Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: peterv on April 27, 2009, 10:21:50 am
-
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,621025,00.html
-
And you needed to autogodwinate this, why, exactly?
-
autowhat? :confused:
-
Godwin's Law
Hence, Auto - Godwin - ate
-
Wait, installing noise makers to discourage teens from loitering is somehow... what? Nazi? Holocausty?
-
It isn't IMHO. Annoying, yes. Genocidally insane, no.
-
Hitler was a dictator. Holocaust and genocide were only two of his crimes. When i say that he would be proud i mean that like any dictator he would love anti-democratic practices like this.
Sorry, i thought that it was obvious.
-
How exactly is it anti-democratic?
The article itself says no one knows the legal status of it.
-
My bad. It isn't. It's a great measure.
(I need a drink).
-
Anti-democratic? So some noise makers were put up to discourage teenagers from gather to discuss matters of some national or international import? Or just to keep them from loitering in front of a business interfering with the owners ability to conduct business and possibly hassling incoming or outgoing shoppers?
-
Hmmm. This is questionable, but far from anti-democratic, in my opinion. The problem here is that it's a cure for a symptom, but doesn't affect the disease.
-
Great.
Finally someone thought of putting the fear of the elders back into the spoiled and rotten kids of today again.
:yes:
-
Since it affects most people under 25, I'd say the problem will solve itself in the long run when those places start bankrupting themselves.
If I was one of those effected by the things, I'd bring a huge radio and start playing music extremely loud. When told to stop, I'd point out the hypocrisy.
-
Agree with Ghostavo, any shop that wants to drive away an entire chunk of their potential customers in the current financial climate will up weeding itself out of the problem.
-
But we aren't talking about potential customers, we're talking about groups of teenagers who aren't shopping or buying, they're just loitering.
-
The device affects most people under 25 without distinction. That means toddlers will be irritated by it just as well as people old enough to know what they are doing.
And while that seems to be a small portion (well, not really, but let's say it is) of the demography of the place, it will also have an effect on adjacent ones, since those people will most likely not frequent that place years to come. Another side effect presents itself to parents, would you frequent places that actively irritated and gave headaches to your child?
-
"So this is how Liberty dies, with a constant ****ing buzzing sound"
-
Why? teenagers would be in the Hitler Youth program not loitering in front of shops like malcontents. Plus annoying sound makers are a massive step down from getting kicked in the ass by angry jackbooted goons. I would say he would be disappointed:P
-
Liberator and Trashman hate freedom.
-
I, myself, as a dutch youth, have never encountered the mosquito (I live in a rural area). However, I am quite sure it IS unconstitutional. We have a Freedom-Of-Gathering constitution, which allows any group to form anywhere within the bounds of the law (In other words, if they don't go throwing rocks, 8 16-year olds may go anywhere as they please by the constituion) The mosquite prevents that from happening, thus, it is unconstitutional.
(And what is a mosquito doeing near a school? A mosquito is supposed to scare off kids, why do you want to scare people away from schools?)
-
The thing is though, you can still assemble. You can plug your ears with something. You can man up and just deal with the noise. Or you can start vandalizing the things to make a point.
-
All I see is a bunch of teenagers griping.
Put yourselves in the business owner's shoes. You have a bunch of people who are blocking lawful traffic into and out of both your store and the parking lot, which in and of itself is dangerous, and you have it within your ability to break up the gathering. Either by calling the police, and generating bad feelings which might lead to vandalism, or by installing this sound device which is sub-audible, but very effective.
Bear in mind, no one is saying anyone can't gather where they please, just which bits of private property they can do it on.
-
All I see is a bunch of teenagers griping.
Put yourselves in the business owner's shoes. You have a bunch of people who are blocking lawful traffic into and out of both your store and the parking lot, which in and of itself is dangerous, and you have it within your ability to break up the gathering. Either by calling the police, and generating bad feelings which might lead to vandalism, or by installing this sound device which is sub-audible, but very effective.
Bear in mind, no one is saying anyone can't gather where they please, just which bits of private property they can do it on.
Have you even read the article?
-
So now you have to be an adult to even have the right to gather with your peers when you want to. Great job Lib, Blue Lion, Trashman, you little loyal Orwellians.
-
I've never loitered anywhere with a group of teenagers in my life. :\
But I go to gas stations all the time, and I'm kinda sensitive to loud noise. I guess I would avoid those gas stations.
-
So now you have to be an adult over 25 to even have the right to gather with your peers when you want to. Great job Lib, Blue Lion, Trashman, you little loyal Orwellians.
Fixed.
-
If they did that around here id throw a brick at them and break them.
-
Liberator and Trashman hate freedom.
Oh, I like freedom.
I just hate young people that have no decency, culture and respect.
-
So now you have to be an adult to even have the right to gather with your peers when you want to. Great job Lib, Blue Lion, Trashman, you little loyal Orwellians.
Am I mistaken? Is it some kind of device that automatically creates this noise whenever 2 or more teenagers get together anywhere? Schools must be terrible.
Oh it's not? Well gee, you'd swear they could just go somewhere else then.
Would it be unconstitutional if they played jazz music or something? Are they not allowed to play sounds or just not ones that are designed to make you go away?
I'm pretty sure you don't go to other businesses that have radios and scream at them for violating your freedoms.
-
Liberator and Trashman hate freedom.
Oh, I like freedom.
I just hate young people that have no decency, culture and respect.
QFT!
-
Uh...huh...
So anybody who isn't just like you, then?
-
What ever happened to good old bouncers?
Back then stores had the right to choose their customers also. And throw out the rest if needed.
-
Been awhile since I saw this but I believe they are using these deterrents outdoors. So basically you can't stand in front of the store and some people are more sensitive then others so even walking by the place can be annoying. Imagine if every store on both sides of the street did that. If they were using them indoors I don't think there would be an issue.
-
Honestly, here in the US it would be a matter of days before said teenagers destroyed the devices. I don't know about there.
-
They still use them in the US as far as I know
-
Bear in mind, no one is saying anyone can't gather where they please, just which bits of private property they can do it on.
Been awhile since I saw this but I believe they are using these deterrents outdoors. If they were using them indoors I don't think there would be an issue.
I'm not sure what the law is over there in Europe, but in my town outdoors is generally considered public property. Just because you own the store does not mean you own the sidewalk. We had a grief about that at my high school. Religious fanatics wandered on the property and started distributing their material. When the staff escorted them off the premises, they stopped at the sidewalk and resumed their business because it was technically public property, and no school faculty could order them away so long as they stayed there. A private individual placing a mosquito in a public place is overstepping their bounds and authority, turning this from defense of property into harassment and/or abuse. The public arena is under management by police, and if they place these then they are within their rights, but just because it's in their jurisdiction does not make it by any means legal or ethical. A very strong case could be made that this destroys the right to peaceably assemble as it affects all members of a specific age group without accounting for their purposes. Although intended to discourage dangerous assembly, it inadvertently inhibits lawful assembly by making outdoor ventures painful. No one will want to be outside if they get a headache every time. It could also be considered unwarranted discrimination. In addition, the psychological impacts may prove to be even more dangerous than what the mosquito achieves. Irritable humans are not to be trifled with, especially when they're full of hormones.
-
Does this mean that no sounds at all can be played outside because they may disrupt others?
Is my neighbor infringing my rights because I find his lawnmower annoying?
I'm just curious what the overall argument here is.
-
The intent to drive away anyone under the age of 25 through irritants is the issue.
-
I know why they're doing it.
What I meant was "What part of that is illegal or unconstitutional?"
The noise part or the intent part?
To me this is no different than the story owner standing next to the kids and going "lalalalala I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you"
-
Now look, you say that intent matters in the piracy thread. So it matters here too.
To me this is no different than the story owner standing next to the kids and going "lalalalala I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you"
Yeah, and you could probably get charged with harassment if you did it enough.
-
If anything, it's age discrimination.
I get offended a little bit by stuff like this. Like, there is a mall in the are where if you are under 18 or 21 (I forget), you can't be there unchaperoned.
I don't loiter or vandalize stuff or cause trouble in public places. I don't know anyone that does.
So, yeah, I feel unfairly discriminated against.
-
Does this mean that no sounds at all can be played outside because they may disrupt others?
Is my neighbor infringing my rights because I find his lawnmower annoying?
I'm just curious what the overall argument here is.
Because it's specifically designed to be used against teenagers and children. Because you're treating human beings like uncooperative dogs. Because maybe every society on earth would go to hell if it adhered to the "you can do whatever the hell you want so long as it doesn't violate an extremely double-standard-based and narrow interpretation of the law" position that you endorse.
If your neighbor wanted to mow his lawn with a noisy thing so he could mow his lawn, that's one thing. If he wanted to mow his lawn with that mower because it was specifically designed to be extremely painful to your childrens' ears because he hates your children and doesn't want to see them anywhere near his lawn, ever, then what he's doing is wrong, period. Do you disagree with that?
-
If this is implemented in America, regardless of the fact that I don't loiter, I will buy a massive speaker and blare white noise extremely loud in front of the places that do this.
Sure, it's not like the kids are angels, but this noise device can't exactly discriminate between the loiterers and the people who aren't doing anything wrong, can it?
-
It's illegal in that it qualifies as harassment/abuse. It is intentionally done to cause physical and/or psychological distress which is in most jurisdictions illegal.
It is unconstitutional in that it hinders lawful assembly in a public place.
And that store owner could still be considered guilty of harassment.
-
If anything, it's age discrimination.
I get offended a little bit by stuff like this. Like, there is a mall in the are where if you are under 18 or 21 (I forget), you can't be there unchaperoned.
I don't loiter or vandalize stuff or cause trouble in public places. I don't know anyone that does.
So, yeah, I feel unfairly discriminated against.
You ever seen Hot Fuzz? You'd love it. It's mostly a parody of buddy cop movies but the whole point of the movie IMO was that the adult leaders of the town had accused teenage robbers of being responsible for the murders, when really it was the adults who had been murdering people, including scores of teenagers, so as to eliminate anyone who made their community look bad in their eyes. And then all the guilty adults get killed by policemen in a massive gunfight.
-
Yep, this is a bad thing.
Liberator and Trashman hate freedom.
Oh, I like freedom.
I just hate young people that have no decency, culture and respect.
QFT!
Arrrgh those damn kids! :rolleyes:
"Oh, I like freedom.
I just only want it for people who don't do things I hate.
Like stand in front of a building."
ARGH those damn kids.
-
Blue Lion: People have the right to do whatever they want, so long as it isn't the expense of other peoples rights, like the right to congregate as they please. Your issue seems to be therefore that people younger than 21 should have no rights at all. What are you in this for? To keep up your conservative credentials? To preserve power relationships? I'm really curious what your worldview looks like.
-
Yep, this is a bad thing.
Liberator and Trashman hate freedom.
Oh, I like freedom.
I just hate young people that have no decency, culture and respect.
QFT!
Arrrgh those damn kids! :rolleyes:
"Oh, I like freedom.
I just only want it for people who don't do things I hate."
EXACTLY.
*highfives Nuclear*
-
If this is implemented in America, regardless of the fact that I don't loiter, I will buy a massive speaker and blare white noise extremely loud in front of the places that do this.
Sure, it's not like the kids are angels, but this noise device can't exactly discriminate between the loiterers and the people who aren't doing anything wrong, can it?
If this happens in America all that's gonna happen is that it will last about a month before it's shut down by student activism. I personally am itching for something on the homefront I can have some fun protesting (since nobody gives a **** about poverty so best you can do there is volunteer at shelters and food banks. Their paying jobs actually aren't half bad though), even if only for a few days.
-
Liberator and Trashman hate freedom.
Oh, I like freedom.
I just hate young people that have no decency, culture and respect.
Because everybody under 25 has no decency, culture or respect....
Seriously, do you even think before you post?
-
It's illegal in that it qualifies as harassment/abuse. It is intentionally done to cause physical and/or psychological distress which is in most jurisdictions illegal.
I get the distinct impression there are slightly more qualifiers on harassment than the causing of psychological distress. Scary movies do that.
It is unconstitutional in that it hinders lawful assembly in a public place.
No, it doesn't. I swear you can go there and assemble. No one will arrest you.
I'm no legal expert on this, but I'll go out on a limb and say having a business make a sound will not constitute harassment.
My AC makes noise and I'm sure it would be super annoying to have a meeting below it. I don't think anyone will be calling me up arguing I've infringed their rights.
-
Blue Lion: People have the right to do whatever they want, so long as it isn't the expense of other peoples rights, like the right to congregate as they please.
And you would be incorrect. Not on the congregation part, on the "I can do whatever I want" part.
Your issue seems to be therefore that people younger than 21 should have no rights at all.
..... No? I'm arguing no right has been removed. Again, you can go stand there. If it wasn't your right, they'd call the cops instead of spending money on devices.
What are you in this for? To keep up your conservative credentials? To preserve power relationships?
Calling me conservative is the funniest thing ever. EVER. You have made my day.
I think I'll walk around and find people who make noises I don't care for and demand they turn them off so I can assemble there.
-
Liberator and Trashman hate freedom.
Oh, I like freedom.
I just hate young people that have no decency, culture and respect.
Because everybody under 25 has no decency, culture or respect....
Seriously, do you even think before you post?
Well I'm 20, so I must be a real ****tard judging from your opinion. I mean, I work in homeless shelters over the summer, pay or no pay, I don't annoy people for the hell of it, I hold doors open and say "excuse me" and "thank you", and more importantly I don't think society should treat people like **** because I personally don't like them, which is more than I can say for you, Trashman. But I'm under 25, so I guess none of that matters, aye?
Know what, have you ever had a single thought after the age of 25 that didn't come from somebody else? Answer that for me.
-
There are laws against noise in public places.
This example is even worse since the noise's intent is to disturb.
Then again, if the device's noise was heard by everybody how many people would still support it?
-
Calling me conservative is the funniest thing ever. EVER. You have made my day.
I think I'll walk around and find people who make noises I don't care for and demand they turn them off so I can assemble there.
I'm sorry, it's just that you always seem to support the side with the power in every argument (not that so-called Liberals don't do that all the time too).
But my analogy stands. If your neighbor wanted to mow his lawn with a noisy thing so he could mow his lawn, that's one thing. If he wanted to mow his lawn with that mower because it was specifically designed to be extremely painful to your childrens' ears because he hates your children and doesn't want to see them anywhere near his lawn, ever, then what he's doing is wrong, period. This device will be used against teenagers who have committed no crime, and who have made no disruption.
-
Let's go under the assumption that the property belongs to the building owner (usually the case but the sidewalk is a right of way owned by the city). Even if he does have the right to play it most places it would only be allowable at certain times. For example where I live you can have your music on until 10PM them you have to turn it down so it doesn't bother anyone. Of course where I live they also passed an ordinance that 3 or more juveniles in one area constitute a gang and can be made to disperse or arrested.
None of this still addresses the point of people lawfully using the sidewalk.
There is also the point that these things were designed for a specific intent of being a "less than lethal" deterrent for crowd control. Now what would happen if you put up a pepper gas sprayer instead?
As for the kids destroying them don't think it's going to happen. They are pretty much bullet proof. At least the prototype I saw a few years back was.
-
And if you don't think that's not the case, that it won't be abused horribly, then you're just being extremely cynical about teenagers and being extremely trustful of grumpy adults. Forgive me if your double standards made me mistake you for a typical conservative.
-
There are laws against noise in public places.
This example is even worse since the noise's intent is to disturb.
Yes but "public places" aren't pin drop quiet.
I can go out and read the Bible in a loud squeaky voice and I doubt I will get arrested.
Then again, if the device's noise was heard by everybody how many people would still support it?
Things make noise all the time. Some businesses have loud equipment or play music.
So is the issue the noise or is it the intent to get you to leave?
-
Blue Lion, INTENT MATTERS.
-
But for a scary movie, the person has elected to it.
In harassment, the target person(s) have not consented to the distress and the party perpetrating the harassment does it with the intent of causing said unwanted distress for a certain end. So yes, scary movies could be considered harassment, but as the viewing party expects to be scared, it is not illegal.
I may go there and assemble, but I will leave in five minutes because my head hurts so much. It prevents people below the age of 25 from assembling through use of physical pain, not through use of legal action. The articles granting the right to assemble do not specify that prohibition of assembly can only be accomplished by arrest and that all other methods are fair game. They say, flat out, that inhibition of assemble in general is illegal. Since no one method is specified, we must conclude all methods are prohibited. This means that anything intended to prevent people gathering, no matter what it is, as long as the gathering is lawful, is illegal.
True, a business making a sound does not constitute harassment if it is a side effect of the business's normal operation. The moment you begin to intentionally disturb any party without their consent, the moment you go beyond what is normal/acceptable with an intent to cause upset or disturbance, you have entered the realm of harassment. If you were to turn on your stereo at max when someone has requested it be turned down, that is harassment. If you crank over your AC when someone has requested it be turned off, that is harassment. If a business starts making a sound that is intended to drive people off, that is harassment through its aggressive nature.
-
There are laws against noise in public places.
This example is even worse since the noise's intent is to disturb.
Yes but "public places" aren't pin drop quiet.
I can go out and read the Bible in a loud squeaky voice and I doubt I will get arrested.
Actually, if it's loud enough, you can.
If you intend to annoy people, the laws involved don't even need to be about noise, since you are purposedly disturbing people.
Note that I'm assuming laws about this issue are uniform across the EU.
Here's an example (http://oficina.cienciaviva.pt/~pv0625/legislacao_do_ruido.htm) I'm familiar with.
Then again, if the device's noise was heard by everybody how many people would still support it?
Things make noise all the time. Some businesses have loud equipment or play music.
So is the issue the noise or is it the intent to get you to leave?
Either the intent is to make noise or not, there are still laws against noise. With intent thrown into the mess, it's even worse for the offending side.
Here's something to read about (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_regulation).
-
I'm sorry, it's just that you always seem to support the side with the power in every argument (not that so-called Liberals don't do that all the time too).
If you mean my stance of "If it's illegal you can't do it. If it's legal you can" then guilty as damn charged.
There are plenty of things I think am morally opposed to but are legal so tough luck for me. Flip side of the coin, some things I think should be legal aren't. I don't just disregard the law and say I think differently.
But my analogy stands. If your neighbor wanted to mow his lawn with a noisy thing so he could mow his lawn, that's one thing. If he wanted to mow his lawn with that mower because it was specifically designed to be extremely painful to your childrens' ears because he hates your children and doesn't want to see them anywhere near his lawn, ever, then what he's doing is wrong, period. This device will be used against teenagers who have committed no crime, and who have made no disruption.
Except that's a different argument than "We can't assemble here".
The harassment argument has some legs. Haven't really looked at the harassment laws but I dunno.
But the whole "we can't stand there" argument kinda falls apart because you CAN stand there.
As an example, if they are out on the streets fixing curbs or something and running a jackhammer, me standing there yelling for them to turn it off won't fly. Jackhammers are loud and can cause permanent hearing loss without protection.
I can't go to the cops and have them stop them because I say if I stand next to them it hurts my ears.
-
Actually, if it's loud enough, you can.
Aren't these machines designed not to be loud?
If you intend to annoy people, the laws involved don't even need to be about noise, since you are purposedly disturbing people.
Note that I'm assuming laws about this issue are uniform across the EU.
Here's an example (http://oficina.cienciaviva.pt/~pv0625/legislacao_do_ruido.htm) I'm familiar with.
So it's more of me disturbing the peace instead of free assembly. And I can't read that article at all. :sigh:
Either the intent is to make noise or not, there are still laws against noise. With intent thrown into the mess, it's even worse for the offending side.
Here's something to read about (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_regulation).
I hate to say it but you're helping me prove my point. Bring a noise complaint. This is not really a first amendment issue (well it is, in that the shop owners can argue you're infringing their right to make noise in a public place)
One thing the article really doesn't mention it but most noise ordinances are against loud noise. If these objects don't reach that decibel level, then what?
-
Oh, they can stand there, they'll just get harassed and police are ok with it because it's their job to treat youth like ****. That's what adult society wants them to do.
It seems like you're all for lip service to free assembly in the law, just not in actual practice, since anyone can disrupt them (and this is with INTENT to disrupt) without facing repercussions worse than a harassment suit in your eyes.
-
What if the government used it against nonviolent protesters, would the government still only be guilty of harassment?
-
Actually, if it's loud enough, you can.
Aren't these machines designed not to be loud?
I was answering your example. So you can get arrested for making noise, that's the point.
If you intend to annoy people, the laws involved don't even need to be about noise, since you are purposedly disturbing people.
Note that I'm assuming laws about this issue are uniform across the EU.
Here's an example (http://oficina.cienciaviva.pt/~pv0625/legislacao_do_ruido.htm) I'm familiar with.
So it's more of me disturbing the peace instead of free assembly. And I can't read that article at all. :sigh:
Free assembly is just a side effect in my opinion, the most present issue is about disturbing the peace, so yes. Would you still be unopposed if the devices affect only say... people above 65?
Regarding the article, I can't find anything more... texty in english. Every search I make returns just a tidbit or so. Feel free to dismiss it if you want.
Either the intent is to make noise or not, there are still laws against noise. With intent thrown into the mess, it's even worse for the offending side.
Here's something to read about (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_regulation).
I hate to say it but you're helping me prove my point. Bring a noise complaint. This is not really a first amendment issue (well it is, in that the shop owners can argue you're infringing their right to make noise in a public place)
One thing the article really doesn't mention it but most noise ordinances are against loud noise. If these objects don't reach that decibel level, then what?
I never said it was, if you search my posts in this thread, I've always said my problem was with the noise itself and the intent to annoy people with it.
The article I posted in portuguese limits permanent noise near areas such as the ones in the article to 5db in the day. To see how quiet that is, ambient noise is 30db. Even following this law, I'd wager that there could be room for complaint if the noise was intended specifically to disturb people.
EDIT:
I seem to have found something interesting (http://pd.npr.org/anon.npr-mp3/atc/atc_teenbuzz.mp3?dl=1).
I can't seem to hear it. Anyone willing to give it a try?
I'm 21 by the way.
-
Is it the one we are talking about?
-
I assume so.
-
That is the most terrible sound I've ever heard in my life :mad:
-
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCKKKKKK KKKKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!
Warning, do not use with headphones :mad:
EDIT Unggh!! Speaker make it worse, what is this madness? It's like when you get home from a loud concert and you didn't use earplugs but louder and higher pitched.
-
It's very interesting that there are people deffending such practices against younger people. Perhaps they should look for the lack of decency, culture and respect elsewere, not to kids.
-
Where some people are getting confused is that shops and usually the sales/walk areas in front of them, while publicly accessible, are in fact private property. You don't go strolling into someone's house you don't know with 20 of your friends and just stand around in his yard?
The shop keeper is well within his rights to remove undesirable people from in and around his establishment.
-
I was answering your example. So you can get arrested for making noise, that's the point.
It's also illegal to drive "fast" but it depends on the law as to what "fast" is. I really haven't seen a law that says these things are loud enough to constitute a noise complaint.
Free assembly is just a side effect in my opinion, the most present issue is about disturbing the peace, so yes. Would you still be unopposed if the devices affect only say... people above 65?
Why would it suddenly become bad to do it to old people?
If for example (making this up) a noise ordinance says you can have noises up to 75 db from 7am to 7pm on weekdays (again, made that up) and the device is say 65db... you kinda can't get them on that.
Wait, old people complained? Oh well string the guy up then. An old person complained about something. An event such as this calls for drastic action.
Regarding the article, I can't find anything more... texty in english. Every search I make returns just a tidbit or so. Feel free to dismiss it if you want.
I can't dismiss something I can't read. I don't even know what it says!
I never said it was, if you search my posts in this thread, I've always said my problem was with the noise itself and the intent to annoy people with it.
The article I posted in portuguese limits permanent noise near areas such as the ones in the article to 5db in the day. To see how quiet that is, ambient noise is 30db. Even following this law, I'd wager that there could be room for complaint if the noise was intended specifically to disturb people.
You've showed me a law that says they can't do that. If you put one up there, hello legal matters.
But, and it's a pretty big but, these guys at the start of this article didn't argue it as a noise complaint. They argued it as a freedom of assembly issue, which it's not.
Also, no such comparable law has been shown to strike this down. I get the feeling if these laws existed in that area they would be brought up in the article.
-
And yes I can hear it.
I'm 27.
-
It seems like you're all for lip service to free assembly in the law, just not in actual practice, since anyone can disrupt them (and this is with INTENT to disrupt) without facing repercussions worse than a harassment suit in your eyes.
First off, you've made an argument I haven't made. I don't recall saying criminal harassment was ok cause they're kids. You guys just haven't really proved this is legal harassment.
I'm not well versed in the law of harassment in public places. Maybe you are.
Here's a riddle, if I'm out on a public street and I see a couple walking by and I say "Hey buddy, you're ugly. I can't believe she dates you. Her, however, I would love to play her boobs like bongo drums"
Public place? Check
Disturbing someone? Check
Criminal act? Dunno, you tell me.
Secondly, freedom of assembly doesn't automatically exist everywhere. Try going to a public park or school at night and try to argue freedom of assembly.
-
I was answering your example. So you can get arrested for making noise, that's the point.
It's also illegal to drive "fast" but it depends on the law as to what "fast" is. I really haven't seen a law that says these things are loud enough to constitute a noise complaint.
You said in your previous post that you couldn't get arrested for making noise! That was what I was addressing!
Free assembly is just a side effect in my opinion, the most present issue is about disturbing the peace, so yes. Would you still be unopposed if the devices affect only say... people above 65?
Why would it suddenly become bad to do it to old people?
If for example (making this up) a noise ordinance says you can have noises up to 75 db from 7am to 7pm on weekdays (again, made that up) and the device is say 65db... you kinda can't get them on that.
Wait, old people complained? Oh well string the guy up then. An old person complained about something. An event such as this calls for drastic action.
I think it's bad to do that to anybody, I just wanted to hear your opinion. I'm surprised anyhow. I thought people that agreed with the use of such device would abhor using it on anyone else.
Regarding the article, I can't find anything more... texty in english. Every search I make returns just a tidbit or so. Feel free to dismiss it if you want.
I can't dismiss something I can't read. I don't even know what it says!
Well, you can dismiss it anyhow. :P If you can't read it, it's worthless in this argument.
I never said it was, if you search my posts in this thread, I've always said my problem was with the noise itself and the intent to annoy people with it.
The article I posted in portuguese limits permanent noise near areas such as the ones in the article to 5db in the day. To see how quiet that is, ambient noise is 30db. Even following this law, I'd wager that there could be room for complaint if the noise was intended specifically to disturb people.
You've showed me a law that says they can't do that. If you put one up there, hello legal matters.
But, and it's a pretty big but, these guys at the start of this article didn't argue it as a noise complaint. They argued it as a freedom of assembly issue, which it's not.
Also, no such comparable law has been shown to strike this down. I get the feeling if these laws existed in that area they would be brought up in the article.
Yeah, that's what I'm curious about. If this happened anywhere near here, the public outcry would be immense. Then again, I think people from the Netherlands would say the same thing a few months ago. :P
Just to drive the point home, my reason to complain is not public assembly or freedom of association, but the inherent noise and disturbance it causes at anyone who hears it. Those who replied above who heard it seem impressed.
-
It's very interesting that there are people deffenting such practices against younger people. Perhaps they should look for the lack of decency, culture and respect elsewere, not to kids.
"Lack of decency, culture and respect" is a brand of meaningless horse**** in the same general family as "the world is ****ed" and "Hooters actually has really good wings." It's just something people say because it gets said so much that everyone forgets it's just vapid sophistry. Young people are an easy object of scorn for anyone who seeks the intoxicating sense of superiority that comes from hating something, so no one complains when society gets its panties in a bunch about the young people and their degenerate behavior.
-
Arrrgh those damn kids! :rolleyes:
"Oh, I like freedom.
I just only want it for people who don't do things I hate.
Like stand in front of a building."
More like loitering, beating people up, getting drunk and making trouble, throwing things at passerbys, destroying public property...things like that.
Because everybody under 25 has no decency, culture or respect....
Seriously, do you even think before you post?
Yes, why you ask? Such a strange thing to do for you?
This thing has a limited range. It's used to disperse troublemakers in a small area. Somehow, people are thinking that young people world-wide will cover when one of these things go off. There are other methods of getting people that bother you off your property, but I'd say they are usually more personal and require direct contact. And I bet it's cheaper than hireing a bouncer.
Not exactly sure this is the best way to go about it, but it beats doing nothing.
This device, like any device before it, can be abused.
And indeed, if it is the owner should be punished. By why always assume the worst?
If you intend to annoy people, the laws involved don't even need to be about noise, since you are purposedly disturbing people.
If a bunch of pricks come into a store, loiter, harass the clientele and refuse to leave, who is harrasing whom?
Yeah, you can call the police, but they have better things to do.
Didn't they invent some sort of precise headache gun a while ago? Wouldn't that be a better than something that has an area effect?
-
Because everybody under 25 has no decency, culture or respect....
Seriously, do you even think before you post?
Yes, why you ask? Such a strange thing to do for you?
This thing has a limited range. It's used to disperse troublemakers in a small area. Somehow, people are thinking that young people world-wide will cover when one of these things go off. There are other methods of getting people that bother you off your property, but I'd say they are usually more personal and require direct contact. And I bet it's cheaper than hireing a bouncer.
Not exactly sure this is the best way to go about it, but it beats doing nothing.
This device, like any device before it, can be abused.
And indeed, if it is the owner should be punished. By why always assume the worst?
Again, are you people even reading the article? The devices emit noise OUTSIDE the buildings into the street. There's no noise inside, only outside. And it doesn't distinguish between people. And since I doubt there's a 24 hour a day present mob outside the store, what's the point of it?
Seriously...
If you intend to annoy people, the laws involved don't even need to be about noise, since you are purposedly disturbing people.
If a bunch of pricks come into a store, loiter, harass the clientele and refuse to leave, who is harrasing whom?
Yeah, you can call the police, but they have better things to do.
Didn't they invent some sort of precise headache gun a while ago? Wouldn't that be a better than something that has an area effect?
Again, where are you coming up with this? Even if that were true what's the device going to do? Attract them inside since the noise is only outside the story?
-
You said in your previous post that you couldn't get arrested for making noise! That was what I was addressing!
First off I'm not sure you can get arrested for making noise. Maybe you can. I have no idea. Just a fine? I dunno.
Secondly, I never said you couldn't get arrested for making noise.
You said there were noise ordinance laws and I said "not all noise" ("Yes but "public places" aren't pin drop quiet." was the exact quote)
No one has yet shown me these things reach the level of that area's noise laws.
I think it's bad to do that to anybody, I just wanted to hear your opinion. I'm surprised anyhow. I thought people that agreed with the use of such device would abhor using it on anyone else.
If it's a legal noise, it's a legal noise.
This is not a "young people suck" argument. If it were old people complaining and it was legal, tell em to go play bingo.
Yeah, that's what I'm curious about. If this happened anywhere near here, the public outcry would be immense. Then again, I think people from the Netherlands would say the same thing a few months ago. :P
Just thought of something. It said permanent. If they turn it on and off for business hours, is it permanent?
To me permanent would be "all the time", and if it's not on "all the time"... maybe that law doesn't apply.
Just to drive the point home, my reason to complain is not public assembly or freedom of association, but the inherent noise and disturbance it causes at anyone who hears it. Those who replied above who heard it seem impressed.
There is nothing wrong with the argument. There are just two issues.
1. There needs to be proof an ordinance exists in that area.
2. There needs to be proof these stores violate it.
And unfortunately, because there are groups against these things, I think they would have checked noise ordinances first. I'm not saying there aren't but the article seemed very "uh.... we're not sure what to do"
-
"Lack of decency, culture and respect" is a brand of meaningless horse**** in the same general family as "the world is ****ed" and "Hooters actually has really good wings." It's just something people say because it gets said so much that everyone forgets it's just vapid sophistry. Young people are an easy object of scorn for anyone who seeks the intoxicating sense of superiority that comes from hating something, so no one complains when society gets its panties in a bunch about the young people and their degenerate behavior.
QFT
And it might sound like an exaggeration, but i think that mostly frightened people adopt such ways of thinking. (or professionals, the ones that actually sell the mosquito)
-
You said in your previous post that you couldn't get arrested for making noise! That was what I was addressing!
First off I'm not sure you can get arrested for making noise. Maybe you can. I have no idea. Just a fine? I dunno.
Secondly, I never said you couldn't get arrested for making noise.
You said there were noise ordinance laws and I said "not all noise" ("Yes but "public places" aren't pin drop quiet." was the exact quote)
No one has yet shown me these things reach the level of that area's noise laws.
You said "I can go out and read the Bible in a loud squeaky voice and I doubt I will get arrested." and I said "Actually, if it's loud enough, you can.", let's leave it at that.
I think it's bad to do that to anybody, I just wanted to hear your opinion. I'm surprised anyhow. I thought people that agreed with the use of such device would abhor using it on anyone else.
If it's a legal noise, it's a legal noise.
This is not a "young people suck" argument. If it were old people complaining and it was legal, tell em to go play bingo.
Fine to hear that. (pun not so much intended)
Yeah, that's what I'm curious about. If this happened anywhere near here, the public outcry would be immense. Then again, I think people from the Netherlands would say the same thing a few months ago. :P
Just thought of something. It said permanent. If they turn it on and off for business hours, is it permanent?
To me permanent would be "all the time", and if it's not on "all the time"... maybe that law doesn't apply.
Perhaps, but I would think it being on and off every business day would qualify for being permanent. We'd need a lawyer to go further into the issue.
Just to drive the point home, my reason to complain is not public assembly or freedom of association, but the inherent noise and disturbance it causes at anyone who hears it. Those who replied above who heard it seem impressed.
There is nothing wrong with the argument. There are just two issues.
1. There needs to be proof an ordinance exists in that area.
2. There needs to be proof these stores violate it.
And unfortunately, because there are groups against these things, I think they would have checked noise ordinances first. I'm not saying there aren't but the article seemed very "uh.... we're not sure what to do"
I agree, but it puzzles me really. The device's intent seems to be so easy to prove that one has to wonder how is it legal to operate it continuously in public places.
Regardless of that, after a bit of digging I found:
A reference to how loud it is (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7240306.stm) and a few references about noise levels (http://www.howstuffworks.com/question124.htm).
The first link indicates that the noise the device creates has a volume of 85 dB.
The second link indicates this is slightly below the noise level of a lawnmower. It also says 8 hours of 90dB can cause damage.
To me it seems these devices operate at the very edge of safety.
-
Sounds to me like more "I am young, I am angry, I should be able to do whatever I want, wherever I want, to whoever I want."
I am old, I am cranky, and I want you to get off my lawn.
;)
-
We had an issue where the local teenagers would block traffic for 6 or 7 hours every friday and saturday night. The city council passed an ordinance to stop that from happening. The modified that same ordinance to stop the same people from loitering outside the area businesses.
Loitering around like that is quite dangerous, as you can get run over by the inexperienced drivers who are coming to join you.
-
Perhaps, but I would think it being on and off every business day would qualify for being permanent. We'd need a lawyer to go further into the issue.
We can, but if it would apply to something that is off on some times and on on other times, they got a weird definition of "permanent" in Portugal.
I agree, but it puzzles me really. The device's intent seems to be so easy to prove that one has to wonder how is it legal to operate it continuously in public places.
Because, and this is pure speculation, that noise ordinances deal on db levels mostly and these things probably don't violate it.
Regardless of that, after a bit of digging I found:
A reference to how loud it is (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7240306.stm) and a few references about noise levels (http://www.howstuffworks.com/question124.htm).
The first link indicates that the noise the device creates has a volume of 85 dB.
The second link indicates this is slightly below the noise level of a lawnmower. It also says 8 hours of 90dB can cause damage.
To me it seems these devices operate at the very edge of safety.
I think that's the point. They're juuuuuust legal and designed to be as annoying as hell to kids to make them leave. They aren't supposed to stand outside the store 8 hours a day.
-
Sounds to me like more "I am young, I am angry, I should be able to do whatever I want, wherever I want, to whoever I want."
;)
This is the very nature of young people Inquisitor. And when the older ones are using such forms of violence to control them (to scare them actually, all of them) what i understand is that the last thing that they deserve is respect.
-
If only someone could invent such a device to be used in general discussion. It could start off on your third post in any one topic and get more annoying the more you post. Double, triple, etc posts would multiply the effect exponentially. :pimp:
In order to be on topic:
While you may the sidewalk and are responsible for taking care of it or if someone falls on it it is a right of way and you cannot prevent anyone from using or standing on it. Same with streets and alleys. If I look at my property line it extends half way out into the street and alley. The utility companies also has right of ways on my property.
One other important thing is that while this device has been studied it has NOT been found to be safe. No one knows what long term repeated exposure to it will do to a person.
-
I hate that sound, so much. Although ironically some teenagers now use it as a cellphone ringtone so they can hear their phone in class without alerting the teacher :P
Meh, I'm a bit torn on this one. I can see what Blue Lion's saying to a degree, but it sounds like in this case there might be a decent legal argument to why they *can't* do it thanks to possibilities of it being physically harmful (which I think is pretty reasonable, if this thing tends to make your ears hurt after a few minutes, that's not a good sign. Pain is the body's way of warning that something bad's happening and you should stop it, when you don't listen you tend to get hurt) and fun with subtleties in the constitution and property laws.
Morally I'm completely against it. First off, Blue Lion gives a great example, people over 25 with good hearing can still hear the sound. With each year you're becoming more and more ridiculous saying you have to keep away these people. It doesn't differentiate between perfectly decent people and the ones causing a problem (who are likely a minority unless the Dutch have a movie-like raging population of unruly teenagers that go out and break stuff everyday). We've got a lot of psychological studies (mostly done with animals thank God) that indicate living creatures tend to go into a horrible depressive slump when they're repeatedly punished for no apparent reason. If this doesn't cause physical problems it's going to mess with peoples heads. Not to mention that the productivity of this doesn't justify the cost. As people have mentioned: the whole thing might leave a lasting association that causes people to avoid the store for years after they stopped hearing the sound, parents aren't going to want to go their with kids in tow since they'll freak out, it's actually driving kids inside stores where they're being more of a problem, and most importantly: does the data really say where these kids are going now? It says reports of disturbances in those areas are down a lot, but does that really tell the whole story? I can't think that groups of people just decided to stop all activity. They've probably moved somewhere else and are causing problems over there.
-
OK I'm almost 40 and that made me feel like my ear was going to bleed. For some reason only the left one but I'm guessing that is due to a bad ear infection in my right one a few years back that resulted in some hearing loss.
-
Sounds to me like more "I am young, I am angry, I should be able to do whatever I want, wherever I want, to whoever I want."
I am old, I am cranky, and I want you to get off my lawn.
;)
That's right, all young people want to do is play around on your lawn and annoy you. God forbid we want to do terrible things like have a conversation outside a store without having our ears in pain from a device bought by a store owner with a bug up his ass. So **** off. World doesn't revolve around you and your lawn. Why don't I scream a horn at you for daring to talk outside a store.
Also, just because you're "old" doesn't exempt you from not being an asshole because of a knee-jerk reaction. Try using those brain cells that are still alive for a change before saying "those darn evil kids, how dare they want to talk in a public place."
-
It's not that you want to have conversations outside a store. It's that you want to have conversations outside a store for HOURS, usually during peak shopping hours.
-
So we're talking outside a store. So what? Are we harassing incoming and outgoing customers? No. We're talking outside a store. What exactly is your point? That there should be time limit on how long conversations of people younger than 21 can be in a public place? Do we need to issue talking licenses now?
Oh and PS: just be glad I'm not Kazan :p
-
So we're talking outside a store. So what? Are we harassing incoming and outgoing customers? No. We're talking outside a store. What exactly is your point? That there should be time limit on how long conversations of people younger than 21 can be in a public place? Do we need to issue talking licenses now?
Oh and PS: just be glad I'm not Kazan :p
I'm gonna go with the same reason you dislike the buzzers: they find it really annoying.
But really, I don't care WHY. Let them think you're all possessed by Satan for all I care. If he's breaking the law, take him to court. If he's not, go stand somewhere else.
-
And healthy societies don't have these problems because there's a willingness to settle things by peaceful discussion rather than legal or physical means. It's only when things start to come apart and everyone hates each other that we see **** like people trying to drive others away from them with ear-splitting devices. Encouraging this behavior is not beneficial to society, I can promise you that.
This is not a "young people suck" argument. If it were old people complaining and it was legal, tell em to go play bingo.
Except if old people complained it would be stopped quickly. There's a double standard in the real world and if you don't think prejudice is what's driving the use of these things you're really naive.
-
Spose the sound could only be heard by and thus could only be used upon black people, would it still be socially acceptable? Alas, anyone under 21 is an acceptable target. And that's the only reason this bs is going down.
-
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. Extreme exhibit A: Jim Crow. Legal? Hells yeah up until 1954. Did that make it ok?
-
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. Extreme exhibit A: Jim Crow. Legal? Hells yeah up until 1954. Did that make it ok?
It's a shame we didn't pass new laws and amendments to change that. I think it's really sad that discrimination is allowed to go on legally.
What? They changed the laws? It's illegal now? The hell you say.
:rolleyes:
-
So you agree that that kind of harassment should be illegal? Bout time.
-
So you agree that that kind of harassment should be illegal? Bout time.
No, I think it's just fine.
-
Ok then, since you don't seem to be using the "It MUST be ok if it's legal" argument anymore, why then? Principle of private property?
And before we go any further, do you honestly think prejudice has nothing to do with these devices' use? You never heard of the juvenile delinquency scare in the 50s? It's happened.
-
Ok then, since you don't seem to be using the "It MUST be ok if it's legal" argument anymore, why then? Principle of private property?
Because it can be legal.
If it's legal to stand in front of his store in a pink dress and do the Charleston, I don't care if the owner does it. He can call everyone Phil or fill his store with Nazi flags. If it's legal, I don't care.
The amount I care about teens who want to stand in front of stores is about the same I have for owners who don't want kids there..... which is right about zero.
My only fallback position is legality. So far no one has really proven it's illegal nor have they proven it violates a constitutional right.
I find it very odd that here and in the piracy thread I somehow have to defend the idea of "Do legal things. Don't do illegal things"
And before we go any further, do you honestly think prejudice has nothing to do with these devices' use?
Oh I know it does. But replace young people with old people, or bikers, or guys who wear fedoras and chaps the argument is still the same.
-
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. Extreme exhibit A: Jim Crow. Legal? Hells yeah up until 1954. Did that make it ok?
It's a shame we didn't pass new laws and amendments to change that. I think it's really sad that discrimination is allowed to go on legally.
What? They changed the laws? It's illegal now? The hell you say.
:rolleyes:
I'm just wondering at this point. BL you seem to almost be taking the simultaneous stance of "It's the law, stop complaining about it" and "Bad laws get changed eventually." These two aren't as compatible as it would seem. Complaints and unrest about a law sometimes just turn into blowing hot air, but they're also the first step in actually changing a law. People get pissed off, complain, other people realize they're annoyed too, and this cycles until you have enough people that the system gets moved to change.
-
I'm just wondering at this point. BL you seem to almost be taking the simultaneous stance of "It's the law, stop complaining about it" and "Bad laws get changed eventually." These two aren't as compatible as it would seem. Complaints and unrest about a law sometimes just turn into blowing hot air, but they're also the first step in actually changing a law. People get pissed off, complain, other people realize they're annoyed too, and this cycles until you have enough people that the system gets moved to change.
And you would be incorrect.
Just because you dislike a law or think it is bad doesn't give you the right to just ignore it or somehow get out of punishment for it.
"Oh no officer, you should let him go. It is possible at some point in the future this law may be overturned."
The civil rights leaders? Broke laws and went to jail. They didn't skip out on them. If Rosa Parks can take her punishment for breaking the law, so can everyone else.
-
I never said ignore it. This thread hasn't been advocating us all going to the Netherlands and bashing the crap out of shops, people have been arguing and voicing opinion on how stupid the whole situation is.
Although on that note you can ignore laws you don't like, just expect reprisals ;) That's proper civil disobedience when you do it to make a statement about things.
-
I find it very odd that here and in the piracy thread I somehow have to defend the idea of "Do legal things. Don't do illegal things"
Nobody is arguing that. The arguments are if either those things are legal or not and depending on the answer to that either it should be legal or not.
-
This shouldn't be a question of laws, it should be a question of ethics.
-
This shouldn't be a question of laws, it should be a question of ethics.
This is exactly what it should be :yes:
-
I never said ignore it. This thread hasn't been advocating us all going to the Netherlands and bashing the crap out of shops, people have been arguing and voicing opinion on how stupid the whole situation is.
Although on that note you can ignore laws you don't like, just expect reprisals ;) That's proper civil disobedience when you do it to make a statement about things.
People seem to be confused by that. Legality and illegality are almost secondary to their own ideas of right and wrong.
People don't like them? Change the noise laws!
I just find it kinda funny that there are people here mad cause these guys disrespect kids but don't get the connect that they're citizens too and can change laws.
This is what some of these arguments sound like (The following is a dramatization)
"Man those old guys think we're nothing but lazy and worthless kids. They put up these noise things to drive us away!"
"Why don't we change the laws to make it illegal?"
"Nah, let's just throw rocks at it til it breaks"
-
This shouldn't be a question of laws, it should be a question of ethics.
Ah so we shouldn't base it on our systems of laws, we should base it on your morality. We should ask you what you feel about all things and then act on them accordingly.
-
BL perhaps you're forgeting how powerfull kids are on changing laws and how exactly they react to actions of pure and unjustified violence.
-
I find it very odd that here and in the piracy thread I somehow have to defend the idea of "Do legal things. Don't do illegal things"
Nobody is arguing that. The arguments are if either those things are legal or not and depending on the answer to that either it should be legal or not.
Ok, give me a good reason why it would be made illegal. (Besides "we pass a law to make them illegal")
-
BL perhaps you're forgeting how powerfull kids are on changing laws and how exactly they react to actions of pure and unjustified violence.
No, I do. That's the point!
If you're not lazy gits, get a law passed!
-
It's exactly what i would do, and i would base it on ethics.
-
It's exactly what i would do, and i would base it on ethics.
Ethics? You mean a set of morals? Obviously not just one person but ones a community may have? A set of rules they come up with that decide right and wrong and the punishments on the wrongs? And maybe a place to, let's say, "judge" if those rules are good?
That would be awesome.
Too bad all were stuck with are these 'laws' and 'courts'. :rolleyes:
-
This shouldn't be a question of laws, it should be a question of ethics.
Ah so we shouldn't base it on our systems of laws, we should base it on your morality. We should ask you what you feel about all things and then act on them accordingly.
Laws are supposed to be a reflection of a societies ethics.
-
This shouldn't be a question of laws, it should be a question of ethics.
Ah so we shouldn't base it on our systems of laws, we should base it on your morality. We should ask you what you feel about all things and then act on them accordingly.
Laws are supposed to be a reflection of a societies ethics.
So then it would be a question of laws.
If laws don't come from the ethics of the community they're for, where do they come from?
-
Ethics? You mean a set of morals? Obviously not just one person but ones a community may have? A set of rules they come up with that decide right and wrong and the punishments on the wrongs? And maybe a place to, let's say, "judge" if those rules are good?
That would be awesome.
Too bad all were stuck with are these 'laws' and 'courts'. :rolleyes:
Yea, you know, democratic things. The ones that set the rules to "laws" and "courts".
EDIT: in a democracy offcourse :D
-
I find it very odd that here and in the piracy thread I somehow have to defend the idea of "Do legal things. Don't do illegal things"
Nobody is arguing that. The arguments are if either those things are legal or not and depending on the answer to that either it should be legal or not.
Ok, give me a good reason why it would be made illegal. (Besides "we pass a law to make them illegal")
I gave several. Look back.
-
Lion, it's obvious you aren't gonna change your mind, so I'm not gonna bother
-
Ok, give me a good reason why it would be made illegal. (Besides "we pass a law to make them illegal")
I gave several. Look back.
Unfortunately, you really didn't. I mean if you want I go back to the post and show you where you didn't.
-
Lion, it's obvious you aren't gonna change your mind, so I'm not gonna bother
I'm not going to change my mind that laws are the result of a communities ethics?
"This is a matter of what we think is right and wrong, not the rules we use to enforce what is right and wrong!"
You're dealing with an issue that can't be solved by one person's morals or ethics. You have to use the communities morals or ethics, we call those 'laws'. I'm not sure what part is giving you trouble.
-
And as Joshua pointed:
I, myself, as a dutch youth, have never encountered the mosquito (I live in a rural area). However, I am quite sure it IS unconstitutional. We have a Freedom-Of-Gathering constitution, which allows any group to form anywhere within the bounds of the law (In other words, if they don't go throwing rocks, 8 16-year olds may go anywhere as they please by the constituion) The mosquite prevents that from happening, thus, it is unconstitutional.
Now, you don't have to be a lowyer to understand that the constitution is the Superior law and everything that opposes it is by default illegal. So, based on your argument, i rest my case.
-
You're dealing with an issue that can't be solved by one person's morals or ethics. You have to use the communities morals or ethics, we call those 'laws'. I'm not sure what part is giving you trouble.
No, the law is, ideally, an extrapolation from what are perceived to be societal morals and ethics. The whole point of having a debate like this is to determine what those morals are. This is a debate over whether the measure is reasonable. In all likelihood it's perfectly legal, but that doesn't mean it's not a dick thing to do. Simply deferring to its legal status just circumvents the question at hand entirely.
-
And as Joshua pointed:
I, myself, as a dutch youth, have never encountered the mosquito (I live in a rural area). However, I am quite sure it IS unconstitutional. We have a Freedom-Of-Gathering constitution, which allows any group to form anywhere within the bounds of the law (In other words, if they don't go throwing rocks, 8 16-year olds may go anywhere as they please by the constituion) The mosquite prevents that from happening, thus, it is unconstitutional.
Now, you don't have to be a lowyer to understand that the constitution is the Superior law and everything that opposes it is by default illegal. So, based on your argument, i rest my case.
You're not getting it. That sound does not stop you from standing there. You can go stand there right now. Stand there all night if you want to.
No one will arrest you or remove you from that spot.
The whole argument that they won't let you stand there is kinda silly cause you can walk up and do it.
-
No BL, you're not getting it.
That sound is a form of pure and unprovoked violence. You can't stand there, unless you're a masochist (or older than 25).
-
You're dealing with an issue that can't be solved by one person's morals or ethics. You have to use the communities morals or ethics, we call those 'laws'. I'm not sure what part is giving you trouble.
No, the law is, ideally, an extrapolation from what are perceived to be societal morals and ethics. The whole point of having a debate like this is to determine what those morals are. This is a debate over whether the measure is reasonable. In all likelihood it's perfectly legal, but that doesn't mean it's not a dick thing to do. Simply deferring to its legal status just circumvents the question at hand entirely.
Yes. You change the law. The laws are our ethics. To say it isn't about laws is kinda not true. It's almost only about laws. We can't change our ethics and then not change the laws.
-
No BL, you're not getting it.
That sound is a form of pure and unprovoked violence. You can't stand there, unless you're a masochist (or older than 25).
It's almost as if you have proof the sound hurts teens. All I find are inconclusive studies that show it can't be determined.
I'd like to see studies that show it hurts people.
(Don't they put electric fences around places? Doesn't that hurt people?)
-
Pushing someone back for no reason doesn't hurt people either. I don't have to prove that it's illegal and unethical.
-
Pushing someone back doesn't hurt people either. I don't have to prove that it's illegal and unethical.
If it doesn't hurt people, how is it violent?
-
This is the definition of violence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence
EDIT: and besides that i'd like to see studies that show that it doesn't hurt people before it's applied on them and especially on children.
-
"Violence is the expression of physical force against self or other, compelling action against one's will on pain of being hurt."
So let's do this one more time.
"If it doesn't hurt, how is it violence?"
-
Gladly:
"It should be noted that violence can be non-physical as well".
-
Yes. You change the law. The laws are our ethics. To say it isn't about laws is kinda not true. It's almost only about laws. We can't change our ethics and then not change the laws.
It's perfectly legal for me to call my sister a whore, but I sure as hell wouldn't do it. That's all I'm saying about the subject being discussed: There's an argument to be made for it being an inconsiderate thing to do. That doesn't mean I think it should be illegal. In fact, I'd probably be against such a law. There's a discursive space beyond the law in which right and wrong are continuously being determined, and in which the legal process will always be too unwieldy to justify its involvement. Your only recourse in this space is to argue for the merits of your position. It happens between people countless times, every minute of every day. That's what I thought this debate was about.
-
What does it being non physical have to do with causing pain?
-
The sound is genuinely painful, let me tell you
-
It's perfectly legal for me to call my sister a whore, but I sure as hell wouldn't do it. That's all I'm saying about the subject being discussed: There's an argument to be made for it being an inconsiderate thing to do. That doesn't mean I think it should be illegal. In fact, I'd probably be against such a law. There's a discursive space beyond the law in which right and wrong are continuously being determined, and in which the legal process will always be too unwieldy to justify its involvement. Your only recourse in this space is to argue for the merits of your position. It happens between people countless times, every minute of every day. That's what I thought this debate was about.
I thought this started as a thread to bash old people because young people think they hate them.
-
BL, this is getting us nowere. Besides Mars, ask tinfoil and FUBAR-BDHR if this thing is a form of violence or not.
EDIT:
I thought this started as a thread to bash old people because young people think they hate them.
Then you thought very wrong.
-
The sound is genuinely painful, let me tell you
I heard it. It's a buzzing sound.
It's annoying to be sure, but painful? I didn't feel pain.
-
BL, this is getting us nowere. Besides Mars, ask tinfoil and FUBAR-BDHR if this thing is a form of violence or not.
Your right it is getting nowhere. You're not telling me what makes it violent.
What makes this violent and not say... a radio violent.
I'm trying to figure out how this "hurts" everyone but no one answers.
-
Something that forces people out of a place is violence. O.K. ?
-
Something that forces people out of a place is violence. O.K. ?
No, because it has to be due to pain.
If I remove you from a place but I don't hurt you, it's not violence.
-
Pain is included (according to the article and to what three of our friends here stated).
And if you remove me from a place against my will is violence. But i guess that we will not agree on this, will we?
-
Pain is included (according to the article and to what three of our friends here stated).
Because the very people the device is used against aren't biased?
-
Ok, for the record: This (http://cdn3.libsyn.com/gskl/8000.mp3?nvb=20090428054024&nva=20090429055024&t=058a4c053bcc26eac1b17) is the sound.
Annoying?
-
Ok, for the record: This (http://cdn3.libsyn.com/gskl/8000.mp3?nvb=20090428054024&nva=20090429055024&t=058a4c053bcc26eac1b17) is the sound.
Annoying?
It reminds me of this rap "song" someone was playing the other day.[/joke]
And yes, while not causing the sensation of pain, that sound is annoying as all Hell. Mainly because my ears are ringing... loudly.
-
"Lack of decency, culture and respect" is a brand of meaningless horse**** in the same general family as "the world is ****ed" and "Hooters actually has really good wings." It's just something people say because it gets said so much that everyone forgets it's just vapid sophistry. Young people are an easy object of scorn for anyone who seeks the intoxicating sense of superiority that comes from hating something, so no one complains when society gets its panties in a bunch about the young people and their degenerate behavior.
Actually, it's not.
One can see and feel the difference and changes.
When I was a kid, the very thought of lifting my hand against my parents never even dared cross my mind. I always treated elderly people with full respect. I never loitered, I never got drunk, I never destroyed or damaged anything that didn't belong to me, I never leeched money out of my folks.
I can SEE the new generations acting progressively worse. It's no illusion.
You can close your eyes and pretend it's not happening. Don't want to shatter your illusion of a pretty world. Because - you know - that if we acknowledge that it is happening, then all the irresponsible parents that failed miserably will actually have to take some responsibiltiy for the terrible way they brought up their kids. And we wouldn't want that, now would we? :rolleyes:
I'ts always easier to blame someone else.... (like violent games when someone goes psycho and shoots people)
EDIT:
Speaking of which, I'm slowly changing my mind about this. It doesn't look like the device was even properly tested at all, or the effect on the larger enviroment considered.
-
Ok, for the record: This (http://cdn3.libsyn.com/gskl/8000.mp3?nvb=20090428054024&nva=20090429055024&t=058a4c053bcc26eac1b17) is the sound.
Annoying?
If I heard that sound for more than a few seconds, I would probably cry. Or start punching things.
Also, Trashman: just shut up. Seriously, people have been complaining about "kids these days" since before your religion even existed.
-
Ok, for the record: This (http://cdn3.libsyn.com/gskl/8000.mp3?nvb=20090428054024&nva=20090429055024&t=058a4c053bcc26eac1b17) is the sound.
Annoying?
Actually, that's the version that can be heard by everybody, it's at 8KHz. The version that can supposedly can only be heard by people under 25 is the one I posted earlier at 17.4KHz, which is a much higher pitch.
Also, remember that the devices operate at 85dB, just below "lawnmower loudness".
-
CHRIST. The higher one is even worse. My ears are still ringing.
"Prolonged exposure to any noise at or above 85 decibels can cause gradual hearing loss."
-
Also, Trashman: just shut up. Seriously, people have been complaining about "kids these days" since before your religion even existed.
I won't shut up and you can't make me.
Someone can cry wolf, but eventually, the wolf will come.
-
Also, Trashman: just shut up. Seriously, people have been complaining about "kids these days" since before your religion even existed.
I won't shut up and you can't make me.
Someone can cry wolf, but eventually, the wolf will come.
Translation:
"Get off my lawn!" ;)
-
Just so we keep things clear:
A shop owner or group of shop owners has decided that they do not desire medium to large groups of teenagers loitering outside they're privately owned places of business.
Miriam-Webster defines loiter as "to remain in an area for no obvious reason"
Now while the groups that are in the article may be harmless, and within they're rights to gather peaceably, the shop owners right to control who they allow onto they're property supersedes the groups right to gather where they will.
I don't understand the hubbub. They're not doing anything to the teenagers that would specificly injure or harm them. There's no attack dogs or water cannons or uniformed officers doing any kind of hassling. Besides, I doubt this systems is inexpensive, so this has been an ongoing problem that neither the shop owners or the police has been able to stop apparently. So they owners are simply upping the ante so to speak.
-
Read the article and perhaps you'll understand it.
The noise is being generated outside their properties into the street. One of the devices is even said to be in the freaking courtyard.
-
They're not doing anything to the teenagers that would specificly injure or harm them.
Clearly you can't hear that noise.
-
Not all people under age 25 are not potential customers.
Not all people under age 25 are up to no good.
and the kicker:
Not all people under age 25 are teenagers.
As for whether it's harmful, consider what it's like walking past a running gas lawnmower on a sidewalk. It's loud. It hurts. And if you try to tell the guy to turn the damn thing off, you're going to just end up standing there yelling at him and exposing yourself to the sound longer than you would if you walked past.
As for TrashMan: have you ever watched 12 Angry Men? You know which character you sound like, right?
-
However, the most important issue here is not whether the mosquito causes pain or not. It is that it's forcing specific people (those under 25) away from public places. It is a matter of freedom.
It's about something Benjamin Franklin said along ago:
"Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither".
This is the point. If they could find a mosquito that would force young people away from public places with out pain, it wouldn't change a thing from the human rights point of view.
-
As for TrashMan: have you ever watched 12 Angry Men? You know which character you sound like, right?
No. Didn't watch and I don't care to either.
I know very well what I see and hear.
-
Yep, TrashMan definitely hates freedom. He should move to Iran, I think he'd like it better there.
-
That sound is terrible. Anybody claiming it is merely "annoying" can not hear it properly. And you're saying the real deal is as loud as a lawnmower? How is that any different than the shop owner running out his shop and hitting me on the skull with a mallet?
-
Yep, TrashMan definitely hates freedom. He should move to Iran, I think he'd like it better there.
I recall liking you... What ever was I thinking? :wtf:
-
Yep, TrashMan definitely hates freedom. He should move to Iran, I think he'd like it better there.
I recall liking you... What ever was I thinking? :wtf:
Well, we have the same opinions on the Israel Palestine conflict, but you seem to be all religious and socially conservative.
Iran is also religious and socially conservative.
-
Yeah, and Mnt. Everest and Jupiter are both big, if you get my meaning. Very different. Very.
-
More similar than you'd think. I bet abortions are illegal in Iran, and the government seems to take god very seriously, without all the separation of church and state nonsense we've got going in the USA
-
separation of church and state ... in the USA
:wakka:
-
Pain is included (according to the article and to what three of our friends here stated).
And if you remove me from a place against my will is violence. But i guess that we will not agree on this, will we?
My brother picks his son up and puts him in the crib.... against his will. This is not violence because he does not hurt him.
If you were asleep in a bed and we picked your bed up and put you outside (a great prank by the way) it is not violence because no pain was inflicted.
If you're in a car and I drive the car down the road but you want me to stop and I don't. I have moved you against your will. I did not hurt you though so no violence.
-
Nonviolent kidnapping is still holding someone against their will is still illegal.
-
Because painfully loud noises don't hurt, right?
-
Nonviolent kidnapping is still holding someone against their will is still illegal.
Yes, that's why they're called "nonviolent" because they don't inflict pain.
-
Because painfully loud noises don't hurt, right?
Loud decibel noises can cause ear damage. I really haven't seen a study that shows these devices by their frequency cause pain.
I've been asking for studies to show the damage it does to people and no one wants to give one. All I find are "we're not really sure" studies.
-
More similar than you'd think. I bet abortions are illegal in Iran, and the government seems to take god very seriously, without all the separation of church and state nonsense we've got going in the USA
And more different than you think.
The problem is that in my example "big" isn't descriptive enough. Jupites is friggin enormeous and circular. Mnt Everest is a insignificant speck in comparison.
Same here. I don't consider being compared to Iraninan extremist even remotely accurate.
-
Because painfully loud noises don't hurt, right?
Loud decibel noises can cause ear damage. I really haven't seen a study that shows these devices by their frequency cause pain.
I've been asking for studies to show the damage it does to people and no one wants to give one. All I find are "we're not really sure" studies.
But they are at 85dB which after a while can cause ear damage.
-
Because painfully loud noises don't hurt, right?
Loud decibel noises can cause ear damage. I really haven't seen a study that shows these devices by their frequency cause pain.
I've been asking for studies to show the damage it does to people and no one wants to give one. All I find are "we're not really sure" studies.
But they are at 85dB which after a while can cause ear damage.
I saw from 65-75 db
-
That wouldn't cause damage, but it's still louder than normal conversation. More than enough to give me a bloody headache when I'm just trying to put gas in my car or buy a damned soda.
-
Because painfully loud noises don't hurt, right?
Loud decibel noises can cause ear damage. I really haven't seen a study that shows these devices by their frequency cause pain.
I've been asking for studies to show the damage it does to people and no one wants to give one. All I find are "we're not really sure" studies.
But they are at 85dB which after a while can cause ear damage.
I saw from 65-75 db
The BBC link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7240306.stm) I posted earlier says otherwise.
-
My brother picks his son up and puts him in the crib.... against his will. This is not violence because he does not hurt him.
If you were asleep in a bed and we picked your bed up and put you outside (a great prank by the way) it is not violence because no pain was inflicted.
If you're in a car and I drive the car down the road but you want me to stop and I don't. I have moved you against your will. I did not hurt you though so no violence.
Lovely logic. Here some more:
If i pick your brothers son up and put him in the crib against his and your brother's will, (EDIT: and then on my motorcycle for a quick ride) that wouldn't be violence etc.
If a were pretended to be asleep and you attempted to pick my bed, and then i'd grab a gun, force it into your mouth and then ask you nicely to strip and jump in my fathers pool in the middle of the winter, i wouldn't have hurt you etc.
If i were in a car bla bla bla.
What's all these nonsense have to do with the violation of basic human rights?
-
Because painfully loud noises don't hurt, right?
Loud decibel noises can cause ear damage. I really haven't seen a study that shows these devices by their frequency cause pain.
I've been asking for studies to show the damage it does to people and no one wants to give one. All I find are "we're not really sure" studies.
But they are at 85dB which after a while can cause ear damage.
I saw from 65-75 db
The BBC link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7240306.stm) I posted earlier says otherwise.
Nevermind, found it.
-
My brother picks his son up and puts him in the crib.... against his will. This is not violence because he does not hurt him.
If you were asleep in a bed and we picked your bed up and put you outside (a great prank by the way) it is not violence because no pain was inflicted.
If you're in a car and I drive the car down the road but you want me to stop and I don't. I have moved you against your will. I did not hurt you though so no violence.
Lovely logic. Here some more:
If i pick your brothers son up and puts him in the crib against his and your brother's will, that wouldn't be violence etc.
If a were pretended to be asleep and you attempted to pick my bed, and then i'd grab a gun, force it into your mouth and then ask you nicely to strip and jump in my fathers pool in the middle of the winter, i wouldn't have hurt you etc.
If i were in a car bla bla bla.
What's all these nonsense have to do with the violation of basic human rights?
Because you said it was violent. Violence requires pain.
You're arguing it's violent without pain. That's not violence, that's just sound then.
Secondly, what basic human right? The right to not hear sound? If he was playing jazz music, would it still be a violation? You're not arguing anything you're just running in circles hoping something comes up you can hold on to.
-
More similar than you'd think. I bet abortions are illegal in Iran, and the government seems to take god very seriously, without all the separation of church and state nonsense we've got going in the USA
And more different than you think.
The problem is that in my example "big" isn't descriptive enough. Jupites is friggin enormeous and circular. Mnt Everest is a insignificant speck in comparison.
Same here. I don't consider being compared to Iraninan extremist even remotely accurate.
And i'm not saying you're an extremist. Iran is a place full of normal folks just like you and I. Extremism's got nothing to do with it, I'm just saying that the basic set of rules for their society is more in-line with your ideals than the rampant freedom we're supposed to have in the USA
-
You're not arguing anything you're just running in circles hoping something comes up you can hold on to.
Yea, that's what I am doing :lol:
-
Liberator and Trashman hate freedom.
Oh, I like freedom.
I just hate young people that have no decency, culture and respect.
QFT!
The problem is that the young people WITH decency, culture, and respect get buzzed too.
-
And i'm not saying you're an extremist. Iran is a place full of normal folks just like you and I. Extremism's got nothing to do with it, I'm just saying that the basic set of rules for their society is more in-line with your ideals than the rampant freedom we're supposed to have in the USA
I like it where I am right now, thank you very much.
Also, I wouldn't call myself a conservative. I'm somewhere in the middle.
-
No you aren't.
-
Wether one is conversative or not depends entirely on one views of what being conversative actually is. It's a matter of 'taste', and therefore, can not be argued.
-
hmmmm
yeah, i think thta this seems wrong, the noisemaker dealy :doubt:
not extreme though, and trashy here's seemed more middle, it is just that the fairly-extreme left does not recognize themselves, and call themselves middle.
shopkeeper should just yell at the kids and be able to call up their parents, i guess, or chase witht he old broom :doubt:
-
I like it where I am right now, thank you very much.
Also, I wouldn't call myself a conservative. I'm somewhere in the middle.
Why, with your lack of support for bombing Gaza because of the actions of a few angry people, would you enthusiastically support pissing off all people under 25 because of the actions of a few people under 25?
-
I like it where I am right now, thank you very much.
Also, I wouldn't call myself a conservative. I'm somewhere in the middle.
Why, with your lack of support for bombing Gaza because of the actions of a few angry people, would you enthusiastically support pissing off all people under 25 because of the actions of a few people under 25?
Because bombing Gaza won't get ARGHH THOSE DAMNED KIDS! to pull up their pants.
TrashMan you do realize that every generation has complained since the dawn of society about their kids being disrespectful and immature? But those generations grew up. They become lawmakers, lawyers, soldiers, the people who shaped the world as we know it today. Basically, you're bringing up a talking point that's so old and moot it's not even worth arguing anymore. Rebellion is a natural part of youth, but children do grow up.
-
Basically, you're bringing up a talking point that's so old and moot it's not even worth arguing anymore.
:wtf:
Have you looked at the first page of this subforum lately?
-
No you aren't.
Yeah...like you are the one to decide that.
Why, with your lack of support for bombing Gaza because of the actions of a few angry people, would you enthusiastically support pissing off all people under 25 because of the actions of a few people under 25?
You seem to not read very well. I changed my mind about the device a few posts back.
TrashMan you do realize that every generation has complained since the dawn of society about their kids being disrespectful and immature? But those generations grew up. They become lawmakers, lawyers, soldiers, the people who shaped the world as we know it today. Basically, you're bringing up a talking point that's so old and moot it's not even worth arguing anymore. Rebellion is a natural part of youth, but children do grow up.
An eternal argument to not do anything about it. Cause, if a problem doesn't exist, then you don't have to take responsibility or fix it, right?
And the first statement is balatnly incorrect. Show some proof that every generation complained about the youth from the beginning of time. I'd argue that the trend of complaining only became more prominent in the more recent history, given the more extreeme changes in the society.
People have always complained about a troublemaker here and there. Thing is, there's more and more of them recently.
-
SOCRATES complained about "kids these days"
-
Any proof that it was common and that he was not just an exception? No? Thought so.
-
EDIT:
I seem to have found something interesting (http://pd.npr.org/anon.npr-mp3/atc/atc_teenbuzz.mp3?dl=1).
I can't seem to hear it. Anyone willing to give it a try?
I'm 21 by the way.
BLOODY HELL! I'm 35 and dear god that was annoying. I would NEVER shop there. :ick:
-
To quote:
"The young are permanently in a state resembling intoxication."
Aristotle (384 BC-322 BC)
-------------------------
"Ask the young. They know everything."
Joseph Joubert (1754-1824) French moralist.
--------------------------
"In America the young are always ready to give to those who are older than themselves the full benefits of their inexperience."
Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) Irish poet and dramatist.
----------------------------
"Youth is unduly busy with pampering the outer person."
Horace (BC 65-8) Latin lyric poet.
------------------------------
"Young men are apt to think themselves wise enough, as drunken men are apt to think themselves sober enough."
Lord Chesterfield (1694-1773) British statesman.
--------------------------------
"Youth is such a wonderful thing. What a crime to waste it on children."
George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) Irish writer.
-
Ahh...note that that isn't what I said.
They speak of the general qualities of young people - like being rash, inexcperienced, full of themselves, energetic, etc...
Those are not complaints directed at their upbringing or lack of proper behavior.
-
:wtf: How the hell did you guys fill 10 pages of posts on the ONE DAY I wasn't here?
-
An eternal argument to not do anything about it. Cause, if a problem doesn't exist, then you don't have to take responsibility or fix it, right?
And the first statement is balatnly incorrect. Show some proof that every generation complained about the youth from the beginning of time. I'd argue that the trend of complaining only became more prominent in the more recent history, given the more extreeme changes in the society.
People have always complained about a troublemaker here and there. Thing is, there's more and more of them recently.
No, it's because it's more reported. The world is a lot smaller than it was even fifty years ago. There have been rebellious youth since the beginning of society, and the older generations have complained about it (such as in that list Flipside put together). Yet, they had no need of pulsing painful sounds through their children's heads to fix it. Every civilized culture has had some way of passing on its morals and shaping its younger generations to replace their elders--some of "those damned kids" Socrates complained about were Plato and Alexander. You're grasping at straws and throwing out desperate declarations of "ARGHHHHH THOSE DAMNED KIDS WON'T PULL UP THEIR PANTS, SO I SHOULD BE ABLE TO BEAT THEM WITH A TIRE IRON UNTIL THEY FIGURE OUT WHAT'S GOOD FOR THEM!"
Any proof that it was common and that he was not just an exception? No? Thought so.
No, because, surprisingly, Zhou China, Persia, and Greece were too busy inventing the canal system, the anchor, and linear perspective to spend their writings *****ing and arguing about "ARGHHH THOSE DAMNED KIDS!"
It's become more apparent in recent history because:
A) We've had more free time to devote to studying it.
B) We've had more resources to devote to analyzing it.
C) The world's population has expanded from 100,000,000 to 6,000,000,000; and with the rapid advance of technology and the availability of the printing press and mass communication we've been able to see more and more people complaining about ARGHHH THOSE DAMNED KIDS! Like you, for instance.
I'm still waiting for an ounce of proof other than rhetorical nonsense from you that justifies your "ARGHHH THOSE DAMNED KIDS NEED TO BE PADDLED AGAIN!" approach to raising youth.
Ahh...note that that isn't what I said.
They speak of the general qualities of young people - like being rash, inexcperienced, full of themselves, energetic, etc...
Those are not complaints directed at their upbringing or lack of proper behavior.
But those are the exact qualities which lead to youth behaving inappropriately!
Why do you think Christianity preaches restraint and reserve? Why do you think every significant philosophical doctrine of the great civilizations said "Golly gee, to be a good person and contribute to society, you can't be a rash, thickheaded, ignorant clod"? It exists! People have been fixing it for thousands of years! The fact that you see it today doesn't mean we've failed--rebelliousness is a natural part of youth. But people get over it! Society raises its youth to be the new generation of rulers, thinkers, scientists, and intellectuals--and they don't have to do it through beating them either! That's what the educational system exists for.
-
Wow never realized I was still a kid :P
-
I could do whatever the **** I wanted, and I guarantee you about 3 people would notice and nobody would be pissed off.
I'll take my freedom.
-
That's right. That is the problem with "rampant freedom". I just looked up "rampant" by the way, and it says this:
Weasel wording, obvious disrespect for your audience. That's two strikes in three sentences, and I'm betting it only gets worse.
It is indeed becoming a problem to the point where many people are losing their good qualities and getting their priorities backwards and beginning to care too much about material things and not enough about the inner things that matter most. The cultural change in the last few decades for the worst explains the sheer amount of trouble that is popping up. It will just get worse. Sadly, they say that morality has a short shelf life.
More disrespect, silliness too; the material things are all that have ever mattered for the majority of humanity. A serf in the Middle Ages? Day-to-day life in most of Africa? China? Material. The cultural change in American and most Christian-dominated countries has been to create people with your sort of thought processes, unfortunately, a vague sort of "pie in the sky" behavior as opposed to the "our daily bread".
Also, even if Trashman is conservative, it isn't bad. It actually takes a strong mind to not give into certain things.
Oh please. He's not conservative, he's paleoconservative, just like you, and that's not about resistance. You pat yourself on the back for not giving into things you want to take away from everyone so they don't have to resist. By your own admissions, you have no concept of temptation; that requires being tempted, and you claim you never have been. That's weakness, not strength.
I have noticed that there is perpetual argument in the general discussion forum. I just took note that it never seems to end here. It could cause much stress to some people who are always actively doing the arguing, I'd imagine.
Not hardly. This is relaxing.
-
God I love the internet.
-
I thought High Max was foreign, but now I think he is 9 or 10 years old.
-
I think he has a condition we should be tolerant of. Just a guess.
-
Calm down people, punch a few kittens or something - there's nothing to be gained by personal attacks
-
On topic:
I didn't know iamzack was a girl.
I just am going to echo a few things that High Max said. We argue(a kinder man would say "discuss") about stuff, but I never really get hot over it, but some of the people on the other side from me seem to lose it when I/we suggest something that conflicts with your world view.
That said, my remote observation of my opposite number ideologically suggests that they would gnaw out your guts while you try to shake they're hands.
*INSERT MEANINGLESS TROLL HERE BECAUSE I AM KINDA LOOPY FROM ALLERGY PILLS*
I am strangely addicted to watching this over and over
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYRvmAAAzqU&feature=recommended
-
I would just like to point out that iamzack is from the USA, not the UK! :P
-
Frankly, I see both sides giving as good as they get.
There are no martyrs in this conversation, no matter who would like to believe so.
-
A question to those of us who believes that younger people are rotten etc. (this is not my opinion)
Who is responsible for that?
-
Stereotypes + The media. Those are the most obvious ones, and the unsettling attitude groups of teenagers send across to people who walk by them, it's not usually intentional but it happens nonetheless since those groups are associated with bashings/robberies etc. In reality from my point of view, don't do anything to piss them off and exhibit some confidence and you'll be fine. However the minority (less than 20% over here... I've got to find the website I read that on) of teenagers who engage in substance/narcotics abuse and consume alcohol on a regular basis are quite prone to spontaneous violence etc, in fact a friend/associate of mine was a victim of it last week, but by exercising judgment and discretion you can usually tell who those people are and avoid them for good reason. But my point was it's the MINORITY, the MAJORITY of teenagers do the right thing. But as usual the minority is blown out of proportion.
-
And since there are way more channels by which information about said minority can reach the normal people, the impression that the minority is the majority can be reached easily.
