Declining moral values

[Dr Gregg]

Are you saying that there is anything on that list that could not possibly include declining moral values or should not be seen that way?

For starters:

Moving away from Religion or the Church from starters. The church does not have a monopoly on morality.

Nobody said it does, but a decline in church attendance and respect for the church's teachings has been accompanied by a sharp increase in STD, promiscuity, broken families, children born out of wedlock, gang membership, social violence, etc. etc. etc. Is there a correlation? I don't know but certainly many people believe that there is or it wouldn't have made the list. Are you smarter than they to say absolutely that there is no correlation?



Are you prepared to say that there is no correlation between the behavior of people and what they see on television or in the movies night after night after night? Are you saying that repeated exposure to unrestrained sex, violence, inhumanity of man toward man has no effect on what children view as normal or the way it is?



So you think it is healthy to become addicted to porn and see no correlation between that and STD, promiscuity, sexual abuse, sex crimes against children etc? Do you think just owning and enjoying child porn should be a crime?



But still millions of babies are aborted every year. For those who believe that every one of those babies was a human life, it is a moral issue.



So anonymous sex in bath houses, etc. or unprotected sex or lewd displays in public parades or whatever reflect solid positive moral values to you? And I say this having a gay God son who I love dearly along with his partner of more than 20 years now and who I don't see as a problem re moral values in any sense at all.

Do you seriously think the fact gay and lesbian couples can now be couples out in public to be a decline in moral values?

I don't see that on the list. Did I miss it?

And then when I got to the internet, I just started to laugh more and more.

So everything on the internet is pure as the driven snow, is in no way corrupting or dangerous or harmful or stupid or immoral in any way? You must lead the most sheltered internet experience of anybody I know.

Another genius that doesn't get that "correlation does not mean causation".

The drop in church attendance has also dropped in correlation to exponential knowledge and technology increases, and more widespread access to information. So using your logic, it must be that people are realizing how stupid religion is.

 

[hjmick]

Fuck off.

you dont want to debate any of the facts you just want to pull the debate into the idots range that you can understand.

This study clearly shows smaller schools are the ones with the track record of teaching kids sucessfully.

The logical thing to do is to do what has been proven to work.

Why would nay of you tainwallows want to do things that have no record of working?

Because you dont give a rats ass about the success of this country.

You only care about tax cuts and supporting any stupid failed idea that your masters tell you to support.

Is it me folks or cant she get off the soap box of schools??

She can, and does. For about as long as it takes her to step up on her "Republicans/Conservatives are Evil - Cheney/Bush are the devil" soap box...

 

[Si modo]

Still trolling, kid? Or, are you still hoping that no one will notice that you seem to think your typed words hold more weight about demographics than Gallup's?

Oh hey there Modo, have a better day today?

You're still hoping that no one will notice that you think you have a better grasp on demographics than Gallup simply because you type some words, I bet. Typical Dogbert - making unsupported claims, dodging when called on them, then trolling.

Good job, dogbert. Once again, you're making a high reading on the trollomneter.

 

[Foxfyre]

Still trolling, kid? Or, are you still hoping that no one will notice that you seem to think your typed words hold more weight about demographics than Gallup's?

You might be a tad unfair to Modbert here. He grew up when things some of us view as immoral or should be seen as immoral have become commonplace and he has never known anything else.

And he sometimes reflects the views of many extremists, more generally leftist extremist. (I'm not saying he is extremist, but that is the way his arguments are coming across.)

Such are not able to separate the harmful from the harmless or they see everything in terms of stark black and white. They are unable to see positive elements and negative elements within anything. So when he sees 'gay and lesbian' on the list, he is unable to see anything other than homophobia. And it interferes with his prejudices to acknowledge that there can be anything immoral about any gay or lesbian relationship. Should he admit that some gay and lesbian relationships are not healthy, he sees that as somehow casting criticism on everything gay and lesbian.

Thus he thinks such things should not be included in any discussion of morality or immorality.

