America - The Official Thread

[Danoff]

Say what you want but I strongly disagree that our kids are safer today under today's system than they were back then under a completely different way of doing things.

Citation needed.

You claim that "hitting kids" teaches the wrong messages and yes abuse may but controlled discipline apparently did not.

Yes it does. And yes it did. You think that parents don't hit their kids today?

Never had school age kids going in and shooting up schools back then like today!

And you think this has something to do with hitting kids? You think if school shooters had been spanked more they wouldn't be shooters? Holy hell.

All of today's way is better supporters cannot or will not admit that violence both in and out of school by our youth and pitiful performance and outcomes in schools (we had learned to count change out for a dollar in 2nd grade! High school grads cannot do it today.) do not achieve as good of results as the old days.

Define good, and cite sources to support that.

Keep saying that old ways are wrong while society continues to deteriorate and get more violent it seems by the day.

Citation needed.

REMOVING PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and giving every failure a name or excuse was the biggest mistake ever made for both our youth and society. It may hurt their little feeling to actually hear the truth!

The truth is that failure and mistakes are to be expected (especially from children) and even encouraged. Personal responsibility is important, but so is fostering an environment in which children can fail and not die.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

As suggested above, the degree to which a firearm can reasonably be secured is dependant upon its purpose.

Because I keep guns for recreation rather than protection, I have no issue with employing multiple redundancies in locking them up; the gun themselves are kept unloaded, they're individually locked and they're contained in a gun safe. Because that safe isn't fireproof, rounds are kept in a separate safe that is.

Because I think it's unwise to assume my guns are the only guns my child could potentially come in contact with, and because there are times that they are not locked away, I made sure my daughter knew how to be safe around guns that aren't locked away.

That sounds reasonable, but I would not rely on a 7 year old's judgment either way. And it would be difficult to know whether the child in the story received such training, unless there was video proof or a witness to the training.

 

[TexRex]

Maybe society should look back and see what our parents and schools did different. It apparently worked much better than what we are doing in society today. But one thing we were responsible for our action from a very young age and poor performance was your fault and not an excuse. You could not do grade level work in school, you repeated the grade level, sorry no participation trophies or safe places. The students knew which bathroom to use by the plumbing in their underwear so another modern issue resolved.

What?

Cigarettes were once touted for their health benefits and black people and women were once thought of as inferior; as property.

Tangent!

Little bit!

That sounds reasonable, but I would not rely on a 7 year old's judgment either way. And it would be difficult to know whether the child in the story received such training, unless there was video proof or a witness to the training.

Judgment isn't innate, but acquired. It's a bit like arithmetic in that it may well make sense to the recipient of instruction, but it isn't likely to be knowledge that one possesses from birth.

I don't know whether any effort was made to educate the victim, but that the incident occurred and that the firearm was stored in a box intended for something a child would want to play with* is more likely to indicate that no effort was made than that it was.

*Everyone knows the best place to store a gun is in the vegetable crisper.

The point I was trying to make is that there are precautions that gun owners with children of any age should take that go beyond method of storage. Let's remove the gun from the scenario. If you as a parent injur your child because they ran behind your car as you were backing out of the driveway, you're responsible; not because you didn't see them or you failed to react in time, but because you didn't ensure they knew not to run behind a car as it's backing out of the driveway.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

Say what you want but I strongly disagree that our kids are safer today under today's system than they were back then under a completely different way of doing things.

Citation needed.

How about a kid could go out and play all day and the only thing their mom worried about was them getting home in time for dinner like they were supposed to. Now you cannot let kids out of your sight safely, that should be citation enough.

And you think this has something to do with hitting kids? You think if school shooters had been spanked more they wouldn't be shooters? Holy hell.

Spanking was a form of discipline that would be discontinued by the time a kid reached 8 or 9 years old, and there is a big difference in a 5 year old going out to get his own switch off a bush outside that stung his legs a bit that what would actually be abuse of beating a kid. We were raised with more personal responsibility and respect for our parents, elders, teachers and even mankind apparently than kids today.

Define good, and cite sources to support that.

I guess good could be defined we did not need police officers (school resource officers) or metal detectors or locked school doors for the students to be safe back then, sounds better than the requirements to achieve like results today.

