OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Shawn Ishness:

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
this whole idea of social engineering, collective salvation, secular humanism is a perverse cancer, and it has eaten away at our society for so long, that there is no simple, overnight answer. unfortunately, all we can do is try to raise our kids with a sense of personal responsibility, honor, and morality, and hope that they can overcome the lures of society.

If you were to guess, what percentage of parents do you think raise their kids with a sense of personal responsibility, honor, and morality?

less than half

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:

Originally Posted by Shawn Ishness:

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
this whole idea of social engineering, collective salvation, secular humanism is a perverse cancer, and it has eaten away at our society for so long, that there is no simple, overnight answer. unfortunately, all we can do is try to raise our kids with a sense of personal responsibility, honor, and morality, and hope that they can overcome the lures of society.

If you were to guess, what percentage of parents do you think raise their kids with a sense of personal responsibility, honor, and morality?

less than half

Ok, can't say as I disagree. However, it seems to me that less than half is an expanding declination. And though I agree with trying to live our lives with our best possible and organic standards and values, if this expanding declination happens to be true, then this role modeling mantra could be in vain. And also if this expanding declination happens to be true, is that acceptable? In my ego's opinion, no. But in coming from a deeper or more authentic place within myself, perhaps it's a unique opportunity that plays a role in something bigger. Back into my ego's opinion, it saddens me to see such expansion self-destructive behavior.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Shawn Ishness:

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:

Originally Posted by Shawn Ishness:

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
this whole idea of social engineering, collective salvation, secular humanism is a perverse cancer, and it has eaten away at our society for so long, that there is no simple, overnight answer. unfortunately, all we can do is try to raise our kids with a sense of personal responsibility, honor, and morality, and hope that they can overcome the lures of society.

If you were to guess, what percentage of parents do you think raise their kids with a sense of personal responsibility, honor, and morality?

less than half

Ok, can't say as I disagree. However, it seems to me that less than half is an expanding declination. And though I agree with trying to live our lives with our best possible and organic standards and values, if this expanding declination happens to be true, then this role modeling mantra could be in vain. And also if this expanding declination happens to be true, is that acceptable? In my ego's opinion, no. But in coming from a deeper or more authentic place within myself, perhaps it's a unique opportunity that plays a role in something bigger. Back into my ego's opinion, it saddens me to see such expansion self-destructive behavior.

me too, but i don't see there being any going back. time after time, throughout history, times of prosperity and plenty have been preceded by decadence and moral decay. and every time, it's taken a 'god smack' (if you will) to end that cycle. i think this is what made our 'greatest generation' so great. they went through hardships we can't even fully grasp, and they rose to the occasion. i think this is what it takes to bring out the best of people. it's almost as if we need suffering to show what we're capable of. but when we have everything handed to us, it seems to bring out our worst. to me, this is what led to the failings of the baby boom generation. their parents had experienced the great depression, followed by WWII. they endured their struggles, and so naturally, they wanted to give their children the best future they could. this led to unintended consequences, and the series of events that have led us to where we are now.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
me too, but i don't see there being any going back. time after time, throughout history, times of prosperity and plenty have been preceded by decadence and moral decay. and every time, it's taken a 'god smack' (if you will) to end that cycle. i think this is what made our 'greatest generation' so great. they went through hardships we can't even fully grasp, and they rose to the occasion. i think this is what it takes to bring out the best of people. it's almost as if we need suffering to show what we're capable of. but when we have everything handed to us, it seems to bring out our worst. to me, this is what led to the failings of the baby boom generation. their parents had experienced the great depression, followed by WWII. they endured their struggles, and so naturally, they wanted to give their children the best future they could. this led to unintended consequences, and the series of events that have led us to where we are now.

Entitlement is a bish,,, but I wonder; how much does the substantial increase in world population play a part in this? Is it really 'ok' for a parent, especially in these days, to have 8 children? And if they do have that many children, is that an example of responsible behavior?

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Shawn Ishness:

Entitlement is a bish,,, but I wonder; how much does the substantial increase in world population play a part in this? Is it really 'ok' for a parent, especially in these days, to have 8 children? And if they do have that many children, is that an example of responsible behavior?

well, actually, our birthrates in the west have declined. it used to be that most people had 8-9 kids, but now it's uncommon to have more than 3. the average is 2.3. if not for immigration from other countries, we'd have declining populations here and in europe.

so there are less kids now, per household, than ever. meaning, there aren't too many kids for parents to raise and devote time to. i think the difference is that it's so expensive to live now, and to afford all the material things we desire, that in most families, both parents have to work. we send our kids to daycare or school, to be raised during the day. then they either go to an after school program, to a baby sitter's, or stay home alone until 5-6pm when mom and dad get off work. then when everyone gets home, the parents are tired, you have to do something for dinner, the kids have to get a bath, and in too many households, gadgets work as another form of babysitter. it's just easier to let the kids play video games or watch tv to get them out of your hair, so you can relax for a few hours before you have to go to sleep.

in a lot of households, there's just this disconnect between parents and kids. sure, they cohabitate, but everyone's doing their own thing.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:

Originally Posted by Shawn Ishness:
Entitlement is a bish,,, but I wonder; how much does the substantial increase in world population play a part in this? Is it really 'ok' for a parent, especially in these days, to have 8 children? And if they do have that many children, is that an example of responsible behavior?

well, actually, our birthrates in the west have declined. it used to be that most people had 8-9 kids, but now it's uncommon to have more than 3. the average is 2.3. if not for immigration from other countries, we'd have declining populations here and in europe.

so there are less kids now, per household, than ever. meaning, there aren't too many kids for parents to raise and devote time to. i think the difference is that it's so expensive to live now, and to afford all the material things we desire, that in most families, both parents have to work. we send our kids to daycare or school, to be raised during the day. then they either go to an after school program, to a baby sitter's, or stay home alone until 5-6pm when mom and dad get off work. then when everyone gets home, the parents are tired, you have to do something for dinner, the kids have to get a bath, and in too many households, gadgets work as another form of babysitter. it's just easier to let the kids play video games or watch tv to get them out of your hair, so you can relax for a few hours before you have to go to sleep.

in a lot of households, there's just this disconnect between parents and kids. sure, they cohabitate, but everyone's doing their own thing.

