|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
United States42016 Posts
On May 30 2018 10:29 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 10:01 KwarK wrote:On May 30 2018 09:55 GoTuNk! wrote:On May 30 2018 06:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 30 2018 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:You guys obviously haven't seen these Washington raccoons + Show Spoiler +We should just do what the Norwegians do when they set up camp in dangerous areas (polar bears). Surround your place with some small explosives and trip wires. Much more sensible than a gun. I understand the general idea behind thinking removing guns is the play, but particularly with school shootings, there were plenty of guns before those became a thing, so their cause can't be the guns. We may reduce the death tolls of these types of events by removing guns, but that only removes any remaining urgency to address why people are killing others in the first place. This does make a certain amount of sense but it would be easier to swallow if there was any urgency to address why people are killing others to begin with. There isn't. Unfortunately I think the answers are too hard to swallow, and say damning things about the world we've built. How about we start with the most common cause? Single parent house hold. It's also a great predictor, even better than poverty, for a whole lot of young kids like criminality and low scolarship. The research is widely available in a single google search. Like the Columbine killers or Elliot Rodger? There has been an attempt in conservative circles to deflect blame to single mothers, and therefore onto an evil liberal feminist agenda that hates the family (usually Christianity too). I tried googling the research you referenced and all I found was a circle jerk of self referential Breitbart shit about how liberals are to blame for taking away family values. Unfortunately though the reality is that school shooters usually come from middle class white backgrounds and have families that reflect the broader population. That's not to say that school shooters don't often have troubled home lives, I'll happily concede the two are correlated and that one most likely helps cause the other. But single parent homes aren't the same thing as troubled homes. Feminism didn't cause Columbine. Yeah you are taking my point too far and making claims I didn't. Saying broken homes are bad for children is not the same as blaming single mothers for school shootings. Broken homes usually involve varying degrees of responsability on both parents. There are both dads that walk out on their kids, and mothers who do whole lot of horrible things. I honestly think it's a complex issue and my main point would be that government can't do much about it. I would say promoting traditional values in society and comunities would go a whole lot to help this issue and others, which does make me a conservative in that sense.
I absolutely think that a loving marriage between two parents is a good environment to raise a child. But that's not what traditional marriages were before women got rights. The children growing up in single parent households would not have been growing up in loving two parent households previously. Single parent households are better than the alternative, households with domestic violence, abuse, constant fighting and so forth. I have zero problems with promoting loving marriages and stable households, the problem I have is that the people espousing that are normally doing it as part of their campaign to decriminalize marital rape and domestic violence.
We shouldn't look back to the past for traditional values and traditional households, those were so bad that they fell apart the moment society stopped holding them together against the will of the participants. We should look forwards for how to make help households in the future better resemble the ideal, while recognizing that we're closer to it than we ever have been.
|
On May 30 2018 09:55 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 06:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 30 2018 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:You guys obviously haven't seen these Washington raccoons + Show Spoiler +We should just do what the Norwegians do when they set up camp in dangerous areas (polar bears). Surround your place with some small explosives and trip wires. Much more sensible than a gun. I understand the general idea behind thinking removing guns is the play, but particularly with school shootings, there were plenty of guns before those became a thing, so their cause can't be the guns. We may reduce the death tolls of these types of events by removing guns, but that only removes any remaining urgency to address why people are killing others in the first place. This does make a certain amount of sense but it would be easier to swallow if there was any urgency to address why people are killing others to begin with. There isn't. Unfortunately I think the answers are too hard to swallow, and say damning things about the world we've built. How about we start with the most common cause? Single parent house hold. It's also a great predictor, even better than poverty, for a whole lot of young kids like criminality and low scolarship. The research is widely available in a single google search.
Would you mind posting some sources of data that support this? Anecdotally, I've seen plenty of single-parent households (with one parent who is dedicated and loving) outperform plenty of two-parent households (with two parents who dislike each other and create a toxic environment for the children). That's exactly the evolution of my household growing up; my mom divorcing my lazy asshole of a father was the best thing that could have happened for my brothers and me.
And second: How could we even stop that from happening? Ban divorce?
|
On May 30 2018 10:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 10:29 GoTuNk! wrote:On May 30 2018 10:01 KwarK wrote:On May 30 2018 09:55 GoTuNk! wrote:On May 30 2018 06:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 30 2018 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:You guys obviously haven't seen these Washington raccoons + Show Spoiler +We should just do what the Norwegians do when they set up camp in dangerous areas (polar bears). Surround your place with some small explosives and trip wires. Much more sensible than a gun. I understand the general idea behind thinking removing guns is the play, but particularly with school shootings, there were plenty of guns before those became a thing, so their cause can't be the guns. We may reduce the death tolls of these types of events by removing guns, but that only removes any remaining urgency to address why people are killing others in the first place. This does make a certain amount of sense but it would be easier to swallow if there was any urgency to address why people are killing others to begin with. There isn't. Unfortunately I think the answers are too hard to swallow, and say damning things about the world we've built. How about we start with the most common cause? Single parent house hold. It's also a great predictor, even better than poverty, for a whole lot of young kids like criminality and low scolarship. The research is widely available in a single google search. Like the Columbine killers or Elliot Rodger? There has been an attempt in conservative circles to deflect blame to single mothers, and therefore onto an evil liberal feminist agenda that hates the family (usually Christianity too). I tried googling the research you referenced and all I found was a circle jerk of self referential Breitbart shit about how liberals are to blame for taking away family values. Unfortunately though the reality is that school shooters usually come from middle class white backgrounds and have families that reflect the broader population. That's not to say that school shooters don't often have troubled home lives, I'll happily concede the two are correlated and that one most likely helps cause the other. But single parent homes aren't the same thing as troubled homes. Feminism didn't cause Columbine. Yeah you are taking my point too far and making claims I didn't. Saying broken homes are bad for children is not the same as blaming single mothers for school shootings. Broken homes usually involve varying degrees of responsability on both parents. There are both dads that walk out on their kids, and mothers who do whole lot of horrible things. I honestly think it's a complex issue and my main point would be that government can't do much about it. I would say promoting traditional values in society and comunities would go a whole lot to help this issue and others, which does make me a conservative in that sense. I absolutely think that a loving marriage between two parents is a good environment to raise a child. But that's not what traditional marriages were before women got rights. The children growing up in single parent households would not have been growing up in loving two parent households previously. Single parent households are better than the alternative, households with domestic violence, abuse, constant fighting and so forth. I have zero problems with promoting loving marriages and stable households, the problem I have is that the people espousing that are normally doing it as part of their campaign to decriminalize marital rape and domestic violence. We shouldn't look back to the past for traditional values and traditional households, those were so bad that they fell apart the moment society stopped holding them together against the will of the participants. We should look forwards for how to make help households in the future better resemble the ideal, while recognizing that we're closer to it than we ever have been.
