What is morality, anyway?

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 4:19 am

shadzar wrote:let them have sex and a kid, but let them see what having a kid means and having sex can have consequences you are responsible for, INCLUDING making your own money and fending for yourself.

You're okay with more unwanted/unaffordable babies being killed/abandoned for orphanages to deal with? Okay then.

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 4:27 am

Koumei wrote:
shadzar wrote:let them have sex and a kid, but let them see what having a kid means and having sex can have consequences you are responsible for, INCLUDING making your own money and fending for yourself.
You're okay with more unwanted/unaffordable babies being killed/abandoned for orphanages to deal with? Okay then.

Alternatively: abortion.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 4:27 am

RadiantPhoenix wrote:
Koumei wrote:
shadzar wrote:let them have sex and a kid, but let them see what having a kid means and having sex can have consequences you are responsible for, INCLUDING making your own money and fending for yourself.
You're okay with more unwanted/unaffordable babies being killed/abandoned for orphanages to deal with? Okay then.
Alternatively: abortion.

Illegal abortions. Which are the best kind!

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 4:47 am

Koumei wrote:
shadzar wrote:let them have sex and a kid, but let them see what having a kid means and having sex can have consequences you are responsible for, INCLUDING making your own money and fending for yourself.
You're okay with more unwanted/unaffordable babies being killed/abandoned for orphanages to deal with? Okay then.

orphanages dont exist today. it is jail for children called "juvenile hall".

the only way to stop them from having sex is watch them 24/7 or remove the parts used for it...some cultures DO the latter.

on the welfare bit, that shouldnt be given to parents but only for one birthing. not one child because someone cant determine to not have twins if they are pregnant thus, but one birthing, cause if you have sex again and get pregnant again, then you didnt learn the first time, and should be serving jailtime where you dont earn anything for yourself, and EVERYTHING goes ot pay for your kids, and you get out when they are all 18 (or whatever age the current system allows for them taking care of themself)... of course welfare ends when a child passes early, and you can get it again later if having another...

but the welfare needs to be directed more than just giving away free money, and only, ONLY if you are employed and trying to work.. otherwise even the first kid should get jail time..

i cant WAIT until the movie Fortress comes to fruition. China already has this and rightly so.

you do the crime you do the time.

early pregnancies and greater longevity are already a problem in this world, one was bad enough but both is killing us all and making things MUCH worse in all aspects of life.

but that will take social reform before that would even work because society is still founded in the 50's mentality and didnt account for the population growth or greater longevity and has to work those things into EVERY part of society to make them all work. sadly society really only cares about NOW, because the future is someone else's responsibility because you will be dead (again from the 50's thinking)...so the lack of responsibility comes from those WWII and cold war era parents.

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 4:52 am

Statistically, teen sex isn't much of a problem. Statistically, teens are having less sex than they were two decades ago, they're having it later, they're having it less often, and are more responsible about it. We've got the highest rates of teen condom use ever in the history of teens and condoms. That's a good thing. Fewer teens are having sex before age 15. Fewer teens are having sex at all. Rampant teenage promiscuity is bullshit.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 4:56 am

you must be reading propaganda from the rich for the rich rather than looking at the whole of society in ALL walks of life.

remember teen sex and pregnancy is glorified on TV now, inciting its rise with shows like Teen Mom, 16 and Pregnant, and several others.

K · Post by K » Sun Sep 18, 2011 6:14 am

hyzmarca wrote:Statistically, teen sex isn't much of a problem. Statistically, teens are having less sex than they were two decades ago, they're having it later, they're having it less often, and are more responsible about it. We've got the highest rates of teen condom use ever in the history of teens and condoms. That's a good thing. Fewer teens are having sex before age 15. Fewer teens are having sex at all. Rampant teenage promiscuity is bullshit.

Don't quote verifiable data at Shadzar. He only believes what he sees on scripted reality TV.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 7:17 am

nope, sorry, last reality TV i saw was Art Linkletter hosting Candid Camera. i dont watch trailer trash TV like yourself K.

PoliteNewb · Post by **PoliteNewb** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 7:52 am

Got to go with "David Brooks if full of shit" on this one. Look at his last paragraph:

David Brooks wrote:In most times and in most places, the group was seen to be the essential moral unit. A shared religion defined rules and practices. Cultures structured people’s imaginations and imposed moral disciplines. But now more people are led to assume that the free-floating individual is the essential moral unit. Morality was once revealed, inherited and shared, but now it’s thought of as something that emerges in the privacy of your own heart.

