U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

Palomar · 2004-07-21 13:22:35

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … rging]Gang activity surging again

*This headline doesn't surprise me, although it does bother me. I've noticed in the past month young males around here beginning to wear hair nets again like they did in the early to mid-90s -- a definite (and self-admitted) mark of being a gang member. I hadn't seen hair nets worn in that manner for at least 7 years.

I hope it does not resurface as strongly again as it was a decade ago; drive-by shootings and gang-related crime was terrible around here -- including extensive property damage.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2005-01-12 13:24:53

*Here we go again. Just saw a Yahoo! article reminding us that 2 out of 3 Americans are overweight if not actually obese. People are admonished to cut calories, fats and carbohydrates -- to eat more vegetables and fruits -- and to increase their exercise.

It is a good thing, of course. I've mentioned before that I was overweight as a child and into my teens. I slimmed down around age 16, kept it off, regained some weight in my mid-20s, but have since kept my weight at a stable level.

However, I'm wondering: Doesn't America NEED overweight people? Shocking statement, yes; but look how much revenue the weight-loss/diet industry rakes in per capita because of weight problems.

Then there's the ridiculous gov't standards: A woman of my height (5' 6") is supposed to weigh 130 pounds. Sorry, I look like a bag of bones at 130 pounds and I don't feel good either; my lowest weight has been 128 pounds. I feel best at 150 - 155 pounds, honestly. But that makes me "overweight" by gov't standards. I ignore those standards, but lots of people don't; they knock themselves out, practically starve themselves to death or develop eating disorders (bulimia or anorexia, etc.), do treadmills as crazily as gerbils on the wheel...just because of a gov't chart.

Then we've got the snack food industry with their constant in-your-face bombardment of advertisements. They need people to consume their products, obviously; and there's the clever packaging situation where 1 package might contain 2 or 3 servings, but the package only informs the consumer of how much fat, calories and carbs 1 serving has. Apparently some folks are missing that.

Then there's the vanity factor. We're told to keep our weight down for our health. Baloney. Most people lose weight and keep it off out of vanity. Yep, I admit that's the main reason I lost weight as a teen; I wanted a boyfriend. :laugh: But adults tend to hypocritically deny it, IMO. If it were really mostly about their health, they'd cut down on drinking, smoking and other health-impairing activities as well. Not that they -have to- do these things; adults can do as they like, I'm simply pointing out the vanity versus health factor.

Watching the Food Network on cable TV is a real hoot: Schizophrenic America at its best. First we see programs showcasing rich and gooey desserts, carb-rich pastas drowning in butter-laden sauces, on and on. Next comes a commercial for weight loss and exercise. Saw a new one last night, from a women's work-out studio in this city: A bunch of gals doing gentle aerobics to the tune of "Green Acres," which was rewritten and sung by some local about "thin is in" -- they manage to look like automatons while they're going through the workout motions. :-\ Then it's back to succulent meats, fattening gravies and 10 ways to increase the caloric value of a common baked potato 100-fold.

::shakes head::

Is it just me?

Frankly, America "needs" overweight and obese people -- there's lots of $$$$ to be had, and think of all the businesses/industries which would go bankrupt if everyone did lose weight and kept it off! And in the meantime, naturally thin people can continue looking down their noses at folks who battle their weight, i.e. as if they are indeed superior somehow based merely on the luck of genetic makeup to some extent, and society's stringent personal-appearance standards (which, by luck, they manage to "keep").

