Political Crossfire Forums

[Gilbert1908]

Carlin wrote: Quote: Drugs did become more acceptable socially and crime skyrocketed in the 30 years post 60s.

You say that like it's a bad thing. JK. Personally, there is only one illegal drug that I see as fairly socially acceptable, due to the fact it has few hazardous health effects, and that is of course weed.
You obviously need to do a bit of reading, weed, LSD, Heroin, Cocain ALL rapidly increased in usage among every strata of society(Meth, Crack and X these days) and the use of these drugs went from being shameful in almost all circles to acceptable in many and promoted in many others. There is NO question as to the link between the proliferation of drugs and the increase in violent crime in the US, and yes that is a bad thing.

Quote: Sex without marriage DID become acceptable and pregnancy rates among single women skyrocketed, which lead to fatherless children in poverty which lead to increased drug use and even more crime. And the solution to this is NOT to adjust the behavior but to terminate the life created by the irresposible behavior.

There is the fantasy that everyone prior to the 1960's only had sex in marriage and never before, that there were never fatherless children, that nobody who wanted to get an abortion could, then there's the reality that none of that was ever true. [/quote]

Where is the fantasy in the statistical correlation between relaxing of the stigma of premarital sex and the birth children out of wedlock and the virtual landslide of pregnancy among unmarried young women, who were made far less financially secure by having to support two or more mouths instead of one?


Carlin wrote: Quote: This was his point and any objective view can easily see the direct link between the relaxation of societies attitudes toward sex and drugs (thank you 60s) and the stunning increase in drug related crimes, teenage and single parent pregnancy and all of the negatives that come from young uneducated women having a child to take care of with little or no help.

It's because people don't hold to the strictest dosctrine of religion that these things happen? Maybe religious rules are oppressive towards women and to the potential development of all people?

What does religion have to do with people taking drugs or deciding too early to have irresponsible sex and then end up with children? You don't have to be religious to see it is stupid to do Meth and rob or kill people or have a child when you are 16, uneducated and unemployed. The point is that in 1960 both of those positions were held by the vast majority of people, today far too many people will say it would be MEAN to say either.


Carlin wrote: Quote: But the gentleman's point is a valid one, society has changed its moral compass and NOT for the betterment of its citizens.

Unfortunately for you, society has to move forward. Clinging to primitive, worn out and dated beliefs would inhibit that.

If we have moved forward where exactly are we going and what precisely is the measurement? Extensive proliferation of drugs and drug related crime, or the fact that if a woman is married to her baby's father she is 4 times less likely to live in poverty?

This is not about religion it is about common sense and helping people live higher quality lives.

Here is the "worn out dated beliefs" that YOU say would inhibit the "progress of the past 40 years, everyone finish high school, don't get involved with drugs or alchohol, wait until you are 22 to get married and don't have children with your spouse until you are 24 (ages are pulled out of the air the point is wait and wait). what do you think the effect would be on poverty in this United States?

No one needs to believe in God to see the common sense of these suggestions. So then why is it that we no longer stigmatize drug use as we once did and we not longer stigmatize unwed mother hood like we once did. The answer is simple, because it is more important to feel good than to DO good.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Gilbert1908 wrote: So then why is it that we no longer stigmatize drug use as we once did and we not longer stigmatize unwed mother hood like we once did. The answer is simple, because it is more important to feel good than to DO good.

So in your opinion, we could reduce the rates of teenage pregnancy and violent crime related to drug use simply by increasing the amount of social stigmatization that drug users and sexually active teens incur?

[Carlin]

[quote="Gilbert1908"] Carlin wrote: You obviously need to do a bit of reading, weed, LSD, Heroin, Cocain ALL rapidly increased in usage among every strata of society(Meth, Crack and X these days) and the use of these drugs went from being shameful in almost all circles to acceptable in many and promoted in many others. There is NO question as to the link between the proliferation of drugs and the increase in violent crime in the US, and yes that is a bad thing.

I find this unlikey, yet I could look into it further. I think there would be many variables to take into consideration when comparing drug use between generations; like people might be more forthecoming about their drug use today and a lot of drugs didn't exist until recent decades. I believe meth was invented in the 1940's then came along in the 1950's.

Quote: Sex without marriage DID become acceptable and pregnancy rates among single women skyrocketed, which lead to fatherless children in poverty which lead to increased drug use and even more crime. And the solution to this is NOT to adjust the behavior but to terminate the life created by the irresposible behavior.

I think the sexual revolution was a much needed thing. You're not going to find much of an argument from me about fatherless children. In fact, in recent years we have passed legislation to increase penalities for father's who refuse to pay child support. I don't think the answer is to shun single mother's by approaching them in grocery stores and saying,"raising children without a father is an abomination!" Screw that. The answer is educating young people about sex. With more young people enlightened about their options, the less STD's will be contracted, the less unwanted pregancies and the less abortions there will be. It's good to see you understand that a correlation exists between poverty and crime, because a lot of people fail to see that.

Quote:
Where is the fantasy in the statistical correlation between relaxing of the stigma of premarital sex and the birth children out of wedlock and the virtual landslide of pregnancy among unmarried young women, who were made far less financially secure by having to support two or more mouths instead of one?

Once again, I don't think the answer lies in creating a fanatical stigma about marriage and kids, but a stress on education.


Quote: What does religion have to do with people taking drugs or deciding too early to have irresponsible sex and then end up with children? You don't have to be religious to see it is stupid to do Meth and rob or kill people or have a child when you are 16, uneducated and unemployed. The point is that in 1960 both of those positions were held by the vast majority of people, today far too many people will say it would be MEAN to say either.

Exactly. What does religion have to do with it? That's what I've been trying to get at since the start of this thread. However, it would seem a few of you think religion has something to do with it.