Posted by bad_luck on 9/11/2014 11:29:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 9/11/2014 8:08:00 AM (view original):
I'm not sure there is a solution at this point.... More than likely the outcome will be a fall from power similar to the empires of Britian, Spain, Rome, Persia, Babylon and Egypt. History repeats itself.

Think about this....here are some common features of an empire in the declining stages of its reign:
1. Rampant sexual immorality, an aversion to marriage in favor of "living together" and an increased divorce rate all combine to undermine family stability.
2. Many foreign immigrants settle in the empire's capital and major cities.
3. Both irresponsible pleasure-seeking and pessimism increase among the people and their leaders.
4. The government provides extensive welfare for the poor



Sound familiar?

It's funny that you would compare marriage today to marriage in Rome/Persia/Babylon etc. They are completely different things.

I'm also fairly certain that none of them provided "extensive welfare for the poor."

And America has always had a lot of immigrants. That's kind of our deal. The only people that can complain are native Americans.

Rome certainly provided extensive welfare to the poor, at least within the city of Rome itself.

Posted by tecwrg on 9/11/2014 1:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 9/11/2014 1:14:00 PM (view original):
Most marriages in ancient civilizations and even in 17th and 18th century Britain were arranged. They were financial partnerships. That's different from what we have now, regardless of the divorce rate. It's an apples to oranges comparison.

If you're so concerned about the divorce rate you should be arguing for things like better education (both in general and sexual) and against things like laws that prevent people from marrying the person they love. 

More marriages --> less divorces?

How do you figure?

Well, for example, Mississippi has the highest rate of gay couples raising children. The pressure to conform is so great that many gay people get married and have kids. Usually, a gay person married to a straight person is going to lead to a divorce.

Posted by dahsdebater on 9/11/2014 1:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 9/11/2014 11:29:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 9/11/2014 8:08:00 AM (view original):
I'm not sure there is a solution at this point.... More than likely the outcome will be a fall from power similar to the empires of Britian, Spain, Rome, Persia, Babylon and Egypt. History repeats itself.

Think about this....here are some common features of an empire in the declining stages of its reign:
1. Rampant sexual immorality, an aversion to marriage in favor of "living together" and an increased divorce rate all combine to undermine family stability.
2. Many foreign immigrants settle in the empire's capital and major cities.
3. Both irresponsible pleasure-seeking and pessimism increase among the people and their leaders.
4. The government provides extensive welfare for the poor



Sound familiar?

It's funny that you would compare marriage today to marriage in Rome/Persia/Babylon etc. They are completely different things.

I'm also fairly certain that none of them provided "extensive welfare for the poor."

And America has always had a lot of immigrants. That's kind of our deal. The only people that can complain are native Americans.

Rome certainly provided extensive welfare to the poor, at least within the city of Rome itself.

For some reason I thought it was the church that provided welfare in ancient Rome. Maybe I'm remembering that incorrectly.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/11/2014 1:32:00 PM (view original):
FWIW, the same goes with divorce.   My parents divorced in the late 60s.   I was the only kid in my class with divorced parents.  Single parents didn't exist(at least not publicly).    Most 2nd graders are probably in the majority if they're single/divorced parent kids. 

Divorce rates are way, way up relative to historical values.  But do you believe that it's a sign of the weakening of the nation?  I don't think national strength is dependent on the stability of marriages.  I'm pretty sure you don't think so either.  Obviously moy does.

The one significant thing in his original argument, I think, is the rise of entertainment as a massive industry.  This has always emerged during the decline phase of massive and powerful civilizations, and it makes a lot of sense.  Once you amass enough collective wealth, there are enough people with enough disposable income to support a growing entertainment industry, and the available time to seek out entertainment.  Unfortunately, the entertainment industry takes talented people away from other pursuits that might strengthen the nation, advance science and technology, etc.  And more importantly, it distracts everyone else more of the time.  I don't think it's particularly debatable that things like TV and the internet reduce work output.  If there were no internet, people would get more work done at work.  If there were no TV, they'd probably spend more time thinking about work at home.  Particularly for people in the science and tech industries, thinking about work is important.