I'm unfamiliar with worldly stats in this particular regard, so I relate to what I physically see around me; poor families with so many of them maintaining the desire to have several kids. From my perspective, this seems painfully selfish, especially when I ask myself; what are all these kids going to do after high school? I suppose one might suggest college and doing their very best to be the best whatever, but that takes a very strong sense of personal reverence that I simply fail to see. But it's hard to hope for personal reverence with children when their parents have none either.

Here, I think it's most probable that these kids will end up finding just one part time retail oriented job trying to make due with whatever 22 hours a week affords them. And because their employers aren't consistent with their weekly schedules, it's difficult to impossible for them to maintain two part time jobs to take them above the poverty level. And like you said, electronic babysitters, many with varying degrees of graphic violence, are widely used.

In my mind, this seem problematic at best. But the only proactive ideas that seem widespread solution-likely compromise our general perception of freedom, which I feel has been grossly misused. And as an example of this, I'll simply reflect back on our lack of personal responsibility on down the generations. It seems to me that the result of freedom isn't really freedom at all, that is unless we figure human devolution and our eventual demise to be a value.

OFFLINE

sure, if you see us as being free. but at least over the past 60 years, the government has been involving itself in more and more aspects of our lives. we're at the stage now where there's this strange economic/political symbiotic relationship between the poor in this country, and the nation's left. in other words, you vote for us, and we'll give you more stuff in the form of programs and subsidies. yet all these programs have accomplished is to keep the poor in their current state. in many regards, it's sapped the initiative right out of them. again, unintended consequences. what was done to help give people a leg up, has resulted in pushing them back down. instead of looking to the self for help, they now look to the government. it really is a strange paradox.

but here's another important point. i think we have to avoid the idea that under any circumstances we can create a society free from suffering, poverty, and the like. whether we have a more libertarian society, or a complete nanny-state (which we've been drifting toward), utopia will never exist. however, i think what helps guide my believes, is that the more you teach/encourage people to depend on themselves, the better equipped they are to not only withstand harsh times, but to better themselves.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
sure, if you see us as being free. but at least over the past 60 years, the government has been involving itself in more and more aspects of our lives. we're at the stage now where there's this strange economic/political symbiotic relationship between the poor in this country, and the nation's left. in other words, you vote for us, and we'll give you more stuff in the form of programs and subsidies. yet all these programs have accomplished is to keep the poor in their current state. in many regards, it's sapped the initiative right out of them. again, unintended consequences. what was done to help give people a leg up, has resulted in pushing them back down. instead of looking to the self for help, they now look to the government. it really is a strange paradox.

This .................................... ^

And I mark the beginning of the decline to LBJ's "Great Society".

All it did was create a dependent class of people and ushered in the nanny state.  Instead of freeing people, it enslaved them.

If you're part of the dependent class, you no longer have to be responsible.  You only have to live according to rules of your new Government Massah.

OFFLINE

Would it be fair to say that the wealthy resent the poor - more than the poor resent the wealthy?

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Shawn Ishness:
Would it be fair to say that the wealthy resent the poor - more than the poor resent the wealthy?

Nope.

Today, the emphasis is on the latter.  If you're successful, you not only are greedy, you must be a racist and you need to give it up.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Scott Terry:

Originally Posted by Shawn Ishness:
Would it be fair to say that the wealthy resent the poor - more than the poor resent the wealthy?

Nope.

Today, the emphasis is on the latter.  If you're successful, you not only are greedy, you must be a racist and you need to give it up.

Ahhhh, yes, Racism. I disagree with Income Redistribution; I figure it to be theft. I disagree with an individual sitting on insanely large sums of money with no other interests than making that sum bigger (regardless of what their donations might be), although I feel they have the 'right' to.

The racist thing, however, feels insanely redundant to me; who on earth can know racism so thoroughly, with as big and evolving as racism is, while knowing themselves so thoroughly to be so bold as to insist there's not somehow something within and of them that could be perceived as or even proved to be racist? That said, I feel the accusation of being racist is foolish regardless of who makes it; to me, they're being Captain Obvious. But in the course of the OP, I suspect that reviving personal responsibility and self-reverence could help cure racism, and, I also believe that if (yea, I'm dreaming here) people by and large possessed these values, then there wouldn't be such huge gaps between poverty and wealthy.

I wish I could remember who this was many years ago who grossed $300 million a year. But in the overall progression and growth of humanity, is that degree of income really necessary? IMO, it's an example of the many degrees of human weakness that contributes to what I believe is our eventual demise.

"Smacked by God", or something like that, was said earlier in the thread. Regarding general reverence for 'life', it seems favorable to Mother Earth if Humans weren't here to begin with. We have proven time and time again to be a  most trifling species. There's obviously some good in us. But it seems that such goodness hasn't been as pervasive as it needs to be for humanity to truly flourish.

Or, are we actually flourishing?