Return to General Talk

It's All About Him

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby Art Vandelay » Wed May 02, 2007 10:51 pm

josebach wrote:
Madison wrote:
josebach wrote:Nice post. There are a lot of parallels between violence and morality as well, which is why I get so perturbed when I hear a certain sect discussing how immoral society is becoming. I personally don't believe people are any less moral now than they were 20, 50, 100 or 1000 years ago. Morality is a VERY relative thing. Of course there are a couple people here who ADAMANTLY disagree with me on this. ;-)


I'd be one of them and all you've got to do to see the proof is check out the generation of kids out there. Obviously it's not every single kid, but the majority have zero morals and/or ethics whatsoever. Kids in the old days respected anyone older than them, now they respect no one (just as one of many examples).


There were bad kids 50 years ago just like there are bad kids today. You tell me kids in the 50s, 60s and 70s thought less about sex than they do now? Or were better people? Don't kid yourself. If it was more socially acceptable in the 60s and 70s for kids to act out and be themselves and have sex, they would have done it. Times have changed, kids haven't. I assume you think the 50's were the golden days or morality, huh? Ask blacks and women how moral THEY thought the 50s were. Making blanket statements condemning today's youth is incredibly shortsighted. As a society we're actually evolving, and the ostentatious nature of today's youth is just a side effect.


I essentially agree with you, but how did sex get dragged into this? I guess I just don't buy the assertion that to have sex or not is a moral decision.
Image
Art Vandelay
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

CafeholicFantasy ExpertPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5254
(Past Year: -11)
Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Madison » Wed May 02, 2007 11:41 pm

josebach wrote:
Madison wrote:
josebach wrote:Nice post. There are a lot of parallels between violence and morality as well, which is why I get so perturbed when I hear a certain sect discussing how immoral society is becoming. I personally don't believe people are any less moral now than they were 20, 50, 100 or 1000 years ago. Morality is a VERY relative thing. Of course there are a couple people here who ADAMANTLY disagree with me on this. ;-)


I'd be one of them and all you've got to do to see the proof is check out the generation of kids out there. Obviously it's not every single kid, but the majority have zero morals and/or ethics whatsoever. Kids in the old days respected anyone older than them, now they respect no one (just as one of many examples).


There were bad kids 50 years ago just like there are bad kids today. You tell me kids in the 50s, 60s and 70s thought less about sex than they do now? Or were better people? Don't kid yourself. If it was more socially acceptable in the 60s and 70s for kids to act out and be themselves and have sex, they would have done it. Times have changed, kids haven't. I assume you think the 50's were the golden days or morality, huh?


Where did I say anything remotely close to the 50's being the golden days of morality? I simply said a bigger percentage of kids are problems now than there were in the old days. This isn't news to anyone, so relax man. :-b
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 48715
(Past Year: -5140)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

Postby AcidRock23 » Wed May 02, 2007 11:46 pm

great gretzky wrote:Besides, one thing that people really forget in the morality debate of yesteryear as compared to today:

The whole family structure was different. Preaching abstinence until marriage wasn't nearly as hard as it is today. First of all, you could realistically get married at 18, today that's VERY young. Second of all, kids hit puberty a couple of years later than a lot of kids do know. If i'm not mistaken, the average age of getting married now is something like 25 or later. So what you are asking overall is a lot more difficult--especially when viewed through the prism of families. Historically, the extended family made their home and finances available to young couples. Now, not so much. It's a lot easier to be on a high horse when things are a little easier


I'm not sure that I'd agree with that. Historically, the age of marriage/ childbirth is usually an indicator of how well the economy is working. Prior to 1349, when the Black Death swept through Europe, the age of marriage had crept upwards as limited resources failed to keep up with demographic expansion. When 1/3 of the population died, the marriage age plummetted as the survivors became more prosperous.

Now, in order to have a kid, many people feel obligated to make sure that they both work so that they can pay for child care. This is an utterly unprecedented development.
AcidRock23
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterEagle Eye
Posts: 4152
(Past Year: -18)
Joined: 8 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Champaign, IL

Postby The Artful Dodger » Thu May 03, 2007 12:30 am

Madison wrote:
josebach wrote:
Madison wrote:
josebach wrote:Nice post. There are a lot of parallels between violence and morality as well, which is why I get so perturbed when I hear a certain sect discussing how immoral society is becoming. I personally don't believe people are any less moral now than they were 20, 50, 100 or 1000 years ago. Morality is a VERY relative thing. Of course there are a couple people here who ADAMANTLY disagree with me on this. ;-)


I'd be one of them and all you've got to do to see the proof is check out the generation of kids out there. Obviously it's not every single kid, but the majority have zero morals and/or ethics whatsoever. Kids in the old days respected anyone older than them, now they respect no one (just as one of many examples).


There were bad kids 50 years ago just like there are bad kids today. You tell me kids in the 50s, 60s and 70s thought less about sex than they do now? Or were better people? Don't kid yourself. If it was more socially acceptable in the 60s and 70s for kids to act out and be themselves and have sex, they would have done it. Times have changed, kids haven't. I assume you think the 50's were the golden days or morality, huh?


