Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

The Hypocrisy of American Society

ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 8:01:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I love when each generation comes up with their own movement to make them feel as if they were 'different' (i.e superior) to the previous generation. I enjoy people who claim they are non-conformist for being in a movement or group that is also non-conformist. That in itself is hypocritical because you are still conforming by being in a group and striving for that group's acceptance.

Society, in general has deteriorated. It has become a societal norm to do things that were just a generation ago considered immoral and disgusting, and in my opinion some of these things still are considered disgusting. A small group of people from the hip hop culture have made it seem like the majority of teens sleep around, use drugs and party their lives away, when if you look at the statistics this group is a loud minority. There has been a role reversal, the majority of people who are quiet and do the right thing (don't sleep around young, don't party their lives away, don't use drugs), are ostracized and made fun of by this loud minority. The loud minority get away with this because they use smoke and mirrors to make it look like they are infact, the majority.

Thoughts, criticisms, etc?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 9:12:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 8:01:57 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I love when each generation comes up with their own movement to make them feel as if they were 'different' (i.e superior) to the previous generation. I enjoy people who claim they are non-conformist for being in a movement or group that is also non-conformist. That in itself is hypocritical because you are still conforming by being in a group and striving for that group's acceptance.

Society, in general has deteriorated. It has become a societal norm to do things that were just a generation ago considered immoral and disgusting, and in my opinion some of these things still are considered disgusting. A small group of people from the hip hop culture have made it seem like the majority of teens sleep around, use drugs and party their lives away, when if you look at the statistics this group is a loud minority. There has been a role reversal, the majority of people who are quiet and do the right thing (don't sleep around young, don't party their lives away, don't use drugs), are ostracized and made fun of by this loud minority. The loud minority get away with this because they use smoke and mirrors to make it look like they are infact, the majority.

Thoughts, criticisms, etc?

I strongly disagree with this.

Our country is more moral by most standards compared to the 60s and 70s. Drugs are now more controlled, whereas before they proliferated uncontrolled. There were bonafide theaters that ran porn movies - this was part of the sexual liberation movement during that time. Now, we are more discreet with this behavior, and most would recognize this as a moral development - what you find distasteful in hip-hop and (let's broaden this) Katy Perry/Madonna is orders of magnitude more toned down than what was occurring before them, which was socially acceptable overt public displays of sexual acts.

I think Reagan's California governorship and national presidency is a great point in where one can see where this new moral foundation materialized. Reagan dealt with the chaos and potentially morally destructive hippie movement at its source - Berkeley. What we see today, especially in Berkeley, is much more toned down, and we have Reagan directly to thank for that. He made conservatism cool again.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 9:20:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
We are becoming more individualistic as opposed to communistic. Individuals are taught to be highly ambitious and push for accumulation of wealth at virtually any cost. Even the term "ambition" has lost all negative connotations and is now seen as a virtue. It's not surprising to see cultural norms and mores degrading as we downplay the importance of the group. Using your example of hip hop, this couldn't be more evident. Hip hop started out as an expression of oppressive conditions in the ghetto; ambitions of the few push many to the margins, and blacks in the projects used hip hop to describe their struggles. Wu-tang rapped about "picking roaches out the cereal box..."

Hip hop quickly became infested with the same diseased that caused it in the first place: ambition and wealth. Rappers can talk of nothing else now, and nobody wants to hear from a rapper in the ghetto, only those with a pocket full of hundred dolllar bills and a luxury automobile is going to get any airplay.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 10:57:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 9:12:18 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/9/2013 8:01:57 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I love when each generation comes up with their own movement to make them feel as if they were 'different' (i.e superior) to the previous generation. I enjoy people who claim they are non-conformist for being in a movement or group that is also non-conformist. That in itself is hypocritical because you are still conforming by being in a group and striving for that group's acceptance.

Society, in general has deteriorated. It has become a societal norm to do things that were just a generation ago considered immoral and disgusting, and in my opinion some of these things still are considered disgusting. A small group of people from the hip hop culture have made it seem like the majority of teens sleep around, use drugs and party their lives away, when if you look at the statistics this group is a loud minority. There has been a role reversal, the majority of people who are quiet and do the right thing (don't sleep around young, don't party their lives away, don't use drugs), are ostracized and made fun of by this loud minority. The loud minority get away with this because they use smoke and mirrors to make it look like they are infact, the majority.


