Decline in morals? - Page 3

[Jishnu]

No, not really...

Are you saying that on briansmall's behalf? I understand that Qwazil told this

Ur Shmart

to briansmall.

[scru]

Morality....to define it....now we'll get all the church/religous people involved....

I hope you know why I called you an idiot. Be a little tolerant.

[zandiago]

I hope you know why I called you an idiot. Be a little tolerant.

I hope so too.

[sarehu]

Insulting is never a good thing

That is not true. Insulting is usually a good thing. The only kind of people that get affected by insults are those engaging in acts of self-deception. If one has an unjustifiably large opinion of himself, it is the duty of his fellow members of society to knock that opinion down. Those who recognize their flaws and accept their existence and those who have humility about their place in the world are not affected by insults. The truly delusional are not affected, either.

You seem to be one of the people with unjustifiably large opinions of themselves, based on how long your rambling posts are. If you felt any emotional reaction to the insulting nature of the previous sentence, then either the previous sentence is true or you are offended by the mere existence of people who are idiots. In the latter case, the former sentence is true anyway. If you felt no reaction, then you either recognize with humility that the sentence was true, or you believe that the sentence is false and that I just don't know what I'm talking about. If the latter is the case, then you are truly delusional.

If you feel affronted by the condescending nature of the preceding paragraph, then its first sentence is true. If you want to reply to this post, you are full of yourself for thinking I care about your opinion, or juvenile for caring what others think of your opinion, and so the sentence is true. Of course, at this point a whole slew of conditionals has been telegraphed, and the proposition is questionable that I would mean them to be taken seriously.

[Narue]

That is not true. Insulting is usually a good thing. The only kind of people that get affected by insults are those engaging in acts of self-deception. If one has an unjustifiably large opinion of himself, it is the duty of his fellow members of society to knock that opinion down. Those who recognize their flaws and accept their existence and those who have humility about their place in the world are not affected by insults. The truly delusional are not affected, either.

You seem to be one of the people with unjustifiably large opinions of themselves, based on how long your rambling posts are. If you felt any emotional reaction to the insulting nature of the previous sentence, then either the previous sentence is true or you are offended by the mere existence of people who are idiots. In the latter case, the former sentence is true anyway. If you felt no reaction, then you either recognize with humility that the sentence was true, or you believe that the sentence is false and that I just don't know what I'm talking about. If the latter is the case, then you are truly delusional.

If you feel affronted by the condescending nature of the preceding paragraph, then its first sentence is true. If you want to reply to this post, you are full of yourself for thinking I care about your opinion, or juvenile for caring what others think of your opinion, and so the sentence is true. Of course, at this point a whole slew of conditionals has been telegraphed, and the proposition is questionable that I would mean them to be taken seriously.

Whew. If the guy blew a gasket after my mild comments[1], I can only imagine the length of his next post when he replies to you. ;)

[1] I don't feel I was being insulting until well after I was attacked by our learned friend. In fact, I would go as far as to say that the only "insult" I offered was my final parting comment. Even then it wasn't that bad. Oh well, I've gotten used to being attacked by childish know-it-alls. At least this one can write well. :icon_rolleyes:

[briansmall]

You guys are hilarious in a sad way. You've learned every trick at bolstering your egos at the expense of looking at what others are actually saying. If you don't agree with someone, you attack the source, insisting along the way that you've been the one attacked. Meanwhile, the point that you took exception to gets lost in the haze of the confusion you create. I never attacked Narue. I did attempt to redirect her back to the issues, and in so doing escalated the situation. Such is the nature of some people. There are issues being discussed, some people are threatened by my words, and choose to insult me rather than address the content. This is pretty normal behavior among some people, they generally do attack what they don't understand or agree with. It's no different in the Geeks lounge.

Contrary to belief, I am not "full of myself" nor prone to insult, but of course, anyone who does not want to address what I say can always use that as their excuse for not being able to address the issues I put forth.

Yes, I do write more than most of you. That's because I believe in actually supporting my beliefs, rather than just posting one liners. I'm sorry people can't or are unwilling inspect their (or my)beliefs any deeper, and lay them out in order to have a real discussion. Tossing one liners about is so damned superficial.

Few people take responsibility for their thoughts. When they are called upon to explain them, they simply run away or attack, anything but provide underlying substance for their beliefs. Given the vehemence of these attacks and the odd things I can only assume it's because they have no "real" thinking of their own underlying most of what they believe.

Such is the illusion of the reality most people live in, comfortable with their thoughts, but unwilling to dig a bit deeper to see if they stand up to scrutiny.

Call me full of myself if it makes you comfortable. I am always happy, yes HAPPY to be proven wrong. It means I've learned something.

However, few of you are willing to take the time. It's like this huge ego trip of "who can post the greatest one liner, or get the most concurrence from others. All good and well until they are challenged.

Those of you who resort to this behavior are blissfully unaware of it, as I was 20 years ago. That's fine, everyone gets to be who they are.

I know who I am because I've taken thousands of hours to do the hard work of presenting my beliefs and letting others help me see where I'm wrong. If you don't want to do that, I understand. You are quite "the norm" and can take comfort in that. Meanwhile, I occasionally find someone who has taken the time to think about what they say and are willing to discuss it, and one or both of us learn from it.

[briansmall]

That is not true. Insulting is usually a good thing. The only kind of people that get affected by insults are those engaging in acts of self-deception. If one has an unjustifiably large opinion of himself, it is the duty of his fellow members of society to knock that opinion down. Those who recognize their flaws and accept their existence and those who have humility about their place in the world are not affected by insults. The truly delusional are not affected, either.

You seem to be one of the people with unjustifiably large opinions of themselves, based on how long your rambling posts are. If you felt any emotional reaction to the insulting nature of the previous sentence, then either the previous sentence is true or you are offended by the mere existence of people who are idiots. In the latter case, the former sentence is true anyway. If you felt no reaction, then you either recognize with humility that the sentence was true, or you believe that the sentence is false and that I just don't know what I'm talking about. If the latter is the case, then you are truly delusional.

If you feel affronted by the condescending nature of the preceding paragraph, then its first sentence is true. If you want to reply to this post, you are full of yourself for thinking I care about your opinion, or juvenile for caring what others think of your opinion, and so the sentence is true. Of course, at this point a whole slew of conditionals has been telegraphed, and the proposition is questionable that I would mean them to be taken seriously.

Interesting. I just re-read your post, and realized that even though you are attacking me without having understood anything I've written, and having chosen to jump on, (apparently) Narues bandwagon, that you actually do have an opinion you're expressing, and that is that "insulting is always a good thing."

I commend you for having a relatively original thought. I disagree, but still, it's impressive that you do have a body of thought behind that statement.

I would question this statement of yours: "You seem to be one of the people with unjustifiably large opinions of themselves, based on how long your rambling posts are." ... While you use the words "seem to be" and thus acknowleged that it is a passing observation / opionion, I have to wonder if you actually read my words. While it may be true that I ramble somewhat, there is always a point to my rambleing, and for the most part, the rambling is in support of that point. It would appear that you were put off by the volume and did not take time to read the content. Or, perhaps you disagree. In which case, an explanation of why you disagree would go a long way towards bringing light to the subject, while your insults do not.

I disagree that insults are evera good thing (even though I occasionally fall into the behavior myself) because insults are attacks. Anyone, attacked, tends to go into a mode of defense or counter attack. Assuming that there actually was a "point of contention" it will be lost in the fight that ensues. To stay on topic requires a degree of self control which will always yield a friendlier and more informative result.

By defending insulting others you set yourself up as a sort of mini-god who gets to decide who needs to be brought in line and who does not. But what you actually end up doing is alienating others who could ultimately have turned out to be your ally.

I appreciate that you have a supported point of view. I think that ultimately, setting yourself up to be the one who decides who should be attacked works against you. Many people inadvertantly offend others, and would respond favorably to subsequent approaches if they are not in the form of attack. But most of us will simply fight back when someone attacks us, without looking for any "good" in what is being said.

Like I initially did with you. You may well come away from all of this not likeing me or what I say. I accept that. But for me, trying to communicate about the "issues" or the subject at hand is much more beneficial in the long run than insulting everyone who I find some fault or another with.

You've gone quite out of your way to call me delusional. Why exactly is that? You seem convinced, but you have conveniently left out the reasons why, and any options in your thought stream that would allow you to be wrong about it.

Quite interesting, but tedious.

[alc6379]

Jesus H. Christ... Does that represent a decline in morals with me saying that?

I do have a question, though... And I'm not trying to jump into this flame war, but instead provide some perspective... Does it really take all these 500+ word posts to respond back to a quip, or even to the subject at hand? Verbosity tends to be ignored, whereas someone can have greater impact by being succinct.

Simple facts have been presented here... Morals haven't declined. People are just raising their kids differently (or not at all) as compared to generations past. But every generation raises their kids differently. I think that the best measure of a generation's morals is to look at how that generation raises their young.

Is it rap music's fault? No. Whose fault is it? Nobody's, the way I see it: You are set on a course of who you are as a result of your upbringing and your surroundings, to an extent. Your experiences just about automatically shape your reactions to situations later in life. But then, magically, you are given free will when you become an adult. It's up to you to decide what's right and wrong, and live with those choices. It's that simple. Morals, or lack thereof-- there are just consequences.

[vegaseat]

Given enough time all morals will decline.

[sneekula]

I guess the Roman Empire and the Bush Empire are good examples of the decline with time. Maybe just a matter of entropy.

[scru]

Sometimes you people just don't make sense... :twisted:

[Ancient Dragon]

Jesus H. Christ... Does that represent a decline in morals with me saying that?

No, just a lack of religious upbringing. If you're not a Christian then why would you (or anyone else for that matter) bother to prise His name. Or are you talking about someone else you might know. And what does the H stand for ? I could be wrong but I didn't know He has a middle name.

[EnderX]

And what does the H stand for ? I could be wrong but I didn't know He has a middle name.

He doesn't. I don't recall what it stands for, but it's off of some of the materials used in the Roman Catholic institution, which are emblazoned with, if I recall correctly, the letters IHS. I can almost see the 'I', as in pseudo-Latin, the name would have been Iesvs (I don't know enough Latin to say if that'd be correct for the original or not), but I have no clue where they claim the H and S come from.

[twomers]

In the Latin-speaking Christianity of medieval Western Europe (and so among Catholics and many Protestants today), the most common Christogram is "IHS" or "IHC", derived from the first three letters of the Greek name of Jesus, iota-eta-sigma or ΙΗΣ.

Jesus H. Christ is an example of slang serving as a mild profanity.

Wiki don't lie...

[scru]

Citation needed

[twomers]

>> Citation needed
Yeah? I'll cite your ation.

[jwenting]

Once you start down the slippery slope of banning things because they're "bad for morals" or "improper for people to see" there's no end to what someone will end up banning.

Maybe we should ban the Bible? After all, Muslims and atheists are pretty riled up about it...
Or ban the US constitution. Don't want to put ideas about freedom of expression and the right to self defence into peoples' heads when we're banning things we consider bad for them...
And of course ban opposition political parties. They're obviously wrong, and their propaganda corrupts peoples' minds into thinking improper thoughts.

[briansmall]

Jesus H. Christ... Does that represent a decline in morals with me saying that?

I do have a question, though... And I'm not trying to jump into this flame war, but instead provide some perspective... Does it really take all these 500+ word posts to respond back to a quip, or even to the subject at hand? Verbosity tends to be ignored, whereas someone can have greater impact by being succinct.

Well, there's discussion, and there's one-liners. One liners certainly present a point of view, but without supporting it. I like to support my point of view, that is, I prefer discussion to simple statements, I like to explain why I believe as I do, not just what I believe.

I can usually support my position fairly quickly, but I have found generally in forums such as this that that is not what people want. They want one liners.

If verbosity were only ignored, as is often the case, that would be that. But often, it is attacked. I have my theories on why that is, but will say only this: One liners are "safe", while having to explain yourself takes work, and is risky. (You might get proved wrong).

What I have seen is this: If my explanation "goes against the grain" or is too far off the norm, I often am challenged. This elicits more explanation from me, which is all good and well if the challenge was sincere. But often the challenge is made as a distraction, a means of trying to "win the arguement" without addressing the facts. When this happens, things often escalate before it becomes clear.

To make matters worse, forums quite often have a clique who will join the frey when one of their friends takes exception to a post. Daniweb is better than most, but it happens.

You will notice that very few people in here actually engage in discussion. That's not a bad thing, they just want to have fun and relax. One liners can be a lot of fun. I on the other hand, prefer in depth conversation, an exchange that gets down to the knitty gritty, the underlying basis of what makes you tick, what you believe, why you believe it, how far it goes.

It doesn't happen often, but it's the life I live.

[Narue]

>One liners are "safe", while having to explain yourself
>takes work, and is risky. (You might get proved wrong).
That's so true. The more you say, the more likely you are to make a minor mistake that nitpickers will jump on, the more likely you are to choose the wrong words that will cause misunderstanding, and the more likely that others will simply ignore the majority of your post and latch onto out-of-context tidbits.

>You will notice that very few people in here actually engage in discussion.
The majority of threads here (the Geeks' Lounge) are either too asinine to warrant serious discussion, or too controversial for all but the foolish or sadistic/masochistic[1]. You find more "discussion" in the technical forums, where explaining the technical details of a solution or answer is actually productive.

>I on the other hand, prefer in depth conversation <snip>
No offense, but if you want touchy feely discussions, a technical forum like Daniweb isn't the best choice. Geeks prefer to be concise and get right to the point. I can only imagine your frustration when you write a tome and get a one-liner in response.

[1] I'm using those terms in a very general way to describe how I feel about the thread topics. I'm not calling anyone here foolish or sadistic or masochistic. If anyone reading this fits that description, it's purely coincidental. So chill out before getting all insulted.

[Ancient Dragon]

If you want to get down and dirty then you can always post here and here.

[briansmall]

Thanks. You're spot-on here.

I do enjoy stirring things up a bit (for purposes of getting into a good discussion), although I don't enjoy the angst at all. I get more or less what I have come to expect.

I haven't found any better forums, not that I've looked much. (I stumbled on DaniWeb while trying to resolve a nested-if problem I had. I didn't find the solution here, (VBscript is below you guys and) so I ended up setting a true false and testing it. (I'm not much of a programmer.))
Anyway, I saw the Geeks lounge and barged in, you know the story from there.

I've (pretty much just) stumbled in to 4 or 5 such forums in my years on the net (my computer support career pre-dates the internet as-we-know-it by a fair amount) so you can see I haven't been all that active in looking for them.

Any suggestions?

[briansmall]

Thanks. The first link worked, the second does not. I'll check it out the one that works.

[Narue]

>VBscript is below you guys
With that attitude I can't imagine why qualified programmers didn't flock to your side offering help. :icon_rolleyes:

>The first link worked, the second does not.
It looks like the second has profanity in the name. You'll have to translate the asterisks before it'll work.

[Ancient Dragon]

It looks like the second has profanity in the name. You'll have to translate the asterisks before it'll work.

Yes it does. When I first posted it I tested the link and it worked. Guess the bad-words filter (or someone) edited it. Oh well, what's good for one is good for all. I just though it wouldn't apply in this case since the link was hidden from immediate view and it was a the URL of an actual non-porn site.

[briansmall]

Bob, Narue and I got off to a bad start. I worked hard to curb my frustration, I felt my point was being lost in the flames. I don't know what she experienced.

I have researched her some (she has a blog here, and she is incredibly well spoken and clearly very intelligent. So something "about me" "set her off". Maybe a misinterpretation, maybe my "type" of personality, maybe something I said that she misinterpreted, maybe she has an inclination to agree with someone else who took exception and didn't read too closely, maybe she is just inclined to see things in a way that seems confrontational. Maybe none of the above.

But I know I have done all those things before.

That said, since then we have had some exchanges that were not bad. This forum is too small for me to let it get to me. Differences of opinion, even flame wars need not be the end of things; can be forgotten.

[briansmall]

I meant you guys are simply too smart, seriously. VBScript does not even have a section on DaniWeb. BTW, I did not ask for help, I only looked for it, I'm sure someone would have been glad to help. But finding no quick answer, I worked it out myself.

I am not a decent programmer, I look for help first. Believe me, I know my limits, and coding is not likely to ever be my strong suit. I get seriously confused by the concept of methods and processes. I cannot read a manual. Honestly, my mind will not process paragraphs of esoteric information. Syntax blows my mind, I can't see the logic of it. My mind just doesn't "work that way" and never has.

Frankly, if I had not done it, I would not be able to imagine that I could make a living doing computer support for 30 years. It's all greek to me. But I know how to ask questions, do research, and perservere. I don't even have a workable memory. I have to ask people what I did for them last time, and / or write everything down that I think I'll need to know later.

What I do "get" is people. That figures in prominently, because that's primarily what I'm working with. I enjoy them, I enjoy helping them. Computers are just the tools they use, and I am willing to go where they don't want to go. And, I know I will find the answers, I can fix things.

The first link was not too interesting, at first blush it was not up to the level I'm looking for. I haven't tried to substitute words for the missing letters in the other URL, but I might. Or I might just start my own. Or not, it's awfully time consuming to do as little as I've been doing.

[MidiMagic]

In my opinion, Hollywodd is the main cause of the decline in morals. The producers, writers, directors, and actors demand "artistic freedom," but their artistic freedom often teaches people the wrong thing to do.

[scru]

In my opinion, Hollywodd is the main cause of the decline in morals. The producers, writers, directors, and actors demand "artistic freedom," but their artistic freedom often teaches people the wrong thing to do.

It always annoys beyond expression when people say things like this.

Why are people relying on Hollywood to teach them what is right from wrong anyway? How completely stupid is that?

You can't blame Hollywood for this, no. As I said before, if blame ever has to be passed, the parents must first take what belongs to them before passing the plate along (this is one meal they simply cannot skimp on).

It seems parents today are not ready to accept this kind of responsibility. Some seem to be under the delusion that their job is just to provide food and shelter, and perhaps some trips to the park and allowances. While all these things may be your job, it doesn't stop there. You have to provide moral nurturing for your child. You have to teach them what is right from what it wrong.

You cannot wiggle your way out of this job and depend on other people to do it fo you. It's a fucked up world and your kids will come out just horribly if you do. I know how daunting it seems to go through each and everything that is right from wrong that you know with your kids, but it's your job. If you don't want it, then before you open up wide, or plunge in, think about contraception. If you do not want to grow up and do your job as a parent, then you do not deserve to have a child. I'm not saying that anyone should do anything to prevent you, but it's the truth.

Even still as I get hot about the subject, a well learnt parent will know that you don't have to teach your child everything wrong and right, but just enough until the child can tell right from wrong, and has the moral grounding and maturity to choose right. Once you have properly ensured both of these things, I will not blame you for anything you child chooses to do later on in life, because then you see, the child will have nobody to blame but himself.

[Narue]

>You are not the least bit interested in anyone's "point", but your own.
You have no idea what I'm interested in, and libel is unbecoming.

I'd suggest that Briansmall deal with you the same way we used to deal with loud, obnoxious, rude, il-mannered brats; Tell you to go away, then simply ignore you. And now we don't even have to deal with the headache caused by your "noise"; we can ignore you without having to leave.

Brian, can you think of a single constructive or positive purpose to claiming "meanie" as an identity? Or does it also strike you as pointless stupidity?

This is your first post in this thread, and you clearly have malicious intent against another member. Wouldn't you agree that this can only be described as a "troll by posting anything with malicious intent against another member", as quoted directly from Daniweb's policies? Normally I would give out a warning personally, but as I'm one of the parties involved, I'll simply report your post and let the other moderators deal with you.

I recommend this to the moderators and I'll recommend it to you because it's simply a good practice all around: don't allow ill will to jump between threads. You clearly don't like me; I can deal with that. But if you go on a vendetta across threads you'll only dilute the quality of the forum, and that I have a problem with.

[bobwahler]

Welcome to the new moronity.

The kids are picking this stuff up from:
The movies; that you buy them and allow them to watch.
The music; that you buy them and allow them to listen to.
The games; that you buy them and allow them to play.
The advertising; that you teach them to believe more powerfull than their own will.
Watching everyone else do it; because now if everyone else jumps off a cliff, apparently, you must also.
We are poor helpless victims; ever since those who breed stopped COUNTERING every one of these things with maturity-appropriate filtering/coaching/lessons/explanations and character building education; a.k.a. "parenting".
Morals didn't need to be taught. They were an "aspect" of ALL that was taught.
Morals have not declined. They have been abandoned.