Where did I say anything remotely close to the 50's being the golden days of morality? I simply said a bigger percentage of kids are problems now than there were in the old days. This isn't news to anyone, so relax man. :-b


But you said the majority of kids had little or no morals/code of ethics. And by kids, what kind of age range are we actually talking about here? Just from what I see from our current youth generation, I think they're quite mindful about social and ethic issues and a good number want to take action based on that (i.e. community service) and from that, comes an awareness of social responsibility. I think being raised in diversity also makes this generation quite sensitive if a group or two is marginalized. With that said, this generation can be represented from the polar opposite as well, as I'm sure that previous generations before that had quite a wide spectrum of moral behaviors.
Image
The Artful Dodger
Chief Wikitect
Chief Wikitect

User avatar
CafeholicResponse TeamFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyePick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 21871
(Past Year: 370)
Joined: 3 Feb 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Downloading rice

Postby Madison » Thu May 03, 2007 12:49 am

The Artful Dodger wrote:
Madison wrote:
josebach wrote:
Madison wrote:
josebach wrote:Nice post. There are a lot of parallels between violence and morality as well, which is why I get so perturbed when I hear a certain sect discussing how immoral society is becoming. I personally don't believe people are any less moral now than they were 20, 50, 100 or 1000 years ago. Morality is a VERY relative thing. Of course there are a couple people here who ADAMANTLY disagree with me on this. ;-)


I'd be one of them and all you've got to do to see the proof is check out the generation of kids out there. Obviously it's not every single kid, but the majority have zero morals and/or ethics whatsoever. Kids in the old days respected anyone older than them, now they respect no one (just as one of many examples).


There were bad kids 50 years ago just like there are bad kids today. You tell me kids in the 50s, 60s and 70s thought less about sex than they do now? Or were better people? Don't kid yourself. If it was more socially acceptable in the 60s and 70s for kids to act out and be themselves and have sex, they would have done it. Times have changed, kids haven't. I assume you think the 50's were the golden days or morality, huh?


Where did I say anything remotely close to the 50's being the golden days of morality? I simply said a bigger percentage of kids are problems now than there were in the old days. This isn't news to anyone, so relax man. :-b


But you said the majority of kids had little or no morals/code of ethics. And by kids, what kind of age range are we actually talking about here? Just from what I see from our current youth generation, I think they're quite mindful about social and ethic issues and a good number want to take action based on that (i.e. community service) and from that, comes an awareness of social responsibility. I think being raised in diversity also makes this generation quite sensitive if a group or two is marginalized. With that said, this generation can be represented from the polar opposite as well, as I'm sure that previous generations before that had quite a wide spectrum of moral behaviors.


Sure, it can be argued many different ways and everyone's going to have their own perception on just how bad it really is, which is why I kept it short and simple. I have neither the desire nor the time to have yet another pointless discussion about today's troubled youths.

However, when someone says kids today are the same as kids in the old days, I can't just skip by it and not say a word. There are tons of factors, but something to keep in mind though, is back in the old days there was a parent home taking care of the kids instead of the kids being raised by television or an institution, so it's not like I'm saying anything other than times have changed, and so has the younger generation. Better? Worse? Matter of perception and what types of youth you see and/or deal with on a daily basis, and what you call better or worse. Some things are better, some are worse. My perception from the youths I see and deal with, is that it's amazingly worse on the overall and not going to get any better anytime soon.
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 48715
(Past Year: -5140)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

Postby josebach » Thu May 03, 2007 9:00 am

Art Vandalay wrote:I essentially agree with you, but how did sex get dragged into this? I guess I just don't buy the assertion that to have sex or not is a moral decision.

I don't think choosing to have pre-marital sex is a moral decision either, but I don't believe Madison agrees so I brought it up as an example.

Madison wrote:There are tons of factors, but something to keep in mind though, is back in the old days there was a parent home taking care of the kids instead of the kids being raised by television or an institution, so it's not like I'm saying anything other than times have changed, and so has the younger generation. Better? Worse? Matter of perception and what types of youth you see and/or deal with on a daily basis, and what you call better or worse. Some things are better, some are worse. My perception from the youths I see and deal with, is that it's amazingly worse on the overall and not going to get any better anytime soon.


I personally haven't had that many bad experiences with kids and most of the kids/children that I've been in contact have been good kids with good parents. It all boils down to partenting, and where I agree that two parents is definitely better than one, the reason divorce is higher now and that more women choose to work is not because people are less moral now, it's because now they actually have a choice. Back in the "good old days", women were subservient and essentially trapped.

