You seem to be trying to make this personal, I don't know why. Everything under discussion in this thread is relevant in my opinion. Try to keep up.
You seem to be trying to make this personal, I don't know why. Everything under discussion in this thread is relevant in my opinion. Try to keep up.
Why is it that mysteries are always about something bad? You never hear there's a mystery, and then it's like, "Who made cookies?"
- Demetri Martin
I'm simply trying to reminder some people that the thread discussion to be about the OP, which is rising teenager suicides in modern times. For some reason it seems certain people can't stomach the grim reality enough to be able to focus on the subject.
No idea why you think I want to make it personal. Would be a waste of time.
It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.
-George Orwell
Indeed the holy nucleus family under attack from the woke is nothing more than fantasy.
Shall we have a look how glorious the times were 80 years before:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Its a simple calculation, even if only every 5th WW II veteran had beaten up his wife and children we have some 100.000 victims in every involved country of WW II.
So much to the glory old times and the holy nucleus family.
Teenager suicides have nothing to do with the (not existing) decay of nucleus family.
As starting point you could start at internet media networks like FB, Tik Tok and others, which give unlimited opportunities for cyber bullying, even people can join, which you never have seen in your whole life. The humilation is complete. You have no safe room as every youth atl is using it. Thats different to the past, where bullying happened too, but was local restricted. You could move to another school and thing were mostly ok.
Last edited by Morticia Iunia Bruti; February 27, 2023 at 03:49 PM.
Cause tomorrow is a brand-new day
And tomorrow you'll be on your way
Don't give a damn about what other people say
Because tomorrow is a brand-new day
Again, that was you. The recent past I “made up” where single parenthood was virtually unheard of compared to today is actually very real.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Endless accusations, nothing to back it up. If you have a problem with any of my citations or have some refutations to present, feel free to make the argument.cherrypicking some statistics about divorce, and laying on some heavy implications about the fallen state of contemporary society.
Which of my citations explaining this is unclear/untrue?But what is this difference you claim is so significant, between a two-parent household and a single-parent household?
The disaster you describe wasn’t caused by half the parents in the country mysteriously disappearing. The premier global civil rights group of our time is campaigning against the continued existence of the nuclear family, so they obviously must think it’s real. The effort to conflate the trend with a natural disaster in order to absolve the agency of the millions and millions of people who choose to have unprotected sex out of wedlock and then abandon their families for civil rights or because “marriage is for medieval cat burners” or whatever your point is merely confirms you’re not engaging in good faith here.Every "nuclear family" is exactly one disaster away from being a single-parent family. Seen this way, your "mountain of evidence" appears to tell us that tragedy and loss are bad.
Rhetoric isn’t an argument though. If you can somehow make sense of claiming the nuclear family simultaneously never existed and also includes single parents so is therefore real and responsible for everything you said couldn’t have been caused by medieval fantasies, feel free. It has nothing to do with anything I’ve said.I would say, from a taxonomic point of view, that the single-parent family is simply another variation of the nuclear family - one where some catastrophe or other has removed one of the parents. I expect this is a lot more likely in the absence of a robust extended family that might help buffer the impacts of problem events such as illness, infidelity, or violence. So really I think all those terrible statistics about divorce should be laid directly at the feet of the modern "nuclear family" you like so much.
One thing that should be pointed out here is that, by and large, mass shootings are themselves acts of suicide. The problem is very likely one and the same.
Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII
"Lay these words to heart, Lucilius, that you may scorn the pleasure which comes from the applause of the majority. Many men praise you; but have you any reason for being pleased with yourself, if you are a person whom the many can understand?" - Lucius Annaeus Seneca -
The recent relative decline in single parenthood is driven entirely by parents choosing to cohabit instead of get married in the first place. I’ve already addressed the differences between cohabiting outcomes vs marriage, such as the 80% chance of separation by the time kids reach adolescence. It’s certainly an improvement over single parenthood though, thus proving the rule rather than the exception. The timing does comport with the established link between deteriorating youth mental health and divorce/separation rates. Maybe in 10 years the left will pull a CCP and start telling people to get married, so long as they don’t do it in a church.
Last edited by Lord Thesaurian; February 27, 2023 at 05:05 PM.
Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII
OK, that's for the debt repayment. But that doesn't mean that if you don't have rich parents, you cannot afford a good uni unless you're a practically a genius.
Do you actually think THAT is the actual, real family? Do you honestly think that by and large, fathers visit whores every week, the uncle molests the teen and the son is a closeted gay?
I know a lot of Americans and we discuss their families. Sure, the perfect family of the commercials doesn't exist. But you would be hard pressed to find one like what you describe.
O_O
FFS!!!!
Added to First Post. Thanks Morticia.
About the Nuclear Family:
I believe a child that is brought up with the help from grandfathers and uncles/ aunts is much happier. And so are the child's parents. Not that it is impossible to raise a kid well by a family of two parents only, but it is much harder, especially before the child goes to school. The demands on time and energy make things harder. I know for a fact that all my friends and relatives are grateful for their parents and in-laws when they take the kid for a few hours off their hands.
Sure, sure, you can hire a babysitter... but most people I know trust their parents (even if they don't like their inlaws, mind you) more than babysitters. And I have friends that use babysitters for years without any issue but they still prefer the grandparents when they are available.
I consider myself blessed to have grown up in a home where my grandparents and my aunt were living one floor above and another aunt a floor below. I also treasure the time I spent with my other grandparents and my other aunt and uncles and cousins.
@Legio @Morticia @Settra @Chriscase
About the "The Nuclear family ideal started in the 50s" or "it was around for thousands of years" without doing any research I can tell you that ...
It was not easy to have a "nuclear family" before the 50s for most of the world. Simply put, the chances that one of your parents would die when you were a kid or would be a sailor (or soldier in WW2) and away from home for years at a time etc etc were high.
Morticia I understand why the idea of the nuclear families started in the 50s in Germany. Two world wars in the first half of the 20th century would unfortunately ensure that the father was not around (or was shell-shocked and traumatized) before that.
Last edited by alhoon; February 27, 2023 at 08:04 PM.
alhoon is not a member of the infamous Hoons: a (fictional) nazi-sympathizer KKK clan. Of course, no Hoon would openly admit affiliation to the uninitiated.
"Angry Uncle Gordon" describes me well.
_______________________________________________________
Beta-tester for Darthmod Empire, the default modification for Empire Total War that does not ask for your money behind patreon.
Developer of Causa Belli submod for Darthmod, headed by Hammeredalways and a ton of other people.
Developer of LtC: Random maps submod for Lands to Conquer (that brings a multitude of random maps and other features).
Actually, it does mean exactly that. If you are poor or lower middle class (which is upper middle class by most of Europe’s standards), you qualify for grants and loans that cover all your expenses (including tuition, rent, food, etc.) which you don’t have to pay back unless you make a lot of money. In other words, it’s effectively free unless it pays off for you.
Also, if you start out poor or lower middle class, because your parents are, or because you’re married and/or age 24 or older, and then make a middle class income after university, even then it will be free, or close to it, if you have a couple of kids as dependents.
As I noted, and see Chriscase’s comment on my last post, there are some issues/complications with the system for younger students whose parents’ income is above a certain threshold, but that doesn’t make your sweeping generalization/assumption valid.
I haven’t gotten the impression that Legio is arguing in favor of the nuclear family to the exclusion of the extended family. When I was growing up, I got the impression that a lot of the kids in single parent households had largely lost contact with one side of their extended family, either because the parent they live with had an adversarial relationship with the ex-in-laws or had moved far away from them.
Reasonable arguments are always made based on averages and all things being equal. Obviously, children living with one responsible parent are better off than those living with two parents who are meth addicts. So the question is if all things being equal, are statistical outcomes better for children living with both their parents, and as far as I’ve seen, the answer appears to be a solid yes.
Statistics is a funny thing, even if outcome A has a probability of 75 % and B only of 25 %, B can happen 4 time in a row.
In my experience as former trial lawyer criminals with a partial dysfunctional family would have had a better chance, if Mother, which has done the best to hold the family together, would have left the drunken, violent or drug addicted or not caring father at a early age of the probant. And in most cases the family of the father had a history of domestic violence too.
Cause tomorrow is a brand-new day
And tomorrow you'll be on your way
Don't give a damn about what other people say
Because tomorrow is a brand-new day
I have brought together in the same family things that are not very unlikely to happen (4 out of ten adult men go to whores, 1 out of ten people are not heterosexual, the figures that you show in the OP regarding the abuse suffered by adolescents). And maybe I should have added a little alcoholism.
I looked it up:
It appears that Spain is an extreme outlier among Western countries. For Spain only, Mishkin’s claim might have been roughly correct, except that the higher figures refer to having paid for sex at least once, and so don’t necessarily indicate that it is habitual as Mishkin asserted. In some of these surveys, “paid for” was lumped together with “or offered some other kind of compensation”. It may seem loserish, but the latter may even be in the context of a relationship, or be perceived as such by the man, even if the woman didn’t consider it that way. Think of guys who will spend a lot on a date with the goal of simply hooking up.A 1996 survey including of 1145 Swedish men aged 18–74 years found that 12.7% of the respondents had paid for sexual services. (Månsson, 1996) Estimates from other Western and Northern European countries have shown that about 12.9% of Norwegian men (Schei & Stigum, 2010), 11–13% of Finnish men (Haavio-Mannila & Rotkirch, 2000) had at some point paid for sex. Paying or giving other types of compensation or reimbursement for sex is a crime in Sweden since 1999, when the purchase of sexual services became illegal. The law is aimed to increase gender equality and protect vulnerable women from exploitation and violence. The Swedish strategy for gender equality also includes the aim to reduce the demand for prostitution. A 2010 longitudinal internet survey among Swedes, Norwegians, and Danes aged 18–65 investigated the effects of criminalization on the demand and purchase of sex. In Norway, the purchase of sexual services is illegal since 2009, and in Denmark, it is still legal. The proportion who reported having bought sex during the past 6 months was lowest in Sweden (0.29%), higher in Denmark (1.3%) and in Norway (0.93%). The conclusion of the authors is that the effect of criminalization is a decrease in demand and purchase of sexual services (Kotsadam & Jakobsson, 2014). In the U.S., 16% of men reported having paid for sex at least once in their lives, and 0.5% reported doing so at least once a year (Michael, Gagnon, Laumann, & Kolata, 1994). In Russia, it was found that 10–13% of men had purchased sex at least once (Haavio-Mannila & Rotkirch, 2000). In Holland the comparable figure is 14%, in Switzerland 19%, in the UK 7–10%, and in Spain 39% (Leridon, van Zesson, & Hubert, 1998). Source
Note that while 16% of men in the US reported having paid for sex at least once in their lives, only 0.5% reported having done so at least once a year. Would that 0.5% of men hold up for married men? That is less clear.
Thanks.
So, mishkin, when you claimed that "there is the real family, in which Ralph goes to whores every Friday after work" ("Ralph" presumably being the father/husband in mishkin's fantasy) and then claimed that "4 out of ten adult men go to whores" were you utilizing this outlier statistic that refers to Spain and does not say it is married men and does not say that "Ralph" does this once a week?
And US men would certainly not lie in a survey in a prudish country, where female naked nipples are a scandal and virgin rings are a thing. Even more, when its a offense.
A more realistic view on this thing in the US:
A 2004 TNS poll reported 15 percent of all men have paid for sex and 30 percent of single men over age 30 have paid for sex.[63] Over 200 men answered ads placed in Chicago area sex service classifieds for in depth interviews. Of these self-admitted "johns", 83% view buying sex as a form of addiction, 57% suspect that the women they paid were abused as children, and 40% said they are usually intoxicated when they purchase sex.[64]
The prostitution trade in the United States is estimated to generate $14 billion a year.[65] A 2012 report by Fondation Scelles indicated that there were an estimated 1 million prostitutes in the U.S.[66]
Prostitution in the United States - Wikipedia
And i think many customers are married too because they need something they are to coward to ask their wifes.
In Germany 18 % of all men between 15 and 74 years are using regularily the services of prostitutes( Udo Gerheim: Motive der männlichen Nachfrage nach käuflichem Sex. In: Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte. 9/2013, S. 44.).
According to the only representative study from the German-speaking world, about one in five German men uses a sexual service at least once in his life. [Dieter Kleiber, Doris Velten: Prostitutionskunden. 1994, S. 16–19.]
