger and stronger, ONCE, and after that, words sufficed.


at any rate, this thread has veered far from the initial premise, that somehow gay marriage factors into these things. IMHO, it does not. At all.

Spidey wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:When people have nothing, they have nothing to lose. So once people have nothing, they will resort to crime just to survive. Isn't that what survival of the fittest is all all about in a dog eat dog society?

I find the “nothing to lose” argument to be invalid, because going to prison or worse is not “nothing to lose”.

I believe that crime and violence is a cultural process, not economic, but I doubt if I could ever convince anyone of that, because everyone has their “studies” to provide conformation bias.

So what you're essentially saying is that white culture is better than black culture when it come to ethics and that poverty has little or no effect on unethical behavior? You don't think that people who are surrounded by constant poverty, and I'm talking generational poverty, are not affected negatively, or that their attitudes in life can be shaped by depression and resignation at being stuck in their current low station in society, especially towards those in economic classes above them? Don't you think that having to live in those circumstances for a long time will breed resentment and unethical behavior because they don't feel that they can escape that low station in life? Kind of simplistic to just blame it on culture don't you think? Plus, we forcefully brought African Americans over here against their will as slaves and treated them like disposable humans. The civil rights they now have now only came to them a few short decades ago and the wounds are still fresh and raw. That they haven't fully assimilated into American society by now isn't just a cultural problem, it's a complex socioeconomic problem too. It's obviously not a simple do as we do or else quick fix, especially when our own ethics can be just as corrupt.

Spidey wrote:An example of what I am saying…take the financial crisis that was caused by a failure of ethics, those ethics were discarded because of a culture within the banking industry that condoned…no…encouraged, bad behavior.

A failure of ethics that's still going on, despite attempts by our supposed main ethical lawful culture to put a stop to it. I think our national culture is just as corrupt as that of the banker's subculture, because in reality, we secretly like people who win at all costs and we like to encourage people who use creative ways to get around the rules, all in that greatest of American ideals, the quest to succeed, no matter what.

tunnelcat wrote:So what you're essentially saying is that white culture is better than black culture when it come to ethics.

I didn’t realize poverty was restricted to black people, I thought we were speaking of poverty and violence in general.

tunnelcat wrote:Kind of simplistic to just blame it on culture don't you think?

No, actually blaming violence and crime on poverty is the over simplification.

And blaming it only on culture is an over simplification too. If the problem were so simple, we'd have fixed it long ago.

You may see it that way, but there is a huge difference.

Poverty is a condition, a pretty simple condition at that, and the only thing complicated is trying to determine what causes it.

Culture on the other hand is a very complicated set of beliefs, rituals…etc that have a direct affect on behavior, as to actually define behavior.

So blaming culture or poverty are two completely different things, one points at a very complicated set of things, that affect behavior and the other blames a condition for behavior.

“I am cold so I will kill someone.”

“I am cold, and have been told and shown, the correct response is to kill someone.”

See the difference?

………..

What I find ironic is…if you study world history, you could actually make the case that it is affluence that causes violence and crime not poverty.

Just look at any example of a violent society in the past…

Take Rome for example…it was wealth that built the Coliseum, Look at feudal Japan, where it was the wealthy doing all of the killing…take any example.

Even in Nazi Germany, the “obvious” example where poverty supposedly was the cause of WWII, but closer examination and it becomes obvious that madness and hatred were the cause, and poverty was just a convenient tool.

So there you see…it’s actually affluence that causes violence and crime, not poverty.

(and if you look closely, you will find the same flaws in that hypothesis, as the ones in blaming poverty)

here, we return to the loony bin:

wow man. just wow.

tunnelcat wrote:And blaming it only on culture is an over simplification too. If the problem were so simple, we'd have fixed it long ago.

I'm arguing the culture (specifically what we generally call family values) has a huge role... Maybe the issue is simple, but the solution isn't? A big part of the problem (IMHO - and in many ways) is that we conflate culture and race all the time here in the US - as you are exemplifying.