The K M Links Game - June 2024 Week 5...
Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Yet another typical example of Britain in 2012
63 Answers
http://www.dailymail....estaurant-toilet.html
Are we not learning anything from the actions of some of our young, what is the answer to prevent these increasing vile actions, what is the reason for it, do youngsters know far too much about sex these days?
Don't anyone dare say "it is no different now to what it was in the past" or that old chestnuts, "these sort of things are more reported than they were in the past".
What we need are answers, not excuses.
Are we not learning anything from the actions of some of our young, what is the answer to prevent these increasing vile actions, what is the reason for it, do youngsters know far too much about sex these days?
Don't anyone dare say "it is no different now to what it was in the past" or that old chestnuts, "these sort of things are more reported than they were in the past".
What we need are answers, not excuses.
Answers
Are we not learning anything from the actions of some of our young
It would appear that what a small minority of young people are doing is viewing vulnerable girls as 'easy game'. What we *should* learn from this is that we now have an overly sexualised teenage population, where sex is something of a sport - and more worrying is the 'gang bang' mentality. Is...
It would appear that what a small minority of young people are doing is viewing vulnerable girls as 'easy game'. What we *should* learn from this is that we now have an overly sexualised teenage population, where sex is something of a sport - and more worrying is the 'gang bang' mentality. Is...
13:35 Thu 01st Mar 2012
AOG - but there's the rub...there are a number of changes to social attitudes that I believe are welcome, and a number that are not.
For instance, the believe in strong marriage and waiting until after marriage to have kids is a good thing.
But attitudes to homosexuality and gay equality by social conservatives was/is a very bad thing.
I do not see it as permissiveness=bad, conservatism=good...shade of gay.
For instance, the believe in strong marriage and waiting until after marriage to have kids is a good thing.
But attitudes to homosexuality and gay equality by social conservatives was/is a very bad thing.
I do not see it as permissiveness=bad, conservatism=good...shade of gay.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
<<most 'ordinary men in the street', people no matter how poor, toed the moral line, much more than can be see today. etc etc>>
I think that's true Old Git though I'm sure you'd agree that in a proportion of those households the neat lace curtains concealed the regular sunday afternoon wife-beating, the illegitimate children passed off as mum's baby sister and the children waiting in terror for some family member to return from church and give them a 'special' cuddle.
However, I think the bigger point is (touched on by sp) that if we do accept that there was greater moral control in the past, it came with serious downsides. For instance:
Undeserved respect for people simply because they were in a position of authority or were of a different class ie don't question your 'betters' (even when they are cheating, hypocritical, nasty bar-stewards)
Social deprivation and ill health for the non-privileged
Exploitation and discrimination on a massive scale (social class, race, creed) that even the most non-pc person today would find incredible and often associated with mind-blowing hypocrisy (as an aside i was appalled once again by the monty python vs the Bishop & Muggeridge debate repeated recently - the one side attempted to take the moral high ground even though Muggeridge was an egotistical and vicious alcoholic and the Bishop - apart from being incredibly pompous and conceited - was an ardent persecutor of gays despite being a closet homosexual himself)
The post war period swept much of that away and good riddance
I think the sad thing is that as its legacy, instead of a questioning, ambitious, politically motivated youth that seemed to arise in the 60's we now have young people who are either;
suppressed by the weight of educational qualification scoring, materialistic expectations, career insecurities, and debts.
or apathetic, unmotivated and interested only in trivial nonsense like celebrity and instant fame
or reduced to gaining status, money and esteem through gang culture, crime and assaults like this case.
How we gain a better balance between the two states is another matter. Maybe one can't. Maybe it's a natural process where things swing back and forth between extremes. If one lives through a moderate phase then just enjoy it.
I think that's true Old Git though I'm sure you'd agree that in a proportion of those households the neat lace curtains concealed the regular sunday afternoon wife-beating, the illegitimate children passed off as mum's baby sister and the children waiting in terror for some family member to return from church and give them a 'special' cuddle.