Thoughts, criticisms, etc?

I strongly disagree with this.

Our country is more moral by most standards compared to the 60s and 70s. Drugs are now more controlled, whereas before they proliferated uncontrolled. There were bonafide theaters that ran porn movies - this was part of the sexual liberation movement during that time. Now, we are more discreet with this behavior, and most would recognize this as a moral development - what you find distasteful in hip-hop and (let's broaden this) Katy Perry/Madonna is orders of magnitude more toned down than what was occurring before them, which was socially acceptable overt public displays of sexual acts.

I think Reagan's California governorship and national presidency is a great point in where one can see where this new moral foundation materialized. Reagan dealt with the chaos and potentially morally destructive hippie movement at its source - Berkeley. What we see today, especially in Berkeley, is much more toned down, and we have Reagan directly to thank for that. He made conservatism cool again.

Sorry if my thoughts are scattered a bit, I was just sort of half heartedly putting what I see and think everyday on virtual paper.

I really am not basing this off of logic, more observation of my own local city. For example, when I was in high school (only 5 years ago), when I was in my health class and any politically connected class, what I saw was that I just mentioned above. The more moderate/uncaring majority would dare to speak up while the burnouts (who were usually liberals, not making any stereotype here, maybe it's reversed in the south), talked loudly and disrespectfully about how condoms should be distributed in school. They openly admitted that at their age they were having sex! They even tried to claim that the majority of high schoolers were drug users and not abstinent! Trust me, if you can prove me wrong or say it's different where you live, I would be happy to hear that! I am merely speaking based on circumstantial evidence, not statistical. What I mean is, whenever the moderate majority spoke, they were almost always cut off or ostracized by the burnout/cool loud minority.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 11:03:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 9:20:37 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
We are becoming more individualistic as opposed to communistic. Individuals are taught to be highly ambitious and push for accumulation of wealth at virtually any cost. Even the term "ambition" has lost all negative connotations and is now seen as a virtue. It's not surprising to see cultural norms and mores degrading as we downplay the importance of the group. Using your example of hip hop, this couldn't be more evident. Hip hop started out as an expression of oppressive conditions in the ghetto; ambitions of the few push many to the margins, and blacks in the projects used hip hop to describe their struggles. Wu-tang rapped about "picking roaches out the cereal box..."

Hip hop quickly became infested with the same diseased that caused it in the first place: ambition and wealth. Rappers can talk of nothing else now, and nobody wants to hear from a rapper in the ghetto, only those with a pocket full of hundred dolllar bills and a luxury automobile is going to get any airplay.

I agree to a point. But let's face it, if kids would realize that music is an industry and that the rappers that claim to be speaking 'the truth' are just rapping what their record company tells them to rap (usually) so they can be millionaires. They don't care if their viewers gang bang, become addicted to drugs or anything else negative that might happen to them. I am not some neo conservative who is against hip hop in general, I am against what it has turned in to. I still listen to hip hop, but when I have a choice (when it's not on the radio), I listen to rappers who have at least some positive options for songs (Lupe Fiasco, even though he is a kook, Eminem, etc.).

I also think that rappers only influence this ignorant, loud minority that I spoke of, and then the loud minority that is influenced goes out and influences the quiet majority to conform to their way of life.

I agree with individualism, but what we have now is false individualism. Instead of there being only 3-4 groups to conform to in the old days (nerds, jocks, goths, hippies), there are now multiple groups to conform to. It's just as bad because now there is a war of the cultures, and the hip hop culture is unfortunately winning (mostly over males).
jboccia
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 2:46:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I disagree strongly with the first part of your statement regarding new generations trying to "come up" with their own movement to try and become superior the previous generations. Trends and society changes instantaneously.
I do, on the other hand, agree with the negative influences that have been portrayed by adolescents due to the hip-hop phenomenon. The derogatory lyrics and messages these artists portray are inappropriate and even illegal in some instances. It has made an impact that is evident in, not only their lyrics, but movies, magazines, television, and internet, as well. According to a study from Diamond, in 2006, hip-hop has entrenched negative lifestyles for many young people as a reaction to the lack of acceptance. There is a blatant contribution to deviant behavior from hip-hop.
"A survey conducted with male youth offenders (aged 17 to 21) of diverse ethnicities
found that their musical preference was rap. The study also found that 72% of these
youth believed that music influenced the way that they feel at least some of the time;
however, only 4% perceived a connection between music listening and their deviant
behavior.... Youth who chose to listen to rock and rap music with defiant messages were more likely to exhibit trait rebelliousness, disinhibition, and hostility using standard psychometric measures.... Most studies cannot determine whether the media shapes people"s attitudes or whether people"s attitudes shape their media consumption. These studies, however lend support to the argument that media content and audiences" attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors tend to be mutually reinforcing. More specifically, they show that there is a close, but not necessarily causal, link between popular music preferences and youth attitudes and behavior around drugs. As social cognitive theory predicts that the impact of music is most likely greatest when the messages are reinforced by peers and are reflects in other media."

Another study, done by Maarten H. W. Selfhout, reports that studies have found that rap fans exhibit more externalizing behavior than other adolescents. They emphasize that:
Several other processes have been proposed to account for the effect of adolescents"
youth cultural style preferences on their behaviors. First, there may be a tendency for
someone to conform to the perceived deviant lifestyle and behavioral characteristics of
the youth culture style with which he or she most identified, regardless of whether this
person actually interacts with members of that crowd... Second, if adolescents are actual members of a clique (i.e, friendship group) embedded within a certain youth culture style group, they may conform to perceived group norms. ... Third, the desire to be affiliated with a certain youth culture style may guide adolescents toward deviant behavior. ... Studies have also suggested that adolescents with more problems may indeed choose to affiliate themselves with nonmainstream youth cultures and peers facing or acting out the same types of problems. ... Our findings support the aforementioned sociocognitive perspective and other views in which adolescents" cultural orientations preceded problem behavior rather than result from it. Adolescents with relatively strong preferences for heavy metal or hip-hop may be more frequently exposed to music and videos with antisocial content, which may make them behave more defiantly and activate more antisocial cognitive schemas. ... Strong preferences for heavy metal and hip hop may also lead to externalizing problems through
modeling processes and conformity to group norms. ... For example, the peer socialization hypothesis suggests that adolescents more deeply embedded in a deviant
peer context have more peer models, encouragement, and rewards for exhibiting problems behavior. ... No support was found for the psychosocial perspective: Adolescents" externalizing problems did not predict later heavy metal and hip hop youth
culture style preferences."

Furthermore, society is always drastically changing. There was a movement in the 60's that was similar to this hip-hop movement. This was the psychedelic movement where musicians and bands such as Jimi Hendrix, The Beatles, and the Grateful Dead impacted the "free love" and LSD movement. Millions were impacted by this movement. I'm sure that in another few decades there will be another fad or trend that will occur.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 2:53:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Like I said, I can not really prove whether the whole thing about each generation trying to come up with their own original movement just for the sake of originality is true or not, that is just my personal experience. I do not agree that everyone should conform to a social group, if you want to talk to all kinds of different social groups and be non-conformist, that is fine. I believe that (as your study said, somewhat), people who overtly attempt to be different have insecurity problems. If you are different, that is fine, it's just when people overtly try to show they are.

I do still believe that the majority of adolescents are responsible and decent people, it's the loud minority that will always ruin the reputation of the silent majority.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 5:14:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Eric Hoffer's work on mass movements and mob psychology hit the nail on the head when it comes to this subject. I'll post a few snippets.

"There is a fundamental difference between the appeal of a mass movement and the appeal of a practical organization. The practical organization offers opportunities for self-advancement, and its appeal is mainly to self-interest. On the other hand, a mass movement, particularly in its active, revivalist phase, appeals not to those intent on bolstering and advancing a cherished self, but to those who crave to be rid of an unwanted self. A mass movement attracts and holds a following not because it can satisfy the desire for self-advancement, but because it can satisfy the passion for self-renunciation."