I've been in the battle zone, so this is experience talking. :laugh:

--Cindy

::edit:: Actually, it just occurred to me that naturally thin people -- the chronically underweight -- are subject to this sort of craziness too. How often do we see photos of celebrities plastered all over magazines blaring about their ribs poking through their skin, or how bony their legs look? Yep, the headlines -- in large and bold letters -- trumpet out how awfully scrawny and skinny those folks are, do they have an eating disorder (?), if so, what KIND of eating disorder (?) on and on [what, would the magazine company prefer them be overweight instead? Of course not, then it'd be blaring headlines in the other direction]...And most, if not *all*, of those photos focus on celebs of one gender. Meanwhile, on TV (here we go yet again) the other gender is consistently showing up as looking a bit "stockier" (sometimes actually overweight), but that's "okay" apparently because it's not fat for them -- it's "bigger." And they're paired with members of the opposite sex who, of course, must be slim and sleek. And in my constant desire to avoid gender issues on the internet, I leave it to whoever is reading this to figure out -which- gender I'm referring to in various points within this text. ::smile::

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-12 14:39:11

I ignore those standards, but lots of people don't; they knock themselves out, practically starve themselves to death or develop eating disorders (bulimia or anorexia, etc.), do treadmills as crazily as gerbils on the wheel...just because of a gov't chart.

The lesson here: When the government puts arbitrary standards on paper, ignore it.

Yet in my youth I unwittingly stumbled onto the secret of keeping thin without diet and exercise.

Laziness. When I used to get hungry I'd look in the kitchen, but having an aversion to lines, crowds and flourescent lights I'd rarely shop for groceries. Consequently if I wanted something to eat, I'd actually have to go out and get it, which meant driving and sunlight and looking through the bag passed through the drive-thru window which upon inspection contains items only vaguely resembling what was ordered, along with a single napkin. Too much aggravation. I'd have to get fairly hungry before actually expending precious time and energy to do anything about it. One meal a day is quite sufficient for the average American's lifestyle, perhaps less if one is sedantary.

Of course my wife has shot that system all to hell...

Palomar · 2005-01-12 14:47:23

Yet in my youth I unwittingly stumbled onto the secret of keeping thin without diet and exercise.
Laziness. When I used to get hungry I'd look in the kitchen, but having an aversion to lines, crowds and flourescent lights I'd rarely shop for groceries. Consequently if I wanted something to eat, I'd actually have to go out and get it, which meant driving and sunlight and looking through the bag passed through the drive-thru window which upon inspection contains items only vaguely resembling what was ordered, along with a single napkin. Too much aggravation. I'd have to get fairly hungry before actually expending precious time and energy to do anything about it. One meal a day is quite sufficient for the average American's lifestyle, perhaps less if one is sedantary.

*Nice and enviable. But it won't work for those of us with heartier appetites who genuinely enjoy food (and even grocery shopping!). I could -happily- eat 2 square meals a day, a piece of fruit mid-morning and again mid-afternoon, and 1 dessert a day. But if I did, I'd gain weight.

And if I try to deny myself too much, it "snaps back" and then my appetite goes bonkers and the cravings go through the roof. LOL. :-\

So I've learned the value of nibbling and drinking lots of water.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-12 15:13:56

*Nice and enviable. But it won't work for those of us with heartier appetites who genuinely enjoy food (and even grocery shopping!).

Yes, I suppose it requires above-average laziness, disregard for personal comfort and a certain level of misanthropy to follow such a regimen.

But then I generally think of eating and sleeping as necessary evils I'd rather avoid. :hm: Damn biologic forms, pure energy would have been perfectly satisfactory.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-01-13 08:21:20

I'm sure 'metabolism' has an awful lot to do with it, as most people believe. And, if you were overweight as a child, keeping the pounds off as an adult is going to be tricky because the number of fat cells you have is determined by nutritional intake in childhood. If you develop a high number of fat cells during your early years, you keep them throughout life. They may swell or shrink depending on your calorie intake but they don't go away.
[See http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/ … shtml]this article for more details.]
The relevant quote from that article is this:-

Fat cells are laid down in the first few years of life. If fat is stored quickly, more fat cells are created. So an obese child can have up to three times as many as a normal child. Eventually, fat cells stop multiplying and an adult has a fixed number for the rest of their life. The existing cells simply swell or shrink to accommodate more fat.
The amount of fat the body wants to store is thought to be proportional to the total number of fat cells. So if you were overweight as a child, your body is programmed to carry more fat. This doesn't mean that you can't lose weight through diet and exercise, but it will be harder.