However, I think the bigger point is (touched on by sp) that if we do accept that there was greater moral control in the past, it came with serious downsides. For instance:
Undeserved respect for people simply because they were in a position of authority or were of a different class ie don't question your 'betters' (even when they are cheating, hypocritical, nasty bar-stewards)
Social deprivation and ill health for the non-privileged
Exploitation and discrimination on a massive scale (social class, race, creed) that even the most non-pc person today would find incredible and often associated with mind-blowing hypocrisy (as an aside i was appalled once again by the monty python vs the Bishop & Muggeridge debate repeated recently - the one side attempted to take the moral high ground even though Muggeridge was an egotistical and vicious alcoholic and the Bishop - apart from being incredibly pompous and conceited - was an ardent persecutor of gays despite being a closet homosexual himself)
The post war period swept much of that away and good riddance
I think the sad thing is that as its legacy, instead of a questioning, ambitious, politically motivated youth that seemed to arise in the 60's we now have young people who are either;
suppressed by the weight of educational qualification scoring, materialistic expectations, career insecurities, and debts.
or apathetic, unmotivated and interested only in trivial nonsense like celebrity and instant fame
or reduced to gaining status, money and esteem through gang culture, crime and assaults like this case.
How we gain a better balance between the two states is another matter. Maybe one can't. Maybe it's a natural process where things swing back and forth between extremes. If one lives through a moderate phase then just enjoy it.
Zeuhl's summary of our young today has that loud clangning ring of truth about it:
- suppressed by the weight of educational qualification scoring, materialistic expectations, career insecurities, and debts.
- or apathetic, unmotivated and interested only in trivial nonsense like celebrity and instant fame
- or reduced to gaining status, money and esteem through gang culture, crime and assaults like this case.
Literally have tinnitus right now.
- suppressed by the weight of educational qualification scoring, materialistic expectations, career insecurities, and debts.
- or apathetic, unmotivated and interested only in trivial nonsense like celebrity and instant fame
- or reduced to gaining status, money and esteem through gang culture, crime and assaults like this case.
Literally have tinnitus right now.
AOG, //The atheists amongst us may pour scorn on this, but was it wrong for us to be 'God fearing, Men, Women, and Children?//
Yes, it was wrong. If the only reason you behave in a responsible way is because you fear a God for whose existence there is not one iota of evidence, then your parents didn't do a very good job. They abrogated their responsibility.
Yes, it was wrong. If the only reason you behave in a responsible way is because you fear a God for whose existence there is not one iota of evidence, then your parents didn't do a very good job. They abrogated their responsibility.
naomi24
/// If the only reason you behave in a responsible way is because you fear a God for whose existence there is not one iota of evidence, then your parents didn't do a very good job. They abrogated their responsibility. ///
That is a ridiculous conclusion to make, just because I happened to use a well known phrase.
And don't you dare say that my parents didn't do a very good job, Fear of God was part of one's spiritual up, the more earthly items, such as to be law-abiding, showing self-discipline, and showing respect for others, including one's elders etc, was the responsibility of one's parents, in my day.
But I am afraid judging by the actions of some on here, they were never taught the latter.
/// If the only reason you behave in a responsible way is because you fear a God for whose existence there is not one iota of evidence, then your parents didn't do a very good job. They abrogated their responsibility. ///
That is a ridiculous conclusion to make, just because I happened to use a well known phrase.
And don't you dare say that my parents didn't do a very good job, Fear of God was part of one's spiritual up, the more earthly items, such as to be law-abiding, showing self-discipline, and showing respect for others, including one's elders etc, was the responsibility of one's parents, in my day.
But I am afraid judging by the actions of some on here, they were never taught the latter.
Old Git
I think you may have taken offense unnecessarily.
My guess is that when naomi wrote <<If the only reason you behave in a responsible way is ...>>
she wasn't addressing you personally.
She might have written <If the only reason ONE behaves in a responsible way is ...>>
but using ONE does seem rather high-falootin' these days.
On the broader question, i thought the whole point was the inappropriateness of making <<law-abiding, showing self-discipline, and showing respect for others, including one's elders etc>> directly dependent on religous belief.
I agree with you; those things are our Values and we take them from the people who shape us - usually our parents - largely by their own example. Our conduct is then largely rooted in our desire to please those people.
This seems to me to be a much better basis than adherence to a dubious set of rules laid down in religous dogma and represented by priests and organisations that are too often questionable in their own behaviour.
I think you may have taken offense unnecessarily.
My guess is that when naomi wrote <<If the only reason you behave in a responsible way is ...>>
she wasn't addressing you personally.
She might have written <If the only reason ONE behaves in a responsible way is ...>>
but using ONE does seem rather high-falootin' these days.
On the broader question, i thought the whole point was the inappropriateness of making <<law-abiding, showing self-discipline, and showing respect for others, including one's elders etc>> directly dependent on religous belief.
I agree with you; those things are our Values and we take them from the people who shape us - usually our parents - largely by their own example. Our conduct is then largely rooted in our desire to please those people.