"The urge to escape our real self is also an urge to escape the rational and the obvious. The refusal to see ourselves as we are develops a distaste for facts and cold logic. There is no hope for the frustrated in the actual and the possible. Salvation can come to them only from the miraculous, which seeps through a crack in the iron wall of inexorable reality. They ask to be deceived. What Stresemann said of the Germans is true of the frustrated in general: "[They] pray not only for [their] daily bread, but also for [their] daily illusion." The rule seems to be that those who find difficulty in deceiving themselves are easily deceived by others. They are easily persuaded and led."

"A fateful process is set in motion when the individual is released 'to the freedom of his own impotence' and left to justify his existence by his own efforts. The autonomous individual, striving to realize himself and prove his worth, has created all that is great in literature, art, music, science and technology. The autonomous individual, also, when he can neither realize himself nor justify his existence by his own efforts, is a breeding call of frustration, and the seed of the convulsions which shake our world to its foundations.

The individual on his own is stable only so long as he is possessed of self-esteem. The maintenance of self-esteem is a continuous task which taxes all of the individual's powers and inner resources. We have to prove our worth and justify our existence anew each day. When, for whatever reason, self-esteem is unattainable, the autonomous individual becomes a highly explosive entity. He turns away from an unpromising self and plunges into the pursuit of pride " the explosive substitute for self-esteem. All social disturbances and upheavals have their roots in crises of individual self-esteem, and the great endeavor in which the masses most readily unite is basically a search for pride."

"Nonconformists travel as a rule in bunches. You rarely find a nonconformist who goes it alone. And woe to him inside a nonconformist clique who does not conform with nonconformity."
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 5:49:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 5:14:06 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Eric Hoffer's work on mass movements and mob psychology hit the nail on the head when it comes to this subject. I'll post a few snippets.

"There is a fundamental difference between the appeal of a mass movement and the appeal of a practical organization. The practical organization offers opportunities for self-advancement, and its appeal is mainly to self-interest. On the other hand, a mass movement, particularly in its active, revivalist phase, appeals not to those intent on bolstering and advancing a cherished self, but to those who crave to be rid of an unwanted self. A mass movement attracts and holds a following not because it can satisfy the desire for self-advancement, but because it can satisfy the passion for self-renunciation."

A question for you. Would you consider what MLK did a mass movement or a practical organization?

Personally, without having read this, I would have called it a mass movement. After having read this, I still would not call it a practical organization.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 5:50:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 5:49:31 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/9/2013 5:14:06 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Eric Hoffer's work on mass movements and mob psychology hit the nail on the head when it comes to this subject. I'll post a few snippets.

"There is a fundamental difference between the appeal of a mass movement and the appeal of a practical organization. The practical organization offers opportunities for self-advancement, and its appeal is mainly to self-interest. On the other hand, a mass movement, particularly in its active, revivalist phase, appeals not to those intent on bolstering and advancing a cherished self, but to those who crave to be rid of an unwanted self. A mass movement attracts and holds a following not because it can satisfy the desire for self-advancement, but because it can satisfy the passion for self-renunciation."

A question for you. Would you consider what MLK did a mass movement or a practical organization?

Personally, without having read this, I would have called it a mass movement. After having read this, I still would not call it a practical organization.

Another point would be that what MalcolmX did would easily be classified as a practical organization, according to this logic.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
jboccia
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 6:31:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I would not necessarily say that this is considered a mass movement or a practical organization. It is just a fad and a point of interest. Mass movements would be considered the civil rights movement and extreme movements such as urbanization and the migration into the suburbs. The quote regarding "the individual on his own is stable only so long as he is possessed of self-esteem..." is pretty accurate. According to the Human Architecture: Journal of the Sociology of Self-Knowledge, environment is a crucial aspect when trying to ensure that children grow up to have high self-esteems and positive perceptions of themselves. This is very true. Self-esteem and social cultures have a lot to do with the environment someone is brought up in and surrounding themselves around. Erving Goffman has a theory of impression management, which refers to the "ways in which the individual guides and controls the impressions other form of him or her." This concerns the way people present themselves to others because, in reality, people could be lying about who they truly are to impress those around them. This, however, has been happening all throughout history, but has become increasingly worse as our world has become more materialistic, judgmental, and egotistical.

http://scholarworks.umb.edu...
jboccia
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 10:51:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is more than just hip-hop. It is about the impact this genre of music is having on adolescents in today's society. I, personally, am a fan of hip-hop, and I can easily say that the lyrics are usually extremely derogatory, sexist, and inappropriate. Those who do not have a strong sense of self could easily be sucked into the ideas that some of the songs give out. Hip-hop, similar to Rock 'n' Roll, goes beyond just a genre of music. It is a complex system of ideas, values, and concepts that reflect emerging, consistently changing expressive mechanisms. According to Carl S. Taylor, a Ph.D. in sociology, hip-hop has a profound affect on younger people because they are easy to reach out to.

http://www.education.com...
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 10:11:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 10:51:54 AM, jboccia wrote:
This is more than just hip-hop. It is about the impact this genre of music is having on adolescents in today's society. I, personally, am a fan of hip-hop, and I can easily say that the lyrics are usually extremely derogatory, sexist, and inappropriate. Those who do not have a strong sense of self could easily be sucked into the ideas that some of the songs give out. Hip-hop, similar to Rock 'n' Roll, goes beyond just a genre of music. It is a complex system of ideas, values, and concepts that reflect emerging, consistently changing expressive mechanisms. According to Carl S. Taylor, a Ph.D. in sociology, hip-hop has a profound affect on younger people because they are easy to reach out to.

http://www.education.com...

Oh please. I'm assuming you're familiar with legendary rapper Ice Cube?
#BlackLivesMatter
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 11:26:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 5:50:30 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/9/2013 5:49:31 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/9/2013 5:14:06 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Eric Hoffer's work on mass movements and mob psychology hit the nail on the head when it comes to this subject. I'll post a few snippets.

"There is a fundamental difference between the appeal of a mass movement and the appeal of a practical organization. The practical organization offers opportunities for self-advancement, and its appeal is mainly to self-interest. On the other hand, a mass movement, particularly in its active, revivalist phase, appeals not to those intent on bolstering and advancing a cherished self, but to those who crave to be rid of an unwanted self. A mass movement attracts and holds a following not because it can satisfy the desire for self-advancement, but because it can satisfy the passion for self-renunciation."

A question for you. Would you consider what MLK did a mass movement or a practical organization?

Personally, without having read this, I would have called it a mass movement. After having read this, I still would not call it a practical organization.

Another point would be that what MalcolmX did would easily be classified as a practical organization, according to this logic.

Both would be considered mass movements under Hoffer's definition, because they were groups of people tied together by an idealistic cause. A practical organization would be something not focused on ideology, like a research lab or a factory. He didn't deny that mass movements could accomplish amazing feats, he attributed this to the fact that they were composed of mediocre people who, while they were afraid on an individual level to pursue quite ordinary goals due to a fear of failure, had no qualms about pursuing the impossible collectively because failure is to be expected and cannot be attributed to them personally. The resulting fervor often resulted in an altogether surprising efficacy when faced with monumental tasks.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 1:05:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 11:26:19 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/9/2013 5:50:30 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/9/2013 5:49:31 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/9/2013 5:14:06 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Eric Hoffer's work on mass movements and mob psychology hit the nail on the head when it comes to this subject. I'll post a few snippets.

"There is a fundamental difference between the appeal of a mass movement and the appeal of a practical organization. The practical organization offers opportunities for self-advancement, and its appeal is mainly to self-interest. On the other hand, a mass movement, particularly in its active, revivalist phase, appeals not to those intent on bolstering and advancing a cherished self, but to those who crave to be rid of an unwanted self. A mass movement attracts and holds a following not because it can satisfy the desire for self-advancement, but because it can satisfy the passion for self-renunciation."

A question for you. Would you consider what MLK did a mass movement or a practical organization?

Personally, without having read this, I would have called it a mass movement. After having read this, I still would not call it a practical organization.

Another point would be that what MalcolmX did would easily be classified as a practical organization, according to this logic.