His entire complaint is simply that "kids these days" are determining morality in different ways than in the past (which is not even demonstrably true...but if it is true, that's a GOOD thing, not a bad one). He apparently wants morality to be determined either:

a.) by group consensus...which gave us delightful moral lessons like "enslaving black people is peachy keen" and "raping your wife is a-ok".

b.) by appeal to authority...which gave us such gems of morality as "burn the heretic to save their soul" and the divine right of kings.

Now, option c.) self-determined morality can produce some pretty horrible results...but as history has shown, so can methods a and b. So what is all the bitching about?

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 8:02 am

the bitching seems to be about who gets to decide what is the status quo.

or is there a concensus anymore on what is status quo?

K · Post by K » Sun Sep 18, 2011 8:12 am

shadzar wrote:nope, sorry, last reality TV i saw was Art Linkletter hosting Candid Camera. i dont watch trailer trash TV like yourself K.

So you are sourcing reality TV shows with teen mothers as a proof of the moral decline of today's youth, and you've never even seen any of it?

Does your hypocrisy, or your ignorance, have any limits?

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 8:39 am

i dont have to watch them for them to exist. their commercials are spread all over non-broadcast television.

also other shows have talked to people that were on them, or people asking what they think of the show.

i know people that watch the shows and have asked them what they think as well.

one show mentioned it by virtue of accident when a school-aged* person was talking about being green and the economy needs everyone to go green because "many teens [she] knows think it smart to have a kid young to get parents help to take care of them both since the economy is so screwed up and you cant always trust a guy to help you"

and this was a science program about overpopulation and carbon footprints of things for the most part!

*high school or college, i dont remember

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 8:48 am

If I drew a picture of shadzar, would the drawing have a higher IQ than the real thing?

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 9:12 am

Koumei wrote:If I drew a picture of shadzar, would the drawing have a higher IQ than the real thing?

There's only one way to find out.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 9:35 am

I don't know what he looks like... so I drew an ant instead.

I'll leave the intelligence comparison to others.

Count Arioch the 28th · Sun Sep 18, 2011 11:34 am

I think ants are smarter, because an ant will allow facts to change his mind, while Shadzar hasn't shown that he is capable of changing anything he thinks due to new data.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 12:16 pm

Ant, what is your opinion on teen promiscuity?

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 2:16 pm

RadiantPhoenix wrote:
shadzar wrote:having sex at ages of 13~14 is common for today's youth as they think nothing about it
If my memory of my education about history is correct, that was perfectly normal ~500 years ago too.

Not quite but close. Remember that good diet can result in early ares of puberty.

In 1860 the average age of menarche (a woman's first period) was 16.5 (from a German study). Here is a better description for various eras. As you can see this age goes up and down

Historical Data on Age at Menarche

Early data
Ancient Rome 12-14

Medieval Europe 12-14

Medieval Middle East 12-13
Nineteenth Century
Manchester 1840s
working class women 15.7

upper class women 14.6

London 1855 (hospital patients) 15.5

Germany 1869 15.7

Scotland 1870 15.6-16.6

London 1880 (middle class) 15

U.S.A. late 19th century 12-14
Early 20th Century
USA 1905 14-15.7

Ant · Post by **Ant** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 2:31 pm

Chamomile wrote:Ant, what is your opinion on teen promiscuity?

Those whose role is reproduction should be as promiscuous as possible for as long as possible; for the good of the colony. If your queen is of a species that survives to teen years, she should not deliberately slow production at that time; for the good of the colony.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 3:07 pm

I'm officially voting Ant best new member.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 3:22 pm

Ant for honorary moderator.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 3:53 pm

Finally, a member I like!

Stahlseele · Post by **Stahlseele** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 3:56 pm

Yeah, that was perfect ^^

Darth Rabbitt · Post by **Darth Rabbitt** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 6:48 pm

Agreed.

Fuck moderator, I want Ant for President!

Neeeek · Post by **Neeeek** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 10:00 pm

shadzar wrote:i dont have to watch them for them to exist. their commercials are spread all over non-broadcast television.

also other shows have talked to people that were on them, or people asking what they think of the show.

i know people that watch the shows and have asked them what they think as well.

one show mentioned it by virtue of accident when a school-aged* person was talking about being green and the economy needs everyone to go green because "many teens [she] knows think it smart to have a kid young to get parents help to take care of them both since the economy is so screwed up and you cant always trust a guy to help you"

and this was a science program about overpopulation and carbon footprints of things for the most part!

*high school or college, i dont remember

I've actually seen some of the shows you are talking about. If I was a teenaged girl watching them, I'd be scare of sex for a very long time. Those girls have craptastic lives.