I'm not talking about going back to 1500s. I'm talking about reducing kids born out of wedlock and divorce rates. Also promoting "traditional" values on people overall, like self reliance, honesty, respect for others, and less promiscuity.
No conservative would ever be for marital rape or domestic violence, that's simply disingenous baiting. It's as saying liberals want to build gulags and starve people to death.
|
On May 30 2018 10:29 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 10:01 KwarK wrote:On May 30 2018 09:55 GoTuNk! wrote:On May 30 2018 06:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 30 2018 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:You guys obviously haven't seen these Washington raccoons + Show Spoiler +We should just do what the Norwegians do when they set up camp in dangerous areas (polar bears). Surround your place with some small explosives and trip wires. Much more sensible than a gun. I understand the general idea behind thinking removing guns is the play, but particularly with school shootings, there were plenty of guns before those became a thing, so their cause can't be the guns. We may reduce the death tolls of these types of events by removing guns, but that only removes any remaining urgency to address why people are killing others in the first place. This does make a certain amount of sense but it would be easier to swallow if there was any urgency to address why people are killing others to begin with. There isn't. Unfortunately I think the answers are too hard to swallow, and say damning things about the world we've built. How about we start with the most common cause? Single parent house hold. It's also a great predictor, even better than poverty, for a whole lot of young kids like criminality and low scolarship. The research is widely available in a single google search. Like the Columbine killers or Elliot Rodger? There has been an attempt in conservative circles to deflect blame to single mothers, and therefore onto an evil liberal feminist agenda that hates the family (usually Christianity too). I tried googling the research you referenced and all I found was a circle jerk of self referential Breitbart shit about how liberals are to blame for taking away family values. Unfortunately though the reality is that school shooters usually come from middle class white backgrounds and have families that reflect the broader population. That's not to say that school shooters don't often have troubled home lives, I'll happily concede the two are correlated and that one most likely helps cause the other. But single parent homes aren't the same thing as troubled homes. Feminism didn't cause Columbine. Yeah you are taking my point too far and making claims I didn't. Saying broken homes are bad for children is not the same as blaming single mothers for school shootings. Broken homes usually involve varying degrees of responsability on both parents. There are both dads that walk out on their kids, and mothers who do whole lot of horrible things. I honestly think it's a complex issue and my main point would be that government can't do much about it. I would say promoting traditional values in society and comunities would go a whole lot to help this issue and others, which does make me a conservative in that sense.
Can you define what that means, please? Because I know many conservatives who would still prefer a single straight person raising the kid over two loving gay men or women, and "traditional values" is often times code for rescinding certain civil rights.
|
Promiscuity rules. Why would anyone want less of it?
|
United States42016 Posts
On May 30 2018 10:54 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 10:42 KwarK wrote:On May 30 2018 10:29 GoTuNk! wrote:On May 30 2018 10:01 KwarK wrote:On May 30 2018 09:55 GoTuNk! wrote:On May 30 2018 06:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 30 2018 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:You guys obviously haven't seen these Washington raccoons + Show Spoiler +We should just do what the Norwegians do when they set up camp in dangerous areas (polar bears). Surround your place with some small explosives and trip wires. Much more sensible than a gun. I understand the general idea behind thinking removing guns is the play, but particularly with school shootings, there were plenty of guns before those became a thing, so their cause can't be the guns. We may reduce the death tolls of these types of events by removing guns, but that only removes any remaining urgency to address why people are killing others in the first place. This does make a certain amount of sense but it would be easier to swallow if there was any urgency to address why people are killing others to begin with. There isn't. Unfortunately I think the answers are too hard to swallow, and say damning things about the world we've built. How about we start with the most common cause? Single parent house hold. It's also a great predictor, even better than poverty, for a whole lot of young kids like criminality and low scolarship. The research is widely available in a single google search. Like the Columbine killers or Elliot Rodger? There has been an attempt in conservative circles to deflect blame to single mothers, and therefore onto an evil liberal feminist agenda that hates the family (usually Christianity too). I tried googling the research you referenced and all I found was a circle jerk of self referential Breitbart shit about how liberals are to blame for taking away family values. Unfortunately though the reality is that school shooters usually come from middle class white backgrounds and have families that reflect the broader population. That's not to say that school shooters don't often have troubled home lives, I'll happily concede the two are correlated and that one most likely helps cause the other. But single parent homes aren't the same thing as troubled homes. Feminism didn't cause Columbine. Yeah you are taking my point too far and making claims I didn't. Saying broken homes are bad for children is not the same as blaming single mothers for school shootings. Broken homes usually involve varying degrees of responsability on both parents. There are both dads that walk out on their kids, and mothers who do whole lot of horrible things. I honestly think it's a complex issue and my main point would be that government can't do much about it. I would say promoting traditional values in society and comunities would go a whole lot to help this issue and others, which does make me a conservative in that sense. I absolutely think that a loving marriage between two parents is a good environment to raise a child. But that's not what traditional marriages were before women got rights. The children growing up in single parent households would not have been growing up in loving two parent households previously. Single parent households are better than the alternative, households with domestic violence, abuse, constant fighting and so forth. I have zero problems with promoting loving marriages and stable households, the problem I have is that the people espousing that are normally doing it as part of their campaign to decriminalize marital rape and domestic violence. We shouldn't look back to the past for traditional values and traditional households, those were so bad that they fell apart the moment society stopped holding them together against the will of the participants. We should look forwards for how to make help households in the future better resemble the ideal, while recognizing that we're closer to it than we ever have been. I'm not talking about going back to 1500s. I'm talking about reducing kids born out of wedlock and divorce rates. Also promoting "traditional" values on people overall, like self reliance, honesty, respect for others, and less promiscuity. No conservative would ever be for marital rape or domestic violence, that's simply disingenous baiting. It's as saying liberals want to build gulags and starve people to death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_SchlaflyBy getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don't think you can call it rape. Unfortunately the "traditional values" crowd have some very, very unsavoury members and beliefs.