This seems to me to be a much better basis than adherence to a dubious set of rules laid down in religous dogma and represented by priests and organisations that are too often questionable in their own behaviour.
AOG, before you get your knickers in too much of a knot, I suggest you read my post again.
//’IF’ the only reason you behave in a responsible way is because you fear a God for whose existence there is not one iota of evidence, then your parents didn't do a very good job.//
See the IF there?
In your day it was the responsibility of the parents? Well, I have news for you. It still is, and those who do the job properly don’t need to resort to instilling the ‘fear of God’ into their children.
And by the way, people who offer no respect are not entitled to demand it from others. That has to be earned – whatever the age.
//’IF’ the only reason you behave in a responsible way is because you fear a God for whose existence there is not one iota of evidence, then your parents didn't do a very good job.//
See the IF there?
In your day it was the responsibility of the parents? Well, I have news for you. It still is, and those who do the job properly don’t need to resort to instilling the ‘fear of God’ into their children.
And by the way, people who offer no respect are not entitled to demand it from others. That has to be earned – whatever the age.
Sorry - I meant to say ....
going back to your earlier point; the problem isn't that we have lost religious adherence or fear of god. That was inevitable as people question old orthodoxies and illegitimate attempts at authority and control.
the problem is that the loss of those controls means that we are more reliant on those people (parents) shaping the Values of young people in a positive way. Your parents might have done that, my parents might have done that, most parents today are probably doing that.
The problem is the number who are not. And whether that number is rising.
going back to your earlier point; the problem isn't that we have lost religious adherence or fear of god. That was inevitable as people question old orthodoxies and illegitimate attempts at authority and control.
the problem is that the loss of those controls means that we are more reliant on those people (parents) shaping the Values of young people in a positive way. Your parents might have done that, my parents might have done that, most parents today are probably doing that.
The problem is the number who are not. And whether that number is rising.
Surely part of the problem is no respect for their elders and authority or even for themselves. A lot of teens these days know there is very little that can be done to punish them, from nursery teachers to teachers at school they cannot say anything negative to the children, they can't even raise their voice in case they get reported. Parents are restricted on punishments, even putting their own child in a room and not letting them out can result in social services getting involved. There is little respect for the police, and very little support for parents of teens that are going off the rails and seeking help to get them back on track.
I think respect is due to everybody.
How much is dependent on their own behaviour.
I don't give any additional respect to someone simply because they are <<elder>> Why would anyone do that? Getting old is something most people do if they are lucky - even the stupid, nasty and predatory ones.
I don't give any special respect to <<authority>> either.
Unless i am satisfied it is legitimate and bona fide. Too often (sadly) 'authority' has been (and still is) used to bully, exploit and manipulate people for someone else's benefit.
How much is dependent on their own behaviour.
I don't give any additional respect to someone simply because they are <<elder>> Why would anyone do that? Getting old is something most people do if they are lucky - even the stupid, nasty and predatory ones.
I don't give any special respect to <<authority>> either.
Unless i am satisfied it is legitimate and bona fide. Too often (sadly) 'authority' has been (and still is) used to bully, exploit and manipulate people for someone else's benefit.
Zeuhl
interesting debate and I apologise if I read more into naomi24's words than she intended, I was simply under the impression (wrongfully it seems) that she was taking a swipe at the way my parents had failed in my upbringing.
For my part I was making two different examples one being the foundation on what one's up bringing was based on, that which had served mankind for thousands of years 'Religion' passed down through the ages by our ancestors.
And the other example that being life's disciplines taught to us by our Grandparents, and Parent's, making for a stable and respectful life style, which I am afraid is lacking by some today.
That particular one 'respect for our elders' would be used to respect our parents and especially respect for our Grand Parents that was obligatory.
For example, I would never dream of telling my Parents, especially my Grand Parents, not to 'get their knickers in a twist'.
interesting debate and I apologise if I read more into naomi24's words than she intended, I was simply under the impression (wrongfully it seems) that she was taking a swipe at the way my parents had failed in my upbringing.
For my part I was making two different examples one being the foundation on what one's up bringing was based on, that which had served mankind for thousands of years 'Religion' passed down through the ages by our ancestors.
And the other example that being life's disciplines taught to us by our Grandparents, and Parent's, making for a stable and respectful life style, which I am afraid is lacking by some today.
That particular one 'respect for our elders' would be used to respect our parents and especially respect for our Grand Parents that was obligatory.
For example, I would never dream of telling my Parents, especially my Grand Parents, not to 'get their knickers in a twist'.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.