-
Exactly :)
-
No, it's because it's more reported. The world is a lot smaller than it was even fifty years ago.
What has that got to do with anything? All I need for a conclusion is what is happening here, where I live.
What's happening in Canada or Japan is nice additional information, but that's not the point of my statement, altough I do hear similar things from people all over.
What I KNOW is that when I was a kid, mouthing off to a adult, swearing, drinking and smoking was pretty much unthinkable. It was an exception, rather than the norm.
These days it's the other way around.
You're grasping at straws and throwing out desperate declarations of "ARGHHHHH THOSE DAMNED KIDS WON'T PULL UP THEIR PANTS, SO I SHOULD BE ABLE TO BEAT THEM WITH A TIRE IRON UNTIL THEY FIGURE OUT WHAT'S GOOD FOR THEM!"
Have you anything to add other than baseless blabbering and misconstructions?
Ahh...note that that isn't what I said.
They speak of the general qualities of young people - like being rash, inexcperienced, full of themselves, energetic, etc...
Those are not complaints directed at their upbringing or lack of proper behavior.
But those are the exact qualities which lead to youth behaving inappropriately!
You fail.
I was a kid once. And so were my friends. And so were others before them. We all had the drive, the energy and innexperience.
Yet we didn't act like morons.
Unless you're trying to say that being young automaticly means that you HAVE to be irresponsible and ill-behaved?
-
What has that got to do with anything? All I need for a conclusion is what is happening here, where I live.
What's happening in Canada or Japan is nice additional information, but that's not the point of my statement, altough I do hear similar things from people all over.
What I KNOW is that when I was a kid, mouthing off to a adult, swearing, drinking and smoking was pretty much unthinkable. It was an exception, rather than the norm.
These days it's the other way around.
Dude, confirmation bias much? We are both approximately the same age, yet my experience (i. e. what I KNOW) is that nothing much has changed in that regard. Children/young adults pretty much behave the same, the only difference is that WE are now viewing that same behaviour from the outside, from the adults perspective.
Naturally, our opinions about this behaviour have shifted due to our changing conceptions of acceptable behaviour.
You fail.
I was a kid once. And so were my friends. And so were others before them. We all had the drive, the energy and innexperience.
Yet we didn't act like morons.
I wonder, can you speak for EVERYONE in your age group? Are you absolutely, positively certain, that NOT ONE of them ever was as unruly as the kids today? As we said, what you are whining about is the behaviour of a minority being reported prominently. Remember, you are seeing these incidents because they stick out, not because there's more of them.
Unless you're trying to say that being young automaticly means that you HAVE to be irresponsible and ill-behaved?
No, but it is a common sideeffect. ;)
-
On topic:
I didn't know iamzack was a girl.
I just am going to echo a few things that High Max said. We argue(a kinder man would say "discuss") about stuff, but I never really get hot over it, but some of the people on the other side from me seem to lose it when I/we suggest something that conflicts with your world view.
That said, my remote observation of my opposite number ideologically suggests that they would gnaw out your guts while you try to shake they're hands.
*INSERT MEANINGLESS TROLL HERE BECAUSE I AM KINDA LOOPY FROM ALLERGY PILLS*
I am strangely addicted to watching this over and over
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYRvmAAAzqU&feature=recommended
Please be careful of the dispositional bias. You're apparently unaware how hateful and vicious you can seem sometimes. It's easy to attribute that to character (disposition), when, in fact, it's generally an artifact of point of view and situation.
-
What the hell are you guys arguing now? :wtf:
-
I, uh, don't know. :nervous:
-
What the hell are you guys arguing now? :wtf:
The quote stacks alone put me off reading half of it anyway
-
Dude, confirmation bias much? We are both approximately the same age, yet my experience (i. e. what I KNOW) is that nothing much has changed in that regard. Children/young adults pretty much behave the same, the only difference is that WE are now viewing that same behaviour from the outside, from the adults perspective.
Naturally, our opinions about this behaviour have shifted due to our changing conceptions of acceptable behaviour.
The point is there is no same behaviour. I friggin know what I did.
I wonder, can you speak for EVERYONE in your age group? Are you absolutely, positively certain, that NOT ONE of them ever was as unruly as the kids today? As we said, what you are whining about is the behaviour of a minority being reported prominently. Remember, you are seeing these incidents because they stick out, not because there's more of them. [/qutoe]
No, there's more of em. I can count.
-
The point is there is no same behaviour. I friggin know what I did.
YOU know what YOU did. You also know what the people around you did. But that is not a valid sample size to make general observations about EVERYONE.
No, there's more of em. I can count.
I do not doubt your mathematical abilities. I do question your interpretation, though. I also question the way you gathered that data. As i said, if you're only counting what you can observe, or what you hear about, your data will be biased by your own expectations.
In other words, you expect to see bad behaviour, as a result all cases of bad behaviour will stick out more than the opposite.
-
I will conciede that the situation is probably not as bad as I make it seem. But that's it's not happening it pure dillusion.
Doubt me as much as you want, it is irrelevant in the end. Time will tell.
-
Ummm, at my school, we have an entire set of courses for people who consitantly swear directly in teacher's faces, engage in fights at school, have been caught doing drugs on school property, or are just general violent disruptions to the class. As of last week, 74 out of 704 students were in that particular set of courses.
There is a school nearby, about ten minutes away, where aggravated assault averages two counts a week. Last week was one of the outliers, with six.
Also, honestly, how often did you people who are now out of school see a student tell a teacher to "f*ck off" right to his face? There were two suspensions today because of that. As far as I can see, kids actually are getting worse. I am constantly disgusted by my peers' actions.
But that is not a valid sample size to make general observations about EVERYONE.
What would you call a valid sample size? The two schools, the one I go to, and the other, combined have nearly 1800 students. I don't have exact statistics for both, but 10% still seems to be awfully high.
-
Ummm, at my school, we have an entire set of courses for people who consitantly swear directly in teacher's faces, engage in fights at school, have been caught doing drugs on school property, or are just general violent disruptions to the class. As of last week, 74 out of 704 students were in that particular set of courses.
There is a school nearby, about ten minutes away, where aggravated assault averages two counts a week. Last week was one of the outliers, with six.
Also, honestly, how often did you people who are now out of school see a student tell a teacher to "f*ck off" right to his face? There were two suspensions today because of that. As far as I can see, kids actually are getting worse. I am constantly disgusted by my peers' actions.
But that is not a valid sample size to make general observations about EVERYONE.
What would you call a valid sample size? The two schools, the one I go to, and the other, combined have nearly 1800 students. I don't have exact statistics for both, but 10% still seems to be awfully high.
OH SWEET LORD THE STATISTICS FAIL
To draw conclusions about a population (all the youths in the world/America), you must have a representative sample.
Your sample is actually a population, representative only of schoolgoing youths in your area, in the same general socioeconomic racial class, in the same general culture, all members of the same general social network.
If you want to draw conclusions, get a random sampling of all the youth in America by the means of a complete list and a random number generator. Fortunately for you, such databases are available, and a lot of research on the trends has already been done.
*sigh*
-
Where do you live...? :eek:
-
I assume the older among you folks are about my parents' age.
When my mum was a kid, her little brother tried to bomb their high school.
There are people like that in every generation. While swearing is arguably more common these days, it's also less taboo. Because people got a bit smarter and started to realize words really are just words.
-
Where do you live...? :eek:
Lansing, Kansas. I go to Lansing High School, and the other is Leavenworth High School (we compete for the title of LHS :p). I got a B- is social studies and got stuck in the remedial class once. Of 24 students, not counting myself, 21 had either been sent to juvie for some reason or another, averaged eight suspensions a year, or had been pregnant in the last year. I hated that class with a passion.
-
There are people like that in every generation. While swearing is arguably more common these days, it's also less taboo. Because people got a bit smarter and started to realize words really are just words.
I'm pretty sure stuff like that doesn't happen here... :wtf:
-
There are people like that in every generation. While swearing is arguably more common these days, it's also less taboo. Because people got a bit smarter and started to realize words really are just words.
I'm pretty sure stuff like that doesn't happen here... :wtf:
Of course it does. Last time I was in Italy I was chased back to my hotel by a bunch of teenagers yelling swears.
-
Hotels and schools are two separate things.
If you extensively rely on swearings and bad conduct in Italian schools you get much more than a reassignment to a course for people like you. In 13 years of schools I've never experienced anything like what iamzack and Scotty said.
-
Oh I wish they would get more than just a course re-assignment :ick:.
-
Oh I wish they would get more than just a course re-assignment :ick:.
maybe if their parents weren't so convinced that getting an abortion was murder, they could have waited to have children until they had a stable home life, causing this whole situation to not happen. >.>
-
Hotels and schools are two separate things.
If you extensively rely on swearings and bad conduct in Italian schools you get much more than a reassignment to a course for people like you. In 13 years of schools I've never experienced anything like what iamzack and Scotty said.
In all my time in public school in America I never experienced anything like that either.
-
Oh I wish they would get more than just a course re-assignment :ick:.
maybe if their parents weren't so convinced that getting an abortion was murder, they could have waited to have children until they had a stable home life, causing this whole situation to not happen. >.>
Keep it off this thread. Besides, in this case, it's more the people than the time.
-
Oh, the dispositional bias...how it does pervade us.
-
I think that this is clear: the phenomenon of young people's antisocial behavior has to do with the environment that they live in.
That given, the last one that we can blame for that kind of behaviour is those young people. Parents, media, modern ethics above all is the cause IMO. An environment made by the older ones, or allowed to exist by them. So calling kids rotten, etc. is ridiculous.
Now, by allowing, or even supporting practices like the use of the mosquito device can cause one and one only result: Hate from the younger people.
And it's a justified result, caused by morons and the morons in this case are not the kids.
-
Ah yes, everyone's fault but the kids themselves
-
To a certain extent, yeah. Kids are largely a product of their environments.
-
every sociology's student will confirm it.
-
Then the adults are a result of their upbringing which is a result of that person's upbringing etc etc etc etc
-
Where did it start, and more importantly, how can we "fix" it.
-
What "problem" are you attempting to "fix"?
-
I did say "to a certain extent." Upon reaching a certain age, most people become capable of examining themselves and their lives, and then doing something to change them if they find them unsatisfactory.
However, upbringing can work against that. For example, if it is never indicated to someone that they have any power in their own life, then they will assume that that is the case.
-
... and more importantly, how can we "fix" it.
:yes:
BL: massive stupidity problem
-
... and more importantly, how can we "fix" it.
:yes:
BL: massive stupidity problem
That I have one? Or everyone has one?
-
It's not personal, it's about societies ;)
-
Can society be stupid? :wtf:
-
It can become stupid ( Europe after WW1, France before the revolution, Russia before and after the revolution, ancient Rome, ancient Greece etc. etc.)
-
But I mean what are you comparing it against?
-
If you're talking about the modern societies, i cant compare it with any for two reasons:
Factors are deferent and it's very early to do so.
-
I mean even old societies.
How do you label a society stupid?
-
Sort answer: Read history.
When ethics are falling, societies are falling. Falling of ethics is stupid.
-
Sort answer: Read history.
When ethics are falling, societies are falling. Falling of ethics is stupid.
You're talking to a history teacher.
You make it sound like a society of a bunch of guys walking into walls and drowning in their drinks.
-
Do i?
As a history teacher i assume that you know a John Maynard Keynes guy , don't you? The one that was used as an advisor for the rebuilding of the post war Europe?
-
Was that just a yes or no question or were you going somewhere with it?
-
I'm going right here: As you probably know, this guy was an advisor for both the periods after WW1 and WW2.
In the first case he was ignored. Germany was humiliated in the worst and unjustified way, Hitler came to power and the result was WW2. Keyenes had predicted all this, but he was ignored by the European morons. The idiotic European societies of the time had no problem with turning Germany to a cheap hore. (You'll figure that out by studying the moral before WW1).
It took the destruction of Europe and the loss of Britain's empire for Keynes to be herd, from a wiser winer this time.
-
You're judging an entire continent's intelligence because leaders ignored the warnings of a person only after looking back we can decide was probably right?
-
Not only leaders, societies as well, this is very criticall.
And yes BL, because only afterwards we can decide if behavior is stupid or not (you can call it wrong or wright, i don't care to argue about it).
And it is a matter off ethics in the end because that's what history teach us (me at least), that when you behave to people as if they were animals, they'll become animals in the end and the price will be high.
EDIT: AND STOP DISTRUCTING ME WITH THE HOTTIES THREAD :lol:
-
And yes BL, because only afterwards we can decide if behavior is stupid or not (you can call it wrong or wright, i don't care to argue about it).
I can tell when iamzack is going to do stupid stuff all the time. Prevention is another issue altogether.
-
Not only leaders, societies as well, this is very criticall.
And yes BL, because only afterwards we can decide if behavior is stupid or not (you can call it wrong or wright, i don't care to argue about it).
And it is a matter off ethics in the end because that's what history teach us (me at least), that when you behave to people as if they were animals, they'll become animals in the end and the price will be high.
EDIT: AND STOP DISTRUCTING ME WITH THE HOTTIES THREAD :lol:
So the societies knew and consciously ignored this person? What happens in 200 years from now we figure out something else and this guy looks like a moron?
-
And yes BL, because only afterwards we can decide if behavior is stupid or not (you can call it wrong or wright, i don't care to argue about it).
I can tell when iamzack is going to do stupid stuff all the time. Prevention is another issue altogether.
I hate you.
Also, who the eff cares about assigning meaningless and subjective labels to periods of history? Geez.
-
..... You can comment on the topic, but why do you always try to turn this into a "the U.S. is too free" kind of argument?
-
1. Culture infulences the develpoment of people, especially young people
2. Not all cultures are equal
Ergo, it stands to reason that young people won't behave the same in different cultures.
It also stands to reason that some ways of bringing up kids are better than others.
If your kids are showing less and less respect, are becoming more spoiled and agressive or downright emo - then buddy, you got problems. Or should I say, your culture has problems.
-
While Max is pulling a delightfully inane Persecuted Hegemon on us, you're just talking out of your rear end. You have neither ancedotal experience nor statistics.
-
Do you really need statistics for that? This is not a discussion where people throw in numbers and discuss them.
Personal experience is enough.
-
Do you really need statistics for that? This is not a discussion where people throw in numbers and discuss them.
Personal experience is enough.
Yes, because you're making a statistically proveable assertion.
-
Do you really need statistics for that? This is not a discussion where people throw in numbers and discuss them.
Personal experience is enough.
Yes, because you're making a statistically proveable assertion.
What statistical assertion has anyone made in this argument? Why isn't the other side talking out of it's ass too?
-
Do you really need statistics for that? This is not a discussion where people throw in numbers and discuss them.
Personal experience is enough.
Yes, because you're making a statistically proveable assertion.
Stop talking as if everything depends on statistics.
I know the differences between the ways to educate children and teenagers, and I'm 5 years younger than you. May I know why you need statistics to carry on a discussion whose subject should be pretty clear to you?
Behaving like that makes you sound like a person with no experience in Real LifeTM. Throwing in statistics usually helps, but asking for them in this discussion is ridiculous.
-
While Max is pulling a delightfully inane Persecuted Hegemon on us, you're just talking out of your rear end. You have neither ancedotal experience nor statistics.
Do you need anything other than logic to recognize this?
Are you denying points 1 and 2?
If not, then the conclusions from them are rock-solid.
If so, then you are blind and ignoring something that is common knowledge.
-
1. Culture infulences the develpoment of people, especially young people
Given.
2. Not all cultures are equal
Given.
Ergo, it stands to reason that young people won't behave the same in different cultures.
Probable.
It also stands to reason that some ways of bringing up kids are better than others.
Unproved assertion.
If your kids are showing less and less respect, are becoming more spoiled and agressive or downright emo - then buddy, you got problems. Or should I say, your culture has problems.
Unproved assertion. Does not follow from previous arguments.
-
Common knowledge is the keyword here... :yes:
-
I think America's biggest culture issue is too much religion forced down the throats of people who might otherwise be perfectly normal.
After all, countries which have much less religiosity are also more peaceful and progressive. Hmm...
Maybe Trashman et al is on to something.
-
It also stands to reason that some ways of bringing up kids are better than others.
Unproved assertion.
There is no way to determine the effects of raising a child?
-
Do you really need statistics for that? This is not a discussion where people throw in numbers and discuss them.
Personal experience is enough.
Yes, because you're making a statistically proveable assertion.
Stop talking as if everything depends on statistics.
I know the differences between the ways to educate children and teenagers, and I'm 5 years younger than you. May I know why you need statistics to carry on a discussion whose subject should be pretty clear to you?
Behaving like that makes you sound like a person with no experience in Real LifeTM. Throwing in statistics usually helps, but asking for them in this discussion is ridiculous.
AAGH THE FAILURE OF INTELLECT
Look. Statistics describe reality. Personal experience doesn't -- it's largely an illusion constructed by flawed cognitive heuristics.
If you want to figure out the differences between how to educate children and teenagers, you need to go out and collect data on which methods are most effective, and, hopefully, do experiments to establish a correlation.
NGTM-1R is right. You are wrong. You are the one being ridiculous, since statistics are the only thing that can advance discussions like this.
-
There is no way to determine the effects of raising a child?
There is no way to determine whether a given way of raising a child is superior to another, IMHO.
-
What statistical assertion has anyone made in this argument? Why isn't the other side talking out of it's ass too?
Admittedly, they have not, but they at least bothered with anecdotal evidence.
Stop talking as if everything depends on statistics.
I know the differences between the ways to educate children and teenagers, and I'm 5 years younger than you. May I know why you need statistics to carry on a discussion whose subject should be pretty clear to you?
Behaving like that makes you sound like a person with no experience in Real LifeTM. Throwing in statistics usually helps, but asking for them in this discussion is ridiculous.
Hilarous. Horrible. Hilarrible?
Everything does depend on statistics wherever they are available. Certainly science does. If you want to prove something, you're going to need some form of math, and the social sciences, that usually means statistics. Anecdotal evidence like this is all well and good, but it is rightfully distrusted when it conflicts or when the belief is demonstrated to be practically hereditary.
Do you need anything other than logic to recognize this?
Are you denying points 1 and 2?
If not, then the conclusions from them are rock-solid.
If so, then you are blind and ignoring something that is common knowledge.
Common knowledge. That's quite a dangerous phrase. Ether was once common knowledge. So was the flat earth, the geocenteric universe. It's a pretty shibboleth of the conservative/paleoconservative mindset you have, to be sure. But it's foolish.
I'm denying your points.
If I am, the conclusions are not rock-solid. (Poor wording kills arguments.)
If so, then you are blind and ignoring something obviously unscientific. (Poor wording kills arguments!)
-
What statistical assertion has anyone made in this argument? Why isn't the other side talking out of it's ass too?
Admittedly, they have not, but they at least bothered with anecdotal evidence.
Then why is everyone jumping on these guys calling them wrong if the other side can't prove any of theirs either?
I saw a lot of people jump on Trashman and Lib about the stuff they said about kids but those who did only had personal experience of their own to argue with. So why are we ragging on these guys for not having statistical data? They could be right
-
AAGH THE FAILURE OF INTELLECT
Look. Statistics describe reality. Personal experience doesn't -- it's largely an illusion constructed by flawed cognitive heuristics.
If you want to figure out the differences between how to educate children and teenagers, you need to go out and collect data on which methods are most effective, and, hopefully, do experiments to establish a correlation.
NGTM-1R is right. You are wrong. You are the one being ridiculous, since statistics are the only thing that can advance discussions like this.
Statistics are generic. You'll hardly find a fully detailled statistic.
Are you aware of their worrying levels of generalization? Statistics inform about the average, not about the specific. Each person is different from the others, so throwing in something like "76% of teenargers does this, 24% does that" with no kind of reference to their age (1), to the specific place where they live (2), to the cultural context of that place (3), to the school they attend (4), to their neighbours (5), to their friends (6), to their families (7), to their dedication to school (8), to wheter or not they learn bad behavior from TV (9), videogames (10), the internet (11)...
That's 11 variables and there are more. Statistics would hardly take more than 3 of them in consideration, despite the fact that they have pretty much the same importance. Now go and make assumptions.
People are not numbers. At least, not always.
There is no way to determine whether a given way of raising a child is superior to another, IMHO.
True, but people should know what's good and what isn't. Stuff like "Should my child listen to classical music to increase his IQ?" isn't anywhere near "Should I allow him to use drugs, drink alcohol and stay with mediocre people?".
-
Statistics are generic. You'll hardly find a fully detailled statistic.
Are you aware of their worrying levels of generalization? Statistics inform about the average, not about the specific. Each person is different from the others, so throwing in something like "76% of teenargers does this, 24% does that" with no kind of reference to their age (1), to the specific place where they live (2), to the cultural context of that place (3), to the school they attend (4), to their neighbours (5), to their friends (6), to their families (7), to their dedication to school (8), to wheter or not they learn bad behavior from TV (9), videogames (10), the internet (11)...
That's 11 variables and there are more. Statistics would hardly take more than 3 of them in consideration, despite the fact that they have pretty much the same importance. Now go and make assumptions.
People are not numbers. At least, not always.
Assumption 1: By generalizing information, it becomes possible to determine whether a given trend is global, or local. TrashMan et al. claim that the behaviour of young people is degenerating globally, when all they have are local observations. Statistics could be a massive help to determine if they are right.
-
Remembering that until about 5-6 generations ago, 'teenagers' were married with kids, usually lots of kids.
Teenagers have only really existed for about 3 generations, which is why teenage pregnancy is a growing problem, because until about 75 years ago, it was known as 'pregnancy'.
-
Then why is everyone jumping on these guys calling them wrong if the other side can't prove any of theirs either?
I saw a lot of people jump on Trashman and Lib about the stuff they said about kids but those who did only had personal experience of their own to argue with. So why are we ragging on these guys for not having statistical data? They could be right
The "Those Damn Kids Through The Ages" post earlier in the thread more or less proved they are taking a posistion that is more or less hereditary in nature, which is more damning as an argument than anything they have yet produced. So, by the (admittedly low) standards of the evidence available, they're still losing.
Statistics are generic. You'll hardly find a fully detailled statistic.
Are you aware of their worrying levels of generalization? Statistics inform about the average, not about the specific. Each person is different from the others, so throwing in something like "76% of teenargers does this, 24% does that" with no kind of reference to their age
And if you missed the logical snapper in that statement, don't buy any bridges in brooklyn.
'cuz, you know. Teenager is a reference to their age.
(1), to the specific place where they live (2), to the cultural context of that place (3), to the school they attend (4), to their neighbours (5), to their friends (6), to their families (7), to their dedication to school (8), to wheter or not they learn bad behavior from TV (9), videogames (10), the internet (11)...
That's 11 variables and there are more. Statistics would hardly take more than 3 of them in consideration, despite the fact that they have pretty much the same importance. Now go and make assumptions.
Which is why they have seperate, smaller studies on each variable (most of which are against you, for the record).
-
Then why is everyone jumping on these guys calling them wrong if the other side can't prove any of theirs either?
I saw a lot of people jump on Trashman and Lib about the stuff they said about kids but those who did only had personal experience of their own to argue with. So why are we ragging on these guys for not having statistical data? They could be right
The "Those Damn Kids Through The Ages" post earlier in the thread more or less proved they are taking a posistion that is more or less hereditary in nature, which is more damning as an argument than anything they have yet produced. So, by the (admittedly low) standards of the evidence available, they're still losing.
But you don't even know they're wrong?
You're telling me there is little evidence, and almost everyone is running anecdotal... so how can you claim one is right over another?
-
From propaganda and debating techniques:
Demand a simple answer when this is not possible:
"Okay, if God didn't create the universe, tell me how it got here."
(The obvious answer is another question: "But who created God? How did God get here?")
-
Assumption 1: By generalizing information, it becomes possible to determine whether a given trend is global, or local. TrashMan et al. claim that the behaviour of young people is degenerating globally, when all they have are local observations. Statistics could be a massive help to determine if they are right.
Find a statistic that takes in consideration at least 5-6 of the 11 variables mentioned in my previous post and let me know.
It's nearly impossible to have a specific vision of a complex problem by using statistics, only. If all you need is a bunch of numbers, go for it.
'cuz, you know. Teenager is a reference to their age.
It's quite funny how you pretend 14 years old and a 18 years old to behave the same, for the sake of the statistics.
Which is why they have seperate, smaller studies on each variable (most of which are against you, for the record).
Those studies are specific, too specific, because they're not widespread. They take many variables in consideration, but the problem is that they don't analyze that many teenagers. As result, all major assumptions come from the classic "If 5 out in 80 teenagers do this, then 50,000 out in 800,000 do this" - it's all a game of numbers and percentages which doesn't really help... and you know why? Because there are many problems, not only one, leading to certain behaviors. Vague assumptions would end up with something like "Videogames are bad for children and teenagers", and we all know of bogus this assumption is due to the various nature of games (genre, series, etc. etc.).
By "accurate" I mean "about 100% reliable".
Far from accurate stat = several thousand people
Partially accurate stat = several hundred people
Very accurate stat = several dozen people
From propaganda and debating tequeniques:
Demand a simple answer when this is not possible:
"Okay, if God didn't create the universe, tell me how it got here."
(The obvious answer is another question: "But who created God? How did God get here?")
Let's limit this debate to the other thread... :nervous:
-
"If 5 out in 80 teenagers do this, then 50,000 out in 800,000 do this" - it's all a game of numbers and percentages which doesn't really help
Ummm... Really hate to burst your bubble here:
Empirical Rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68-95-99.7_rule)
As well as the general observation that real-life surveys/studies fit that.
For those too lazy to read the article:
In statistics relating to real-life, it has been observed that 68% of all entries fall within one standard deviation of the mean, 95 within two, and 99.7 within three. It really does help, provided the sample size is large enough to be representative.
-
I'm not questioning the validity of the empirical rule for its general usage, I'm simply saying that you don't need numbers when studying psychological matters like this.
Also, don't forget the personal knowledge people have prior to reading or compiling the stats, which is also various. If I tell you that Italian teenagers living in Naples are likely to commit more crimes than teenagers living in Rome, would you understand the social context behind this statement? By applying the same logic to American stats you'd get even more generic results, because the region-to-region and even town-to-town differences can change virtually everything.
-
I'm not questioning the validity of the empirical rule for its general usage, I'm simply saying that you don't need numbers when studying psychological matters like this.
Then you don't need anything, since, you know, that basically rejects any conception of science being involved.
But you don't even know they're wrong?
You're telling me there is little evidence, and almost everyone is running anecdotal... so how can you claim one is right over another?
Because we have numbers. Specifically, numbers of how long people have assumed that each generation is less whatever than the previous one. The shelf-life of the concept has expired in much the same way all its contemporaries have long since been disproved or outmoded. Science marches on.
-
Because we have numbers. Specifically, numbers of how long people have assumed that each generation is less whatever than the previous one. The shelf-life of the concept has expired in much the same way all its contemporaries have long since been disproved or outmoded. Science marches on.
So you're only evidence is "people have thought that forever, therefore it must be wrong"?
-
I thought we were talking about the severity of the "issue." Besides, when has time ever mattered to science :P?
-
In sociology the results of the statistics in a nation are useless when are used to describe the situation in a neighbourhood. It's a matter of scale. When the sample is to large it's usufull only to advertisers.
-
So you're only evidence is "people have thought that forever, therefore it must be wrong"?
Your straw manning is cute, but not effective.
No, our evidence is that people who had no understanding of how a society functions or social sciences thought that, therefore it is extremely unlikely they were correct.
-
So you're only evidence is "people have thought that forever, therefore it must be wrong"?
Your straw manning is cute, but not effective.
No, our evidence is that people who had no understanding of how a society functions or social sciences thought that, therefore it is extremely unlikely they were correct.
Wait, unlikely or wrong? You seem to be spending more time discrediting them than shoring up your own arguments.
Where is the evidence contrary to them?
-
I'll repeat this without the example:
From propaganda and debating techniques:
Demand a simple answer when this is not possible.
-
I'll repeat this without the example:
From propaganda and debating techniques:
Demand a simple answer when this is not possible.
Ok wait. Everyone is spending time pounding on these guys for being crotchety old men who don't see the vast superiority of today's youth.
Oh they're making generalizations, local anecdotes, etc etc etc. They have no numbers to back up their claims.
So where are your numbers?
"Ah that's complex. You're only asking cause you know you're wrong."
-
Where are your numbers BL? And where is your opinion by the way, the one that you have to backup with the numbers i'll ask for (they'll be many, i assure you).
We're not debating on absolute truths here, and i'll appreciate from you to show me a place were something like this
actually hapens.
-
I'm not questioning the validity of the empirical rule for its general usage, I'm simply saying that you don't need numbers when studying psychological matters like this.
Also, don't forget the personal knowledge people have prior to reading or compiling the stats, which is also various. If I tell you that Italian teenagers living in Naples are likely to commit more crimes than teenagers living in Rome, would you understand the social context behind this statement? By applying the same logic to American stats you'd get even more generic results, because the region-to-region and even town-to-town differences can change virtually everything.
SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP UNTIL YOU GET AN EDUCATION.
You can't just spout garbage about things you think you understand.
Let me take apart your asinine argument line-by-line. (It's the argument that's asinine, not you. Treading that fine line!)
"you don't need numbers when studying psychological matters like this" -- yes you do. How else do you address them? Write some poetry? Talk a bit about what you saw on the street corner? ALL SOCIAL SCIENCE IS STATISTICS. It is the only way to draw conclusions about a population.
"Also, don't forget the personal knowledge people have prior to reading or compiling the stats, which is also various." We call that 'design bias' or 'interpretation bias' and it's not a criticism of statistics. It's a separate problem that can be compensated for, just like drag on an airplane.
"I tell you that Italian teenagers living in Naples are likely to commit more crimes than teenagers living in Rome, would you understand the social context behind this statement?" Boy, if you did a correlation between local socieconomic educators, level of education, unrest, average income, AND CRIME, using some goddamn STATISTICS, you would understand the social context!
"By applying the same logic to American stats you'd get even more generic results, because the region-to-region and even town-to-town differences can change virtually everything." WHICH IS WHY IF YOU WANT TO DRAW CONCLUSIONS ABOUT A PARTICULAR REGION OR TOWN YOU USE A SAMPLE REPRESENTATIVE OF THAT REGION OR TOWN.
Elementary, my dear Mobius.
Now let's go back to other misinformed things you've said!
Those studies are specific, too specific, because they're not widespread. They take many variables in consideration, but the problem is that they don't analyze that many teenagers. As result, all major assumptions come from the classic "If 5 out in 80 teenagers do this, then 50,000 out in 800,000 do this" - it's all a game of numbers and percentages which doesn't really help... and you know why? Because there are many problems, not only one, leading to certain behaviors. Vague assumptions would end up with something like "Videogames are bad for children and teenagers", and we all know of bogus this assumption is due to the various nature of games (genre, series, etc. etc.).
By "accurate" I mean "about 100% reliable".
Far from accurate stat = several thousand people
Partially accurate stat = several hundred people
Very accurate stat = several dozen people
Do you know what a representative sample is?
Come on. Define it for me. Make me day. TELL ME WHAT A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE IS.
Then explain to me how to use it to draw accurate conclusions about a population.
Give me the equation that tells you the sample size (N) you need to draw conclusions with a degree of accuracy (P) about a population of size X. Go on.
Look, all you're doing is attacking bad research design. Massive, flaming strawman. If you want to attack the basis of social sciences (statistical observation), learn something about good research.
Your argument is basically '**** science/statistics. We can conclude everything we need to from common sense. In fact, math makes this less accurate and is unnecessary.'
gb2the1450s.
...
You know what? Go read "Research Design and Methods: A Process Approach", by Borden and Abbot. It addresses every one of your misperceptions in excruciating detail.
-
Where are your numbers BL? And where is your opinion by the way, the one that you have to backup with the numbers i'll ask for (they'll be many, i assure you).
I haven't made one assertion about any of this.
(mostly cause I haven't the damnedest clue what the hell you guys are trying to argue)
What I've noticed is a ton of people picking away arguments of "the old guys" for not having numbers while not showing a shred of evidence themselves.
We're not debating on absolute truths here, and i'll appreciate from you to show me a place were something like this
actually hapens.
If you're not debating absolute truths, what are you debating then? Generalizations? Local trends? What?
Now if you were going to ask me what I would look for in a debate such as this (you didn't but I'm answering anyways), I would look for:
Teen crimes rates
Teen gang rates
Teen sexual activity
Teen pregnancy
Teen drug use
Teen depression and suicide rates
Teen emotional disorders
Teen educational grade reports
Teen dropout rates
Teen "discipline" rates in schools
Teen work rates (numbers of hours, length of time working at one, number of write ups, disciplines)
Teen graduation rates
I could go on and list more, but it's almost pointless. No one has really listed a good comparison for grading two generations against each other.
Even if you had all that data and compared it to another generation's youth you could STILL argue that it wasn't a complete picture of that set of youths because it didn't factor in things like technology rates, current economic and political climates, wars, social movements etc etc etc.
How large an age group do you select? 10-18? 19? 20? 13? Do you track the rates of those kids along their youth or do you take a snapshot at a certain point in time?
Pithy summary: You can't grade a generation's youth with a quick value or letter grade. For guys who sat there and said "every generation says the current youth are 'worse' and they're wrong", they're completely ignoring that their generation will probably be saying it about the next and all in all it doesn't matter because you can't prove it anyways.
-
O.K. you need to read the first post of this topic. The use of a device that forces people under 25 away from public places.
Our opinions about this fact is what is debatable. These were the ones i was interesting about.
The statistics that you're asking about are easy to find, goggle them.
-
O.K. you need to read the first post of this topic. The use of a device that forces people under 25 away from public places.
Our opinions about this fact is what is debatable. These were the ones i was interesting about.
The statistics that you're asking about are easy to find, goggle them.
1. That device has barely been mentioned (if at all) in the last 5 pages. That is most certainly NOT what the current debate it about.
2. I can find these stats all over, but you didn't finish reading apparently because I can get all of them and it still wouldn't provide an complete picture. And even if it did, there is no real way to grade it against previous generations.
-
Those studies are specific, too specific, because they're not widespread. They take many variables in consideration, but the problem is that they don't analyze that many teenagers. As result, all major assumptions come from the classic "If 5 out in 80 teenagers do this, then 50,000 out in 800,000 do this" - it's all a game of numbers and percentages which doesn't really help... and you know why? Because there are many problems, not only one, leading to certain behaviors. Vague assumptions would end up with something like "Videogames are bad for children and teenagers", and we all know of bogus this assumption is due to the various nature of games (genre, series, etc. etc.).
There's another problem too. Statistics could be made up and false because people have it in their nature to lie and have hidden agendas, and maybe these people know that there are people out there, like some on this forum, who put too much trust into statistics and only go by statistics and nothing else and if they can get enough people to believe in statistics, they can brainwash people into thinking that nothing is wrong and therefore hide a problem. For example, false statistics could be used to hide things like global warming and convince people it isn't real so oil companies can continue their primitive "fossil fuel burning" work without interference so they can keep being greedy and getting money at the expense of people's health and the environment, for all we know. Or maybe governments might make up false statistics to hide a cover-up or conspiracy.
I would trust my experience over a statistic if I had the choice between the two since statistics not only are not always accurate or very specific and are black and white, but could be false and made up too for all I know. Just go to different websites and you will see different statistics of the same thing. One website actually lists New York as the #1 most polite city on Earth and I'm sure that is utterly false, while other websites would say differently about a statistic and maybe say it is the #5 rudest city. There's one hole in the argument of blindly trusting statistics over everything else, but if some people want to be number crunching gullible robots, then it's their problem, I guess.
How do I know the people who made certain statistics are not lying? I guess some people have a lot of faith in statistics like it is a religion. There is more out there than just academics and statistics. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out and to know that just because something is written doesn't mean it is fact, whether it be scientific or religious.
Cognitive heuristics frequently make you their *****.
-
1. That device has barely been mentioned (if at all) in the last 5 pages. That is most certainly NOT what the current debate it about.
2. I can find these stats all over, but you didn't finish reading apparently because I can get all of them and it still wouldn't provide an complete picture. And even if it did, there is no real way to grade it against previous generations.
read my posts. Severall times i tried to bring the subject back to the conversation.
And i had to answer to really sily questions, like "if there's no pain were is the violence?"
I never attempted to grade any generation. Trashman accused me for doing that, and i found pointless even to answer to him. I don't even think that a generation is worse than another and as the matter of fact the one that sowed me this event on the internet was my father.
You're accusing me for something i never did.
And by accepting that even if you provided those numbers you'd still wouldn't provide an complete picture, you're helping me make my point about absolute truth's, thankyou very much.
-
read my posts. Severall times i tried to bring the subject back to the conversation.
You mean the part where you started talking to me about early 20th century economists? Yea that was spot on target.
And i had to answer to really sily questions, like "if there's no pain were is the violence?"
Yes silly me for asking why you're calling a device violent when it causes no pain, making it merely "annoying" Since, you know, that was the entire basis of your argument in regards to its use.
Unless you had some other argument against its use besides the fact it inflicted pain (which you never proved the frequency did)
I never attempted to grade any generation. Trashman accused me for doing that, and i found pointless even to answer to him. I don't even think that a generation is worse than another and as the matter of fact the one that sowed me this event on the internet was my father.
You're accusing me for something i never did.
"It can become stupid ( Europe after WW1, France before the revolution, Russia before and after the revolution, ancient Rome, ancient Greece etc. etc.)"
Not grading them eh? What do you call calling one generation dumber than another?
And by accepting that even if you provided those numbers you'd still wouldn't provide an complete picture, you're helping me make my point about absolute truth's, thankyou very much.
You're thanking me for continuing to argue a point I've been making since the argument switched from the sound device to whether teens of a certain time are better or worse than others? That I've somehow finally come around to it?
-
You mean the part where you started talking to me about early 20th century economists? Yea that was spot on target.
O.K. thats below the belt and pointless. I didn't say that i haven't post for other matters, i said what i said, read it again in good will please.
Yes silly me for asking why you're calling a device violent when it causes no pain, making it merely "annoying" Since, you know, that was the entire basis of your argument in regards to its use.
Once again, i urge you to read the definition of violence. Not pain, violence. And as for pain, read again the article and the testimonies of several of other guys in this thread. And read again my posts, my point was not wether the device causes pain, it was wether it violates basic human rights.