Keep saying that old ways are wrong while society continues to deteriorate and get more violent it seems by the day.

Citation needed.

Turn on the news just about any night you want and compare an average days violence and events to those from 50 years ago again should be good enough. Or compare Chicago's murders now to then and even with Chicago being the gangster capitol back then it would not compare on a daily basis to today.

Keep your blinders on if you prefer, I could care less and I cannot change things and neither can you but at least I being realistic about the current situation and can see we are going downhill as a society and it is not looking as if it is going to get better any time soon.

What?

Cigarettes were once touted for their health benefits

You mean the same as marijuana is today?

black people and women were once thought of as inferior; as property.

People thought the world was flat at one time as well.
Still are in some cultures.

 

[TexRex]

You mean the same as marijuana is today?


People thought the world was flat at one time as well.

Misconceptions beget misconceptions...as ever.

It's probably best to exercise reason now than to simply point to the past as being "better".

Edit:

Turn on the news just about any night you want and compare an average days violence and events to those from 50 years ago again should be good enough. Or compare Chicago's murders now to then and even with Chicago being the gangster capitol back then it would not compare on a daily basis to today.

You don't know how citations work, do you?

 

[Danoff]

How about a kid could go out and play all day and the only thing their mom worried about was them getting home in time for dinner like they were supposed to. Now you cannot let kids out of your sight safely, that should be citation enough.

Maybe their mom should have worried more.

Spanking was a form of discipline that would be discontinued by the time a kid reached 8 or 9 years old, and there is a big difference in a 5 year old going out to get his own switch off a bush outside that stung his legs a bit that what would actually be abuse of beating a kid.

Spanking as a form of discipline should be discontinued right now... by all parents. Forever. It undermines the process of discipline and weakens the very psychological foundation used to achieve empathy, which is essential for discipline in children and adults.

Spanking is counter productive, but it can achieve short-term results, for all the wrong reasons. You can also achieve really good short term disciplinary results by starving, imprisoning, humiliating, or otherwise torturing children for unwanted behavior.

I guess good could be defined we did not need police officers (school resource officers) or metal detectors or locked school doors for the students to be safe back then, sounds better than the requirements to achieve like results today.

"Need" is an interesting word there. I'd say "have" is more accurate.

Turn on the news just about any night you want and compare an average days violence and events to those from 50 years ago again should be good enough. Or compare Chicago's murders now to then and even with Chicago being the gangster capitol back then it would not compare on a daily basis to today.

I'm not seriously expected to respond to that am I?

 

[VFOURMAX1]

It's probably best to exercise reason now than to simply point to the past as being "better".

I am just comparing the differences in societies overall behavior for a few talked about problem areas from then to now

Spanking as a form of discipline should be discontinued right now... by all parents. Forever. It undermines the process of discipline and weakens the very psychological foundation used to achieve empathy, which is essential for discipline in children and adults.

Spanking is counter productive, but it can achieve short-term results, for all the wrong reasons. You can also achieve really good short term disciplinary results by starving, imprisoning, humiliating, or otherwise torturing children for unwanted behavior.

Yep, why don't you show me the number of mass killings at middle and high schools by school age kids from that era to back up your point? We can see plainly see how the current discipline methods affect those same results with today's youth.

You drink the koolaid big time! If we could reverse the trends and behaviors from the era's then you may have a leg to stand on but unfortunately I tend to think that the school shootings alone beg to differ with your opinion.

"Need" is an interesting word there. I'd say "have" is more accurate.

Need, have it was not something required or needed in any form back then. These days they have to lock the school doors to keep kids safe, you call that an advancement in society over leaving the doors wide open and kids were safe?

Maybe their mom should have worried more.

The whole point, back in society then they did not need to, unlike society today. But you keep thinking we have advanced to a better place in society with all these pc, safe place and not hurt the darlings feelings if you like.

 

[Danoff]

Yep, why don't you show me the number of mass killings at middle and high schools by school age kids from that era to back up your point? We can see plainly see how the current discipline methods affect those same results with today's youth.

Current discipline methods are not widely adopted. No discipline method is widely adopted. For the most part, parents just wing it based on what their parents did. I gave you violent crime statistics, it's more indicative of what you're talking about.

