[Janos]

Janos,

All morality is subjective.  The prevailing morality is that which the majority of the culture in question adheres to.  In this case, it is generally conceived in the USA that "loose" males and females are of poor character.

Hey, you said this:

And I think we can all agree wild promiscuity is detrimental.

"I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE" is nothing. It's absolutely nothing. It's completely null, meaningless thing. You should've said that you think that but hey, I'm not letting this pass: I do not agree with that. Your assertion is therefore disqualified unless you can find me a scientifically sound source to argue for your position. And I doubt you are going to find one. You try to pass your personal values as somehow universal, as something "we" believe in, when in truth this is an outright lie. Don't try to weasel your way out of this: your assertion of promiscuity is invalid or outright false.

But let me summarize the course of this argument
Your entire argument started as a copy of Coulter's argument. That argument was, in your original post, phrased in such a way as to sound statistically valid causation. See

Using this strict definition, you can account for something like 85% of the currently incarcerated violent offenders in America's prisons.  Taking it a step further, she goes on, this accounts for the vast color differential in America's prison population, without that 85% there is almost no difference in the number of black or latino offenders vs. white offenders.

That's supposed to be objectively valid science, right? I mean, you certainly showcase it as something as such.

After that you move on to claim that the causal agent was the single mothers. Like this!:

Those are treatments to the existing condition, not the causal agent.
The causal agent is a society that, while not outright sanctioning it, has begun turning a blind eye to Single Mothers.  

Still trying to keep that validity up there. Causal agents! This is objective, right?

Then you very blatantly propose the following cure:

Of course I agree with that, but we have to reinject a sense of honor into the areas where they're culture has degenerated and is allowing detrimental behavior.
And I think we can all agree wild promiscuity is detrimental.

Now you suddenly give personalized, extremely vague terms which are just smoke and mirrors for "I think people should act like this". In your reply you refuse to even clarify what exactly you mean by these phrases!
After all, in your last post you were telling people about the causal agents.

And now, now you have the guts to tell that

This discussion is treading into an area that can't be dealt with on a scientific level.  We're starting to deal with the rights and wrongs of society.  I can't claim moral superiority over most anyone other than murderers, rapists and the like, but then neither can you.  Your outrage over my stances and thoughts are as driven by your own moral code as mine are.  If you deny this, then this discussion loses any possible common ground.

So suddenly, when driven into a corner, your supposedly valid statistical evidence completely loses it's weight and you shift your goalposts into a morality discussion. Its almost as if your arguments didn't held water before. And I just cannot resist but to take this quote from just a week ago:

Someone's hiding...
Hmm...decapitation of a living person broadcast on live tv or released via video cassette to news outlets isn't evil?
What if someone went into your home and raped your sister in front of you because she was seen in the company of a man not in her family?  What if they proceeded to kill and dismember her for the same offense?
Is that not evil? [...] Yet, the people you defend meet the definition of human only biologically, otherwise they're no better than the beasts you claim we came from.

Evil was evil, but in this current argument science is secondary to subjective morality which you base on science and there is no evil.

So let's start this again because this is ridiculous and you haven't so far answered any single question I have asked you.

What are you trying to say? What degenerated culture, how is promiscuity bad?

edit: My outrage is not your position, although I find it hilariously bad. It's on you and your debate strategy which is just "talking point, talking point, denial that I ever said that, strawman, talking point, talking point" while constantly changing the subject.

[Blue Lion]

Now that I watch more news and pay attention more to these issues because of the internet, it is amazing how many people pound the same talking points on subjects.

These things flare up, everyone uses them and then they're gone when they're rebuked. Only a new one pops up.

[Mika]

I think quite a lot people are aware about the issues in the society that Ann Coulter supposedly (being not American, I haven't read that book and never will) lists, the more important question is how does she propose to fix them? I would expect this as the problems should be well known among US people by now, adding one more book about the problems without mentioning her opinion of solutions is simply populism and getting herself rich at this point (which is actually a negative contribution to the problem).