"It can become stupid ( Europe after WW1, France before the revolution, Russia before and after the revolution, ancient Rome, ancient Greece etc. etc.)"
Not grading them eh? What do you call calling one generation dumber than another?
Below the belt again and pointless again (and i'm still calm). It was about societies, not generations, i believe that you've missread.
You're thanking me for continuing to argue a point I've been making since the argument switched from the sound device to whether teens of a certain time are better or worse than others? That I've somehow finally come around to it?
Isn't it obvious what i'm thanking you for? And who exactly switched the argument, do you recall?
-
O.K. thats below the belt and pointless. I didn't say that i haven't post for other matters, i said what i said, read it again in good will please.
You told me you kept trying to bring it back on point. Since almost back at page 9 you've made almost no mention of the device at all. The idea that you've somehow tried to steer this argument back to the device is just flat out wrong.
Once again, i urge you to read the definition of violence. Not pain,
violence. And read again my posts, my point was not wether the device caused pain, it was wether it was violated basic human rights.
I did.
"Violence is the expression of physical force against self or other, compelling action against one's will on pain of being hurt."
Without 'pain of being hurt' there is no violence, it's just a damn annoying sound.
To argue a violation of basic human rights you have to show how you can't stand there. But you can't. There is no wall or fence to block your access. No one picks you up and carries you off. They don't shoot you or threaten you life.
I can go sit in front of that store for as long as I like and I can hear the sound. How is it a violation of free assembly when I can assemble there freely?
They could play polka music to drive you off, you wouldn't argue polka music is a violation of human rights, would you?
Below the belt again and pointless again (and i'm still calm). It was about societies, not generations, i believe that you've missread.
You listed very specific points in time. You're calling a society stupid, that means you're calling all those generations stupid.
And completely beside that point, you're ok with grading an entire group of generations but somehow grading one is way too far?
If you're telling me everyone in Europe at that time was stupid, wouldn't the kids be stupid also?
Isn't it obvious what i'm thanking you about? And who exactly switched the argument, do you recall?
You actually switched arguments.
-
1. Can you seriously realize the deference between "no mention" and "almost no mention".
2. Can you seriously read the Wiki's article beyond the first line?
3. Can you seriously realize that the mosquito is designed for people younger than 25?
4. Can you seriously realize the difference between the terms society and genetarion?
5. Can you seriously point exactly were i switched arguments?
And finally, can i seriously go to sleep now?
-
I'll be damned if I let this post go to waste :)
Now, I'm going to use German statistics for this, I hope you don't mind.
Teen crimes rates
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Jugendkriminalit%C3%A4t_Deutschland.jpg)
Red bar are children, blue adolescent, yellow young adults. As you can see, those numbers are either falling or constant.
Teen gang rates
Don't know about that (The information is buried in a 478 page pdf.). Teen criminality, however, went down. (source (german pdf): http://www.bka.de/pks/pks2006/download/pks-jb_2006_bka.pdf )
Teen sexual activity
Teen pregnancy
I'm lumping those together, since you can't get the second without the first. No pretty graph here, I'm afraid. Anyway, the federal statistics office (Statistisches Bundesamt) concluded that the number of pregnancies is declining. In 2004, 8.3 of 1000 teenagers were pregnant. In 2005, 7.9 out of 1000. This trend continues unabated. (source: http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/ )
As for sexual activity, there is an increase. People start doing it earlier. I'm not quite sure what that signifies in this context, though. (source (pdf, in german): http://www.bzga.de/pdf.php?id=ab480ab64494cb393c5c0cc3f8a1e181 )
Teen drug use
Seems to be going down wrt Alcohol, Tobacco, Cannabis (after an all-time high in 2004) (source (again, german pdf): http://www.bzga.de/pdf.php?id=710c698ad2ec70e4f696aa4a68dec87b )
Teen depression and suicide rates
No reliable data for Teen depression (At least, none that I could find).
Suicide rate seems to be steady (I've looked at the data from 2007-2005, more recent data was unavailable.) (source: http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/ )
Teen emotional disorders
See above.
Teen educational grade reports
Teen dropout rates
Teen "discipline" rates in schools
Teen work rates (numbers of hours, length of time working at one, number of write ups, disciplines)
Teen graduation rates
Finding those will take more intelligence than my sleep-deprived brain is currently capable of producing. Will be added later.
I could go on and list more, but it's almost pointless. No one has really listed a good comparison for grading two generations against each other.
Even if you had all that data and compared it to another generation's youth you could STILL argue that it wasn't a complete picture of that set of youths because it didn't factor in things like technology rates, current economic and political climates, wars, social movements etc etc etc.
How large an age group do you select? 10-18? 19? 20? 13? Do you track the rates of those kids along their youth or do you take a snapshot at a certain point in time?
Pithy summary: You can't grade a generation's youth with a quick value or letter grade. For guys who sat there and said "every generation says the current youth are 'worse' and they're wrong", they're completely ignoring that their generation will probably be saying it about the next and all in all it doesn't matter because you can't prove it anyways.
I'm not saying that. I plan on acknowledging the fact that the next generation will be different, maybe even incomprehensible. That isn't neccessarily worse.
-
1. Can you seriously realize the deference between "no mention" and "almost no mention".
Yes, that's why I wrote almost no mention instead of no mention. Anything else on how you got caught up in the current argument and forgot about the device?
2. Can you seriously read the Wiki's article beyond the first line?
You mean the part where it talks about who uses violence, the law about violence and religion/war and violence? Yea I can.
What I fail to see is anywhere in that article where it mentions violence can be any force that doesn't inflict pain. I'm gonna guess the reason it doesn't say that is because then everything would be violence.
3. Can you seriously realize that the mosquito is designed for people younger than 25?
Can you not understand that that alone doesn't make it criminal? Is annoying young people illegal?
4. Can you seriously realize the difference between the terms society and genetarion?
Yes I can. That's why it's so hilarious that you'll call a society stupid. A society, a group of many generations of people combined together. You'll call all of them stupid but to single one out is somehow wrong or impossible?
You're calling 1930s Europe stupid which means you have to be calling the young people, adults and old people stupid. Even if you argued it was just the adults that were stupid, that means you're calling the young people not stupid. That's a comparison.
You can't call a society stupid and then say you aren't calling any particular age group in there stupid.
5. Can you seriously point exactly were i switched arguments?
Whoops, missed this one.
Yes, when you went from being able to judge an entire society to saying it was impossible to judge just one section of a society because it was impossible.
And finally, can i seriously go to sleep now?
I dunno, can you?
-
Agh, The E, those are absolute rates, not per capita!
Which makes it all the more impressive that they're falling...unless the population is falling too.
-
I'll be damned if I let this post go to waste :)
Almost every graph you showed dealt with 1 generation.
The one that looked like it had multiple generations I couldn't read because it was in German.
You can't compare teen pregnancy from 2004 to 2005 because it's the same generation. You have to compare to comperable data for the 1990s, 80s, 50s. 1870s, 1730s etc etc etc.
Also, no teen pregnancy and teen sexual activity are not linked because sex education can lower teen pregnancy even when teen sexual activity goes up.
I'm not saying that. I plan on acknowledging the fact that the next generation will be different, maybe even incomprehensible. That isn't neccessarily worse.
But what are you comparing it to to say that they aren't worse?
-
Agh, The E, those are absolute rates, not per capita!
Which makes it all the more impressive that they're falling...unless the population is falling too.
Germanys' Population has been steady at ~82.3 Million people for a few years now. It actually increased slightly since 1990 (~79.9 Million people back then). (There is data from before 1990, of course. But that doesn't include the former German Democratic Republic)
Almost every graph you showed dealt with 1 generation.
The one that looked like it had multiple generations I couldn't read because it was in German.
You can't compare teen pregnancy from 2004 to 2005 because it's the same generation. You have to compare to comperable data for the 1990s, 80s, 50s. 1870s, 1730s etc etc etc.
Sorry, obvious oversight. The data I found for teenage sexuality went as far back as the 1980s, but the trend is the same. People start having sex at a younger age.
Also, no teen pregnancy and teen sexual activity are not linked because sex education can lower teen pregnancy even when teen sexual activity goes up.
The problem there is that my main source, the federal statistics office, didn't collect the specific data for teenage pregnancies before 2001. (However, the absolute number of childbirths from 1990 onwards, for mothers aged 15 - 45, remained steady at ~1400 children born per 1000 Women.)
But what are you comparing it to to say that they aren't worse?
To myself, and my generation? Point is, teenagers will always differ from their parents, sometimes in ways the older, established persons do not approve of. Doesn't mean that western culture is going down the drain.
-
Ergo, it stands to reason that young people won't behave the same in different cultures.
Probable.
Undeniable
It also stands to reason that some ways of bringing up kids are better than others.
Unproved assertion.
Rock hard fact.
Or are you saying there are no such things as bad parents and bad parenting? That it doesn't matter what you do and how you bring up kids?
I think America's biggest culture issue is too much religion forced down the throats of people who might otherwise be perfectly normal.
After all, countries which have much less religiosity are also more peaceful and progressive. Hmm...
Actually, the other way around as far as I can see.
Common knowledge. That's quite a dangerous phrase. Ether was once common knowledge. So was the flat earth, the geocenteric universe. It's a pretty shibboleth of the conservative/paleoconservative mindset you have, to be sure. But it's foolish.
I'm denying your points.
If I am, the conclusions are not rock-solid. (Poor wording kills arguments.)
If so, then you are blind and ignoring something obviously unscientific. (Poor wording kills arguments!)
Denying my points? You're denying common sense and logic then. The two points are no more up to debate than the assertion that the sun rises each morning is.
Assumption 1: By generalizing information, it becomes possible to determine whether a given trend is global, or local. TrashMan et al. claim that the behaviour of young people is degenerating globally, when all they have are local observations. Statistics could be a massive help to determine if they are right.
Actually, given that I live in a city that thrives on tourism, I get to speak with people from all over the world about this issue.
-
Assumption 1: By generalizing information, it becomes possible to determine whether a given trend is global, or local. TrashMan et al. claim that the behaviour of young people is degenerating globally, when all they have are local observations. Statistics could be a massive help to determine if they are right.
Actually, given that I live in a city that thrives on tourism, I get to speak with people from all over the world about this issue.
And I smoke crack. I smoke all kinda crack. I like crack. Therefore all crack is good.
-
Rock hard fact.
Or are you saying there are no such things as bad parents and bad parenting? That it doesn't matter what you do and how you bring up kids?
Oh, bad parenting does undoubtedly exist. But since good parents may see their kids go "bad", and bad parents see their kids go "good", making generalized assumptions about children based solely on their upbringing is questionable, IMHO. In order to determine the best way to raise a child, one must take into account the childs' personality, the parents' personality, how both parties react to a given style of parenting, and what community they live in.
To me, the question isn't "Does bad parenting exist?", its "Does the existence of bad children prove anything about the culture they live in?".
Assumption 1: By generalizing information, it becomes possible to determine whether a given trend is global, or local. TrashMan et al. claim that the behaviour of young people is degenerating globally, when all they have are local observations. Statistics could be a massive help to determine if they are right.
Actually, given that I live in a city that thrives on tourism, I get to speak with people from all over the world about this issue.
So, tourists (and their opinions, which may be unfounded) are a representative sample about the conditions in the place they come from?
-
Arguement / debate... fine line. Keep on the right side of it people ;)
-
Oh, bad parenting does undoubtedly exist. But since good parents may see their kids go "bad", and bad parents see their kids go "good", making generalized assumptions about children based solely on their upbringing is questionable, IMHO. In order to determine the best way to raise a child, one must take into account the childs' personality, the parents' personality, how both parties react to a given style of parenting, and what community they live in.
To me, the question isn't "Does bad parenting exist?", its "Does the existence of bad children prove anything about the culture they live in?".
Given that sociology treats cultural influence on children as a fact, I'd say yes.
So, tourists (and their opinions, which may be unfounded) are a representative sample about the conditions in the place they come from?
Everyones oppinions may be unfounded. When scientists talk to people each and every one they talk too can be flat out lying or delusional too. Anything that involves people and their observations is subject to being totally skewed and/or incorrect. But we all have to start from somewhere.
When's the last time you talked to people form other countries about this specific issue anyway?
On what do you base your oppinion that the problem doesn't exist?
-
SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP UNTIL YOU GET AN EDUCATION.
Calm down with this nonsense. Capitalization is childish.
I refuse to pay attention to that.
-
If you're reading this Mr K, i'm definitely making that sign up for the next HLP London :lol:
-
When's the last time you talked to people form other countries about this specific issue anyway?
On what do you base your oppinion that the problem doesn't exist?
You do have me there. The place I live in isn't anywhere near the kind of tourist trap you seem to be living in, so my interaction with foreigners is pretty much limited to Internet debates.
My opinion, such as it is, is that the assumption that just because children/teenagers of today behave differently than children/teenagers of generations past they are automagically behaving worse than we had at that same age is fundamentally flawed.
I base this on the following:
Assuming that teenage behaviour is fundamentally unchanged in this generation compared to past generations, the only thing that has changed is technology. Todays teenagers have far more options to live out their teenageness than before, and thereby fueling the assumption that teenagers today are somehow worse. So, you have a certain amount of real troublemakers that has been holding steady (or is actually declining, according to the statistics I dug up earlier), but the trouble they make is blown out of proportion because you hear more about it.
So, is my opinion conjecture, partially unfounded and biased? Yes, absolutely. It is just biased optimistically. Why? Because I do not believe in "declining" or "disintegrating" culture, only in changing culture. I may or may not like that change, but I do not dare to presume change is bad just because it results in something different.
-
You do have me there. The place I live in isn't anywhere near the kind of tourist trap you seem to be living in, so my interaction with foreigners is pretty much limited to Internet debates.
I wasn't talking specificly about talking with foreigner, but in general. Does this topic interest you enough to talk about it with your friends? Do you even try to get informed on the subject? Did you even think much about this issue before it brought it up?
But since good parents may see their kids go "bad", and bad parents see their kids go "good", making generalized assumptions about children based solely on their upbringing is questionable
I forgot to address this earlier, so I'll just plop it in here. You are answering yourself in essence. What else has an influence on kids besides parents? Their friends, their town, their culture!
So if the parents are good but the kid turns bad, then it's obvious it's enviroment (culture) has a greater negative influence than their parents positive influence. And vice-versa.
My opinion, such as it is, is that the assumption that just because children/teenagers of today behave differently than children/teenagers of generations past they are automagically behaving worse than we had at that same age is fundamentally flawed.
I base this on the following:
Assuming that teenage behaviour is fundamentally unchanged in this generation compared to past generations, the only thing that has changed is technology. Todays teenagers have far more options to live out their teenageness than before, and thereby fueling the assumption that teenagers today are somehow worse. So, you have a certain amount of real troublemakers that has been holding steady (or is actually declining, according to the statistics I dug up earlier), but the trouble they make is blown out of proportion because you hear more about it.
That assumptions doesn't really hold water. You admit that human culture, and culture of particular countries, is constantly changing (more or less). To assume that such changes have no influence on us who live in that culture, and especially on the young, impressionable minds, defies reason.
If we are the product of our enviroment, then any changes in our enviroment will undoubtedly lead to changes in us as well.
So, is my opinion conjecture, partially unfounded and biased? Yes, absolutely. It is just biased optimistically. Why? Because I do not believe in "declining" or "disintegrating" culture, only in changing culture. I may or may not like that change, but I do not dare to presume change is bad just because it results in something different.
So what would it take for you to consider a change bad?
-
SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP UNTIL YOU GET AN EDUCATION.
Calm down with this nonsense. Capitalization is childish.
I refuse to pay attention to that.
This coming from the man who once filled a thread with size-eighty-million shouts of 'IDIOT!"...
But.
You're right. Capslock yelling is immature, and I should cut it out.
However, did you get the other points in the post?
(I'm sorry if it came off too personal, Mobius. I was frustrated, but I understand that not everybody knows a lot about this topic.)
-
Sorry, obvious oversight. The data I found for teenage sexuality went as far back as the 1980s, but the trend is the same. People start having sex at a younger age.
So teens now are having more sex that previous generations? Some people may see that as a negative, not a positive.
The problem there is that my main source, the federal statistics office, didn't collect the specific data for teenage pregnancies before 2001. (However, the absolute number of childbirths from 1990 onwards, for mothers aged 15 - 45, remained steady at ~1400 children born per 1000 Women.)
that's a long range of ages. all the way to 45?
To myself, and my generation? Point is, teenagers will always differ from their parents, sometimes in ways the older, established persons do not approve of. Doesn't mean that western culture is going down the drain.
Well you can't argue they aren't worse and then argue there is no way to compare the two. What DOES mean Western culture is going down the drain?What indicators are you looking for?
-
I refuse to acknowledge the existence of "Western Culture".Period.
The set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution, organization or group.
That group being The West or the United States in general is far too large to classify under a blanket term like that. Multiculturalism ring any bells? Gang Culture or Mexican-American Culture is getting closer.
So teens now are having more sex that previous generations? Some people may see that as a negative, not a positive.
*Hopes this doesn't somehow turn into an Abortion/Religion/Evolution thread*
As long as these teenagers are educated in safe-sex practices and put these into practice they'll be fine. It's another thing Teens can't keep bottled up.
What DOES mean Western culture is going down the drain?What indicators are you looking for?
It's looked like that since the Vietnam War when drug use and what-not became popularised through the rise of media and various other factors. You could say sub-cultural practices are becoming progressively worse (gang violence, frequent drug use, underage sex), but they've been doing that since the birth of society, there are always the people who will do something the middle class and above disapprove of. As time goes on, it becomes acceptable and something new comes along, it's a process that most likely won't end. There was prostitution, rock music, list goes on.
-
Sorry, obvious oversight. The data I found for teenage sexuality went as far back as the 1980s, but the trend is the same. People start having sex at a younger age.
So teens now are having more sex that previous generations? Some people may see that as a negative, not a positive.
As a teenager, I see it as a DEFINITE positive. It means less sleeping with people between 5 and 10 years older than me. :D
-
As a teenager, I see it as a DEFINITE positive. It means less sleeping with people between 5 and 10 years older than me. :D
Yeah, and I'm sure many teenagers see getting high or totally drunk as a positive thing too. :rolleyes:
-
Well, yeah, why not? It's fun.
-
I wasn't talking specificly about talking with foreigner, but in general. Does this topic interest you enough to talk about it with your friends? Do you even try to get informed on the subject? Did you even think much about this issue before it brought it up?
Well, yeah. But since they agree with me, we would all be wrong, wouldn't we? For reference, most of the people I'm studying with are, on average, 10 years younger than I am, and during my work at a local Games store I can witness the behaviour of teenagers quite well for myself, I believe.
I forgot to address this earlier, so I'll just plop it in here. You are answering yourself in essence. What else has an influence on kids besides parents? Their friends, their town, their culture!
So if the parents are good but the kid turns bad, then it's obvious it's enviroment (culture) has a greater negative influence than their parents positive influence. And vice-versa.
So, Children have perfectly malleable personalities that are ONLY determined by outside factors?
So what would it take for you to consider a change bad?
Unless that change involves me being on the wrong side of a singularity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity), that will never happen.
The problem there is that my main source, the federal statistics office, didn't collect the specific data for teenage pregnancies before 2001. (However, the absolute number of childbirths from 1990 onwards, for mothers aged 15 - 45, remained steady at ~1400 children born per 1000 Women.)
that's a long range of ages. all the way to 45?