You may not subscribe to them but you should take a good look at the people walking the same path as you. "Traditional marriage" has become a dog whistle term for stripping women of their legal rights and protections.
|
On May 30 2018 10:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 09:55 GoTuNk! wrote:On May 30 2018 06:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 30 2018 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:You guys obviously haven't seen these Washington raccoons + Show Spoiler +We should just do what the Norwegians do when they set up camp in dangerous areas (polar bears). Surround your place with some small explosives and trip wires. Much more sensible than a gun. I understand the general idea behind thinking removing guns is the play, but particularly with school shootings, there were plenty of guns before those became a thing, so their cause can't be the guns. We may reduce the death tolls of these types of events by removing guns, but that only removes any remaining urgency to address why people are killing others in the first place. This does make a certain amount of sense but it would be easier to swallow if there was any urgency to address why people are killing others to begin with. There isn't. Unfortunately I think the answers are too hard to swallow, and say damning things about the world we've built. How about we start with the most common cause? Single parent house hold. It's also a great predictor, even better than poverty, for a whole lot of young kids like criminality and low scolarship. The research is widely available in a single google search. Would you mind posting some sources of data that support this? Anecdotally, I've seen plenty of single-parent households (with one parent who is dedicated and loving) outperform plenty of two-parent households (with two parents who dislike each other and create a toxic environment for the children). That's exactly the evolution of my household growing up; my mom divorcing my lazy asshole of a father was the best thing that could have happened for my brothers and me. And second: How could we even stop that from happening? Ban divorce?
Anecdotal evidence. I'm talking about averages, population groups are overlapping and tons of example escape the norm.
There are tons of sources, but you will have to filter them yourself because they are for sure biased, which does not mean they cannot have truth or some of it. It's like if you researched into "sexism", pretty much every source will be left leaning. Even Obama considers it an issue.
http://marripedia.org/effects_of_fatherless_families_on_crime_rates
http://lib.post.ca.gov/Publications/Building a Career Pipeline Documents/Safe_Harbor.pdf
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jun/23/barack-obama/statistics-dont-lie-in-this-case/
Not banning divorce.
For large chunks of human history, positive changes for the better came from individuals, into comunities into culture into overall population. The solution to most problems is not giving goverment more power, it's quite the opposite.
|
On May 30 2018 10:58 Plansix wrote:
Promiscuity rules. Why would anyone want less of it?
Sex is a dangerous activies and has consecuenses. Especially for woman and homosexual man.
I personally don't like promiscuity and consider it a turn off, but it's everyones right to sleep with whoever they like. However society should stop pretending it's care free fun. It's not.
|
United States42016 Posts
On May 30 2018 11:00 GoTuNk! wrote:
For large chunks of human history, positive changes for the better came from individuals, into comunities into culture into overall population. The solution to most problems is not giving goverment more power, it's quite the opposite.
I agree with the idea of empowering individuals in principle. Most individuals will try to make things better for themselves given an opportunity, giving them power helps them do so. But I disagree with the idea of empowering individuals to be better equipped to commit a school shooting.
There aren't many positive changes for the better that I would need an extended magazine to achieve. When I think of empowering individuals to make positive changes I'm thinking of education, better access to resources, that kind of thing, not full auto.
|
On May 30 2018 11:00 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 10:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 30 2018 09:55 GoTuNk! wrote:On May 30 2018 06:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 30 2018 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:You guys obviously haven't seen these Washington raccoons + Show Spoiler +We should just do what the Norwegians do when they set up camp in dangerous areas (polar bears). Surround your place with some small explosives and trip wires. Much more sensible than a gun. I understand the general idea behind thinking removing guns is the play, but particularly with school shootings, there were plenty of guns before those became a thing, so their cause can't be the guns. We may reduce the death tolls of these types of events by removing guns, but that only removes any remaining urgency to address why people are killing others in the first place. This does make a certain amount of sense but it would be easier to swallow if there was any urgency to address why people are killing others to begin with. There isn't. Unfortunately I think the answers are too hard to swallow, and say damning things about the world we've built. How about we start with the most common cause? Single parent house hold. It's also a great predictor, even better than poverty, for a whole lot of young kids like criminality and low scolarship. The research is widely available in a single google search. Would you mind posting some sources of data that support this? Anecdotally, I've seen plenty of single-parent households (with one parent who is dedicated and loving) outperform plenty of two-parent households (with two parents who dislike each other and create a toxic environment for the children). That's exactly the evolution of my household growing up; my mom divorcing my lazy asshole of a father was the best thing that could have happened for my brothers and me. And second: How could we even stop that from happening? Ban divorce? Anecdotal evidence. I'm talking about averages, population groups are overlapping and tons of example escape the norm. There are tons of sources, but you will have to filter them yourself because they are for sure biased, which does not mean they cannot have truth or some of it. It's like if you researched into "sexism", pretty much every source will be left leaning. Even Obama considers it an issue. http://marripedia.org/effects_of_fatherless_families_on_crime_rateshttp://lib.post.ca.gov/Publications/Building a Career Pipeline Documents/Safe_Harbor.pdfhttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jun/23/barack-obama/statistics-dont-lie-in-this-case/Not banning divorce. For large chunks of human history, positive changes for the better came from individuals, into comunities into culture into overall population. The solution to most problems is not giving goverment more power, it's quite the opposite.
Japan has a ridiculously intense sense of family values and traditional communities. Also a very high level of suicide rates, unreported domestic abuse, and a lot of cultural stigma of being anywhere outside the expected range of acceptable personhood.
|
On May 30 2018 10:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 10:54 GoTuNk! wrote:On May 30 2018 10:42 KwarK wrote:On May 30 2018 10:29 GoTuNk! wrote:On May 30 2018 10:01 KwarK wrote:On May 30 2018 09:55 GoTuNk! wrote:On May 30 2018 06:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 30 2018 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:You guys obviously haven't seen these Washington raccoons + Show Spoiler +We should just do what the Norwegians do when they set up camp in dangerous areas (polar bears). Surround your place with some small explosives and trip wires. Much more sensible than a gun. I understand the general idea behind thinking removing guns is the play, but particularly with school shootings, there were plenty of guns before those became a thing, so their cause can't be the guns. We may reduce the death tolls of these types of events by removing guns, but that only removes any remaining urgency to address why people are killing others in the first place. This does make a certain amount of sense but it would be easier to swallow if there was any urgency to address why people are killing others to begin with. There isn't. Unfortunately I think the answers are too hard to swallow, and say damning things about the world we've built. How about we start with the most common cause? Single parent house hold. It's also a great predictor, even better than poverty, for a whole lot of young kids like criminality and low scolarship. The research is widely available in a single google search. Like the Columbine killers or Elliot Rodger? There has been an attempt in conservative circles to deflect blame to single mothers, and therefore onto an evil liberal feminist agenda that hates the family (usually Christianity too). I tried googling the research you referenced and all I found was a circle jerk of self referential Breitbart shit about how liberals are to blame for taking away family values. Unfortunately though the reality is that school shooters usually come from middle class white backgrounds and have families that reflect the broader population. That's not to say that school shooters don't often have troubled home lives, I'll happily concede the two are correlated and that one most likely helps cause the other. But single parent homes aren't the same thing as troubled homes. Feminism didn't cause Columbine. Yeah you are taking my point too far and making claims I didn't. Saying broken homes are bad for children is not the same as blaming single mothers for school shootings. Broken homes usually involve varying degrees of responsability on both parents. There are both dads that walk out on their kids, and mothers who do whole lot of horrible things. I honestly think it's a complex issue and my main point would be that government can't do much about it. I would say promoting traditional values in society and comunities would go a whole lot to help this issue and others, which does make me a conservative in that sense. I absolutely think that a loving marriage between two parents is a good environment to raise a child. But that's not what traditional marriages were before women got rights. The children growing up in single parent households would not have been growing up in loving two parent households previously. Single parent households are better than the alternative, households with domestic violence, abuse, constant fighting and so forth. I have zero problems with promoting loving marriages and stable households, the problem I have is that the people espousing that are normally doing it as part of their campaign to decriminalize marital rape and domestic violence. We shouldn't look back to the past for traditional values and traditional households, those were so bad that they fell apart the moment society stopped holding them together against the will of the participants. We should look forwards for how to make help households in the future better resemble the ideal, while recognizing that we're closer to it than we ever have been. I'm not talking about going back to 1500s. I'm talking about reducing kids born out of wedlock and divorce rates. Also promoting "traditional" values on people overall, like self reliance, honesty, respect for others, and less promiscuity. No conservative would ever be for marital rape or domestic violence, that's simply disingenous baiting. It's as saying liberals want to build gulags and starve people to death. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_SchlaflyShow nested quote +By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don't think you can call it rape. Unfortunately the "traditional values" crowd have some very, very unsavoury members and beliefs. You may not subscribe to them but you should take a good look at the people walking the same path as you. "Traditional marriage" has become a dog whistle term for stripping women of their legal rights and protections.
I don't think it's a valid critique to point out that someone who is on your political spectrum has an extreme view on a particular issue, to invalidate the whole issue, when I obviously don't share it.
I am a supporter of Donald Trump overall, and stuff like lowering taxes, it does not mean I'm ok with sleeping with hookers while your wife is pregnant.
Bernie Sanders was a staunch supporter of Hugo Chavez. By your premise, we should dismiss half the democratic party and prolly two thirds of users on this sub-forum. I would be ok with that actually 
|
On May 30 2018 11:04 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 10:58 Plansix wrote:
Promiscuity rules. Why would anyone want less of it? Sex is a dangerous activies and has consecuenses. Especially for woman and homosexual man. I personally don't like promiscuity and consider it a turn off, but it's everyones right to sleep with whoever they like. However society should stop pretending it's care free fun. It's not.