Both would be considered mass movements under Hoffer's definition, because they were groups of people tied together by an idealistic cause. A practical organization would be something not focused on ideology, like a research lab or a factory. He didn't deny that mass movements could accomplish amazing feats, he attributed this to the fact that they were composed of mediocre people who, while they were afraid on an individual level to pursue quite ordinary goals due to a fear of failure, had no qualms about pursuing the impossible collectively because failure is to be expected and cannot be attributed to them personally. The resulting fervor often resulted in an altogether surprising efficacy when faced with monumental tasks.

Interesting. Thanks for replying. I don't have enough knowledge about this to come to a conclusion one way or another, so I will just say that I appreciate the perspective.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 6:21:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Why are drugs, drinking and sex immoral? I understand they can be high risk activities, but how are they immoral?

Is base jumping immoral? Is traveling in the jungle immoral? What about high risk activities in the in the olden days like not wearing a seatbelt or working in a mine?

I don't see how drinking, sex and drugs are immoral. Why are they?
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 6:26:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think this generation is very tolerant and caring. They are tolerant of gays and seem are less racist than old people. I heard the 60s and 70s were a time of partying and drugs ect. However, I don't see how morality can be based on drugs and partying. Every generation thinks society is degrading when actually it is improving.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2013 7:43:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 6:21:41 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
Why are drugs, drinking and sex immoral? I understand they can be high risk activities, but how are they immoral?

I think all of those are fine for adults, in moderation. I was speaking of adolescents, I was saying that it is immoral for them to do. Basically my justification for this is because your teen years are the foundation to be built on for the rest of your life, if you spend your teen years being a loser, getting high, drunk and having sex, then the teen will more often then not be that way the rest of his/her life.

Is base jumping immoral? Is traveling in the jungle immoral? What about high risk activities in the in the olden days like not wearing a seatbelt or working in a mine?

It is immoral when it effects other people.. When you get drunk you could get in an accident and kill other people, when you getting high on a drug can be problematic in many ways for people other then yourself. Having sex (even with a condom), can cause you to get HIV/STD's or get someone else pregnant.

I don't see how drinking, sex and drugs are immoral. Why are they?

above

Also, if you are a 'loser' your whole life, I really could care less, but most of these losers end up getting government assistance and using that assistance to feed their addictions.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2013 7:46:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 6:26:53 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
I think this generation is very tolerant and caring. They are tolerant of gays and seem are less racist than old people.

I agree with the gay part. I think that both progressives and conservatives are still pretty racist, progressives by not letting minorities actually accomplish anything on their own with affirmative action, social conservatives for a multitude of reasons that we can speak about later.

I heard the 60s and 70s were a time of partying and drugs ect. However, I don't see how morality can be based on drugs and partying. Every generation thinks society is degrading when actually it is improving.

There are functioning alcoholics, but it is pretty rare. But most people are not functioning drug addicts, they usually end up being un productive members of society who get government assistance.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2013 4:53:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago

I think all of those are fine for adults, in moderation. I was speaking of adolescents, I was saying that it is immoral for them to do. Basically my justification for this is because your teen years are the foundation to be built on for the rest of your life, if you spend your teen years being a loser, getting high, drunk and having sex, then the teen will more often then not be that way the rest of his/her life.

So you believe it is immoral because it is not productive? I think that there are stupid and smart, lazy and hardworking people that engage in "partying". I think often the blame for stupid and lazy people is put on "partying" when really they are just stupid to begin with. At least they are having fun. Further, I would rather people party there teen years away and stop when they are adults and have kids and important jobs.

Also, I don't think not being productive is immoral. Would playing too many videogames, watching too much tv, or spending too much time on the computer be immoral?

It is immoral when it effects other people.. When you get drunk you could get in an accident and kill other people, when you getting high on a drug can be problematic in many ways for people other then yourself. Having sex (even with a condom), can cause you to get HIV/STD's or get someone else

Obviously drunk driving is immoral. No one is saying that is fine. Getting high on weed (what most kids do) really can't hurt anyone else. Both parties in sex consent to the risk, so you are not putting anyone at more risk then they put themselves in.

Also, if you are a 'loser' your whole life, I really could care less, but most of these losers end up getting government assistance and using that assistance to feed their addictions.

