I agree completely. There are definitely problems in the pharmaceutical and medical industries. I recall an approved drug for morning sickness that caused birth defects, not to mention Accutane and fen-phen. I definitely agree that there are problems with the approval process and that things definitely fall through holes. Not even ruling out actual corruption within the FDA, in certain cases. I’m just saying that no regulation is not better than imperfect regulation.
You had an incompetent salesman, says the erstwhile car salesman.
The destruction of family structures brought about by the Sexual Revolution as well as certain disastrous urban policies (that is the razing of neighbourhoods and packing in its former denizens in housing projects as documented by Jacobs and others) and the rise of neoliberalism has produced a gigantic social disaster which is still going apace. Not to mention that within the context of the modern West, participation in this sort of culture exposes oneself far more strongly to the risk of rape and the like especially due to its linkage of party culture with its heavy alcohol and drug abuse-and no this does not mean that rape does not occur as long as one is “virtuous” nor that people who are sexually loose “deserve” to be raped, it is simply a statement akin to that one is more likely to be mugged at 2:00 A.M. in inner city Detroit than at noon in Newport Beach, California.
Contrary to the aspirations of the Whiggish Hedonists, attitudes towards sex hasn’t been a straight line of progress-fornication was far more approved of in the Middle Ages and the 18th Century than in the Victorian Era for example.
The family structure was broken by social security and other welfare programs. People can now operate as individuals, rather than being forced to rely on their family as a fallback mechanism.
Of course, personally, I would rather have a connection to my family because I wanted it than because it was forced on me so I wouldn’t view this as a bad thing, even though I do like my family.
So far as I am aware, the rate of and prevalence of rape is lower in more liberal areas of the nation (and the world). It just doesn’t necessarily look like it because, like trying to compare “poverty” in America to “poverty” in India, you run into the problem that the definition is different in the different countries.
If you went back to Pilgrim times in the US, they would probably only consider a case where bandits jumped out into the street, grabbed a woman, hauled her off, had their way with her, and then dropped her back in town to be an instance of rape. They wouldn’t consider it rape if that woman’s husband was in the mood and she wasn’t, but he decides to go ahead anyways. Whereas in the modern US, surveys on the subject will include questions like, “Have you ever let a man have sex with you, that you did not want, because you did not want to risk a negative reaction?” Which is clearly a lower bar.
It’s also worth noting - since it seems implicit in your statement that you would believe otherwise - that there’s no indication that people swore off sex at a higher rate in the days of yore. They just married when they were 13-15 so that their teen pregnancies weren’t unseemly. You can still see this in Mexico, according to my brother. And it basically screws people over for the rest of their life, because they have to start supporting dependents when they’re still at an age where they should be dependents themselves.
Eh, the Victorians could be huge perverts. Victorian porn is a thing, and a far cry from “exposed ankles” jokes. Even the Pilgrims weren’t as prudish as many think, probably because they confuse them with Puritans.
I’m not sure what your political views are, but that’s exactly what certain conservative opponents of the modern welfare state would say and I personally do suspect it probably played a limited role in it although I think on the whole the benefits outweighed the costs for most programs.
That is roughly equivalent to saying we shouldn’t use anti-poverty measures to reduce crime since people shouldn’t commit crimes out of personal virtue and morality. Certain policies rather than others will encourage families (and especially extended ones) to stay together or for a neighbourhood to develop greater cohesion which will in turn create a virtuous cycle of those characteristics being reinforced.
This is why I specified in the context of the developed world that (mostly) accepts modern liberal values. Within that context, people who do participate in this hook-up culture are more likely to be assaulted than those who are not.
I explicitly acknowledged that the acceptability of (and thus presumably the prevalence of) sex outside of marriage has varied in European culture. Additionally, the idea that people married as early teens as a wide practice in premodern times is a myth-it was only really the case among aristocrats while people of other social classes often married at fairly late ages depending on the particular period of time.
So what? Some families are toxic. My best friend, growing up, was beaten by his mom. My cousin’s parents were drug addicts.
Unless you’re feeling up to the task of deciding for every person in the USA which families need to stick together and which should try to distance themselves from the bad elements, I’m not seeing any value in your blanket assumption that “family togetherness” is a good thing, let alone something that the government has any place involving itself with.
Except I never advocated anything of that sort-for instance I’m not in favour of banning divorce or otherwise forcing families to live together. But that’s different from pursuing policies designed to promote the family by for example not razing existing neighbourhoods and shuffling off their populace to housing projects or guaranteeing paid family leave. My views are those of Jane Jacobs and of this article (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/building-an-underclass/) in that regard.
I don’t really care in which past or future sleeping around is/will be unacceptable. I just don’t want to live there (or rather “then”).
It already is unacceptable, just not as unacceptable as it used to be. How many ladies do you think want to be a man’s 75th? How many men want that? We’re more permissive, as in we expect that our partners have been with others. But we don’t usually like to hear that there have been so many they can’t remember all their names.
Even in the absence of STDs and pregnancy risk, moderation is always going to be considered a virtue in this regard. Like I said before, I have no issue with hook ups, it just shouldn’t be a different hook up every other day. That’s just tacky.
You mean, kind of like a pencil? :dubious:
And the millions upon millions of humans ***not ***currently in “a loving, committed relationship” are just … what, exactly? Chopped liver. Shit outta luck?
OK, if I’m understanding you correctly, we’re both in favor of paid maternal/paternal leave. Is that right? If so, then I guess my contribution to this thread is the idea that a father shouldn’t have to or want to be involved in his baby’s early years, that it’s perfectly OK for mom to stay home with the infant while dad goes right back to F/T work immediately. (This is a US-based contribution, by the way. I’m well aware that other countries are more progressive than we are on this notion.)
Okay, then I don’t want to live where you live. I’m from Holland and we’re not as backward. Or as forward, as you would have it. I will stop hijacking the thread now, it’s clear we have two incompatible viewpoints going on here.