Dangerous? Like while sky diving maybe? But fucking isn’t dangerous. It’s serious and people should know what they are getting into, but it’s not dangerous. Riding a motorcycle without a helmet is dangerous.
There are like 200 forms of birth control out there, it can be all the care free fun you want.
|
United States42016 Posts
On May 30 2018 11:10 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 10:58 KwarK wrote:On May 30 2018 10:54 GoTuNk! wrote:On May 30 2018 10:42 KwarK wrote:On May 30 2018 10:29 GoTuNk! wrote:On May 30 2018 10:01 KwarK wrote:On May 30 2018 09:55 GoTuNk! wrote:On May 30 2018 06:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 30 2018 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:You guys obviously haven't seen these Washington raccoons + Show Spoiler +We should just do what the Norwegians do when they set up camp in dangerous areas (polar bears). Surround your place with some small explosives and trip wires. Much more sensible than a gun. I understand the general idea behind thinking removing guns is the play, but particularly with school shootings, there were plenty of guns before those became a thing, so their cause can't be the guns. We may reduce the death tolls of these types of events by removing guns, but that only removes any remaining urgency to address why people are killing others in the first place. This does make a certain amount of sense but it would be easier to swallow if there was any urgency to address why people are killing others to begin with. There isn't. Unfortunately I think the answers are too hard to swallow, and say damning things about the world we've built. How about we start with the most common cause? Single parent house hold. It's also a great predictor, even better than poverty, for a whole lot of young kids like criminality and low scolarship. The research is widely available in a single google search. Like the Columbine killers or Elliot Rodger? There has been an attempt in conservative circles to deflect blame to single mothers, and therefore onto an evil liberal feminist agenda that hates the family (usually Christianity too). I tried googling the research you referenced and all I found was a circle jerk of self referential Breitbart shit about how liberals are to blame for taking away family values. Unfortunately though the reality is that school shooters usually come from middle class white backgrounds and have families that reflect the broader population. That's not to say that school shooters don't often have troubled home lives, I'll happily concede the two are correlated and that one most likely helps cause the other. But single parent homes aren't the same thing as troubled homes. Feminism didn't cause Columbine. Yeah you are taking my point too far and making claims I didn't. Saying broken homes are bad for children is not the same as blaming single mothers for school shootings. Broken homes usually involve varying degrees of responsability on both parents. There are both dads that walk out on their kids, and mothers who do whole lot of horrible things. I honestly think it's a complex issue and my main point would be that government can't do much about it. I would say promoting traditional values in society and comunities would go a whole lot to help this issue and others, which does make me a conservative in that sense. I absolutely think that a loving marriage between two parents is a good environment to raise a child. But that's not what traditional marriages were before women got rights. The children growing up in single parent households would not have been growing up in loving two parent households previously. Single parent households are better than the alternative, households with domestic violence, abuse, constant fighting and so forth. I have zero problems with promoting loving marriages and stable households, the problem I have is that the people espousing that are normally doing it as part of their campaign to decriminalize marital rape and domestic violence. We shouldn't look back to the past for traditional values and traditional households, those were so bad that they fell apart the moment society stopped holding them together against the will of the participants. We should look forwards for how to make help households in the future better resemble the ideal, while recognizing that we're closer to it than we ever have been. I'm not talking about going back to 1500s. I'm talking about reducing kids born out of wedlock and divorce rates. Also promoting "traditional" values on people overall, like self reliance, honesty, respect for others, and less promiscuity. No conservative would ever be for marital rape or domestic violence, that's simply disingenous baiting. It's as saying liberals want to build gulags and starve people to death. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_SchlaflyBy getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don't think you can call it rape. Unfortunately the "traditional values" crowd have some very, very unsavoury members and beliefs. You may not subscribe to them but you should take a good look at the people walking the same path as you. "Traditional marriage" has become a dog whistle term for stripping women of their legal rights and protections. I don't think it's a valid critique to point out that someone who is on your political spectrum has an extreme view on a particular issue, to invalidate the whole issue, when I obviously don't share it. I am a supporter of Donald Trump overall, and stuff like lowering taxes, it does not mean I'm ok with sleeping with hookers while your wife is pregnant. Bernie Sanders was a staunch supporter of Hugo Chavez. By your premise, we should dismiss half the democratic party and prolly two thirds of users on this sub-forum. I would be ok with that actually
I think you would be surprised at the overlap between things like blaming rape victims for rape and calling for a return to traditional values. Schlafly isn't the outlier, it's you.
|
On May 30 2018 11:04 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 11:00 GoTuNk! wrote:
For large chunks of human history, positive changes for the better came from individuals, into comunities into culture into overall population. The solution to most problems is not giving goverment more power, it's quite the opposite. I agree with the idea of empowering individuals in principle. Most individuals will try to make things better for themselves given an opportunity, giving them power helps them do so. But I disagree with the idea of empowering individuals to be better equipped to commit a school shooting. There aren't many positive changes for the better that I would need an extended magazine to achieve. When I think of empowering individuals to make positive changes I'm thinking of education, better access to resources, that kind of thing, not full auto.
Well the gun debate is extremely tiresome and had ad-naseum here. At some point one the right should say "we need to look for ways to make guns harder to obtain for mass shooters" and the left should say "we have to do so while we make sure people can still retain their right to protect themselves and uphold the 2nd ammendment"
Will never happen.