Apart from the above, it's apparent to me that the older you get, the harder it becomes to prevent weight gain. I was fortunate in that I wasn't interested in food very much as a child - I was too busy running around outside and playing with friends to bother with eating if I could avoid it. Although never a 'big eater' at any stage, I could more or less eat anything I wanted without gaining weight, up until about the age of 46.
Then one day I weighed myself and discovered I was 78 kgs (172 lbs), some 5 kgs (11 lbs) more than I used to be. A visit to the doctor not long after that, elicited a tut-tutting response from him and confirmed that all was not well. There was more of me than there used to be and he didn't approve! (I'm about 182 cms tall, by the way. That's a little over 5'11")
Since then, I've cut back substantially on my overall food intake and returned to 73-74 kgs (161-163 lbs). For the first 6 months, I was more or less continually hungry and it was a year or so before I became comfortable with the regime. Now I don't notice it much, though I'm still occasionally aware of significant hunger pangs toward evening time. I'm quite sure I can never go back to my past devil-may-care eating habits, so what I've undergone is a permanent lifestyle change to accommodate a change in my (ageing ) metabolism.

But, as I said, I've been lucky with weight most of my life and therefore I can't complain now I'm in the same boat as everyone else who watches his/her weight.
There are many people, especially those unfortunate enough to have been overweight in childhood, who have a much tougher time dieting than I do and yet never reach their so-called 'ideal' weight.

On the other hand, there are some who apparently make no effort at all to curtail their calorie intake and who eat phenomenal amounts of sweet and fatty foods. I have much more trouble sympathizing with such people because they're heading for a lot of expensive medical trouble in later life, which will be a major economic burden on society, and it seems they're not even trying to help themselves.
Aside from the long-term effects, there are significant logistical problems in the short term, too. Even young people occasionally enter hospital for minor procedures and moving and nursing someone weighing, say, 110-130 kgs (242-286 lbs) can be very taxing for hospital staff.
Another obvious problem involves seating in buses and, especially, aircraft. I know from personal experience how uncomfortable it can be to sit next to someone on a plane who hangs some 15 cms (6") or more over the armrest. I don't like having to get that up-close-and-personal with someone I don't even know - especially if they aren't too particular about personal hygiene and tend to sweat profusely! :bars:

I think Cindy's right, though, that the whole business of rising obesity rates is just another excuse to make money. Like smoking, it's a cash-cow and its effects aren't being taken seriously enough. It looks like a case of "sell 'em the salt, fat, and sugar and then sell 'em the diet fad to reverse the results"!!
But overweight and obesity can't go on getting worse every year. There's something very wrong with our lifestyles/food habits and we have to do something about it soon. ???

Palomar · 2005-01-13 10:12:07

I was fortunate in that I wasn't interested in food very much as a child - I was too busy running around outside and playing with friends to bother with eating if I could avoid it. Although never a 'big eater' at any stage, I could more or less eat anything I wanted without gaining weight, up until about the age of 46.

*Much of this has to do with environment. Access to frequent outdoors activities versus living in an unfavorable climate which restricts one to the indoors much of the time; the emphasis parents and other adults placed upon food; some genetic considerations; etc. I didn't gain weight until around age 7. Unfortunately my childhood home and social (church mainly) life centered around food. My parents believed smoking, drinking alcohol and dancing were "sins" -- but overeating and indulging in food was not.

But overweight and obesity can't go on getting worse every year. There's something very wrong with our lifestyles/food habits and we have to do something about it soon.

*Yes, that's certainly true. In the U.S. at least, I'm inclined towards the opinion that when all the bans on smoking went out and lots of people decreased their cigarette consumption (via hypnosis or using Nicorette gum or nicotine patches) or outright kicked the habit, they turned to eating. I know of so many people who quit smoking only to pack on weight via their new vice -- eating.

It's a nasty cycle for so many people and I absolutely hate the popular media and industries which, I suspect, are generally manipulating people to their own self-destruction. There's something fundamentally wrong with a society which produces on the one hand bulimic and anorexic persons who purge and use laxatives like crazy in order to conform to a standard -- and even when they get to the point of looking skeletal they still see themselves as (that dreaded word) FAT. On the other hand is the increasing obesity problem. Again, the magazine and tabloid headlines which ridicule and humiliate celebrities who are both overweight (even if just a bit) and who are also "too thin."