Again, though, I don't really think there are solutions, at least not solutions in line with the American ideal.  Without restricting people's personal freedoms you can't prevent them from wasting a bunch of time on entertainment.

For some reason I thought it was the church that provided welfare in ancient Rome. Maybe I'm remembering that incorrectly.

It wouldn't surprise me if they did, but the emperors definitely shipped in massive amounts of wheat and distributed it to the masses of poor.  And then provided them with lots of free entertainment as well.

Posted by dahsdebater on 9/11/2014 1:09:00 PM (view original):
Most of what you said was basically indicative of my point - seeing things from the perspective, it looks like, of primarily conservative news sources - and I don't agree with all of your characterizations.  I don't want to get too deeply into most of your points.  But I do have to say one thing, because I laughed out loud.

You think premarital sex was the exception 50 years ago?  During the beginning of the free love movement in the mid-60s?  Come on.  Premarital sex has ALWAYS been the norm.  It used to be more taboo to talk about it, but it absolutely happened.  Always.

I am reminded of a study I read a few years ago.  Some history professor at a small college in Massachusetts had dug up some old historical town records from his town and 2 neighboring towns.  Keep in mind, this is in Massachusetts - the heart of Puritan country - from the late 17th and early 18th centuries.  He found that the historical records showed a birth LESS than 9 months following over 50% of all marriages.  Over 50%.  Puritan Massachusetts.  You think FIFTY years ago we were above premarital sex?  We've had premarital sex since far before we were an independent country.  Since before Great Britain was a country, too.  Don't let your Christian conservative talking head news sources convince you that we're falling into a moral tailspin over this.

I'm looking at it from a purely historical perspective. I'm the last person you'd catch in a church, I'd probably burn or get struck down by lightning if I did go. I have a openly gay brother-in-law. I'm pro-choice even though me personally I would keep the baby.

What was posted was this:
. Rampant sexual immorality, an aversion to marriage in favor of "living together" and an increased divorce rate all combine to undermine family stability.

I'm not saying there is more or less premarital sex then vs now..... But the way it is VIEWED by our culture has changed drastically over the last decades.... 70s sexual revolution... 80/90s HIV outbreak... 00-10s attitude of its 'just' sex. People are dressing , at much younger ages, much differently than the flappers of the 20s.


Personally I don't care what happens.... I will live my life how I see fit. I was just pointing out the similarities to prior empires that have fallen. You decide what you want from it ;)

Posted by dahsdebater on 9/11/2014 1:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/11/2014 1:32:00 PM (view original):
FWIW, the same goes with divorce.   My parents divorced in the late 60s.   I was the only kid in my class with divorced parents.  Single parents didn't exist(at least not publicly).    Most 2nd graders are probably in the majority if they're single/divorced parent kids. 

Divorce rates are way, way up relative to historical values.  But do you believe that it's a sign of the weakening of the nation?  I don't think national strength is dependent on the stability of marriages.  I'm pretty sure you don't think so either.  Obviously moy does.

The one significant thing in his original argument, I think, is the rise of entertainment as a massive industry.  This has always emerged during the decline phase of massive and powerful civilizations, and it makes a lot of sense.  Once you amass enough collective wealth, there are enough people with enough disposable income to support a growing entertainment industry, and the available time to seek out entertainment.  Unfortunately, the entertainment industry takes talented people away from other pursuits that might strengthen the nation, advance science and technology, etc.  And more importantly, it distracts everyone else more of the time.  I don't think it's particularly debatable that things like TV and the internet reduce work output.  If there were no internet, people would get more work done at work.  If there were no TV, they'd probably spend more time thinking about work at home.  Particularly for people in the science and tech industries, thinking about work is important.

Again, though, I don't really think there are solutions, at least not solutions in line with the American ideal.  Without restricting people's personal freedoms you can't prevent them from wasting a bunch of time on entertainment.

Is divorce a sign?  No, I don't think so.   Is it a contributing factor?   Yeah, I'm pretty sure it is.   I think a functional, two-parent home is better for raising children. 