The Federal Ministry for Family Affairs estimates the number of daily prostitution customers in Germany at 1.2 million. [https://www.tagesspiegel.de/kultur/p...g-791038.html].
So please be realistic.
Cause tomorrow is a brand-new day
And tomorrow you'll be on your way
Don't give a damn about what other people say
Because tomorrow is a brand-new day
Morticia attempts to dismiss the survey data that sumskilz supplied (16% of US men have paid for sex) by questioning the honesty of US men (seems both racist and sexist).
To back up this up Morticia then provides more "realistic" data that says 15% of US men have paid for sex.
Morticia even helpfully bolds and underlines it...
So is the 15% in Morticia's preferred source or the 16% in the source sumskilz provided "more realistic"?
Last edited by Infidel144; February 28, 2023 at 06:21 AM.
Yeah i know a critical scientific approach on polls or surveys is too much for the common republican Trump voter out there like "Maybe the numbers are only so low because in a prudish conservative bigot society like the US men have a strong motive to not disclose, that they are going to prostitutes?".
Even more, when its so low in a country with so much porn industry, sexual serial murders and rapes in general and on prostitutes.
But have fun celebrating your imagined victory.
The US man is certainly not going less to prostitutes than the german man.
Last edited by Morticia Iunia Bruti; February 28, 2023 at 06:39 AM.
Cause tomorrow is a brand-new day
And tomorrow you'll be on your way
Don't give a damn about what other people say
Because tomorrow is a brand-new day
Last edited by Infidel144; February 28, 2023 at 06:55 AM.
No both are worse, as we don't know how many have lied because of religious shame or wife is hearing the telephon poll from the other telephon in the bedroom too.
And both are worse, as they are calculating young men between 15 and 25 in, which are in the prime time of getting sexual contacts in school, college university.
Relevant are the men + 25 and there are 30% of single men going to prostitutes - and i'm missing the married men here, whats another weakness in this study.
A wedding ring doesn't make you to a saint without sexual fetishes/desires/wishes.
And in Mishkin's example it is a married man. So if we want to compare numbers with his case, we must took the teenagers and twens out.
Cause tomorrow is a brand-new day
And tomorrow you'll be on your way
Don't give a damn about what other people say
Because tomorrow is a brand-new day
@Morticia and @Mishkin, our doubts are not about the numbers of men that have paid for sex a couple of times in their lives but the quite outrageous claim that 40% of men habitually and frequently make use of such services.
Furthermore @Mishkin, I don't know where the 10% of non-heterosexuals comes from. Last I checked, credible numbers were at 3%-5% if we exclude people that would have a threesome or consider sex in prison.
You claimed in the past that sexual assault is more likely inside the family, which I also don't remember any source for. <== on the other hand, I believe sexual assault in the close family (including uncles and cousins) would be under-reported compared to say, a guy in school or at the gym putting his hands where he's not supposed to. Or old ex-presidents barging in the changing room of beauty pageants. Or current presidents being too frisky with their female secret service agents.
All in all, my point here is that the examples you claim are far more uncommon than you mention.
That said:
@Infidel, do you honestly think the sex industry of USA, from streetwalkers to high class prostitutes, is held aloft by 15% of the men going to them once or twice in their lives? Really?
Or do you think married men would admit to making use of such services? Which, as far as I know, are illegal in most of USA.
Last edited by alhoon; February 28, 2023 at 07:13 AM.
alhoon is not a member of the infamous Hoons: a (fictional) nazi-sympathizer KKK clan. Of course, no Hoon would openly admit affiliation to the uninitiated.
"Angry Uncle Gordon" describes me well.
_______________________________________________________
Beta-tester for Darthmod Empire, the default modification for Empire Total War that does not ask for your money behind patreon.
Developer of Causa Belli submod for Darthmod, headed by Hammeredalways and a ton of other people.
Developer of LtC: Random maps submod for Lands to Conquer (that brings a multitude of random maps and other features).
Only because you are calculating the Teens and Twens and the Grandpas in, which would like to go too, but can't anymore, have lost the interest.
Cause tomorrow is a brand-new day
And tomorrow you'll be on your way
Don't give a damn about what other people say
Because tomorrow is a brand-new day