While I time by time find Liberator's statements absurd, I think he is still correct in pointing out that the big problem is the rottening core values of the society. Which actually isn't something what people wouldn't know.

According to my understanding, giving money for charity happens a lot more often in US than in Europe. The money donated to charity work is supposed to fix some of the above mentioned problems. Now, do people see it affecting the surroundings? If not, why do they keep paying for it? [Answer: But but but I don't need to pay so much TAXES if I do!]

Now that I started it, let's go through some of the other problems:
If the gang violence is really that big threat, why people oppose more police funding? [Answer: Oh noes, moar TAXES!]. If the police is that corrupt bunch of people that they accept bribes, why not select them better and give better paychecks for them? [Answer: Oh noes, even MOAR TAXES!] If there is such amount of lunatics wandering on the streets, why they are not in the asylums where they could have a chance to get better? [Answer: Oh noes, we need to PAY for the private health care also?!] If people are that desperate to think stealing is worthwile, why are the morally sound jobs so lousy? [Answer: We want MOAR for less!] If unwed mothers are so dangerous to society, what causes the breakups and them becoming mothers in the first place? [Answer: I want to get laid MOAR often! Oh, by the way, abortions are also wrong, just like condoms!]

The bracketed parts are my views and my views only. Yes the last part of this post is purposefully simplistic.

Mika

[General Battuta]

Liberator's problem is bad reasoning. He thinks that an alleged increase in single mothers is a sign of moral decay. In fact, it can be addressed by education and economic improvement, since most of these single mothers are very poor.

Maybe if institutional racism and sexism (including that which makes Liberator put all the burden of responsibility on females, condemning female sexuality) weren't keeping these people down, their kids wouldn't turn into offenders...if that does actually happen.

Liberator, and Coulter, have done nothing to link these two groups (single mothers and violent offenders) in a causal way that implicates some kind of moral panic.

Liberator, go read Freakonomics -- it suggests that there was a drop in violent crime due to easy access to abortions and birth control. Why don't you go promote those as solutions?

[Liberator]

Battuta,

I am absolutely laying the burden at the feet of THESE PARTICULAR females.

Consider, why are they single?  Is it because none of the males are fit to be fathers?  If that's the case, why bear children to them?

My general point is that children, females and particularly males as they come into adulthood, absolutely need a father to teach them what it is to be a man and a father in they're own right

I quote from this article(http://www.mrdad.com/qa/life/defining-daddy.html)

"Children are at a particular disadvantage when they are deprived of constructive experiences with their fathers," writes psychologist Henry Biller. "Infants and young children are unlikely to be provided with other opportunities to form a relationship with a caring and readily available adult male if their father is not emotionally committed to them."

In Modern America, this is seems to be more and more frequently manifesting as children taking out they're frustrations with guns on innocent or mostly innocent bystanders.

[Blue Lion]

Consider, why are they single?  Is it because none of the males are fit to be fathers?  If that's the case, why bear children to them?

Lack of education on sex? Or are you implying single females get pregnant cause it's the super cool thing to do?

Still waiting to see why me having sex without being married is bad.

[The E]

Or having children without being married.

[Liberator]

Still waiting to see why me having sex without being married is bad.

Because, all talk of contraception aside, preserving that particular activity to only happen within the bond of marriage is the best way to make sure a child has what it needs to grow into a healthy productive member of society.

'Course I don't expect you to understand what I'm talking about, most of you look at marriage as this out of date ritual that has no meaning.

[The E]

I spot wrongness. Being married =/= Being capable of giving a child a nurturing environment. Having both parents around certainly is a good thing, but a marriage is not required for that. Ponder this: "Without love, there can be no true marriage. With Love, there can be nothing else."

[Blue Lion]

Still waiting to see why me having sex without being married is bad.

Because, all talk of contraception aside, preserving that particular activity to only happen within the bond of marriage is the best way to make sure a child has what it needs to grow into a healthy productive member of society.

'Course I don't expect you to understand what I'm talking about, most of you look at marriage as this out of date ritual that has no meaning.

But I'm not getting married, nor do I plan on having kids.

Again, apologies all around for my language.