 

[Dr Gregg]

We always yearn for the moral values of the past while decrying the lack of moral values today

If you go back 50 years, the moral values allowed

- Discriminating against blacks
- Discrimination against gays
- Tolerance of Domestic violence
- Blaming rape on the victim
- Child beating
- Open destruction of the environment

Sorry...I prefer today

Today:

- Discriminating against Christians
- Discrimination against Jews
- Tolerance of Domestic violence, still
- Blaming rape on the victim, still (especially if the rapist is 'somebody' in the liberal's book, Bill Clinton or Roman Polanski)
- Child extermination (abortion)
- Open destruction of human society

All false and completely ridiculous statements. Jesus christ, you cant be serious with this shit

 

[Modbert]

You're still hoping that no one will notice that you think you have a better grasp on demographics than Gallup simply because you type some words, I bet. Typical Dogbert - making unsupported claims, dodging when called on them, then trolling.

Good job, dogbert. Once again, you're making a high reading on the trollomneter.

What are you talking about when you say a better grasp on demographics than Gallup? I think you're losing it Modo.

 

[Si modo]

You're still hoping that no one will notice that you think you have a better grasp on demographics than Gallup simply because you type some words, I bet. Typical Dogbert - making unsupported claims, dodging when called on them, then trolling.

Good job, dogbert. Once again, you're making a high reading on the trollomneter.

What are you talking about when you say a better grasp on demographics than Gallup? I think you're losing it Modo.

Oh, you don't even read the threads before you troll in them?

Amazing trolling, there, kid.

 

[Modbert]

You might be a tad unfair to Modbert here. He grew up when things some of us view as immoral or should be seen as immoral have become commonplace and he has never known anything else.

And he sometimes reflects the views of many extremists, more generally leftist extremist. (I'm not saying he is extremist, but that is the way his arguments are coming across.)

Such are not able to separate the harmful from the harmless or they see everything in terms of stark black and white. They are unable to see positive elements and negative elements within anything. So when he sees 'gay and lesbian' on the list, he is unable to see anything other than homophobia. And it interferes with his prejudices to acknowledge that there can be anything immoral about any gay or lesbian relationship. Should he admit that some gay and lesbian relationships are not healthy, he sees that as somehow casting criticism on everything gay and lesbian.

Thus he thinks such things should not be included in any discussion of morality or immorality.

How exactly are my "arguments" coming off as extremist? And extremist in comparison to whom? I'm actually reflecting the Conservative argument here, y'know, responsibility, and all that fun jazz.

As for gay and lesbian relations on this list (which you even didn't think was on there) I don't think because some of them are more open about their sexuality means the whole lot of them are a negative. And what exactly do you mean some "gay and lesbian relationships are not healthy"? See, here's the thing, you're talking in very vague terms with no supporting evidence.

 

[Avatar4321]

It amazes me that adults in this country cannot even agree on a handful of virtues that separates man from beast. How about honesty, integrity, hard work, respect, charity, self control..? Nope - I guess that's all subjective these days. No wonder young people are so confused. Moral relativism is killing our kids. No one is a saint but without guidelines and role models, they don't stand a chance. Children need morality presented in black and white until they are old enough to "think for themselves" Sheez, Child psychology 101.

Oh and that's not just the school's job truthmattersnot.

Children aren't the only ones who need it. Adults do too.

And it's why I've been trying to get discussions on virtue going.

Why? Because you say so?
Everyone is different, and everyone has different values.
It also isn't 1950 either.

No. Because natural law indicates that in order to avoid bad consequences for society we need a moral and uncorrupt people.

It's amazing how many times history has to repeat itself before this lesson is learned.

 

[Modbert]

Oh, you don't even read the threads before you troll in them?

Amazing trolling, there, kid.

I'm merely asking you to clarify your question. And no, I wasn't about to read nine full pages. You seem to think this is the first time this issue has been discussed on USMB.

 

[hjmick]

I disagree, respectfully.

I believe that there are some people whose morals, taught to them through the church, truly believe that homosexuality is immoral and therefore those who are homosexual themselves lack morals. While you and I do not agree with this idea, it does not make those who harbor such beliefs homophobic out of hand. Sure, some are, of that there can be no doubt, but not all.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there aren't people out there who don't truly believe it's wrong. There are people out there who truly believe it, I just think they're wrong.

I'm just saying they don't have a excuse for their ignorance, as you seem to agree with me on.

I think we only differ in the use of the label "homophobic." That and perhaps I am not as troubled by people whose morals lead them to that belief as you seem to be.

