Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 6/12/2002 10:21:47 PM EDT
[url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,49779,00.html[/url] Most parents don't want their children having sex, hoping they'll abstain until their older. But now, a new book not yet released says that may be a bad thing. In Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex, it's author, Judith Levine, says parents should recognize their children as sexual beings and that in some instances, sex between adults and minors may actually be a good thing. As you may expect this has parents around the country in a uproar.
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 10:25:34 PM EDT
Sounds like SHTF to me...
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 10:33:24 PM EDT
(Another can-o-worms....)
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 10:33:43 PM EDT
Playing Devil's Advocate, laws in Europe are much less restrictive than the US. England has a consent age of 16, Netherlands has one of 14. Neither seems to have any sort of noticeable problem with those laws.
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 10:36:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BobCole: Playing Devil's Advocate, laws in Europe are much less restrictive than the US. England has a consent age of 16, Netherlands has one of 14. Neither seems to have any sort of noticeable problem with those laws.
View Quote
Forgot about that.... I guess 'Us Americans' are way too controling then.......
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 10:39:06 PM EDT
I may have reached my limit of disgust with this nation. Sgtar15
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 10:43:40 PM EDT
In the book they are talking about things like a relationship between someone 16 or 17 and someone in twenties or thirties- like that DOESENT happen in real life. Fox is sensationalizing this by choosing to use the Sarah Brady/HCI trick of translating the legal term "minor" as "child"
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 10:58:41 PM EDT
And what is the NEXT thing we shouldn't protect children against? Or in a larger sense, what other perversion is "actually good for society and should be 'normalized' "? Some beings have as their mission removing whatever moral fiber remains at society's core.
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 1:32:31 AM EDT
Originally Posted By danh01: [url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,49779,00.html[/url] Most parents don't want their children having sex, hoping they'll abstain until their older. But now, a new book not yet released says that may be a bad thing. In Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex, it's author, Judith Levine, says parents should recognize their children as sexual beings and that in some instances, sex between adults and minors may actually be a good thing. As you may expect this has parents around the country in a uproar.
View Quote
So, she is like endorsing incest? Or does it just sound like it? Scott
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 1:42:54 AM EDT
Sounds like the beeeeeotch was funded by NAMBLA.
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 3:34:23 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 3:42:13 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 3:53:11 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Maynard: Rome is burning and I am not sure we can put out the flames.
View Quote
Sit back and play your fiddle, Nero my boy... the_reject
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 4:04:32 AM EDT
As a parent I don't give a good greasy shit what anybody says is right for my kids. As I heard a thousand times from my mom and dad, "As long as you're living in my house....".
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 4:35:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/13/2002 4:38:46 AM EDT by Sundrop]
Originally Posted By sgtar15: I may have reached my limit of disgust with this nation. Sgtar15
View Quote
There was a time when the population of the whole world thought it was flat and not a sphere. The very fact that the earth was round was once thought to be extremely controversial. There are many books which are controversial and this is apparently one which draws controversy before it is even sold. I wouldn't be so disgusted until the evidence can be weighed and it certainly has nothing to do with this nation. If freedom of speech and freedom of the press is an issue, you'll have to seek your own answers to this dilemma Jim Edited for clarity
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 5:50:38 AM EDT
I just read where the book's "forward" was written by Joslyn Elders. Credibility = zero. Jay [img]http://www.commspeed.net/jmurray/images/iroc-cop.gif[/img]
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 6:04:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/13/2002 6:04:49 AM EDT by The_Macallan]
Originally Posted By Maynard: I don't remember which member here said this but it wasn't too long ago, maybe a month or two, it was during a conversation about how homosexuality is being promoted by the media and he warned that the next taboo or perversion to be promoted would be sex with children. Prophetic indeed. Rome is burning and I am not sure we can put out the flames.