Instead all we get is inflamatory rethoric saying "why do you need a gun" "you care about hunting more than dead children" "if a robber comes into your house let him take your stuff you don't need a gun you are safer if no one shoots anyone" "all leftist wants to do is destroy our country and 2nd ammendment" etc etc.
|
On May 30 2018 11:10 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 11:04 GoTuNk! wrote:On May 30 2018 10:58 Plansix wrote:
Promiscuity rules. Why would anyone want less of it? Sex is a dangerous activies and has consecuenses. Especially for woman and homosexual man. I personally don't like promiscuity and consider it a turn off, but it's everyones right to sleep with whoever they like. However society should stop pretending it's care free fun. It's not. Dangerous? Like while sky diving maybe? But fucking isn’t dangerous. It’s serious and people should know what they are getting into, but it’s not dangerous. Riding a motorcycle without a helmet is dangerous. There are like 200 forms of birth control out there, it can be all the care free fun you want.
Yeah sex is perfectly safe. That's why no one has STD's and unwanted pregnacies are a thing of the past.
Drugs are also perfectly safe, it's not like there are drugs addicts pretty much everywhere.
|
On May 30 2018 11:18 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 11:10 Plansix wrote:On May 30 2018 11:04 GoTuNk! wrote:On May 30 2018 10:58 Plansix wrote:
Promiscuity rules. Why would anyone want less of it? Sex is a dangerous activies and has consecuenses. Especially for woman and homosexual man. I personally don't like promiscuity and consider it a turn off, but it's everyones right to sleep with whoever they like. However society should stop pretending it's care free fun. It's not. Dangerous? Like while sky diving maybe? But fucking isn’t dangerous. It’s serious and people should know what they are getting into, but it’s not dangerous. Riding a motorcycle without a helmet is dangerous. There are like 200 forms of birth control out there, it can be all the care free fun you want. Yeah sex is perfectly safe. That's why no one has STD's and unwanted pregnacies are a thing of the past. Drugs are also perfectly safe, it's not like there are drugs addicts pretty much everywhere.
This is why birth control.
Which the US doesn't believe in either, but it does exist
|
On May 30 2018 11:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 11:10 GoTuNk! wrote:On May 30 2018 10:58 KwarK wrote:On May 30 2018 10:54 GoTuNk! wrote:On May 30 2018 10:42 KwarK wrote:On May 30 2018 10:29 GoTuNk! wrote:On May 30 2018 10:01 KwarK wrote:On May 30 2018 09:55 GoTuNk! wrote:On May 30 2018 06:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 30 2018 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:You guys obviously haven't seen these Washington raccoons + Show Spoiler +We should just do what the Norwegians do when they set up camp in dangerous areas (polar bears). Surround your place with some small explosives and trip wires. Much more sensible than a gun. I understand the general idea behind thinking removing guns is the play, but particularly with school shootings, there were plenty of guns before those became a thing, so their cause can't be the guns. We may reduce the death tolls of these types of events by removing guns, but that only removes any remaining urgency to address why people are killing others in the first place. This does make a certain amount of sense but it would be easier to swallow if there was any urgency to address why people are killing others to begin with. There isn't. Unfortunately I think the answers are too hard to swallow, and say damning things about the world we've built. How about we start with the most common cause? Single parent house hold. It's also a great predictor, even better than poverty, for a whole lot of young kids like criminality and low scolarship. The research is widely available in a single google search. Like the Columbine killers or Elliot Rodger? There has been an attempt in conservative circles to deflect blame to single mothers, and therefore onto an evil liberal feminist agenda that hates the family (usually Christianity too). I tried googling the research you referenced and all I found was a circle jerk of self referential Breitbart shit about how liberals are to blame for taking away family values. Unfortunately though the reality is that school shooters usually come from middle class white backgrounds and have families that reflect the broader population. That's not to say that school shooters don't often have troubled home lives, I'll happily concede the two are correlated and that one most likely helps cause the other. But single parent homes aren't the same thing as troubled homes. Feminism didn't cause Columbine. Yeah you are taking my point too far and making claims I didn't. Saying broken homes are bad for children is not the same as blaming single mothers for school shootings. Broken homes usually involve varying degrees of responsability on both parents. There are both dads that walk out on their kids, and mothers who do whole lot of horrible things. I honestly think it's a complex issue and my main point would be that government can't do much about it. I would say promoting traditional values in society and comunities would go a whole lot to help this issue and others, which does make me a conservative in that sense. I absolutely think that a loving marriage between two parents is a good environment to raise a child. But that's not what traditional marriages were before women got rights. The children growing up in single parent households would not have been growing up in loving two parent households previously. Single parent households are better than the alternative, households with domestic violence, abuse, constant fighting and so forth. I have zero problems with promoting loving marriages and stable households, the problem I have is that the people espousing that are normally doing it as part of their campaign to decriminalize marital rape and domestic violence. We shouldn't look back to the past for traditional values and traditional households, those were so bad that they fell apart the moment society stopped holding them together against the will of the participants. We should look forwards for how to make help households in the future better resemble the ideal, while recognizing that we're closer to it than we ever have been. I'm not talking about going back to 1500s. I'm talking about reducing kids born out of wedlock and divorce rates. Also promoting "traditional" values on people overall, like self reliance, honesty, respect for others, and less promiscuity. No conservative would ever be for marital rape or domestic violence, that's simply disingenous baiting. It's as saying liberals want to build gulags and starve people to death. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_SchlaflyBy getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don't think you can call it rape. Unfortunately the "traditional values" crowd have some very, very unsavoury members and beliefs. You may not subscribe to them but you should take a good look at the people walking the same path as you. "Traditional marriage" has become a dog whistle term for stripping women of their legal rights and protections. I don't think it's a valid critique to point out that someone who is on your political spectrum has an extreme view on a particular issue, to invalidate the whole issue, when I obviously don't share it. I am a supporter of Donald Trump overall, and stuff like lowering taxes, it does not mean I'm ok with sleeping with hookers while your wife is pregnant. Bernie Sanders was a staunch supporter of Hugo Chavez. By your premise, we should dismiss half the democratic party and prolly two thirds of users on this sub-forum. I would be ok with that actually I think you would be surprised at the overlap between things like blaming rape victims for rape and calling for a return to traditional values. Schlafly isn't the outlier, it's you.