As far as entertainment, it certainly makes us dumber.   Watching a football game isn't going to make any smarter or more efficient.   Neither is Keeping up with the Kardashians. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/11/2014 1:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 9/11/2014 1:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/11/2014 1:32:00 PM (view original):
FWIW, the same goes with divorce.   My parents divorced in the late 60s.   I was the only kid in my class with divorced parents.  Single parents didn't exist(at least not publicly).    Most 2nd graders are probably in the majority if they're single/divorced parent kids. 

Divorce rates are way, way up relative to historical values.  But do you believe that it's a sign of the weakening of the nation?  I don't think national strength is dependent on the stability of marriages.  I'm pretty sure you don't think so either.  Obviously moy does.

The one significant thing in his original argument, I think, is the rise of entertainment as a massive industry.  This has always emerged during the decline phase of massive and powerful civilizations, and it makes a lot of sense.  Once you amass enough collective wealth, there are enough people with enough disposable income to support a growing entertainment industry, and the available time to seek out entertainment.  Unfortunately, the entertainment industry takes talented people away from other pursuits that might strengthen the nation, advance science and technology, etc.  And more importantly, it distracts everyone else more of the time.  I don't think it's particularly debatable that things like TV and the internet reduce work output.  If there were no internet, people would get more work done at work.  If there were no TV, they'd probably spend more time thinking about work at home.  Particularly for people in the science and tech industries, thinking about work is important.

Again, though, I don't really think there are solutions, at least not solutions in line with the American ideal.  Without restricting people's personal freedoms you can't prevent them from wasting a bunch of time on entertainment.

Is divorce a sign?  No, I don't think so.   Is it a contributing factor?   Yeah, I'm pretty sure it is.   I think a functional, two-parent home is better for raising children. 

As far as entertainment, it certainly makes us dumber.   Watching a football game isn't going to make any smarter or more efficient.   Neither is Keeping up with the Kardashians. 

Obviously a functional two parent home is best. But the question isn't functional two parent vs divorced single parent, it's dysfunctional two parent vs functional single parent households.

Functional two parent households have low rates of divorce.

Functional two-parent households were also a lot more common through virtually all of American history than they have become in the past 2-3 decades.  With divorce being much more common and much less taboo, there's a lot less incentive to work through problems.  That's not to say that there were no dysfunctional marriages in the past, but since it was seen as inevitable that you had to live with the person, I think most people did a better job of trying to at least live together functionally and congenially.  Now, with marriage feeling a lot less permanent, a lot of people seem more willing to allow smaller issues to fester and grow.

Posted by dahsdebater on 9/11/2014 3:53:00 PM (view original):
Functional two-parent households were also a lot more common through virtually all of American history than they have become in the past 2-3 decades.  With divorce being much more common and much less taboo, there's a lot less incentive to work through problems.  That's not to say that there were no dysfunctional marriages in the past, but since it was seen as inevitable that you had to live with the person, I think most people did a better job of trying to at least live together functionally and congenially.  Now, with marriage feeling a lot less permanent, a lot of people seem more willing to allow smaller issues to fester and grow.

I don't know if I agree. I think divorce, being a lot less socially acceptable, didn't happen as often but I think the people were just as unsatisfied in their relationships as they are today.

Posted by dahsdebater on 9/11/2014 3:53:00 PM (view original):
Functional two-parent households were also a lot more common through virtually all of American history than they have become in the past 2-3 decades.  With divorce being much more common and much less taboo, there's a lot less incentive to work through problems.  That's not to say that there were no dysfunctional marriages in the past, but since it was seen as inevitable that you had to live with the person, I think most people did a better job of trying to at least live together functionally and congenially.  Now, with marriage feeling a lot less permanent, a lot of people seem more willing to allow smaller issues to fester and grow.

That's sort of the thing.   If you have no other options, and divorce certainly didn't seem like one 50 years ago, you made it work. 

Posted by bad_luck on 9/11/2014 4:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 9/11/2014 3:53:00 PM (view original):
Functional two-parent households were also a lot more common through virtually all of American history than they have become in the past 2-3 decades.  With divorce being much more common and much less taboo, there's a lot less incentive to work through problems.  That's not to say that there were no dysfunctional marriages in the past, but since it was seen as inevitable that you had to live with the person, I think most people did a better job of trying to at least live together functionally and congenially.  Now, with marriage feeling a lot less permanent, a lot of people seem more willing to allow smaller issues to fester and grow.

I don't know if I agree. I think divorce, being a lot less socially acceptable, didn't happen as often but I think the people were just as unsatisfied in their relationships as they are today.

Maybe they were unsatisfied, but it was also socially unacceptable to do a lot of fighting in front of your kids.  You might not have been romantically or personally fulfilled by your marriage, but it didn't impact your ability to raise children all that significantly...

Posted by dahsdebater on 9/11/2014 7:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 9/11/2014 4:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 9/11/2014 3:53:00 PM (view original):
Functional two-parent households were also a lot more common through virtually all of American history than they have become in the past 2-3 decades.  With divorce being much more common and much less taboo, there's a lot less incentive to work through problems.  That's not to say that there were no dysfunctional marriages in the past, but since it was seen as inevitable that you had to live with the person, I think most people did a better job of trying to at least live together functionally and congenially.  Now, with marriage feeling a lot less permanent, a lot of people seem more willing to allow smaller issues to fester and grow.

I don't know if I agree. I think divorce, being a lot less socially acceptable, didn't happen as often but I think the people were just as unsatisfied in their relationships as they are today.

Maybe they were unsatisfied, but it was also socially unacceptable to do a lot of fighting in front of your kids.  You might not have been romantically or personally fulfilled by your marriage, but it didn't impact your ability to raise children all that significantly...

It's like we have this Leave It To Beaver fantasy of what life was like 40 or 50 years ago. I'm only in my 30's, so I have no idea personally, but I've heard plenty of stories from my parents about their lives as kids in the 60's and from my friends' parents and, anecdotally, it seems like parents had no problem fighting in front of their kids back in the day.

Posted by dahsdebater on 9/11/2014 7:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 9/11/2014 4:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 9/11/2014 3:53:00 PM (view original):
Functional two-parent households were also a lot more common through virtually all of American history than they have become in the past 2-3 decades.  With divorce being much more common and much less taboo, there's a lot less incentive to work through problems.  That's not to say that there were no dysfunctional marriages in the past, but since it was seen as inevitable that you had to live with the person, I think most people did a better job of trying to at least live together functionally and congenially.  Now, with marriage feeling a lot less permanent, a lot of people seem more willing to allow smaller issues to fester and grow.

I don't know if I agree. I think divorce, being a lot less socially acceptable, didn't happen as often but I think the people were just as unsatisfied in their relationships as they are today.

Maybe they were unsatisfied, but it was also socially unacceptable to do a lot of fighting in front of your kids.  You might not have been romantically or personally fulfilled by your marriage, but it didn't impact your ability to raise children all that significantly...

Despite my arguments, I think your point is valid. Divorce is very hard on kids. More divorces mean more problems.

Slowing divorce is difficult but it looks like education is one of the best ways to do it. According to BLS stats, only 26% of people with a Bachelors degree or higher get divorced.

Posted by dahsdebater on 9/9/2014 9:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 9/9/2014 8:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 9/9/2014 8:28:00 PM (view original):
You probably don't know this, but I voted for McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012.  That doesn't mean I have to agree with the bullshit that dougout spews all over the forums.

Felt AWFUL about voting for Romney, though.  Dude sucks.  Had no platform aside from basically not being Obama.  The Republican John Kerry.  If it weren't for Obamacare I could never have done it.  McCain I love.

You *still* love McCain? I voted for him in the primary in 2000 but he turned into a completely different person by 2008.

Everyone panders to extremists during primaries, and in 2008 the Republican party clearly felt they needed to market to the conservative base and work to get out the vote in their core constituency rather than trying to lure independents.  I disagree with the strategy, but perhaps they felt that on name and track record basis alone McCain would do better with independent voters.  Regardless, I give almost no consideration to what candidates do and say during elections.  I'm far more interested in track record.  There's a reason McCain got crushed in the primaries in 2000, and it's the same reason he was "a completely different person" in 2008.  Doesn't mean his actions in office would match the campaigning, hower, just as Obama's clearly have not.

McCain has turned into an embarrassment. Just another politician now.