Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,927 Year: 4,184/9,624 Month: 1,055/974 Week: 14/368 Day: 14/11 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   We youth at EvC are in Moral Decline
Peter
Member (Idle past 1510 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 166 of 253 (50813)
08-18-2003 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Rrhain
08-13-2003 9:09 AM


Unless you don't have an alcohol dehydrogenase gene you
elliminate 1 unit of alcohol per hour (if I remember right
which I might not) ... so in theory you could drink 1 unit
per hour and never have a build-up of alcohol.
I think the question is what do you mean by drunk?
I can drink a couple of glasses of wine without any noticeable
effect, but am aware that my reaction times will be affected.
I wouldn't call that drunk though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Rrhain, posted 08-13-2003 9:09 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Rrhain, posted 08-21-2003 10:37 AM Peter has seen this message but not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1510 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 167 of 253 (50814)
08-18-2003 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by truthlover
08-13-2003 4:01 PM


quote:
I'm curious if that applies in the non-health area, too.
Yes it does ... it's about socialising with work-colleagues
and managers. Drink too much and it looks bad (there was a figure
on the amounts in the study but I cannot remember off hand).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by truthlover, posted 08-13-2003 4:01 PM truthlover has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1510 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 168 of 253 (50817)
08-18-2003 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Buzsaw
08-02-2003 11:10 PM


If the drug scene surfaced in the 60's why are there
info-films decrying the horrors of drug use that date
right back to the 40's ?
What about the opium dens of victorian London (and New York
and ...)?
What do you think the prohibition gangsters did after the
repeal ... retire ????

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Buzsaw, posted 08-02-2003 11:10 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1510 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 169 of 253 (50819)
08-18-2003 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Buzsaw
08-02-2003 11:54 PM


quote:
1. Single parenhood. (Factual that by and large, children do better with a natural father and mother.)
Children need a loving, stable home-life. The number and biological
relationship of the parents has negligable effect in comparison.
quote:
2. Unwanted babies and supposed need to kill the unborn.
Hardly a new phenomenon. Young girls were routinely locked
up in asylums for simply falling pregnant out of wed-lock ...
or stoned to death.
And babies have been abandoned and left to die for centuries.
Even Romulus and Remus were left unwanted on the hillside
(fiction, yes, but a common practice in ancient times).
quote:
3. Divorce, legal hassles clooging up the legal system etc.
There are more divorces becuase it is easier to do (legally),
and that it has been made easier to do implies a recognition
of the need.
Which is worse, being stuck in a miserable life with the wrong
person, or being able to admit the mistake and start afresh?
quote:
4. Rise of need for social welfare resulting in higher taxes.
What is social welfare? Doesn't sound like something that
could be all that bad to me.
quote:
5. Decline in discipline and behaviour of children.
How is this linked to moral decline?
Bad parenting has always happened ... perhaps we should question
modern parenting advice rather than blame wholesale moral decline.
quote:
6. Sexual disease, the worse being aids. Again more tax dollars and social problems.
And syphilis wasn't much a problem before it could be cured?
How many died because of this disease, and countless other
SDT's, prior to the emergence of adequate control and treatment?
quote:
7. Incidence of drugs, crime and all the ramifications of these.
Crime rates fluctuate, and would be expected to increase with
increasing population density (because there us more opportunity
for crime if there are more people tightly packed). Crime
rates in victorian London were
excessively high by modern standards and yet the face of
victorian society was strict and rigid christain morality.
quote:
8. Need for more prisons, policemen and other enforcement personel.
The need for more prisons most likely has much more to do
with abolition or delay of capital punishment (not making
ANY comment on the rights and wrongs of that simply
on the consequences).
In former times certain crimes were swiftly punished by
execution. Now they require either very long prison sentences
of extended time on death row. Consequence -- more prison
spaces required.
Simplified version, yes, indication of more crime, no.
quote:
9. Rise in incidence of suicide.
Not sure that this is true either.
quote:
10. Increase in corporate, government and social corruption leading to all kinds of problems and causing financial ruin to many.
Government officials in the 30's weren't corrupt?
Power attracts the corruptible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Buzsaw, posted 08-02-2003 11:54 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Dan Carroll, posted 08-18-2003 4:44 PM Peter has seen this message but not replied
 Message 175 by truthlover, posted 08-18-2003 11:03 PM Peter has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1510 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 176 of 253 (50989)
08-19-2003 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by doctrbill
08-18-2003 10:31 PM


.... and the latin word 'vagina' means 'sword sheath' ... go figure

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by doctrbill, posted 08-18-2003 10:31 PM doctrbill has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1510 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 177 of 253 (50990)
08-19-2003 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by truthlover
08-18-2003 11:03 PM


There are plentiful (unfortunately) examples of families
with both biological parents present where the children
suffer immensely both physically and psychologically.
Without taking into account the stability of the home-life
or the quality of care comparison by the numbers is meaningless.
There is no context.
And then there are adoptive, step-, and foster families that
can also provide the environment that aids a child's development.
All I was saying is that the number of parents has, in comparison
to other factors, very little impact.
Anecdotal stuff coming up, beware :- I have friends
who grew up with only one parent who have achieved well
academically, are well-adjusted (so far as I can tell -- but
hey what do I know), and successful (in personal terms) individuals.
I equally have encountered people who had both parents at home
during their upbringing who have not turned out so well (relative
to societal expectations of course).
What can one conclude? For me it says the number and biological
relationship of the parents must be a minor factor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by truthlover, posted 08-18-2003 11:03 PM truthlover has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024