As I said, the data seems to be limited.
Well you can't argue they aren't worse and then argue there is no way to compare the two. What DOES mean Western culture is going down the drain?What indicators are you looking for?
I see no contradiction there. No matter what I do, there will always be a part of my brain that will compare their behaviour to what I remember mine to have been (NOT what my behaviour actually was. Memory is tricky that way.) So, I wouldn't try to judge people by an arbitrary comparison between my unreliable memory and my unreliable observations.
What does it mean? How should I know? But it seems to me as though social conservatives do try to convince me of their hypothesis that todays' culture is somehow worse than yesterdays'. Which leads me to ask how one would prove that.
-
I see no contradiction there. No matter what I do, there will always be a part of my brain that will compare their behaviour to what I remember mine to have been (NOT what my behaviour actually was. Memory is tricky that way.) So, I wouldn't try to judge people by an arbitrary comparison between my unreliable memory and my unreliable observations.
What does it mean? How should I know? But it seems to me as though social conservatives do try to convince me of their hypothesis that todays' culture is somehow worse than yesterdays'. Which leads me to ask how one would prove that.
And they would be wrong. But not because kids today are awesome super great, but because they're comparing something that's not really comparable.
-
Well, yeah, why not? It's fun.
So is jumping off a cliff. Because I say so. Go try it. Please.
Well, yeah. But since they agree with me, we would all be wrong, wouldn't we? For reference, most of the people I'm studying with are, on average, 10 years younger than I am, and during my work at a local Games store I can witness the behaviour of teenagers quite well for myself, I believe.
I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here? Do you talk about this issue often with your aquantances or not?
So, Children have perfectly malleable personalities that are ONLY determined by outside factors?
Mostly determined by outside factors.
Unless that change involves me being on the wrong side of a singularity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity), that will never happen.
So you admit that nothing can possibly convince you that any change in a society or culture can be a bad one...
Cute. :lol:
I see no contradiction there. No matter what I do, there will always be a part of my brain that will compare their behaviour to what I remember mine to have been (NOT what my behaviour actually was. Memory is tricky that way.) So, I wouldn't try to judge people by an arbitrary comparison between my unreliable memory and my unreliable observations.
So everyone's memory and observations are unreliable, how do you judge ANYTHING at all?
This way of reasoning falls under the "we can't know anything, so nothing is going on in the first place" category.
-
Nonono, you just use non-subjective observations like well-constructed statistics.
And, in fact, Trashman, personality is about 60-70% genetic, depending on the trait (openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeability, neuroticism.) I can throw you a few papers if you like.
-
It's looked like that since the Vietnam War when drug use and what-not became popularised through the rise of media and various other factors. You could say sub-cultural practices are becoming progressively worse (gang violence, frequent drug use, underage sex), but they've been doing that since the birth of society, there are always the people who will do something the middle class and above disapprove of. As time goes on, it becomes acceptable and something new comes along, it's a process that most likely won't end. There was prostitution, rock music, list goes on.
That's what I mean. How do you know if it's going to hell in a handbasket?
-
Oh and I think that the strange thing is that as humanity (evolves/devolves, whatever) and we move to the future, humans are acting more primitive and less civilized with less self control and less morals with backwards selfish priorities The fact that sex rates go up is evidence of that. Decency is going away. This could hardly be called evolution. It is devolution. More animalistic.
So, by extrapolating backwards, Humanity's cultural apex was when, exactly? 10 seconds after the first being on this planet experienced self-consciousness?
Oh, and the statistics I quoted earlier seem to paint a different picture (except for the increase in sexual matters), would you care to explain how that can be?
Again, you are making the rhetorical mistake of speaking in absolutes without evidence to prove it.
-
Nonono, you just use non-subjective observations like well-constructed statistics.
Torture numbers, and they'll confess to anything. ~Gregg Easterbrook
98% of all statistics are made up. ~Author Unknown
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital. ~Aaron Levenstein
Say you were standing with one foot in the oven and one foot in an ice bucket. According to the percentage people, you should be perfectly comfortable. ~Bobby Bragan, 1963
Statistics can be made to prove anything - even the truth. ~Author Unknown
Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable. ~Author Unknown
He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts - for support rather than for illumination. ~Andrew Lang
Statistics are like women; mirrors of purest virtue and truth, or like whores to use as one pleases. ~Theodor Billroth
Do not put your faith in what statistics say until you have carefully considered what they do not say. ~William W. Watt
Then there is the man who drowned crossing a stream with an average depth of six inches. ~W.I.E. Gates
There are two kinds of statistics, the kind you look up and the kind you make up. ~Rex Stout, Death of a Doxy
Satan delights equally in statistics and in quoting scripture.... ~H.G. Wells, The Undying Fire
The average human has one breast and one testicle. ~Des McHale
A statistical analysis, properly conducted, is a delicate dissection of uncertainties, a surgery of suppositions. ~M.J. Moroney
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." ~Mark Twain
And, in fact, Trashman, personality is about 60-70% genetic, depending on the trait (openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeability, neuroticism.) I can throw you a few papers if you like.
And the moon is made of cheese.
-
The average human has one breast and one testicle. ~Des McHale
This one made me laugh :lol:.
-
Nonono, you just use non-subjective observations like well-constructed statistics.
Torture numbers, and they'll confess to anything. ~Gregg Easterbrook
98% of all statistics are made up. ~Author Unknown
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital. ~Aaron Levenstein
Say you were standing with one foot in the oven and one foot in an ice bucket. According to the percentage people, you should be perfectly comfortable. ~Bobby Bragan, 1963
Statistics can be made to prove anything - even the truth. ~Author Unknown
Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable. ~Author Unknown
He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts - for support rather than for illumination. ~Andrew Lang
Statistics are like women; mirrors of purest virtue and truth, or like whores to use as one pleases. ~Theodor Billroth
Do not put your faith in what statistics say until you have carefully considered what they do not say. ~William W. Watt
Then there is the man who drowned crossing a stream with an average depth of six inches. ~W.I.E. Gates
There are two kinds of statistics, the kind you look up and the kind you make up. ~Rex Stout, Death of a Doxy
Satan delights equally in statistics and in quoting scripture.... ~H.G. Wells, The Undying Fire
The average human has one breast and one testicle. ~Des McHale
A statistical analysis, properly conducted, is a delicate dissection of uncertainties, a surgery of suppositions. ~M.J. Moroney
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." ~Mark Twain
And, in fact, Trashman, personality is about 60-70% genetic, depending on the trait (openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeability, neuroticism.) I can throw you a few papers if you like.
And the moon is made of cheese.
Those quotes are all about the misuse or misinterpretation of statistics. Since you value rationality and science so thoroughly, I'm sure you'll agree that statistical descriptions of populations are a valuable tool when well-employed.
Would you like the papers, including experimental evidence, that demonstrate the heritability of personality traits? And, similarly, the experimental evidence that suggests the moon is not made of cheese?
In the meantime, here[/i]. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Heritability)
-
Do those percentages mean the likelihood of inheriting said characteristics?
-
Sorry, obvious oversight. The data I found for teenage sexuality went as far back as the 1980s, but the trend is the same. People start having sex at a younger age.
So teens now are having more sex that previous generations? Some people may see that as a negative, not a positive.
As a teenager, I see it as a DEFINITE positive. It means less sleeping with people between 5 and 10 years older than me. :D
Disturbing and creepy as well as childish and absolutely no sexual morals whatsoever...You scare me. Only good girls can be trusted and know true love. Let's not forget your extreme increased risk of viruses and bacteria.
Excuse me, "good girls"? Are you living in the 50s or what?
(PS: there's such a thing as condoms and knowing the sexual histories of people you sleep with. Duh?)
-
Not quite. Everyone has the characteristics, after all.
It's a bit complicated, since they're generally drawn from studies of separated twins (comparisons between monozygotic clones and dizygotic 'siblings' are very valuable).
Rather, it's the percentage of the variation between individuals in a population which can be attributed to genetics rather than environment. Environment is a category that includes how your parents act and how they treat you.
-
We understand you had some bad experiences, High Max, and we accept that.
You don't need to impose your morality on others.
-
So... because you don't agree with the way I view sex (as a purely biological act which is fun), I am...
Let's see...
"polluted with peer pressure" (because I couldn't possibly just... actually like sex, right?)
lacking in self respect and respect for others
"selfish and easy"
"superficial"
"don't know true love"
untrustworthy
lacking self control and values
So, tell me again why you're an expert on me based solely on my promiscuity?
-
He's afraid of female sexuality because he's insecure and thinks women will cheat on him.
He can only trust pure women to show him love.
That's the feeling I get, at least.
-
I don't know. The "good girls" comment points to excessive conservatism.
-
I won't disagree with that. But he has personal motives too.
-
Religion?
-
I've been totally monogamous my entire life, and I have no interest in changing that (with iamzack or anybody else.) But nonetheless, I agree with iamzack's view. If sex is fun, and you're healthy about it, there's no harm in having multiple partners. As long as you're not putting other people at risk, it's your decision, and the consequences are yours to deal with.
iamzack clearly has plenty of self-respect. You should be tolerant of her differing values. There's no need to impose your beliefs on her unless you genuinely are afraid.
You seem determined to vilify her and her sexuality as something filthy that turns her into an object. I can imagine what made you so bitter. If you want to talk about it, you can do so.
You should read more about behavior genetics before going off like that.
-
@High Max
It disturbs you that sex doesn't disgust me?
It disturbs me that you are disturbed by sex.
-
I've heard other female forumites say they sometimes feel like second-class citizens, and I must say that if they're singled out and treated this way I can understand why.
-
*shrug* I don't usually feel personally affronted by stuff here (like right now, I'm just annoyed, not really pissed off) but I call stuff out if it's just too stupid for me to leave alone.
-
It's definitely appreciated (not just by me), but others don't want to get sucked into Internet debates. And there's kind of a double standard, too. If you're a woman, and you call out sexism, it's easy to be labeled as someone who's demanding special treatment because you're the 'only girl around'. After all, if you really wanted to be here, you'd man up and argue back, right?
Women who agitate too much in real life generally get labeled harridans or simply '*****es'. And while I can't stand a lot of shrill feminists, there are still plenty who get labeled unfairly just for speaking up about how uncomfortable things make them.
It's easy to be unafraid when you're a guy and the power dynamic favors you. But just walking down a street as a woman is a lot more frightening than it is for a guy. Men rarely understand how cautious women have to be.
-
sex != relationship
-
Statistics...?
I use statistics to describe populations, like any good scientist. But you should know (if you understand statistics) that you can't describe individuals with population statistics.
And that's right, son. People who enjoy sex can't feel love. And if you have a fling with someone, even if it's consensual, she's just using you, and you'll hate yourself forever.
Do you honestly believe that?
Whoa, this is silly. I'm having a post-happy debate with a paleoconservative autistic Japanese kid. I'm clearly not going to convince you of anything.
-
Go talk about Freespace, then. You don't need to assert your maturity/excellence/non-autisticness. We respect you.
I am not autistic. I had thought, to be honest, that you'd said you were autistic, and I have no problem with it if you are. If you want to talk about whatever condition you may have (I believe you said you had one, since it gave you 'special abilities'?) the forum will be welcoming and understanding.
In addition to my skills with facts, figures, and science, I have won quite a few awards for my writing, which requires skillful characterization and a good understanding of people. I'm pretty multidimensional, believe it or not. (Not trying to brag here, but I should defend my depth.)
-
It has to do with my decency and many other reasons I hit on earlier.
:yes:
-
Also, if I was autistic, I wouldn't be intelligent or be able to socialize at all, unless I was an autistic sevant, which you seem to be since you always babble about facts and figures and that's it, like Rain Man.
First off, there ARE intelligent autistic people who can socialise.
Second, Battuta isn't the one "babbling" here, you are.
-
I like moderation, a little bit of both.
Love is nice and all, but it's rare, and you can't get it all the time. A friends with benefits sort of deal is good fun when you want to enjoy some sex but aren't up to emotional commitment.
-
Love is nice and all, but it's rare
Especially in superficial cultures. The happiness decreases as a result of materialism. Look at all the depressed celebs and rich but bitter and unhappy people. As a result, many feel they need to make themselves happy artificially through drugs and other things, but it doesn't last and that method fails in the long run.
Drugs are fine with moderation too, some booze on the weekend with friends, some pot sometimes, followed by intense matches of Soul Calibur. As long as you don't rely on it, it's fine.
Society's got nothing to do with love and finding it or not. That's down to people and their individual dispositions. Sure there's that big crowd of girls who only care disproportionately about money and gifts and whatever. So what? Just don't date them. Problem solved.
-
Love is nice and all, but it's rare
Especially in superficial cultures. The happiness decreases as a result of materialism. Look at all the depressed celebs and rich but bitter and unhappy people. As a result, many feel they need to make themselves happy artificially through drugs and other things, but it doesn't last and that method fails in the long run.
Then why do self-reporting and implicit measures generally rate developed nations (the 'materialistic') ones as equally happy when compared to non-developed nations?
-
So it's a conspiracy?
...because they're not human?
I, for one, am happy because somebody cares for me for who I am. But I don't judge anybody else for what makes them happy. I get to be human in the eyes of the almighty High Max, right?
-
This isn't an RPG. And it was a joke.
So it's a conspiracy?
...because they're not human?
I, for one, am happy because somebody cares for me for who I am. But I don't judge anybody else for what makes them happy. I get to be human in the eyes of the almighty High Max, right?
Answer all the questions!
-
Of course no matter what anyone says, I can't let it get to me too much or they would have won.
Victory? On an internet debate? :lol:
There is no such thing, there are only loosers....unfortunetely, people get attracted to them like moths to a flame.
If sex is fun, and you're healthy about it, there's no harm in having multiple partners. As long as you're not putting other people at risk, it's your decision, and the consequences are yours to deal with.
Let me just say this:
Shooting yourself in the head is also your decision and puts nobody else at risk. Yet, if everyone started doing it, humanity would cease to exist.
Not all types of behaviours are equal - this stands to reason. Not all behaviours are good for the society or the culture.
Wanting for people to behave better overall is a good thing.
-
Errrr.....
So if everyone started having protected sex underage humanity would cease to exist?
-
So is jumping off a cliff. Because I say so. Go try it. Please.
Don't say you weren't warned to stop that.
-
So is jumping off a cliff. Because I say so. Go try it. Please.
Don't say you weren't warned to stop that.
Hey, how am i supposed to argue with his unreasonable and lame positions on sex (missionary, with the lights out, for the sole purpose of procreation) if he's monkeyed?!
-
*le sigh*
Poor Trash. We knew him well.
-
I mean seriously, I threaten iamzack all the time. it's not a big deal.
-
:lol: That's a good one
(missionary, with the lights out, for the sole purpose of procreation)
I mean seriously, I threaten iamzack all the time. it's not a big deal.
Not about a half-assed analogy to conservative views on sex do you?
-
If sex is fun, and you're healthy about it, there's no harm in having multiple partners. As long as you're not putting other people at risk, it's your decision, and the consequences are yours to deal with.
Let me just say this:
Shooting yourself in the head is also your decision and puts nobody else at risk. Yet, if everyone started doing it, humanity would cease to exist.
Not all types of behaviours are equal - this stands to reason. Not all behaviours are good for the society or the culture.
Wanting for people to behave better overall is a good thing.
Let me finish this off -
Shooting yourself in the head is not a fundamental human motivation with a built-in reward. Sex is on the same level as game-playing, social interaction, and eating as something people should be allowed and even encouraged to do.
I agree that 'wanting for people to behave better overall is a good thing', but in my view, that includes more safe and socially respected sex.
For instance, if I were a woman, let's say I wanted to pose for a calendar. In today's society, I wouldn't be able to do so without possible consequences; for example, I could probably never become a teacher, and I'd run the risk of being fired from some office jobs if it were ever discovered. That kind of moral weight shouldn't be placed on a sexual act.
-
battutta
I don't understand your position.
Sex, despite everything else, IS a weighty act with weighty consequences. It should have more value than a pack of crackers from the local convenience store.
-
Shooting yourself in the head is not a fundamental human motivation with a built-in reward. Sex is on the same level as game-playing, social interaction, and eating as something people should be allowed and even encouraged to do.
I guess what he's saying is that having Sex should not be penalized. Since it is something that we as a species are hardwired to not only do but enjoy, imposing arbitrary rules on it seems a bit weird to those among us who truly are liberated.
-
I guess what he's saying is that having Sex should not be penalized. Since it is something that we as a species are hardwired to not only do but enjoy, imposing arbitrary rules on it seems a bit weird to those among us who truly are liberated.
QFT
-
battutta
I don't understand your position.
Sex, despite everything else, IS a weighty act with weighty consequences. It should have more value than a pack of crackers from the local convenience store.
Oh, absolutely. Which is why people should understand and respect sex, rather than fearing it.
Look, my positions on sex don't advocate constant promiscuity. Personally, monogamy is something I'm in favor of. But people should be able to have safe, healthy sex when they need to, instead of being driven to unsafe practices by social taboos and fear.
Sex workers would have much better lives, for instance, if we didn't all view them as evil whores, rather than as economic and social victims.
Getting a driver's license is a weighty act with weighty consequences. Everybody learns a lot about driving as they grow up, and when it's finally time to get a license, their friends have talked to them about it, they've had classes, they can go to their parents or teachers if they have questions...see the metaphor?
Moreover, if someone wants to have sex, and both parties consent, they should be able to do so - they're adults, after all, they can accept the consequences as they choose.
And what do you think about my example of posing for a calendar?
I guess what he's saying is that having Sex should not be penalized. Since it is something that we as a species are hardwired to not only do but enjoy, imposing arbitrary rules on it seems a bit weird to those among us who truly are liberated.
Yes! Although, as I mentioned, it's not just the really horny who favor these views - I've been monogamous my entire life.
-
Yeah, but I guess you are monogamous because you like it that way, not simply because society expects you to be.
-
Yeah, but I guess you are monogamous because you like it that way, not simply because society expects you to be.
Yes. And I'm lucky, too - I've been in one stable relationship. That's not a realistic or likely expectation for most people.
-
Yes, you are very lucky. I will say though that the less superficial the culture, the more likely you will be lucky enough to be with the first one you meet and find true love. Some of it does depend on the culture, but probably mostly luck and no doubt being smart who you choose.
Again with the culture mate, being with the first one you meet and "Finding True Love" is about as likely as someone finding one person attractive their whole lives, it just doesn't happen. People with a reasonable thought process and the ability to overcome obstacles and whatnot are able to keep "Playing the game" until they find someone they like, rather than putting all your money on the one horse. I'd say almost none of it is a product of culture, it is ALL luck and a bit of intelligence regarding your choice, but in a day and age where having a girlfriend in high-school is a normal and common thing it's a weak thing to hope for IMO. There's a reason that kind of thing is common in fairytales. On a core level I don't think you shouldn't hope for it, but the likelihood is amazingly slim even in small/sheltered communities.
-
This topic bores me.....
-
Really? I've been laughing my ass off, it's kind of like watching Continental Truck drivers discuss nuclear physics, every so often someone hits on a point, but it's totally lost in the huge tidal wave of assumption...
Edit: Oh, and the threads locked :nervous: Didn't realise...