 

[Avatar4321]

We always yearn for the moral values of the past while decrying the lack of moral values today

If you go back 50 years, the moral values allowed

- Discriminating against blacks
- Discrimination against gays
- Tolerance of Domestic violence
- Blaming rape on the victim
- Child beating
- Open destruction of the environment

Sorry...I prefer today

Today:

- Discriminating against Christians
- Discrimination against Jews
- Tolerance of Domestic violence, still
- Blaming rape on the victim, still (especially if the rapist is 'somebody' in the liberal's book, Bill Clinton or Roman Polanski)
- Child extermination (abortion)
- Open destruction of human society

All false and completely ridiculous statements. Jesus christ, you cant be serious with this shit

How on earth are any of those points ridiculous?

 

[Luissa]

I'm wondering what homoseuality has to do with what chanel typed?

who posted the OP?

You responded to what you quoted and the OP is from Gallup.

So, I'm still wondering.

Why would she quote something that refered to homosexuals and morals? Did she say it was not included in the morals we need to teach our children?
She posted a list of things that are suppose to be immoral, than proceeded to say we need to teach our children morals. If she didn't want homosexuality part of that, she should of stated that.

 

[Modbert]

I think we only differ in the use of the label "homophobic." That and perhaps I am not as troubled by people whose morals lead them to that belief as you seem to be.

Seems to be so. Although I'm not so troubled by it, as I am disappointed by it. I've come to expect some beliefs such as what we're discussed to be believed due to their moral compass pointing them that way.

 

[Foxfyre]

Today:

- Discriminating against Christians
- Discrimination against Jews
- Tolerance of Domestic violence, still
- Blaming rape on the victim, still (especially if the rapist is 'somebody' in the liberal's book, Bill Clinton or Roman Polanski)
- Child extermination (abortion)
- Open destruction of human society

All false and completely ridiculous statements. Jesus christ, you cant be serious with this shit

How on earth are any of those points ridiculous?

I would like to know that too.

 

[Luissa]

We always yearn for the moral values of the past while decrying the lack of moral values today

If you go back 50 years, the moral values allowed

- Discriminating against blacks
- Discrimination against gays
- Tolerance of Domestic violence
- Blaming rape on the victim
- Child beating
- Open destruction of the environment

Sorry...I prefer today

Today:

- Discriminating against Christians
- Discrimination against Jews
- Tolerance of Domestic violence, still
- Blaming rape on the victim, still (especially if the rapist is 'somebody' in the liberal's book, Bill Clinton or Roman Polanski)
- Child extermination (abortion)
- Open destruction of human society

Who the fuck did Clinton rape? YOu should really look up the word slander.

 

[Si modo]

Oh, you don't even read the threads before you troll in them?

Amazing trolling, there, kid.

I'm merely asking you to clarify your question. And no, I wasn't about to read nine full pages. You seem to think this is the first time this issue has been discussed on USMB.

OMG.

How about just reading the OP, for starters. Of course, you could just look like an idiot and keep posting in threads you don't read. (I can't believe you actually copped to that.)

Trolls and fools don't bother reading threads before knee-jerk reacting in them.

As I said, you're being the good little troll you usually are.

 

[Luissa]

Today:

- Discriminating against Christians
- Discrimination against Jews
- Tolerance of Domestic violence, still
- Blaming rape on the victim, still (especially if the rapist is 'somebody' in the liberal's book, Bill Clinton or Roman Polanski)
- Child extermination (abortion)
- Open destruction of human society

All false and completely ridiculous statements. Jesus christ, you cant be serious with this shit

How on earth are any of those points ridiculous?

YOu might want to check out the part where he said Clinton raped someone.

 

[Modbert]

OMG.

How about just reading the OP, for starters.

Trolls don't bother reading threads before knee-jerk reacting in them.

As I said, you're being the good little troll you usually are.

I read the OP. I have to say though, you should get a new word in your vocab. Otherwise, the word troll is going to become meaningless considering how much you overuse it.

 

[Luissa]

Oh, you don't even read the threads before you troll in them?

Amazing trolling, there, kid.

I'm merely asking you to clarify your question. And no, I wasn't about to read nine full pages. You seem to think this is the first time this issue has been discussed on USMB.

OMG.

How about just reading the OP, for starters.

Trolls don't bother reading threads before knee-jerk reacting in them.

As I said, you're being the good little troll you usually are.

How about you read the OP, and where they list homosexuals.