You drink the koolaid big time! If we could reverse the trends and behaviors from the era's then you may have a leg to stand on but unfortunately I tend to think that the school shootings alone beg to differ with your opinion.

School shootings alone are too narrow an event to actually analyze any of the things you're talking about. You're also very badly mixing the behavior of some people with the behavior of others. If you want to blame school shootings on participation trophies, you'd need to actually link participation trophies to school shooters. Good luck.

Need, have it was not something required or needed in any form back then. These days they have to lock the school doors to keep kids safe, you call that an advancement in society over leaving the doors wide open and kids were safe?

The whole point, back in society then they did not need to, unlike society today. But you keep thinking we have advanced to a better place in society with all these pc, safe place and not hurt the darlings feelings if you like.

Citation needed. Society is safer today than it was then.

 

[TexRex]

I am just comparing the differences in societies overall behavior for a few talked about problem areas from then to now

Comparison without substantiation is masturbation.

The whole point, back in society then they did not need to, unlike society today.

John. Wayne. Gacy.

 

[Biggles]

How about a kid could go out and play all day and the only thing their mom worried about was them getting home in time for dinner like they were supposed to. Now you cannot let kids out of your sight safely, that should be citation enough.


Spanking was a form of discipline that would be discontinued by the time a kid reached 8 or 9 years old, and there is a big difference in a 5 year old going out to get his own switch off a bush outside that stung his legs a bit that what would actually be abuse of beating a kid. We were raised with more personal responsibility and respect for our parents, elders, teachers and even mankind apparently than kids today.

I guess good could be defined we did not need police officers (school resource officers) or metal detectors or locked school doors for the students to be safe back then, sounds better than the requirements to achieve like results today.



Turn on the news just about any night you want and compare an average days violence and events to those from 50 years ago again should be good enough. Or compare Chicago's murders now to then and even with Chicago being the gangster capitol back then it would not compare on a daily basis to today.

Keep your blinders on if you prefer, I could care less and I cannot change things and neither can you but at least I being realistic about the current situation and can see we are going downhill as a society and it is not looking as if it is going to get better any time soon.

I would say that the best upbringing a child could receive would be to have loving, committed parents. Not long ago, families typically had many children & the attention available to each child was less due to that fact. Spankings may have been a shortcut for parents to maintain discipline. I don't doubt that corporal punishment did not necessarily have long term negative consequences for the child, but I don't believe corporal punishment - AKA physical abuse - should be the preferred method of teaching children personal or societal responsibility.

Problems today in places like Chicago's South Side aren't a result of not beating the kids enough ... or molly-coddling them with "participation trophies", it's a consequence of decades of racism, poverty, neglect & lack of opportunity. Kids grow up with no positive role models, often in single parent families & in neighbourhoods awash with guns, drugs & violence. Spanking young kids isn't going to remedy that situation.

Finally ... as Danoff has already pointed out, the simple reality is that violent crime was MORE prevalent 50 years ago than it is today.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

John. Wayne. Gacy.

This was a serial killer that committed crimes over a long period not one that walked into a school blasting as we have seen so much in recent years.

 

[TexRex]

This was a serial killer that committed crimes over a long period not one that walked into a school blasting as we have seen so much in recent years.

You said parents didn't need to worry. John Wayne Gacy would probably approve of this notion, but that he was so prolific in his deeds demonstrates it to be false.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

You said parents didn't need to worry. John Wayne Gacy would probably approve of this notion, but that he was so prolific in his deeds demonstrates it to be false.

Pretty much still a rarity overall back then and at least where I grew up such instances were non existent. Today not so much.

 

[Joey D]

But everyone says our parents were wrong but you got to admit we had no where near the issues in society then that we have today with everyone needing their safe place, participation trophy and no discipline because you may hurt their little feeling! When you eliminate personal responsibility and make an excuse up for everything what could possibly go wrong?

Are you a Boomer? Because you sound like a Boomer.

How about a kid could go out and play all day and the only thing their mom worried about was them getting home in time for dinner like they were supposed to. Now you cannot let kids out of your sight safely, that should be citation enough.

I'm not sure where it's like where you live, but here in Utah, it's perfectly acceptable to allow your kids to roam the neighborhood. We even have a law that allows it and it's called something like "Free Range Children", which I assume is more or less like a free-range chicken.

 

[TexRex]

Pretty much still a rarity overall back then and at least where I grew up such instances were non existent. Today not so much.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

Are you a Boomer? Because you sound like a Boomer.

Yep,and a conservative as well on a forum that by most subject matter responses seem to be mainly populated by liberal gen y and x types,

 

[Joey D]

Yep,and a conservative as well on a forum that by most subject matter responses seem to be mainly populated by liberal gen y and x types,

That explains everything.

And I think you'll find most people, at least in terms of the vocal ones in the O&CE forum, are libertarian of some form instead of liberal or conservative. I also think you'll find that the vocal population here are also staunchly against Democrats and Republicans because both parties provide the same trash while trampling on your rights.

 

[DDastardly00]

That explains everything.

And I think you'll find most people, at least in terms of the vocal ones in the O&CE forum, are libertarian of some form instead of liberal or conservative. I also think you'll find that the vocal population here are also staunchly against Democrats and Republicans because both parties provide the same trash while trampling on your rights.

Not sure why but this post made me think of this:

"I've been staunchly Democrat my whole life and I vote that way but in my 80 years of existence, both parties have done relatively little for the real working class of America. Instead, they cater to their large corporate donors and base ( of constituents) while screwing the rest of us"

- Said by My Grandma in December of 2016

She's a real spitfire

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

The point I was trying to make is that there are precautions that gun owners with children of any age should take that go beyond method of storage. Let's remove the gun from the scenario. If you as a parent injur your child because they ran behind your car as you were backing out of the driveway, you're responsible; not because you didn't see them or you failed to react in time, but because you didn't ensure they knew not to run behind a car as it's backing out of the driveway.

I understand and accept the point, but I also think that a child may end up with a crayon in their nose even though they were told not to do it.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

That explains everything.

And I think you'll find most people, at least in terms of the vocal ones in the O&CE forum, are libertarian of some form instead of liberal or conservative. I also think you'll find that the vocal population here are also staunchly against Democrats and Republicans because both parties provide the same trash while trampling on your rights.

I will not try to pretend there are not serious problems and has been for decades in our political system. But there is currently no movement that I see that offers a better choice that has anywhere near the public support to make a successful run and win against the current powers.

About the only thing I see that attempts such drastic change is based off of socialism and I prefer not to live in a country like Venezuela as a prime current example of such a system. So I choose what I feel is the best system of choice to more closely fit with my beliefs and desires for our country. I do know nothing is free and the more the government controls and runs the worse off we are as nothing runs efficiently within our government.

I do not see this changing during the course of what is left of my lifetime and unfortunately I can honestly say that with the changes I have witnessed in my lifetime I do not wish I were younger age wise. At this point I feel I probably lived in one of the best eras that our country has ever seen and from the current looks of affairs will ever see.

 

[DDastardly00]

I will not try to pretend there are not serious problems and has been for decades in our political system. But there is currently no movement that I see that offers a better choice that has anywhere near the public support to make a successful run and win against the current powers.

About the only thing I see that attempts such drastic change is based off of socialism and I prefer not to live in a country like Venezuela as a prime current example of such a system. So I choose what I feel is the best system of choice to more closely fit with my beliefs and desires for our country. I do know nothing is free and the more the government controls and runs the worse off we are as nothing runs efficiently within our government.

I do not see this changing during the course of what is left of my lifetime and unfortunately I can honestly say that with the changes I have witnessed in my lifetime I do not wish I were younger age wise. At this point I feel I probably lived in one of the best eras that our country has ever seen and from the current looks of affairs will ever see.

I can agree with the first part, the latter is yet undetermined though. But as for Government being the solution, Reagan was spot on then and he is still spot on now. That quote has aged, very, very well.

"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." January 20, 1981: From Reagan's Inaugural Address.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

I can agree with the first part, the latter is yet undetermined though. But as for Government being the solution, Reagan was spot on then and he is still spot on now. That quote has aged, very, very well.

By far in my opinion the best President in my lifetime!