View Quote
[b]That would be me![/b] [url]http://ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=99536&page=1[/url]: ---------------------------------------------------------- In the history of American debauchery since the sixties... 1st came women's lib and free love. ('60s) Then abortion-on-demand. ('70s) Then anti-family, anti-marriage attacks. ('80s) Then homosexuality. ('90s) [b]Next will be pedophilia[/b] - AND YOU CAN BET YOUR LIFE ON IT. Like those progressive, open-minded Europeans, children will be sexualized as toddlers, taught that their bodies are for sex, and that older adult "[b]sex-mentors[/b]" are necessary to help "guide" them through childhood and puberty. Kids aged 8, 10 or 12 will be encouraged to explore their newfound sexual feelings and express them in the "safety" of an adult "tutor/counselor". Watch for the coming signs: * More "jokes" and movies and sitcom themes hinting at it (first we joke, then we confront, then we accept - it worked for gays) * Political movements to increase rights for children (lower the voting age, drinking age, etc.) Kids these days are smarter than we were back then ya' know. * Psychiatric "studies" indicating that "gentle and caring" adult/child sex is not as damaging to children as we previously thought. * A few cases of adult/child relationships (adult women/young teen males will be the first) will be highly publicized, though not criticized by the non-judgemental Media. This is the watershed towards "progressive" discussions about "tolerating" some of these "loving and healthy consensual" relationships. MARK MY WORDS - SHORT OF A CULTURAL REVOLUTION OR DIRECT INTERVENTION BY GOD, IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN AS SURE AS THE SUN RISES IN THE EAST. --------------------------------------------------------
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 6:14:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/13/2002 6:15:34 AM EDT by The_Macallan]
Originally Posted By BobCole: Playing Devil's Advocate, laws in Europe are much less restrictive than the US. England has a consent age of 16, Netherlands has one of 14. Neither seems to have any sort of noticeable problem with those laws.
View Quote
Didn't we fight a Revolutionary War and two G*dDamn World Wars so that we wouldn't have to live like they do in Europe?? [;D] I hardly think the degenerate "culture" of the Netherlands has anything worth emulating. And ya' know, they banned guns in England a while back, should we start doing that too?? [pissed]
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 6:17:47 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 6:19:17 AM EDT
I don't think Dr. Vines said his comments about Mohammed being a peophile a day too late.
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 6:21:14 AM EDT
Originally Posted By BobCole: Playing Devil's Advocate, laws in Europe are much less restrictive than the US. England has a consent age of 16, Netherlands has one of 14. Neither seems to have any sort of noticeable problem with those laws.
View Quote
until recently (months ago) japan didnt have one. now its 13.
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 6:27:11 AM EDT
So if I want to sell a LOT of books, I should come up with a really controversial subject and make really outrageous statements. I'm gonna have to get cracking. Possible subjects: Necrophilia: The Dead Can Have Fun Too! Autoerotic-asphyxiation Can Improve Your Sex Life
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 7:33:00 AM EDT
Did anyone receive an email about this thread from someone who seems to be Blaze of Glory?
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 8:20:08 AM EDT
Originally Posted By BobCole: Playing Devil's Advocate, laws in Europe are much less restrictive than the US. England has a consent age of 16, Netherlands has one of 14. Neither seems to have any sort of noticeable problem with those laws.
View Quote
Hell, we can do better, how about 13? Why, the original Mohammad had 12 wives, the youngest being 9 yo. Sick Phuck
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 8:24:41 AM EDT
It was only in the last century here in America (and elsewhere) that marriage between very young teenagers was extremely common. I think my grandmother was 14 when she married. I'm sure others here have ancestors married at similar ages.
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 8:32:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/13/2002 8:33:43 AM EDT by The_Macallan]
Originally Posted By punkatomic: It was only in the last century here in America (and elsewhere) that marriage between very young teenagers was extremely common. I think my grandmother was 14 when she married. I'm sure others here have ancestors married at similar ages.
View Quote
Yeah, and the average lifespan was 42. And that was also a time when it took 16 pregnancies to make four healthy children who actually survived infancy and childhood. You think today's teenagers would make good parents? Hell, they can't even make a "cheeseburger no-pickle" at Burger King without screwing it up.
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 8:36:39 AM EDT
Originally Posted By punkatomic: It was only in the last century here in America (and elsewhere) that marriage between very young teenagers was extremely common. I think my grandmother was 14 when she married. I'm sure others here have ancestors married at similar ages.
View Quote
but you miss the point that chronological age has no bearing on maturity and readiness for things. when your grandmother was 14, she was probably considered a young adult (equivalent in some sense to today's 18-21 year olds). today's 14 y/o are still children in the sense of maturity and ability to think rationally. geesh, not to mention that when our grandparents and great grandparents were growing up, maturity and responsibility were actually taught and favored in this society. not true today. selfish egoism supercedes personal responsibility and consideration of others. that alone makes a 14 y/o of yesteryear far ahead of the 14 y/o today. caveat: there are exceptions to every rule and some young teenagers today are more responsible and mature than adults. but they are just exceptions, regrettably so.
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 8:39:10 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Wadman: Did anyone receive an email about this thread from someone who seems to be Blaze of Glory?