Can't win. Nobody's perfect and there are manipulators out there working to ensure the bar simply gets raised higher and higher, to the point of sheer absurdity -- working to ensure that the precious point of perfection cannot be reached (BUY OUR PRODUCT!). :down:

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-13 11:19:54

Fat, lazy and stupid. It just hit me that's the impression one would get of Americans from this thread.

Not that I'm disputing it per se, I've met my share of people exhibiting those traits, often all at once; and certainly there are many external and internal contributing factors beyond an individual's control. Well, with fat and stupid anyway, lazy is a choice regardless of what the occasional kooky shrink tries to tell me.

What I'm getting at is that all of the problems discussed in here are due in whole or in part to poor decision making whether it be over-eating, chronic laziness, accepting one's own incompetence and expecting to be rewarded, voting for things you know are ridiculous to avoid being labeled or just generally being... useless. Perhaps the real problem with the direction of US culture isn't this collection of problems, but that they're symptoms of something more fundamentally wrong?

US culture has come to over-emphasise freedom while virtually forgetting responsibility. "It's my right to eat whatever I want and I don't need to do this kind of work" Fine, but don't come crying to me when you need a heart bypass and have no money. Both problems could have been avoided, no surprises. The American people need to choose, freedom with responsibility or trade them both for the perceived freedom to knowingly make foolish choices. Which way it's going to go is unclear, but it's one of the fault lines in our "cultural civil war" that's raging. One way is the way of Americans as envisioned by our forefathers, the other is the way of pets.

Palomar · 2005-01-13 11:51:26

The American people need to choose, freedom with responsibility or trade them both for the perceived freedom to knowingly make foolish choices. Which way it's going to go is unclear, but it's one of the fault lines in our "cultural civil war" that's raging. One way is the way of Americans as envisioned by our forefathers, the other is the way of pets.

*I agree. Some of this is generational, IMO. What I mean by that is I remember an America where personal responsibility and the work ethic were, generally speaking, still valued and set forth as worthy ideals.

I'd like to see a return to a more polite, responsible, mature society with a certain level of decorum and self-respect.

--Cindy

::EDIT:: I'm going to erase some of what I originally wrote, as it sounded too harsh upon re-reading it. :-\

BWhite · 2005-01-13 13:47:44

We Americans cannot eat responsibly. Its would be traitorous.

If we did, McDonalds, Burger King, Kentucky Fried Chicken and the 128 oz SevenEleven BigGulp concession (Coca-Cola) would go bankrupt, the Dow Jones would fall and the terrorists would win.

Eat junk food. Your mutual fund balance depends on it.

= = =

By the way, has anyone here every actually purchased a 128 oz BigGulp?

Edited By BWhite on 1105645699

clark · 2005-01-13 13:52:05

I've never purchased one personaly, but I have runners who bring them to me. Ever since the mid-80's, I haven't been able to get out my front door, let alone my bedroom.

Just glad I am doing my part for America.

C M Edwards · 2005-01-13 14:08:02

Thank you for doing your part, Clark! :up:

You're now ready for your next step in what appears to have become the new American dream: laparoscopy! There are several highly recommended clinics in this part of the country where you can get a new "lap band" surgically installed on your stomach.

Just let me know, and I'll send you the details. Gosh, Al Roker would be so proud of you! :laugh:

clark · 2005-01-13 14:10:41

I was actually thinking of going the other route- getting an additional stomach stapled in. I figured I could get one cheap from one of those aneroxia support boards. Hardly been used, so I'm sure there will be plenty of wear and tear left in it.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-01-13 16:55:01

I think a lot of of our weight problem (and Australia's running a close second to America in the obesity stakes, I believe) has to do with satiating desires.
For tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years, it was quite normal for our ancestors to be hungry a lot of the time. In fact, there's some evidence to suggest it's actually good for us to be hungry! Recent tests have proven that small mammals and some other types of creature, at least, live some 30% longer than average if kept lean and always a little hungry. The control groups of such animals (rats and others), allowed as much food as they wanted, became overweight and died earlier than the norm.

With so many of our desires, it's become unconscionable to have an itch and not scratch it. If you're a little hungry, don't wait for lunch or dinner, have a snack!
Maybe we can take the argument a little further:-
If you want something in a shop window but can't afford it, don't save for it, buy it on credit!
If the driver in front of you on the road does something stupid and it annoys you, don't ignore the idiot and tune in a pleasant music station on the car radio, sound your horn, give him/her the finger out the window, and swear at him/her to relieve your frustration! (This little performance serves only to unnerve a possibly already-nervous driver, who may be having a very bad day, and encourages other hotheads to get in on the act, too.)
If you see someone you're physically attracted to, never mind that you're married with children, do whatever you can to scratch that itch! (The serious consequences of this little self-indulgence are all around us)

Maybe I'm oversimplifying a complex situation but I think many of society's problems come from a lack of self-discipline, a failure to see clearly the probable consequences of one's own actions, and a lack of plain common courtesy.
It isn't always better to scratch that itch! Some itches are better left unscratched.

I agree 100% with Cindy's comment:-

I'd like to see a return to a more polite, responsible, mature society with a certain level of decorum and self-respect.

And self-respect comes from self-control and from respect for others.
Just some personal opinions.

BWhite · 2005-01-13 17:28:07

Maybe I'm oversimplifying a complex situation but I think many of society's problems come from a lack of self-discipline, a failure to see clearly the probable consequences of one's own actions, and a lack of plain common courtesy.

Being in need of shedding about 25 to 30 pounds, I can agree with this. But why do the fast food chains and the beer companies spend so darn much money trying to persuade us to over consume?

I love Coca Cola. I gave it up a few years ago since 200 calories for a bottle of sugared water does not fit my calorie budget.

I also believe that corporate America does not want your average American to be self-disciplined in this manner. My wife orders "water" at Subway and the counter clerk tries to push the Mountain Spring at $1.00 per 16 ounces rather than 8 ounces from Lake Michigan, for free.

Edited By BWhite on 1105658971

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-13 21:57:07

Maybe I'm oversimplifying a complex situation but I think many of society's problems come from a lack of self-discipline, a failure to see clearly the probable consequences of one's own actions, and a lack of plain common courtesy.
It isn't always better to scratch that itch! Some itches are better left unscratched.

I agree, and I'll take it a bit further. Not only is there a culturally cultivated tendency toward instant gratification, consequences be damned, but Americans (I can't speak for Aussies, but I suspect much of the same applies) have had it too easy. Self discipline can't grow amidst untold bounty and unchecked consumption of it. Living in today's America is a cakewalk compared to the America of our forefathers, is it any suprise then that the people lack the self-reliance and discipline they assumed would be the very nature of us?

In stereotypical fascist form I will say it, Americans need more hardship in their lives.

I don't mean economic despair, hanging on the verge of starvation hardship, nothing too severe, just something mildly unpleasant that serves a greater purpose. Military veterans probably have some idea what I'm getting at, martial artists as well. A little bit of "you're gonna do this, you're gonna do it this way, and you're gonna keep doing until you do it right" in the company of comrades can have a profound effect on one's outlook.

I'm not suggesting we introduce universal conscription or anything of that sort, but what is needed is almost some sort of "rite of passage" that is difficult, humbling, and ultimately satisfying to get our people of a right mind.

Or perhaps my lack of sleep has begun to have an effect on my cognitive processes... :hm:

BWhite · 2005-01-13 22:21:39

In stereotypical fascist form I will say it, Americans need more hardship in their lives.
I don't mean economic despair, hanging on the verge of starvation hardship, nothing too severe, just something mildly unpleasant that serves a greater purpose. Military veterans probably have some idea what I'm getting at, martial artists as well. A little bit of "you're gonna do this, you're gonna do it this way, and you're gonna keep doing until you do it right" in the company of comrades can have a profound effect on one's outlook.
I'm not suggesting we introduce universal conscription or anything of that sort, but what is needed is almost some sort of "rite of passage" that is difficult, humbling, and ultimately satisfying to get our people of a right mind.
Or perhaps my lack of sleep has begun to have an effect on my cognitive processes... :hm:

On one hand I agree.

On the other, I believe the upper 1% in wealth and power will intepret this to mean society should give them more so there is less to give the other 99%.

After all, it really is in everyone's best interest for there to be a little hardship, no? Give me your money and then you can struggle and be a better person for it.

Aren't I the perfect altruist?

= = =

PS - - I have faith this will start happening soon enough.

In stereotypical fascist form I will say it, Americans need more hardship in their lives.

The hardship, I mean.

Edited By BWhite on 1105676629

Palomar · 2005-01-14 06:13:09

CHILD ABUSE

*I'm wondering if there is a lot of reported child abuse in your area, and especially if there seems to be a marked increase in the number of these crimes in your locale.

Yes, I know matters of this nature are more freely spoken of today. But it does seem there is also more of it occurring.

Last night's local news reported on a 5 week old baby girl being transported to a larger speciality hospital in Albuquerque. Won't go into detail as to all of her horrible injuries, but her 32-year-old father admits to breaking her legs and etc. Her name is Diana and she's not expected to live. She was also born prematurely.

It seems like every week now there are at least 2 reports in this area of terrible child abuse -- to the point of critical status in a hospital at least.

I don't remember hearing about abuse of children to this extent ever, until moving to this region of the country.

Again, not sure if the reports are more frequent because there's less "taboo" about discussing these things as opposed to 20 years ago, or if indeed the sheer number of abuse IS increasing. Unfortunately I think it's the latter.

What about your area? Lots of reports? No?

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-14 09:06:30

On the other, I believe the upper 1% in wealth and power will intepret this to mean society should give them more so there is less to give the other 99%.
After all, it really is in everyone's best interest for there to be a little hardship, no? Give me your money and then you can struggle and be a better person for it.

So draft them.

But your point is well taken, most of the grand Cobra schemes for a better society only work if everyone participates.

Hell is other people.

And now you've gone and made me quote a Frenchman.

PS - - I have faith this will start happening soon enough.
. . .
The hardship, I mean.

And at the risk of being insensitive to my fellow citizens, it'll be good for us.

And being toward the poorer side of the economic spectrum I don't say it lightly.

*I'm wondering if there is a lot of reported child abuse in your area, and especially if there seems to be a marked increase in the number of these crimes in your locale.

It depends on what one considers "my locale", being that the metro Detroit area is one of the most economically and racially segregated regions in the country. In the city itself I hear of child abuse cases quite frequently, whether it be beating, abandonment, leaving babies in dumpsters, various despicable acts of perversion and various other immoral and evolutionarily unsound practices. It shows in crime statistics but no one much reports it except in the most unusual cases.

In the surrounding area there are fewer cases but each has a greater level of legal and public attention. A baby in a Detroit dumpster is just another baby in a dumpster, the same find in one of the Pointes would be an outrage and all sorts of little minions would scurry about to find out why and address the problem.

Whenever I go any further with this sort of discussion I usually get shouted down as a racist by well meaning liberals who proceed to argue something I didn't say, so I'll cut it short now.

Palomar · 2005-01-14 09:21:54

*I'm wondering if there is a lot of reported child abuse in your area, and especially if there seems to be a marked increase in the number of these crimes in your locale.
It depends on what one considers "my locale", being that the metro Detroit area is one of the most economically and racially segregated regions in the country. In the city itself I hear of child abuse cases quite frequently, whether it be beating, abandonment, leaving babies in dumpsters, various despicable acts of perversion and various other immoral and evolutionarily unsound practices. It shows in crime statistics but no one much reports it except in the most unusual cases.
In the surrounding area there are fewer cases but each has a greater level of legal and public attention. A baby in a Detroit dumpster is just another baby in a dumpster, the same find in one of the Pointes would be an outrage and all sorts of little minions would scurry about to find out why and address the problem.
Whenever I go any further with this sort of discussion I usually get shouted down as a racist by well meaning liberals who proceed to argue something I didn't say, so I'll cut it short now.

*Hmmmm, yes I see your point. Depends on varying factors. The city I currently reside in is larger than my hometown, but is not a metropolitan area by any stretch of the imagination. In the early 90s I lived in a Midwestern city much larger than this one.

There may be a cultural difference in the situation here. But then I haven't lived in the Midwest (mostly small town/rural setting there) for over a decade now and I'm not sure how things may have changed there. I do know that methamphetamine "labs" are on the rise in old farm houses...so maybe child abuse is on the rise there too.

Anyway, in this area it seems some adults really are just rotten, spoiled bullies who were too pampered and catered to by mommy when they were growing up (it's a cultural thing)...and who, when confronted by a crying baby or rambunctious toddler in their lives, becomes the Big Kid picking on the little one. You know -- threatened by "the competition" (for affection, attention, on and on; no longer *the* center of attention). It's pathetic beyond words.

And it's not just step-parents doing this or the lover of the child's biological parent -- it's actual biological parents more and more in the news.

--Cindy

P.S.: As for liberals...yep, as the more virulent ones go, if you don't agree with their political views absolutely 100%, you'll be snubbed in no time apparently. Not allowed to think for yourself or have a change in view in any regard apparently, according to them; you'll be snubbed. Oh well.

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-14 09:41:09

P.S.: As for liberals...yep, as the more virulent ones go, if you don't agree with their political views absolutely 100%, you'll be snubbed in no time apparently.

The very idea of a "virulent liberal" seems oxymoronic, yet I run into them all the time.

A liberal who can't tolerate a difference of opinion, isn't.

Such is life in Bizzaro world...

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1105717287

clark · 2005-01-14 12:55:56

Back in the good old days, when decent people abounded, things were better. We need to get back to that age ol, time honored repression of our fore-fathers and mothers. Back when social ostricism and the inability of women to economicaly survive independant of their mates. When men with their dapper hats would come home drunk, beat their wives, their children, and kick the family pet, and it was considered a good day. When racial inequality was the order of the day and the federal government used black servicemen for biological experiments without their knowledge or consent.

Back when things were tougher- when you could get by on little or no education, when a single working man could afford a house and food and send his kids to college. Back when cocaine was legal, and seatbelts were for suckers. Them were the days, made real men out of boys, and girls always wore skirts. And the girls, oh they knew their place. They raised kids, didn't vote (until given the right by hen-pecked men) and when they did, they voted as their husbandds wished, fetched slippers, made food, raised the children, and if they worked, well it was as a teacher or a nurse or one of them new fangled airplane stweardess. Of course, times of war and neccessity mucked THAT good thing all up.

Now, since things are "easier", both parents working jobs, latch key kids running about, no time to make your own food- so off to the fast food pizza delivered, larger tax burden, educational requirements that cost and arm and a leg just to maintain an economic edge (or in the game), larger federal mandates for kids to learn if they should believe in creationism or evolution, without addressing falling rates of literacy- and oh yeah, whose fat and whose thin, we've descended into bedlam and indulgence.

What we are seeing is the effects of an over-worked, over-stressed, sleep deprived, time robbed society. We eat fat food because we have no time. We work two jobs to pay for daycare and home and bills. We watch too much TV to escape from our lives. Why do you think we have preoccupation about sex, but indulge in teenage mastabatory violence in everything we watch? Why do we worry about eatting too much of this actor or this one not eating enough of that one? Escape from the mundane dreariness of life.

Why are we upset about the bad driver who cuts us off? Because we have had it up to hear from being ignored by life and god and uncaring universe and reality that just dosen't give a damn, so pass me a fucking cheese burger and supersize my god damn shake, and here is the middle finger cause I am done being a repressed stressed out bitch to life and if I don't do something, I'm going to snap in the office.