You're saying if I put my penis in a woman's vagina, the kid is going to be ruined, but if I masturbate it's ok?

[Turambar]

Liberator's arguments might have been good ones about a century ago...

[Flipside]

Being a parent is the ultimate responsibility, and it's down to you to be a good one, no-one else. I don't think being married has an impact on that, it's down to people, not paperwork.

[Polpolion]

Because, all talk of contraception aside, preserving that particular activity to only happen within the bond of marriage is the best way to make sure a child has what it needs to grow into a healthy productive member of society.

Justify your claim.

On top of that, let me pose this situation to all of our members here: Assuming that you're parents are married, have you ever seen their marriage license? Did you witness their marrige? Did you verify that the priest was a certifiable priest and that the marriage is valid?

If not, then it's logically possible that you're parents are neither legally nor religiously married. Why don't you demand to see their marriage license and the certifications of the priest that wed them, just to verify that they weren't lying to you your entire life? Because you know that notion is absurd. It's absurd because it makes no difference in the way that they raised you.

Marriage is arbitrary. A genuine love between a couple is not.

[Mika]

While Liberator clearly has a religious dogma behind, I don't think he is completely wrong just because of that. Some of the things he says do make sense to me at least, or at least in the way interprete his messages. I don't agree with women being always at fault when they have babies without fathers. Did young even realize what they were doing? This smacks of poor judgment, understanding and education of the sex itself and as such it is more like a typical problem of religious people.

The other side is, how many partners are enough? Where do you draw the line there? The odds are that nobody is gonna take a partner with a track record of 100s of partners.

Mika

[Liberator]

Marriage is arbitrary. A genuine love between a couple is not.

This is true.  So why not certify it for the world to see by getting married?  Show me a negative in a relationship by getting married.

[Blue Lion]

The other side is, how many partners are enough? Where do you draw the line there? The odds are that nobody is gonna take a partner with a track record of 100s of partners.

Why can't a person decide how many sexual partners they want?

I'm a crazy sex fiend who needs to have sex with 1000 women (I'm not). Is that kid over there gonna go nuts because some other guy had sex with 1000 women instead of 1 woman 1000 times? (as it would be if I were married (over time, relax)).

[Blue Lion]

Marriage is arbitrary. A genuine love between a couple is not.

This is true.  So why not certify it for the world to see by getting married?  Show me a negative in a relationship by getting married.

All the legal aspects that come with marriage?

[Mika]

Why can't a person decide how many sexual partners they want?

I think I wrote it in a bad way. Of course they can. The question was about who actually wants to have a family with them after a track record like that. According to my understanding, there are people who are not monogamous by nature. There is no sense in trying to force them in to a marriage, nor should they be trying to achieve one by having babies.

Of course, there is notification from the history that in times when it became morally accepted to have orgies, **** as many as you could the society was about to crash. Whether these are related, I don't know, but wanted to write a note about it down here. I might have an inkling about the differences and things that lead to this kind of behavior, but I'm too tired to write it down here today.

Mika

[Blue Lion]

I think I wrote it in a bad way. Of course they can. The question was about who actually wants to have a family with them after a track record like that. According to my understanding, there are people who are not monogamous by nature. There is no sense in trying to force them in to a marriage, nor should they be trying to achieve one by having babies.

Of course, there is notification from the history that in times when it became morally accepted to have orgies, **** as many as you could the society was about to crash. Whether these are related, I don't know, but wanted to write a note about it down here. I might have an inkling about the differences and things that lead to this kind of behavior, but I'm too tired to write it down here today.

Are kids mirror images of their parents? No. Sex addict parents have monogamous kids. Monogamous parents have sex addict kids. What matters is how the parent parents.

I'm not like my parents, doesn't mean they're bad at it. They did (do) things I don't approve of. I didn't follow in their footsteps of bad behavior and I have bad behaviors they don't.

It's far more complex that this.

[Mika]

I think you misunderstood my post. I don't see a connection between my post and yours post. I meant having children is seen as a way to make the dwindling marriage stronger again.

Mika