View Quote
Yep...it made my day and ranks right up there with this jury duty.
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 8:48:31 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 9:07:07 AM EDT
Originally Posted By rn45: Why am I getting the impression that Judith Levine likes young boys?
View Quote
Well the story is gone, I guess Fox doesn't archive. But if you saw her picture I think you'd understand she isn't interested in males of any age. But I bet a nice young brownie scout would really perk her and her friend Paula Poundstone right up.
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 9:11:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/14/2002 1:59:26 AM EDT by Am-O-Tramp]
Sounds like A Democrat that sees a possible international tourism business in the making. I can see it now. Come to America and have sex with our little children. Get free breakfasts and condoms. For group discounts please call ahead. Stoning these creeps is to civil a punishment.
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 9:12:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By danh01: But if you saw her picture I think you'd understand she isn't interested in males of any age. But I bet a nice young brownie scout would really perk her and her friend Paula Poundstone right up.
View Quote
I had the story still up from this morning...hth [img]http://www.foxnews.com/images/52333/2_23_200_greta_levine.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 9:12:49 AM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: In the history of American debauchery since the sixties... 1st came women's lib and free love. ('60s)
View Quote
Personally, I kinda liked that free love era of the '60s and early '70s. Ya hadda be there.
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 9:16:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/13/2002 9:16:47 AM EDT by The_Macallan]
Originally Posted By Houston:
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: In the history of American debauchery since the sixties... 1st came women's lib and free love. ('60s)
View Quote
Personally, I kinda liked that free love era of the '60s and early '70s. Ya hadda be there.
View Quote
Many were there and didn't become hedonistic hippies. But thanks anyway for your contribution to American degeneracy. [;)]
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 9:20:40 AM EDT
How come when I said we should break this country up people flamed me but now rn45 is suggesting the same thing and it's ok? I've been saying this forever, our country is too politically diverse to remain as one nation. There are too many groups of people with diametrically opposed points of view toward basic human things like morality and personal responsibility. There are two ways of resolving this, either we split up, or we'll have to turn to an empire like Rome did and have a dictator decide all issues. There's no way a representative government can respresent such ideologically different groups of people. The foundation behind the nation-state is the common ground between the various groups of people in the nation.
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 9:21:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/13/2002 9:32:57 AM EDT by GunLaw]
The age of consent varies greatly. In many countries, it is set by the national law. In the United States, it is a matter of state law. See where your "favorite" country or your state stands: [url=http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm]Age of Consent[/url] Yeah, thanks, Houston. I have been trying to edit the link to get it to work. Let's try this.
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 9:26:30 AM EDT
Originally Posted By GunLaw: The age of consent varies greatly. In many countries, it is set by the national law. In the United States, it is a matter of state law. See where your "favorite" country or your state stands: [url=http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm]Age of Consent[/url]
View Quote
You've got two sets of www's in your link.
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 10:43:17 AM EDT
Originally Posted By jz02: How come when I said we should break this country up people flamed me but now rn45 is suggesting the same thing and it's ok? I've been saying this forever, our country is too politically diverse to remain as one nation. There are too many groups of people with diametrically opposed points of view toward basic human things like morality and personal responsibility. There are two ways of resolving this, either we split up, or we'll have to turn to an empire like Rome did and have a dictator decide all issues. There's no way a representative government can respresent such ideologically different groups of people. The foundation behind the nation-state is the common ground between the various groups of people in the nation.
View Quote
no, you're wrong. there's a third way to solve this. and it's the way that most countries end up trying to solve such large schisms. it's called civil war. and generally, the two sides don't end up agreeing to disagree resulting in the creation of 2 independent nations. it's winner takes all. and frankly, i'd like to try and be that winner, thank you very much. fwiw, i fail to see how becoming like the roman empire is much of an option. aside from the fact that it wouldn't do any good for either side, i don't see it happening here. america would be lost long before we unded up in a situation where a dictator had control. at least IMO.
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 10:45:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/13/2002 10:50:08 AM EDT by punkatomic]
Quote from ARlady: "but you miss the point that chronological age has no bearing on maturity and readiness for things. when your grandmother was 14, she was probably considered a young adult (equivalent in some sense to today's 18-21 year olds). today's 14 y/o are still children in the sense of maturity and ability to think rationally. geesh, not to mention that when our grandparents and great grandparents were growing up, maturity and responsibility were actually taught and favored in this society. not true today. selfish egoism supercedes personal responsibility and consideration of others. that alone makes a 14 y/o of yesteryear far ahead of the 14 y/o today. caveat: there are exceptions to every rule and some young teenagers today are more responsible and mature than adults. but they are just exceptions, regrettably so." No, I didn't miss the point. I suppose you were around back 100 years ago so you know the difference in maturity levels. Did you know that many cultures have different attitudes about age of consent? And some of them don't have MTV? If you're going to comment on social issues then we should all be aware that you only consider what is your own personal experience as seen through your own subjective filter. And, I do appreciate your veiwpoint. I know I cannot say what people were like generations ago, or in different parts of the world. There is, however, all types of variation throughout human history and we only know intimately less than 10 decades of experience. That children under 16 engage in sex is not shocking, nor is it necessarily wrong either.
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 11:00:06 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 11:23:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By punkatomic: No, I didn't miss the point. I suppose you were around back 100 years ago so you know the difference in maturity levels. Did you know that many cultures have different attitudes about age of consent? And some of them don't have MTV?
View Quote
first, i don't have to have personal, intimate experience with something to have knowledge about it. there are these things called books. i can get more knowledge from them than a hundred lifetimes of experience could ever get me.
If you're going to comment on social issues then we should all be aware that you only consider what is your own personal experience as seen through your own subjective filter. And, I do appreciate your veiwpoint. I know I cannot say what people were like generations ago, or in different parts of the world. There is, however, all types of variation throughout human history and we only know intimately less than 10 decades of experience. That children under 16 engage in sex is not shocking, nor is it necessarily wrong either.
View Quote
i think you and i agree, maybe. chronological age isn't the issue. maturity and responsibility along with cultural aspects of society are. what you failed to mention in your post is that culture plays a large role in determining when a female (or male) is "ready" for marriage and sex. your post made it sound like since it was okay back then or in some other culture, it was okay period. at least that's how i read it. as you yourself would admit, this isn't the case. the post i quoted sounded an awful lot like justifying or even sanctioning sex with youngsters because it's been okay in the past or in other cultures. is this what you were saying? "say what you mean and mean what you say."
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 11:33:11 AM EDT
ARLady, your outcome of civil war would also be the most disruptive and destructive outcome. For one thing, such a war could last a long time, generations. By which time there'd be few people alive to remember what peace was like. That is how you destroy what thousands of years of western civilization has built. I don't know about you, but I have a problem with people trying to force their beliefs down other people's throats. I think we've progressed quite a bit since the 1860s and people won't tolerate another civil war like that.
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 12:27:57 PM EDT
The Korean age of consent caught my eye. (13!!). Boy, they start young.... Scott
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 1:51:11 PM EDT
Pop Stand: What's 'Harmful to Minors'? Secrecy and shame Kristin Tillotson Published Apr 15, 2002 Warning: This column is about kids and sex. If you'd like to call and voice your outrage before reading it, please press 9 at the prompt. This will signal that I can return the favor by publicly assessing your complaint before I listen to it. Over the past two weeks, just such a rush to judgment has given the kind of publicity most authors only dream of to the book "Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Kids From Sex," by New York journalist and activist Judith Levine. A month before it even will be for sale, the book has drawn fire from sources including a national association called Concerned Women for America and state House Majority Leader Tim Pawlenty (R-Eagan), who called it "outrageous" and an "endorsement of child molestation." Levine, her book and its publisher, the University of Minnesota Press, were condemned by people who had not yet read a word -- written by her, at least. And why not? Acting on blind wrath worked for the people who announced that fatwa against Salman Rushdie. I've read the entire book, talked with Levine and weighed the criticism. My conclusion: Most of the outrage concerns what the book is not about -- the championing of pedophilia and luring young innocents into lives of wanton sex with anyone who'll have them. What the book is primarily about: • Debunking the exaggerated threats of kidnapping, child pornography and pedophilia as epidemics from which no family is safe. • Looking at how children in America, especially girls, are made to feel ashamed about sexual desire and are denied the information necessary to deal with it in a healthy way. "With children and teens, we have to balance our respect for their own perceptions with our obligation, as adults, to know better," Levine said during a phone interview earlier this week. "And as they grow, that balance changes." Uh-huh. Those are the words of a depraved madwoman, all right. Here are some more, from the book's foreword by former U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Joycelyn Elders: "Children must be taught sexual ethics and responsibility, inside and outside the home, just as they are taught to behave in any number of public and private arenas. Teaching children to have self-respect, to feel good about themselves, to make good decisions: to me, that is sexuality education." The critics have called the University of Minnesota Press irresponsible for publishing the book, prompting an external review. Here's what I call irresponsible: fueling hysteria in the name of self-promotion. Concerned Women for America -- a relatively obscure group on the national radar, until now -- sent out a press release claiming that Levine "advocates" molestation of children and that the University of Minnesota's Regents should fire "those responsible" for the publication of this "evil tome." If they don't, "the people of Minnesota and their elected representatives should move quickly to replace them."