These behaviors may be stupid, risky, ill advised or unproductive. But, I do not think they are immoral.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2013 6:09:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/13/2013 4:53:30 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

I think all of those are fine for adults, in moderation. I was speaking of adolescents, I was saying that it is immoral for them to do. Basically my justification for this is because your teen years are the foundation to be built on for the rest of your life, if you spend your teen years being a loser, getting high, drunk and having sex, then the teen will more often then not be that way the rest of his/her life.

So you believe it is immoral because it is not productive? I think that there are stupid and smart, lazy and hardworking people that engage in "partying". I think often the blame for stupid and lazy people is put on "partying" when really they are just stupid to begin with. At least they are having fun. Further, I would rather people party there teen years away and stop when they are adults and have kids and important jobs.

Most people would commonly agree that your teen years are the building blocks for your whole life and if you screw your teen years up by failing out of high school and being a sex addicted junkie, your adult years aren't going to be so hot either.

Also, I don't think not being productive is immoral. Would playing too many videogames, watching too much tv, or spending too much time on the computer be immoral?

I explained why it's immoral, you are doing it at the expense of the tax payer when you ask for government assistance.

It is immoral when it effects other people.. When you get drunk you could get in an accident and kill other people, when you getting high on a drug can be problematic in many ways for people other then yourself. Having sex (even with a condom), can cause you to get HIV/STD's or get someone else

Obviously drunk driving is immoral. No one is saying that is fine. Getting high on weed (what most kids do) really can't hurt anyone else. Both parties in sex consent to the risk, so you are not putting anyone at more risk then they put themselves in.

A. What if one person has STD's/an HIV and doesn't tell the other person? That is immoral.

B. Weed causes amotivational syndrome in most who use it, if you have amotivational syndrome you will do bad in school, if you do bad in school you won't be able to get a good job when you grow up, if you have kids and don't get a good job, you have to get government assistance, and it is immoral to make someone else pay for your bad decisions, so there you have it.

Also, if you are a 'loser' your whole life, I really could care less, but most of these losers end up getting government assistance and using that assistance to feed their addictions.

These behaviors may be stupid, risky, ill advised or unproductive. But, I do not think they are immoral.

I just explained why they are immoral three different times before this reply, usually the tax payer is paying for your laziness. By being un productive you are making yourself a burden to society, and that IS immoral.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2013 6:56:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago

Most people would commonly agree that your teen years are the building blocks for your whole life and if you screw your teen years up by failing out of high school and being a sex addicted junkie, your adult years aren't going to be so hot either.

I feel school is more in depth today than years ago with all the advances in technology. Also, more students are going to universities today than years ago. If morality is equivalent to academic accomplishment, I do not see how today's youth are more immoral?



I explained why it's immoral, you are doing it at the expense of the tax payer when you ask for government assistance.

Some people are lazy and do not try, but that makes it easier for people that do try to find a job. And, some people just are stupid. Some people have to do minimum wage jobs. Even if everyone tried very hard, some people would still need to have bad jobs. I do not think it is immoral to have a bad job. And, as I believe in family values, I think people with bad jobs should get assistance to have and feed their family. Poor people can have families too.


A. What if one person has STD's/an HIV and doesn't tell the other person? That is immoral.

Obviously that is immoral. No one is arguing otherwise. Is it immoral to go to school? No. Is it immoral to go to school with the Ebola virus and not tell anyone you have it? Yes.

B. Weed causes amotivational syndrome in most who use it, if you have amotivational syndrome you will do bad in school, if you do bad in school you won't be able to get a good job when you grow up, if you have kids and don't get a good job, you have to get government assistance, and it is immoral to make someone else pay for your bad decisions, so there you have it.

It is only short term effects though. And many people do weed and function and get good grades and jobs.

Hypothetical question I am interested in your opinion. Who is more immoral? Someone who is unproductive, gets a bad job and bad grades, or someone who smokes drinks ges good grades and a good job.

These behaviors may be stupid, risky, ill advised or unproductive. But, I do not think they are immoral.

I just explained why they are immoral three different times before this reply, usually the tax payer is paying for your laziness. By being un productive you are making yourself a burden to society, and that IS immoral.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2013 7:52:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/13/2013 6:56:32 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

Most people would commonly agree that your teen years are the building blocks for your whole life and if you screw your teen years up by failing out of high school and being a sex addicted junkie, your adult years aren't going to be so hot either.