Sorry I honestly think that's just leftist propaganda and out of context baiting. Standing up for due process or advising people to be cautious of they whereabouts is not victim blaming. As Ben Shapiro always says, the conservative positions is that rapist should be castrated or killed.
That does not mean we can skip due process for any fellony, or that false accusations do not exist.
|
United States42016 Posts
On May 30 2018 11:25 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 11:13 KwarK wrote:On May 30 2018 11:10 GoTuNk! wrote:On May 30 2018 10:58 KwarK wrote:On May 30 2018 10:54 GoTuNk! wrote:On May 30 2018 10:42 KwarK wrote:On May 30 2018 10:29 GoTuNk! wrote:On May 30 2018 10:01 KwarK wrote:On May 30 2018 09:55 GoTuNk! wrote:On May 30 2018 06:34 Jockmcplop wrote:
[quote]
This does make a certain amount of sense but it would be easier to swallow if there was any urgency to address why people are killing others to begin with.
There isn't.
Unfortunately I think the answers are too hard to swallow, and say damning things about the world we've built. How about we start with the most common cause? Single parent house hold. It's also a great predictor, even better than poverty, for a whole lot of young kids like criminality and low scolarship. The research is widely available in a single google search. Like the Columbine killers or Elliot Rodger? There has been an attempt in conservative circles to deflect blame to single mothers, and therefore onto an evil liberal feminist agenda that hates the family (usually Christianity too). I tried googling the research you referenced and all I found was a circle jerk of self referential Breitbart shit about how liberals are to blame for taking away family values. Unfortunately though the reality is that school shooters usually come from middle class white backgrounds and have families that reflect the broader population. That's not to say that school shooters don't often have troubled home lives, I'll happily concede the two are correlated and that one most likely helps cause the other. But single parent homes aren't the same thing as troubled homes. Feminism didn't cause Columbine. Yeah you are taking my point too far and making claims I didn't. Saying broken homes are bad for children is not the same as blaming single mothers for school shootings. Broken homes usually involve varying degrees of responsability on both parents. There are both dads that walk out on their kids, and mothers who do whole lot of horrible things. I honestly think it's a complex issue and my main point would be that government can't do much about it. I would say promoting traditional values in society and comunities would go a whole lot to help this issue and others, which does make me a conservative in that sense. I absolutely think that a loving marriage between two parents is a good environment to raise a child. But that's not what traditional marriages were before women got rights. The children growing up in single parent households would not have been growing up in loving two parent households previously. Single parent households are better than the alternative, households with domestic violence, abuse, constant fighting and so forth. I have zero problems with promoting loving marriages and stable households, the problem I have is that the people espousing that are normally doing it as part of their campaign to decriminalize marital rape and domestic violence. We shouldn't look back to the past for traditional values and traditional households, those were so bad that they fell apart the moment society stopped holding them together against the will of the participants. We should look forwards for how to make help households in the future better resemble the ideal, while recognizing that we're closer to it than we ever have been. I'm not talking about going back to 1500s. I'm talking about reducing kids born out of wedlock and divorce rates. Also promoting "traditional" values on people overall, like self reliance, honesty, respect for others, and less promiscuity. No conservative would ever be for marital rape or domestic violence, that's simply disingenous baiting. It's as saying liberals want to build gulags and starve people to death. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_SchlaflyBy getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don't think you can call it rape. Unfortunately the "traditional values" crowd have some very, very unsavoury members and beliefs. You may not subscribe to them but you should take a good look at the people walking the same path as you. "Traditional marriage" has become a dog whistle term for stripping women of their legal rights and protections. I don't think it's a valid critique to point out that someone who is on your political spectrum has an extreme view on a particular issue, to invalidate the whole issue, when I obviously don't share it. I am a supporter of Donald Trump overall, and stuff like lowering taxes, it does not mean I'm ok with sleeping with hookers while your wife is pregnant. Bernie Sanders was a staunch supporter of Hugo Chavez. By your premise, we should dismiss half the democratic party and prolly two thirds of users on this sub-forum. I would be ok with that actually I think you would be surprised at the overlap between things like blaming rape victims for rape and calling for a return to traditional values. Schlafly isn't the outlier, it's you. Sorry I honestly think that's just leftist propaganda and out of context baiting. Standing up for due process or advising people to be cautious of they whereabouts is not victim blaming. As Ben Shapiro always says, the conservative positions is that rapist should be castrated or killed. That does not mean we can skip due process for any fellony, or that false accusations do not exist.
Except when the conservative position is that he should be elected, presumably.