View Quote
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 1:52:38 PM EDT
Concerned Women bills itself as "the nation's largest public-policy women's organization," which might come as a surprise to that neighborhood sewing circle known as the National Organization for Women. Funny thing is, three of its six top mouthpieces are men. On CWA's Web site, these spokes people claim to specialize in such fields as "the Homosexual Agenda" and "Sanctity of Life." Pawlenty, who said he'd never heard of CWA, makes a far more articulate and reasonable foe -- now that he has read some excerpts. "Levine wordsmiths her way around things by saying our society should be more open and accepting," he said. "But she argues that in certain cases, sex between adults and kids as young as 13 may be appropriate. That's bunk. It's not appropriate, under any circumstance. She tries to deflect the criticism by saying people are picking out just one thing in her book. But that one thing is idiotic." The most scalding of several hot buttons has been Levine's assertion that not all sex between kids and adults is bad -- a statement the author contends is being taken out of context: "The research shows that not every person who reports having had sex with an adult while a teen thinks of it as a bad experience," she said. "By the time kids get to be teens in this culture, if they have been well prepared and educated, it's realistic and positive to respect what they say, and believe they can tell the difference between coercion and consent. Often, the same people who think kids are old enough to be tried as adults and go to jail think those same kids should not be allowed to feel sexual pleasure." Which brings us to another of the book's boiling points. The topic of sexual pleasure is hardly new, but it manages to polarize people in a society that still tends to equate sex with Very Bad Things. "We used to frame sexuality questions around the concept of sin -- now it's been updated to sickness," Levine said. "It's always about a problem, never about something good, which is the opposite of how we should approach the subject with teens." Levine, who spent three months in the Twin Cities in 1998, devotes several pages of "Harmful to Minors" to praising its safe-sex education efforts, youth programs and dedication to children's welfare. "It's interesting this [controversy] is happening in Minnesota, which has a socially progressive history, and where the U of M has been a leader in sexual research and education," she said. "There is such a great community of people who really care about kids here." Levine says she cares about kids, too. I believe her. She is not pro-pedophilia. She is not the Timothy Leary of sex. She is a woman who believes that kids kept in the dark about sexual matters don't suddenly know how to make the right decisions the day they turn 18 and that adults who think they can keep children from sexual fantasies and exploration by not talking about them are incredibly naive. Some of Levine's ideas are radical. And that's OK; they don't have to be implemented. When taken from the book, in context, these ideas might be used as an opportunity to examine personal beliefs and spark discussions, rather than induce knee-jerk, fear-based reactions. This is just my opinion, of course. But before giving it, I read the book. -- Kristin Tillotson is at ktillotson@startribune.com .
View Quote
Link Posted: 6/14/2002 1:41:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/14/2002 1:43:11 AM EDT by punkatomic]
[/quote] >"i think you and i agree, maybe. chronological age isn't the issue. maturity and responsibility along with cultural aspects of society are. what you failed to mention in your post is that culture plays a large role in determining when a female (or male) is "ready" for marriage and sex. your post made it sound like since it was okay back then or in some other culture, it was okay period. at least that's how i read it. as you yourself would admit, this isn't the case. the post i quoted sounded an awful lot like justifying or even sanctioning sex with youngsters because it's been okay in the past or in other cultures. is this what you were saying? "say what you mean and mean what you say.">[/quote] My response: OK, I know what I mean, and I know what's right for me and I know what the law says, So, sex with minors is out. In other cultures, people view sex differently. A lot of the reason why sex with minors is outlawed , especially in complex societies with class stratification, has to do with parents wanting to avoid having offspring mate with the lower classes. In more egalitarian societies where caste distinctions are unheard of there may not be this taboo. Certainly, America views sex with minors taboo. So, one has to ask themselves what makes it wrong in their mind. I guess it has to do with keeping our children away from bad people for most of us. The_Macallan should know, BTW, that my grandmother lived into her eighties and all of her offspring survived birth and still are living. I am in favor of premarital sex as love is often consumated before the ceremony. Also, children are sexual beings, I know I was, I just didn't get lucky as soon as I wanted. You have to admit kids of 13 and younger have feelings and will experiment. Look at the Catholic Church right now, attitudes forbidding certain kinds of sex sometimes are the most perverted. Heavy guilt about touching yourself and having thoughts of fornication have screwed up millions of people through the ages. And, then they become priests, a bigger issue than our culture and kids and sex in the context of this thread.