 

[Joey D]

Not sure why but this post made me think of this:

- Said by My Grandma in December of 2016

She's a real spitfire

I mean, she's not wrong.

About the only thing I see that attempts such drastic change is based off of socialism and I prefer not to live in a country like Venezuela as a prime current example of such a system. So I choose what I feel is the best system of choice to more closely fit with my beliefs and desires for our country. I do know nothing is free and the more the government controls and runs the worse off we are as nothing runs efficiently within our government.

I hope you didn't vote or support Trump then because he's a bleeding heart Communist who wants to control the economy (poorly) while ignoring the Constitution.

But really, conservatives in America, for the most part, are just a different flavor of socialist. Anyone who gets social security, Medicaid, or Medicare are making use of socialist programs...which is something that many American conservatives promote. It really comes down to do you want to give free money to younger people or older people.

 

[jjaisli]

Pretty much still a rarity overall back then and at least where I grew up such instances were non existent. Today not so much.

I'm 48. And I often find myself clinging to nostalgic feelings and thoughts from my past. I'm guessing you've got some years on me. But to pretend life was so much better back when is just a case of wearing rose tinted glasses. And it's a very disingenuous way of viewing the word. When I was growing up in the 70s, yes, life was very different. But it was different in part because:
- We didn't have our lives plastered over social media to the point where a woman loses her cat in Osaka and thousands of people in Texas suddenly know about it.
- We didn't have 24 hour news networks and online news cycling inside out.
- We didn't have local police departments and state police departments and sheriff departments all connected and linked to a crime database.

We lived in society back then, as you said, where people were embarrassed and shamed. If you were a kid and you did something wrong, nobody talked about after the initial punishment. People didn't want to air their dirty laundry. People didn't feel the need to discuss their problems openly.

If there was a crime committed outside of your local community, and it wasn't significant enough to make the papers, you didn't know about it. But it happened.

People are people. They are cruel and they are kind and there are all types and there were murders and wife beatings and child molestations and rapes and assaults--in droves, when you were growing up, just as there are today. But by nature, we hear about them and hear about them instantly. And there are almost twice as many people living in the US today as there were 50 years ago. And by extension, twice as many criminals.

If you want to believe school shootings are the result of a trophy generation or because they didn't get enough beatings growing up, nobody here will change your mind.

I agree that society is changing. And not necessarily for the better in all things. But it HAS changed for the better in many ways. I hope I never grow so old and jaded that I can no longer see that.

 

[DDastardly00]

I mean, she's not wrong.



I hope you didn't vote or support Trump then because he's a bleeding heart Communist who wants to control the economy (poorly) while ignoring the Constitution.

But really, conservatives in America, for the most part, are just a different flavor of socialist. Anyone who gets social security, Medicaid, or Medicare are making use of socialist programs...which is something that many American conservatives promote. It really comes down to do you want to give free money to younger people or older people.

I get what you are trying to say but you need to differentiate free-market capitalism and socialist government programs, the two don't go hand in hand and are very different things. Trump has largely deregulated Federal restrictions which would be contrary to your point in labeling him an economic communist.

 

[Danoff]

I get what you are trying to say but you need to differentiate free-market capitalism and socialist government programs, the two don't go hand in hand and are very different things. Trump has largely deregulated Federal restrictions which would be contrary to your point in labeling him an economic communist.

His position on trade is intensely big government.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Found this thingumibob that tracks Trump's approval rating (great ratings, very intelligents) and lets you drill into the demographics. I'd say the vote's solid with white, male non-graduates between 35 and 49, he has work to do elsewhere.

 

[mustafur]

This election can go either way, the biggest and tbh the only real thing that will determine the election is how the rust belt thinks about what Trump has done since in office.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

I hope you didn't vote or support Trump then because he's a bleeding heart Communist who wants to control the economy (poorly) while ignoring the Constitution.

I surely do not think you would allow such a stupid idea of I would support a traitor such as Hillary Clinton to even cross your mind?
Let what is posted below say more than needs to be said!

 

[Danoff]

I surely do not think you would allow such a stupid idea of I would support a traitor such as Hillary Clinton to even cross your mind?
Let what is posted below say more than needs to be said!
View attachment 843143

What does Hillary have to do with it? He was talking about Trump.