Reality isn't leftist propaganda. You can't vote for these people and then insist that it's the fault of the left.
|
On May 30 2018 11:21 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 11:18 GoTuNk! wrote:On May 30 2018 11:10 Plansix wrote:On May 30 2018 11:04 GoTuNk! wrote:On May 30 2018 10:58 Plansix wrote:
Promiscuity rules. Why would anyone want less of it? Sex is a dangerous activies and has consecuenses. Especially for woman and homosexual man. I personally don't like promiscuity and consider it a turn off, but it's everyones right to sleep with whoever they like. However society should stop pretending it's care free fun. It's not. Dangerous? Like while sky diving maybe? But fucking isn’t dangerous. It’s serious and people should know what they are getting into, but it’s not dangerous. Riding a motorcycle without a helmet is dangerous. There are like 200 forms of birth control out there, it can be all the care free fun you want. Yeah sex is perfectly safe. That's why no one has STD's and unwanted pregnacies are a thing of the past. Drugs are also perfectly safe, it's not like there are drugs addicts pretty much everywhere. This is why birth control. Which the US doesn't believe in either, but it does exist
That's just disingenous reasoning and bad intended generalizations. All countries in the world have STDs and unwanted pregnacies by the way. You simply cannot pretend sex is a free-risk activity because birth control exists. It is not.
Cars are dangerous, it is a fact of life. Tens of thousands of people (hundreds?) die every year in car accidents. Just like birth control we have traffic laws but people are humans. People don't always follow rules, make mistakes, and chance exists.
That does not mean we will stop driving cars or having sex. It just means recognizing it's dangerous activity and be responsible about it.
|
On May 30 2018 11:28 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2018 11:25 GoTuNk! wrote:On May 30 2018 11:13 KwarK wrote:On May 30 2018 11:10 GoTuNk! wrote:On May 30 2018 10:58 KwarK wrote:On May 30 2018 10:54 GoTuNk! wrote:On May 30 2018 10:42 KwarK wrote:On May 30 2018 10:29 GoTuNk! wrote:On May 30 2018 10:01 KwarK wrote:On May 30 2018 09:55 GoTuNk! wrote:
[quote]
How about we start with the most common cause? Single parent house hold. It's also a great predictor, even better than poverty, for a whole lot of young kids like criminality and low scolarship. The research is widely available in a single google search. Like the Columbine killers or Elliot Rodger? There has been an attempt in conservative circles to deflect blame to single mothers, and therefore onto an evil liberal feminist agenda that hates the family (usually Christianity too). I tried googling the research you referenced and all I found was a circle jerk of self referential Breitbart shit about how liberals are to blame for taking away family values. Unfortunately though the reality is that school shooters usually come from middle class white backgrounds and have families that reflect the broader population. That's not to say that school shooters don't often have troubled home lives, I'll happily concede the two are correlated and that one most likely helps cause the other. But single parent homes aren't the same thing as troubled homes. Feminism didn't cause Columbine. Yeah you are taking my point too far and making claims I didn't. Saying broken homes are bad for children is not the same as blaming single mothers for school shootings. Broken homes usually involve varying degrees of responsability on both parents. There are both dads that walk out on their kids, and mothers who do whole lot of horrible things. I honestly think it's a complex issue and my main point would be that government can't do much about it. I would say promoting traditional values in society and comunities would go a whole lot to help this issue and others, which does make me a conservative in that sense. I absolutely think that a loving marriage between two parents is a good environment to raise a child. But that's not what traditional marriages were before women got rights. The children growing up in single parent households would not have been growing up in loving two parent households previously. Single parent households are better than the alternative, households with domestic violence, abuse, constant fighting and so forth. I have zero problems with promoting loving marriages and stable households, the problem I have is that the people espousing that are normally doing it as part of their campaign to decriminalize marital rape and domestic violence. We shouldn't look back to the past for traditional values and traditional households, those were so bad that they fell apart the moment society stopped holding them together against the will of the participants. We should look forwards for how to make help households in the future better resemble the ideal, while recognizing that we're closer to it than we ever have been. I'm not talking about going back to 1500s. I'm talking about reducing kids born out of wedlock and divorce rates. Also promoting "traditional" values on people overall, like self reliance, honesty, respect for others, and less promiscuity. No conservative would ever be for marital rape or domestic violence, that's simply disingenous baiting. It's as saying liberals want to build gulags and starve people to death. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_SchlaflyBy getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don't think you can call it rape. Unfortunately the "traditional values" crowd have some very, very unsavoury members and beliefs. You may not subscribe to them but you should take a good look at the people walking the same path as you. "Traditional marriage" has become a dog whistle term for stripping women of their legal rights and protections. I don't think it's a valid critique to point out that someone who is on your political spectrum has an extreme view on a particular issue, to invalidate the whole issue, when I obviously don't share it. I am a supporter of Donald Trump overall, and stuff like lowering taxes, it does not mean I'm ok with sleeping with hookers while your wife is pregnant. Bernie Sanders was a staunch supporter of Hugo Chavez. By your premise, we should dismiss half the democratic party and prolly two thirds of users on this sub-forum. I would be ok with that actually I think you would be surprised at the overlap between things like blaming rape victims for rape and calling for a return to traditional values. Schlafly isn't the outlier, it's you. Sorry I honestly think that's just leftist propaganda and out of context baiting. Standing up for due process or advising people to be cautious of they whereabouts is not victim blaming. As Ben Shapiro always says, the conservative positions is that rapist should be castrated or killed. That does not mean we can skip due process for any fellony, or that false accusations do not exist. Except when the conservative position is that he should be elected, presumably. Reality isn't leftist propaganda. You can't vote for these people and then insist that it's the fault of the left.
At this point I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
I will repeat: the conservative position is that rapist should be castrated or killed; sadly we only get to imprison them. That does not mean we should skip due process, or that false accusations do not exist.
I will follow the same logic:
Bernie Bros voted for Sanders. Sanders endorsed Hugo Chavez. Bernie supporters want to turn the U.S. into a communist dictatorship?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/5LB5hcN.jpg)