I feel school is more in depth today than years ago with all the advances in technology. Also, more students are going to universities today than years ago. If morality is equivalent to academic accomplishment, I do not see how today's youth are more immoral?

That is because loans are available to more people and college is in general more available to the lower middle class and middle class. Drugs are not related.



I explained why it's immoral, you are doing it at the expense of the tax payer when you ask for government assistance.

Some people are lazy and do not try, but that makes it easier for people that do try to find a job. And, some people just are stupid. Some people have to do minimum wage jobs. Even if everyone tried very hard, some people would still need to have bad jobs. I do not think it is immoral to have a bad job. And, as I believe in family values, I think people with bad jobs should get assistance to have and feed their family. Poor people can have families too.

I am anarcho-capitalist mate, I think that there should be NO government ideally. So in my world no one would have to hold up people weaker then them, whether it is their fault they are weaker or not. Most people don't realize that if you work full time on minimum wage, you can live off of it. I do not believe in giving government assistance to people who want families and are poor, poverty is in most cases a choice. We are speaking of the majority of the time here, maybe every once in a great while some swell fellow busts his butt his whole life and tries but still doesn't get a break and get a decent job, but most of the time the people who are stuck with bad jobs did it mostly to themselves.


A. What if one person has STD's/an HIV and doesn't tell the other person? That is immoral.

Obviously that is immoral. No one is arguing otherwise. Is it immoral to go to school? No. Is it immoral to go to school with the Ebola virus and not tell anyone you have it? Yes.

It doesn't matter, even with a contraceptive, it is still possible to impregnate your partner, teen pregnancy and sex is immoral due to that. It is also immoral because most people would agree that sex is a way to connect with your partner further, not to relieve your barbaric desires or brag about doing it with your peers.

B. Weed causes amotivational syndrome in most who use it, if you have amotivational syndrome you will do bad in school, if you do bad in school you won't be able to get a good job when you grow up, if you have kids and don't get a good job, you have to get government assistance, and it is immoral to make someone else pay for your bad decisions, so there you have it.


It is only short term effects though. And many people do weed and function and get good grades and jobs.

Sorry, the statistics usually say that most people who smoke marijuana get amotivational syndrome, and amotivational syndrome is long term because it is a symptom of being addicted to marijuana, you have it when you are high and when you are off of it.

Hypothetical question I am interested in your opinion. Who is more immoral? Someone who is unproductive, gets a bad job and bad grades, or someone who smokes drinks ges good grades and a good job.

Someone who smokes and drinks and still has a good job and is a productive, contributing member of society is more moral. Smoking effects others if they do it around others, but you didn't say that the person does so we can't assume that.

These behaviors may be stupid, risky, ill advised or unproductive. But, I do not think they are immoral.

I just explained why they are immoral three different times before this reply, usually the tax payer is paying for your laziness. By being un productive you are making yourself a burden to society, and that IS immoral.
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2013 8:12:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 8:01:57 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I love when each generation comes up with their own movement to make them feel as if they were 'different' (i.e superior) to the previous generation. I enjoy people who claim they are non-conformist for being in a movement or group that is also non-conformist. That in itself is hypocritical because you are still conforming by being in a group and striving for that group's acceptance.

Society, in general has deteriorated. It has become a societal norm to do things that were just a generation ago considered immoral and disgusting, and in my opinion some of these things still are considered disgusting. A small group of people from the hip hop culture have made it seem like the majority of teens sleep around, use drugs and party their lives away, when if you look at the statistics this group is a loud minority. There has been a role reversal, the majority of people who are quiet and do the right thing (don't sleep around young, don't party their lives away, don't use drugs), are ostracized and made fun of by this loud minority. The loud minority get away with this because they use smoke and mirrors to make it look like they are infact, the majority.

Thoughts, criticisms, etc?

I wonder what exactly ur point is. What minority and what does the hip hop culture have to do with conformity? How does the hip-hop culture make it seem like every teen is doing drugs and having sex and wh is being bullied for doing it. I have never seen any nes about someone bing bullied for not doing drugs or not having sex. And I dnt think hiphop teaches that either. Besides it is not hip-hops responsibility to watch out for other peoples kids.