Because I haven't had the experiences you've had with kids, I can't say you're wrong for coming to the conclusion you did. From my experience, however, the good kids faaaaar outweigh the bad kids. It's a real shame you don't agree.
josebach
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2033
(Past Year: -3)
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Tallahassee

Postby great gretzky » Thu May 03, 2007 9:12 am

AcidRock23 wrote:
great gretzky wrote:Besides, one thing that people really forget in the morality debate of yesteryear as compared to today:

The whole family structure was different. Preaching abstinence until marriage wasn't nearly as hard as it is today. First of all, you could realistically get married at 18, today that's VERY young. Second of all, kids hit puberty a couple of years later than a lot of kids do know. If i'm not mistaken, the average age of getting married now is something like 25 or later. So what you are asking overall is a lot more difficult--especially when viewed through the prism of families. Historically, the extended family made their home and finances available to young couples. Now, not so much. It's a lot easier to be on a high horse when things are a little easier


I'm not sure that I'd agree with that. Historically, the age of marriage/ childbirth is usually an indicator of how well the economy is working. Prior to 1349, when the Black Death swept through Europe, the age of marriage had crept upwards as limited resources failed to keep up with demographic expansion. When 1/3 of the population died, the marriage age plummetted as the survivors became more prosperous.

Now, in order to have a kid, many people feel obligated to make sure that they both work so that they can pay for child care. This is an utterly unprecedented development.


Be that as it may, in Western societies the age of the first marriage is at a historical high, and the onset of puberty is one of the lowest in history. In other words, my point is expecting people to wait longer for their first intercourse, and then calling them immoral for not doing so is a tad askew? No? And as far as the black death thing, yea marriage age was forced up FROM 16 to 22 ... Still it shows how much earlier humans were getting married prior to this catstrophe. In addition, the age of 22 is still not the average age of marriage now. And I'll throw in, that on average kids are hitting puberty earlier now (in general). So effectively, if you preach hard core abstinence, it could be argued that you are asking the general population of young people to wait longer for first intercourse than was expected of humans much throughout history. And in addition, family structures historically have been radically different. That's my point. Is you can't sit there and pontificate when realistically in america in the "golden age", a couple could get married at 18 where only the husband had a high school or associates degree, and expect to have a decent lifestyle. A young couple with two college degrees int his day and age could be struggling.

There is a lot to go into it, and the sex/marriage issue of this is kind of an aside. I jsut think that the daily realities of American life and family structure have changed so fast, that it's unfair to judge too harshly, even ignoring the realtive morality of divorce. How many people in the day made serious, serious mistakes in whom they married, only to be trapped? I think on the level, its a good thing that couples explore every aspect of a mature relationship. I think its the people who jsut sleep with whomever that qualify as immoral.
great gretzky
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafeholic
Posts: 3762
(Past Year: -7)
Joined: 3 Jun 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Washington, DC

Postby Omaha Red Sox » Thu May 03, 2007 9:29 am

josebach wrote:It all boils down to partenting, and where I agree that two parents is definitely better than one, the reason divorce is higher now and that more women choose to work is not because people are less moral now, it's because now they actually have a choice.


It does all boil down to parenting. But for far too many parents, this isn't a top priority to them. Their careers and social lives are. Their bigger cars and houses are more important.

And marriages fail and kids are left to fend for themselves because parents now have a choice? I think our definitions of morality are different. I'm talking morality among actual individuals. Having a choice and making the wrong one, as you pointed out, is immoral. Having the choice and making the right one is moral. Simply having the choice does not decide morality.
Image
Omaha Red Sox
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle Eye
Posts: 11404
(Past Year: -14)
Joined: 29 Jun 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Probably over there

Postby josebach » Thu May 03, 2007 9:51 am

Omaha Red Sox wrote:
josebach wrote:It all boils down to partenting, and where I agree that two parents is definitely better than one, the reason divorce is higher now and that more women choose to work is not because people are less moral now, it's because now they actually have a choice.


It does all boil down to parenting. But for far too many parents, this isn't a top priority to them. Their careers and social lives are. Their bigger cars and houses are more important.


Most people work two jobs to provide for their family. They don't do it for the sake of having nicer material possessions like you implied. One of my best friends makes about 45,000 a year and his wife is a stay at home mom. Where I think it's awesome that she can stay at home, they also currently don't have health insurance. That to me is incredibly irresponsible. The interaction you can have with your kids at night and on the weekends is more than enough to ensure your kids don't end up being bad people. My wife is a prime example. Both of her parents worked and she is probably the best person I've ever met. Once the kids reach school age, what difference does it really make if their Mom is stay at home? The extra three hours a day which they'll probably spend doing homework or playing anyway?

Omaha Red Sox wrote:And marriages fail and kids are left to fend for themselves because parents now have a choice? I think our definitions of morality are different. I'm talking morality among actual individuals. Having a choice and making the wrong one, as you pointed out, is immoral. Having the choice and making the right one is moral. Simply having the choice does not decide morality.

Not sure I get you here. Are you saying that choosing to be a stay at home Mom instead of having a career is a morally superior choice? Or that having a career is the "wrong choice"? Don't want to misunderstand.
josebach
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2033
(Past Year: -3)
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Tallahassee

Postby Coppermine » Thu May 03, 2007 9:55 am

I think morals are a little too ambiguous to get into a discussion on what choices are consider right, and therefore moral and which choices are wrong, resulting in an immoral decision.

Morality is far from black and white.
If you're a battery, you're either working or you're dead....
Coppermine
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar

Posts: 8793
(Past Year: -47)
Joined: 6 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Pennsyltucky

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron