Decline in morals? - Page 4

[bobwahler]

>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.

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.

When I challenged why you would express something you "were sure someone else would consider" an offense, you accused me of "treating you like dirt."

I apologize to the others in this thread. It was an inappropriate post. I do believe that you are less respectful of others than you "expect" them to be towards you. But you are right. That is between us.

I regret posting an unproductive contribution. If I am to be "sanctioned" in some way, so be it.

[briansmall]

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.

No Bob, please get a grip. I agree we must try, but I say that many people lack the skills. You can call them morons if it makes you feel better somehow, I prefer to call them ill-equipped.

I don't know who you mean by "You" .. you can not be talking about me because you don't have any idea how I raised my children and for that matter how they turned out.

Somehow you seem to have it in your head that kids live in a bubble created by their parents and that nothing else impacts them. Not so.

Regardless of what the parents do and say, kids will be influenced by forces that are, today, often greater (as in more powerful) than they, the parents are. And for that matter, the parents are influenced by these forces as well, making it difficult to have clear vision.

In fact, you seem to be a perfect example of this influence. You look the world around you and condemn it, .. why? Because you "hear about" and "see" all these "terrible" things going on. but if you look very closely, you will see that morality is alive and well, it's just in a different form. I cannot and I am sure that you can not precisely measure the exact ratio of those who are moral to those who are not compared to times past. To do so you would have to enter the mind of every person who is alive or has ever lived.

The media has you believing that the world is a scary (immoral) place. In this way, you have been influenced in exactly the way I am speaking. Sixty years ago we didn't have so much input telling us about the bad / immoral people, very damned little input in fact.

Yet, history is full of them, there's never been a shortage. It's just that now they have more powerful weapons. But are the ratios worse? I don't know, but I think if so, it's not as much as you think. I see a lot of moral people around me, and, if when I look closely, everywhere I care to look.

Blaming people is incredibly easy to do. Looking for the cause behind their actions is much much harder.

I do believe in making a best effort, and frankly I know very few who do not. Even the ones with "bad" kids are usually trying, they really are. Look at them. Listen to their words. they simply dont have the skills. There have been people like that since the beginning of time ... so to speak.

Have morals declined, or has the world just left you behind? I'm sixty Bob, and I'm determined not to fall in to the trap of condemning that which I do not understand. That's a big part of the problem right there, and it looks to me as though you may have fallen in to it yourself. How can you give your kids relevant advice if you are still stuck back in the 50s?

Morality is an easy concept to understand, but humans are not always prepared to break a complex situation down to its unique properties and make decisions at that level. If you can do so, I applaud you. Most people are not as smart as you. Cut them some slack. They might be as moral as you or me. You cannot make their decisions for them. God forbid.

Regardless of bad decisions we may make, most kids are bright and can see through much of the crap, given enough time. If we are basically good, they will know that. We can then hope that the rest of the world does not get to them and break them.

But if it does, I don't know that that means that morality has declined. I'd just say that the frenzy of interaction with each other has become more intense and convoluted, making it more difficult to determine exactly where to apply the morality.

I simply don't believe that life is as simple as you make it out to be. Concepts can be simple, but life is not.

It is extremely clear that we will not agree that parents are (simply) the ones to blame as you seem to think.

So let's wind this down. We said our piece. If you want the last say, take it.

[briansmall]

Yea, a long post from Scru. I love it.

Scru, I don't need to repeat myself, this thread and "Should Kids Be Spanked" have an over-abundance of my thoughts on the subject.

As I've said repeatedly, "It's easy to blame, it's much harder to see the underlying cause." Blame simply does not help. But finding the underlying causes (and they are many and complex) can be beneficial. By having done so, one has contributed to the solution, rather than simply offsetting the blame to some "other party".

Not that you have stated otherwise, in my opinion, blaming "the parents" is no different from blaming "hollywood" ... Both contribute to the problems, but it's deeper than that; there is underlying cause for the behavior that needs to be addressed.

I do not believe that anyone "(relies) on hollywood to teach them." But there's a buck to be made, and hollywood is pursuing it, and it is definitely influencing behavior.

And, there has always been a cross section of the parenting skills you so aptly refer to. The question on the table is whether there is more or less of it. I say it's probably about the same, and that our problem actually lies elsewhere.

But first, we'd have to define what the problem is.. (I don't think it's morality that is really at issue, and you can be assured that my thinking does not end there.)

I'm glad you weighed in, I particularly like ... if blame ever has to be passed, the parents must first take what belongs to them before passing the plate along ... and ... 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 ...

[bobwahler]

Brian,
First, NO I was NOT referring to "you". But who do you think is "providing" children the access to these games, CD's, movies and the like?

True, we have fundamental disagreement on "responsibility". And I do believe that you are sincerely presenting a "considered" opinion. So while it may not be apparent, I AM trying to understand how we come to such different conclussions; while seeing many of the same things.
That said, I believe we, as a society have become corrupt; and yes, abandon our moral "obligation", along with most of our "sense".
I've just deleted another attempt to support my position. I will instead try and concisely identify a flaw in your reasoning.
Fact: there is a market for a book on parenting by Lynne Spears. I will assume that the implications on society of her "teaching" how to parent is as clear as a Vegas marquee. My question to you has to do with those people we both know WILL purchase, consume and apply her "expertise"; there will be enough to make it a profitable publication, and even one will diminish the human gene pool. What external influence do you believe made those people stupid enough to want to know how she did it? (please acknowledge, it WILL sell a lot of copies)
I've enjoyed the discussion though.
Thanks, (BTW, I don't have to have the last say. so feel free if you wish)

[bobwahler]

I think I have the difference.
Brian, you state:"there is underlying cause for the behavior that needs to be addressed."
THIS is a significant point of disagreement between us. And it really does have to do with simplicity.
I believe the "behavior" needs to be addressed. We can discuss the "causes", but the behavior HAS to stop. And while I suspect you will argue the practicality, I will tell you what I used to tell my employees; understanding is optional.
In other words, society doesn't give a damn "why" you stop at stop signs. Whether you do it because it's a rule or because an evil squirrel will attack you if you don't has absolutely no practical impact on society. Identifying why our society is becoming more violent and dishonest is not going to save our society. Stopping the violence and dishonesty is what will do that. The ONLY authority able to ensure that children learn character and decency are the parents; further, since it was their choice to have the children, I find it reasonable that they accept this responsibility.
No other influence CAN override the affect of parents; but parents CAN override the affect of every external influence. Yes it is hard; that's one reason I didn't have kids.

[briansmall]

Brian,
First, NO I was NOT referring to "you". But who do you think is "providing" children the access to these games, CD's, movies and the like?

True, we have fundamental disagreement on "responsibility". And I do believe that you are sincerely presenting a "considered" opinion. So while it may not be apparent, I AM trying to understand how we come to such different conclussions; while seeing many of the same things.
That said, I believe we, as a society have become corrupt; and yes, abandon our moral "obligation", along with most of our "sense".
I've just deleted another attempt to support my position. I will instead try and concisely identify a flaw in your reasoning.
Fact: there is a market for a book on parenting by Lynne Spears. I will assume that the implications on society of her "teaching" how to parent is as clear as a Vegas marquee. My question to you has to do with those people we both know WILL purchase, consume and apply her "expertise"; there will be enough to make it a profitable publication, and even one will diminish the human gene pool. What external influence do you believe made those people stupid enough to want to know how she did it? (please acknowledge, it WILL sell a lot of copies)
I've enjoyed the discussion though.
Thanks, (BTW, I don't have to have the last say. so feel free if you wish)

Nice. Let's see what I can do with this. First, let me say that I too have enjoyed this exchange, and where I've indicated any disrespect of your position, well, I wish I had not. (The heat of the moment sometimes carries me away.)

(As for the last say, I wonder if we will ever be done with this? :-)

All I can say is that you are pointing to the problem. I've not said (in this thread) what I think the problem is although I've danced around it.

So I'll say it now. The primary force behind that which gives us the feeling that things have become worse, is: Greed.

Each man probably has a bout the same amount of greed today as he man has always had. But technology has made it possible for more people cash in, in much bigger ways than ever before.

So here it is, technology, which most of us in here are supporting very directly, is the tool of this greed. And this technology is a very recent phenomenun.

Unfortunately, it's often hard to pinpoint where making a living ends and greed takes over. Of course, some cases are very clear. Would Lynne Spears book would be a matter of greedy publishers exploiting the public? ... Or are they just making a living?

We make choices at every point. Many of them are bad. But in business, the bottom line reigns supreme. There is incredible pressure everywhere for this to be so.

We all want to enjoy the benefits of technology. Anyone in here drive a 40 year old car? I applaud you. Now, how many of you people actually wish you could afford a newer one? Ah, the list of those who are satisfied with "just enough" grows smaller.

Does everyone understand this implication of a "Global Economy"? Ultimately, it demands that the entire world end up with approximately the same standard of living. But,

Is life fair?

Of course not. And technology is making it all the more obvious and lopsided.

As an aside, just because it's on my mind:

[Will Google sell out to the government, to Corporate America, to the highest bidder? Will they be forced to? Have they already? Or will they just use the information to their own ends?

In any case, when did it become okay for someone to keep every keystroke ever passed through their service, forever? To my way of thinking, that's just another of those things that got put over on us because we could not foresee it.

There is so much money to be made in Googles servers that I can only begin to fathom it. And I don't see that this won't hurt people in the long run, in ways that ... will be glossed over because it's just too damned profitable to give up.]

Back to the subject, do we really need more commerce in order to standardize living, or to improve mans lot in life? I say NO! We have plenty of technolgy to do that, but it is not as profitable for those "at the top".

[Hey, this is America. But we are NOT practicing Capitalism, nor Democracy.]

We are looking in the wrong places if we want the quality of our lives to improve, to stop the feeling that things are "going down hill". The feeling is not a question of morality. Our sense that morality is on the wane is but a symptom of a larger illness.

Yes, we care as much as we ever did, but we are wrapped up in the process that we find ourselves a process that is sick... but only if you are compassionate towards your fellow man.

The solutions to our problems will not come from pursuing money in and of itself, but we all have to do so to one degree or another, and we all contribute to "the problem" by doing so.

The work we have to do to fix what is wrong is not "built in" to our system, or, I should say, it's not a particularly profitable part of it.

[briansmall]

I think I have the difference.
Brian, you state:"there is underlying cause for the behavior that needs to be addressed."
THIS is a significant point of disagreement between us. And it really does have to do with simplicity.

I believe the "behavior" needs to be addressed. We can discuss the "causes", but the behavior HAS to stop. And while I suspect you will argue the practicality, I will tell you what I used to tell my employees; understanding is optional.

In other words, society doesn't give a damn "why" you stop at stop signs. Whether you do it because it's a rule or because an evil squirrel will attack you if you don't has absolutely no practical impact on society.

Identifying why our society is becoming more violent and dishonest is not going to save our society. Stopping the violence and dishonesty is what will do that. The ONLY authority able to ensure that children learn character and decency are the parents; further, since it was their choice to have the children, I find it reasonable that they accept this responsibility.

No other influence CAN override the affect of parents; but parents CAN override the affect of every external influence. Yes it is hard; that's one reason I didn't have kids.

Authority? Parents can not "stop" kids behavior. they cannot do so in practice, they certainly can not any longer do it by the law. If you were to have kids Bob, not one, but at least two, not 50 years ago, but now, you'd see. You especially would see that your position simply does not work.

You are actually describing a police state, whether on the parental level, or on a social level. It cannot work.

Identifying the cause is the only means to addressing it.

[bobwahler]

No, I'm talking about parental authority and OVERSIGHT as it was for centuries.
Parents can't stop kids behavior??? Our parents sure did. And if parents can't, then it can not be done. And if it can not be done, then civilization is doomed; because kids are not going to socialize themselves. Our congress is already discovering that the social skills picked up by toddlers on their own are insufficient.

[bobwahler]

As an aside, just because it's on my mind:

[Will Google sell out to the government, to Corporate America, to the highest bidder? Will they be forced to? Have they already? Or will they just use the information to their own ends?

In any case, when did it become okay for someone to keep every keystroke ever passed through their service, forever? To my way of thinking, that's just another of those things that got put over on us because we could not foresee it.

There is so much money to be made in Googles servers that I can only begin to fathom it. And I don't see that this won't hurt people in the long run, in ways that ... will be glossed over because it's just too damned profitable to give up.]

Back to the subject, do we really need more commerce in order to standardize living, or to improve mans lot in life? I say NO! We have plenty of technolgy to do that, but it is not as profitable for those "at the top".

[Hey, this is America. But we are NOT practicing Capitalism, nor Democracy.]

Ah Google. I've warned people about the "unique" clauses in their service/license agreemeents for years. People have been far to casual granting "rights" to everything of theirs that Google touches.

They won't "sell" anything. But they will "license" EVERYTHING.

[bobwahler]

Oooooooooooo,
Now it's getting very interesting. And as usual, finding the answer is much easier than finding the question.

>>So I'll say it now. The primary force behind that which gives us the feeling that things have become worse, is: Greed.

Each man probably has a bout the same amount of greed today as he man has always had. But technology has made it possible for more people cash in, in much bigger ways than ever before.<<

Same picture, different perspective.
I agree that greed is primary, and I suspect it is relatively unchanged. But those things that used to keep it in check (morals, ethics, honor) have been devalued. Greed is off it's leash. And that is producing the "problem", as I see it. Worse still, I believe that envy IS increasing; and this I agree, is encouraged by those transistors letting us see what others have. But greed only requires that I win. Envy demands that you lose.

Further, fiduciary authority or duty is needed to take more than your share (greed). But envy can be acted on by anyone with physical access to property of others. I'd bet at least a couple pesos that more people are pissed about what Bill Gates has than are pissed about what they are paid relative to their boss. Just a bet.

[briansmall]

No, I'm talking about parental authority and OVERSIGHT as it was for centuries.
Parents can't stop kids behavior??? Our parents sure did. And if parents can't, then it can not be done. And if it can not be done, then civilization is doomed; because kids are not going to socialize themselves. Our congress is already discovering that the social skills picked up by toddlers on their own are insufficient.

And you are making a HUGE assumption that the oversight is no longer happening. I disagree, right there. You only "feel" it is not happening, because of the other that lead you to believe this.

I say that parents care and are doing all they can, (given their particular skill-sets). They just can't make the all of the difference you think they can and should.

I say too that it has become harder, but not because proportionally "less" parents care, but simply because it is, indeed harder to parent today than it was 60 years ago.

Finally I say that the ratios have not changed all that much in terms of how many bad parents, and how many bad children they are, BUT that the actions of society make it look as though things are a lot worse.

Fear is a great motivator. It is insinuated into most advertising and is a primary factor in commerce. "Madison Avenue" has known this for a LONG time, but has become extremely proficient in using it. There is a symbiosis that simply evolves between the various mediums, it's not a conspiracy per se, but it's "like" one. Newspapers sell fear, and commerce makes money. Advertisors sell fear straight out. The symbiosis is too subtley insinuated to "prove" but it works.

I honestly don't think things are that much worse than when I was a child, on a per-capita basis. Yes, they are strange - might I say, horrendously strange in some cases, but I see good people everywhere, just tryin' to get by.

My sense is that the numbers are up in total, but not in ratio, and I think it's important to keep that perspective. Mankind may be doomed, but it's not because of what we've been discussing. It's because he's going too fast and is creating problems perhaps faster than he can solve them.

This, everyone feels. It's part of the sense of doom and gloom. But, not understanding that sense, we grab the nearest lable, a quick "hot button" issue, and assign our feelings to it.

In that sense, we are asleep, because we are lulled into a sense that we know what the problem is, when in fact we haven't even come close to identifying it.

We run around screaming that "the sky is falling" when in fact we are being bombarded by ... so many other things, but not the sky itself.

As long as we keep thinking it is the sky that is falling, the real problems can just go on as they have been ... which keeps everyone happy, because no one really wants to do the hard work.

[Twinkles]

not long ago ... my Brother in law taught his the 12 year old son... when answering the phone to someone say a Marketer ... to be very rude to them to get them not to call their home... I was more than appalled .. it shocked the crap out of me.. when I said this to my sister ... she told me well its his right to have an oppinion... ummmmm no he is 12 he has no oppinion yet its theirs he has.... this is not the first time I heard this ... other parents have said this too... teaching their kids to be rude to whom they please... because its their right... well sorry Its not.... where did good parental guidence go ?

[briansmall]

not long ago ... my Brother in law taught his the 12 year old son... when answering the phone to someone say a Marketer ... to be very rude to them to get them not to call their home... I was more than appalled .. it shocked the crap out of me.. when I said this to my sister ... she told me well its his right to have an opinion... ummmmm no he is 12 he has no opinion yet its theirs he has.... this is not the first time I heard this ... other parents have said this too... teaching their kids to be rude to whom they please... because its their right... well sorry Its not.... where did good parental guidence go ?

Well you are right, 12 year old sons are particularly susceptable to such input. but look at it another way, the kid probably loves having "someone" that he is allowed to be rude to. In other words, behavior that is just itching to come out has a place.

Telemarketers have chosen to be rude to you. They chose the job, they are exhibiting very rude behavior.

The father has taught his son that it's okay to use the expediency of rudeness to people who are being rude to you. Maybe it's not the best lesson he could give, but it's certainly not the worst.

It's certainly not the same as being "rude to who you please."

[Twinkles]

of course greed is a part of it but its not all... conceited behavior is part ...for example of my nephew ... his father teaches him that because he can... he feels he is better than someone else...

[Twinkles]

agreed about the telemarketers behavior ... but see this does not just stop with being rude on the phone ... it spills over to calling people names too ... and other behaviors .. that is just as bad.. and no its not the worse but when you add them all together... the morals are not there anymore... and thats sad to me...

[Ene Uran]

The mild way to deal with Telemarketers is to say: "Just a moment, I will get my mother."

Lay the phone on the table and let them wait, waste their time, they will eventually hang up.

Wait a minute, that could be a nice new thread.

[twomers]

Hehe.
My buddy once started talking like he was the 'home owner' and had the person on the phone for half an hour. Sounding like a very encouraged and likely customer. Then the telemarketer asked if he would like to subscribe and he said "Well I'm not the bill payer, am I?".

[scru]

hahahaha

[bobwahler]

My personal favorite was an investment telemarketer, with a "tip".
After telling me how well it would do, he used the close, "and we could all use more money, right?" I answered "no". Half way through his next sentence he stopped and attempted to recover, "no really?" I said, "no really. If I had any more money I just wouldn't know what to do with it anyway."
He wrestled, quite clumsily, for a moment. Then, when I wouldn't budge, he excused himself.

When board, it can also be fun seeing just how long you can keep THEM on the call.

[neocoder]

I prefer responding to the requirements of each situation, driven by clearly being able to see what is required. A kind of absolute pragmatism. All it requires is clarity, which is not the easy part.

[Ancient Dragon]

My personal favorite was an investment telemarketer, with a "tip".
After telling me how well it would do, he used the close, "and we could all use more money, right?" I answered "no". Half way through his next sentence he stopped and attempted to recover, "no really?" I said, "no really. If I had any more money I just wouldn't know what to do with it anyway."
He wrestled, quite clumsily, for a moment. Then, when I wouldn't budge, he excused himself.

When board, it can also be fun seeing just how long you can keep THEM on the call.

That is funny, it reminded me of some obscene phone calls I started getting about 20 years ago when I lived in California -- they were all from the same young lady (girl). Finally I got tired of them so I kept her on the line, the longer I talked the more vaulger I became. After talking about all the dead women I had in my back yard she hang up :) I never heard from her again (whew!)

[Lardmeister]

That is funny, it reminded me of some obscene phone calls I started getting about 20 years ago when I lived in California -- they were all from the same young lady (girl). Finally I got tired of them so I kept her on the line, the longer I talked the more vaulger I became. After talking about all the dead women I had in my back yard she hang up :) I never heard from her again (whew!)

I am susprised the cops didn't come and dig up your yard.

Back to the topic, I notice the largest lack of morals in older folks.

[atish00]

BAN RAP ? NO WAY!!!! Such a govt. will be upthrown within a day. Or the city jail will be full of teens.

tsounds like the song "Hip - Hop police" where they ban hip hop in the US.

[jwenting]

Or the city jail will be full of teens.

Best place for them. Might teach them to listen to adults instead of badmouthing them, mugging them, and generally being obnoxious.

[Lardmeister]

Best place for them. Might teach them to listen to adults instead of badmouthing them, mugging them, and generally being obnoxious.

Prison is the best place to learn, if you want to be a good criminal.

[neocoder]

Prison is the best place to learn, if you want to be a good criminal.

There are a lot of really ordinary people in prison too, who are not particularly criminal nor smart, just screwed up.

[Lardmeister]

There are a lot of really ordinary people in prison too, who are not particularly criminal nor smart, just screwed up.

In the US prisons are so full, that we would ever put ordinary people there.

[atish00]

read a story by Oscar wilde bout a guy called sopy we went to prison on purpose so that he will get atleast blankents and 3 meals.

[jwenting]

Prison is the best place to learn, if you want to be a good criminal.

That stay in prison should be short, violent, and terminal.

[neocoder]

In the US prisons are so full, that we would ever put ordinary people there.

You would be unpleasantly surprised. In the US, many prisons are privatised and operate manufacturing facilities using inmates as workers, turning a significant profit. Their emphasis has turned away from rehabilitation towards profit. It is in their interests, often unconsciously, to retain inmates. Overcrowding cuts costs, while encouraging aggressive behavior, leading to extended sentences (and institutionalisation) and thus a steady work force. There is opposition to privatisation of prisons in this country. Its like something out of a cyberpunk novel, quite dystopian.