Link Posted: 6/14/2002 2:43:15 AM EDT
Originally Posted By rn45: Why am I getting the impression that Judith Levine likes young boys?
View Quote
Actually, if I remember correctly, she admitted she had a relationsip with an older man when she was in her mid-teens. BTW, this is old news. Their was an uproar over this back in March or April of this year, and it was linked by foxnews.com then. Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...
Link Posted: 6/14/2002 2:50:06 AM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Originally Posted By Houston:
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: In the history of American debauchery since the sixties... 1st came women's lib and free love. ('60s)
View Quote
Personally, I kinda liked that free love era of the '60s and early '70s. Ya hadda be there.
View Quote
Many were there and didn't become hedonistic hippies.
View Quote
True, but some did come away with scorching cases of herpes. [}:D] Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...
Link Posted: 6/14/2002 3:04:48 AM EDT
Originally Posted By jz02: ARLady, your outcome of civil war would also be the most disruptive and destructive outcome. For one thing, such a war could last a long time, generations. By which time there'd be few people alive to remember what peace was like. That is how you destroy what thousands of years of western civilization has built. I don't know about you, but I have a problem with people trying to force their beliefs down other people's throats. I think we've progressed quite a bit since the 1860s and people won't tolerate another civil war like that.
View Quote
Wow, for someone not yet out of high school, you seem to have quite a grasp on history. But you forget that most people forget that history rather quickly, and in some places they don't even teach that the Civil War was a hellish campaign that took a great toll on both sides. Here is my take on it. The current system of government is failing. The left doesn't trust the government. Neither does the right. The people who are supposed to represent us don't. They lie to us to get elected and then think that we gave them cart blanche to push their own agenda. Society is crumbling at every turn. We've got kids shooting up schools who have no respect for human life, yet the citizens blame it on the implements because society at large no longer understands taking responsibility for one's actions. It's one big toilet full of problems and someone needs to get the plunger before it blows up. Unless the government remembers that it is of the people and not over the people, I'm afraid there will some terrible consequences. They won't happen soon, but I would wager within 50-100 years America as we know it will be no more. Unfortunately, I would not expect an armed revolt of citizens to have a chance against an organized standing army, so any revolt of the people would likely fail. Or, it would be a military coup, and who knows what happens then. When given the scenario of: The government and society fixes themselves. or The people revolt. or The military takes over. Which one do you think is more likely to happen? Odd enough, several years ago, I told a friend that there was soon to be a moral/ethical backlash in society, and it would be like the 60's never happened. And at the time, I was deviant in many ways. However, I've changed my ways, but it seems that I was wrong. Society isn't going to swing back to less radical values. It's just going to get worse. Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...
Link Posted: 6/14/2002 8:02:25 AM EDT
Originally Posted By jz02: ARLady, your outcome of civil war would also be the most disruptive and destructive outcome. For one thing, such a war could last a long time, generations. By which time there'd be few people alive to remember what peace was like. That is how you destroy what thousands of years of western civilization has built. I don't know about you, but I have a problem with people trying to force their beliefs down other people's throats. I think we've progressed quite a bit since the 1860s and people won't tolerate another civil war like that.
View Quote
it isn't MY outcome. it's what history has taught us is most likely to happen when a country is divided so deeply that nothing set up in the inner-workings (no elections, no impeachments, no laws) can fix it. i think you're extremely naive if you think that civil war is the least likely of outcomes. i see it as the most likely. i think that first there will probably be a progression towards a more totalitarian government, but good people like us will never let that happen. voila! "and we have ourselves a war, people." i'm reminded of the scene in BHD when the somolia militia guy had the american pilot in captivity. he said (loosely paraphrased): the fighting would go on forever. "without victory, there will not be peace." in other words, his people would fight the war until THEY won. as long as there was one of them alive, the war was not over. don't be so naive to think that people fight wars to reach a compromise. it's precisely because a compromise couldn't be reached that war began. [b]rn45[/b], i am looking forward to meeting you. when is that indiana shoot, btw?
Link Posted: 6/14/2002 8:09:37 AM EDT
Will SOMEBODY please lock this thread? Every time I see the topic's title my stomach feels like expressing itself.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top