Whew. Get some fresh air, put it all into perspective. We got problems, so does everyone, they always have. It weren't no better before.

The grass is always greener on the other side because you simply haven't had to mow it yet.

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-14 17:31:23

Clark, no one is saying we should revert to old social structures or even that things are overall worse in all aspects today. But for all we've gained, we lost something equally valuable. Coexisting with the racial inequality, second-class status of women and other wrongs of our past are other things worth preserving.

But it's hard work and we won't see results right now, so to hell with it. Got another one of those cheeseburgers?

Shaun Barrett · 2005-01-14 18:54:53

Cindy;-

*I'm wondering if there is a lot of reported child abuse in your area, and especially if there seems to be a marked increase in the number of these crimes in your locale.
Yes, I know matters of this nature are more freely spoken of today. But it does seem there is also more of it occurring.

Yes, I think it's difficult to avoid the view that abuse of children is greater these days, in all respects. I'm no social expert but I suspect the breakdown of the traditional family unit, with all its inherent faults, has made it easier for 'ratbags' to find opportunities to take it out on kids or, worse, sexually abuse them.
In the end, of course, it comes down to individual choices to do what's right or wrong in any given situation. The rise of liberalism, while in so many ways a demonstrably good thing, has inevitably allowed the rise of nihilistic moral relativism (a la Clark), which tends to remove previously accepted checks and balances on personal behaviour. The boundaries have become blurred for people because they're no longer taught that there's an absolute morality, for fear that such teaching will become religious inculcation and result in regression to a repressed society.

We all want our individual freedoms but become dismayed when they result in greater opportunities for unfettered selfishness and anti-social behaviour.

It seems there's no perfect solution because behaviour and social mores, in theory, exist on a sliding scale of acceptability; one man's liberalism is another's totalitarianism. But a real-life functioning society can't afford too much liberalism or it begins to disintegrate, as we're seeing today.
The pendulum will have to swing back a little, despite the inescapable caterwauling of the passionately progressive social engineers among us, simply because the system is breaking down under the weight of its own individual freedoms.

In the meantime, though, when I finally assume absolute power, any and all child molesters will be dealt with swiftly, effectively, ... and permanently!

clark · 2005-01-15 07:09:16

"nihilistic moral relativism", I just love labels. Moral relativism is what allows you to say murder is appropriate in one instance, and not in another. Moral absolutism is all about right and wrong, and I understand it perfectly well- some things are always wrong, no matter what.

Child abuse is wrong, right? So spanking a child should be a crime (it seems Shaun would execute would be spankers). Ah, but you don't mean that kind of child abuse do you- no, it's all f*cking realtive given the context which is a sliding scale of time and place and culture. Don't blame me, I didn't make society.

So murder is wrong, except when it isn't. It seems your "moral compass" is as subjective as the next, and yet you fault others who have the common sense to point out that it's all a construct, it's all relative, even your supposed moral absolutes of right and wrong.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2004-07-21 13:22:35

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#77 2005-01-12 13:24:53

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#78 2005-01-12 14:39:11

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#79 2005-01-12 14:47:23

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#80 2005-01-12 15:13:56

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#81 2005-01-13 08:21:20

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#82 2005-01-13 10:12:07

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#83 2005-01-13 11:19:54

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#84 2005-01-13 11:51:26

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#85 2005-01-13 13:47:44

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#86 2005-01-13 13:52:05

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#87 2005-01-13 14:08:02

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#88 2005-01-13 14:10:41

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#89 2005-01-13 16:55:01

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#90 2005-01-13 17:28:07

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#91 2005-01-13 21:57:07

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#92 2005-01-13 22:21:39

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#93 2005-01-14 06:13:09

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#94 2005-01-14 09:06:30

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#95 2005-01-14 09:21:54

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#96 2005-01-14 09:41:09

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#97 2005-01-14 12:55:56

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#98 2005-01-14 17:31:23

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#99 2005-01-14 18:54:53

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

#100 2005-01-15 07:09:16

Re: U.S. Culture - ...where's it going?

Board footer