What evidence is there that “pre and extramarital sex” has increased? The teen pregnancy rate has gone DOWN, as has been noted many times. Do you have any evidence that there is more sexual/other abuse of children now as opposed to in the past? That is why many disagree with you. Because we think you have the facts just plain wrong.
Come on, New Deal Democrat, you’re not even trying to understand what I’m saying. What I said was:
> Most of the comments here, not just New Deal Democrat’s, have trivialized the
> issue.
What you replied to that was:
> There is nothing trivial about that truth at all.
Can’t see that you’ve just completely missed my point there? The truth about this issue is certainly not trivial. What I said was trivial was most of the comments made in this thread. A lot of the posts have been just throwaway snide remarks that don’t address the issue in any useful way. Your comments have actually been among the ones that most seriously address the issue. I think your posts are really attempting to understand this issue. Your problem is not that most of your posts are particularly trivial or silly, but that you often get the facts wrong.
Respectfully, Wendell, I also took issue with “Most of the comments here, not just New Deal Democrat’s, have trivialized the issue.”
While New Deal Democrat is indeed guilty of jumbled statistics without cites, which he has somewhat corrected, I wouldn’t say he is trivializing the issue at all. I do agree however with a general “most of the comments have trivialized the issue.”
I also agree that children have been the big losers of the sexual revolution, in general. More are being harmed today by the results of the sexual revolution than were being harmed before by being in bad families. The “family” situation is far worse. As far as solving social ills, the sexual revolution was like treating a headache with a handgun; the cure is worse than the problem.
I think that someone who wants to discuss an inportant issue but is content with citing random (and often incorrect) statistics is trivializing that important issue. He may not be trivializing it as much as the people who just spit out snide offhand comments, but he is trivializing it. If you think that an issue is important enough to talk about, then it is important enough to research thoroughly. To say something as arrogant as this:
> The only reason anyone disagrees with me is that I am stepping on toes.
is to imply that you don’t really care to carefully argue your case. This is saying that you don’t believe anyone is listening to you anyway, so it’s O.K. to treat them as idiots. If the people on the SDMB are truly idiots, then it’s a waste of time to argue with them, so quit doing it.
David42 writes:
> I also agree that children have been the big losers of the sexual revolution, in
> general. More are being harmed today by the results of the sexual revolution
> than were being harmed before by being in bad families. The “family” situation
> is far worse. As far as solving social ills, the sexual revolution was like treating a
> headache with a handgun; the cure is worse than the problem.
Give me some reliable statistics showing that these things are true.
And before you made that comment, he corrected himself and made four citations, yet you argue he trivializes it anyway. Perhaps you’re trivializing the issue by fussing over his debate skills, or lack thereof, instead of reading his four cites?
I’ll stand on the cites **New Deal Democrat **offered, I was merely agreeing with his point of view regarding the same things he already said, to some extent.
David42 writes:
> I’ll stand on the cites New Deal Democrat offered
What cites? He’s given lots of random citations, and I have no idea which ones you are talking about.
There’s this little thingy, a wheel in fact, on this thingy called a mouse, and it lets you scroll the page up. I’m figuring it takes me, if I’m really stoned and drunk, about five seconds to scroll up and find the cites New Deal Democrat proffered for your educational pleasure.
Now I’m just guessing I’ve spent ten seconds actually writing this post. Coupling those ideas, I’m lead to an idea of asking you the question: “Just how far do you want me to take your good faith?”
Or, I suppose I could have typed post #113 and played the game. My two seconds to tell you you could’ve spent five seconds if you were paying attention?
How long am I supposed to take this seriously?
Or is it too presumptious of me to presume you’ve actually read the thread?
New Deal Democrat has given lots of random statistics. Which ones support the claims that you have made?
I guess you didn’t read my above comment wherein I identified the post, so it’s about time to let you take the stage repeating yourself that you didn’t receive enough information to figure out what cites are in post #113, so I am going to conclude from that guess that you are functionally illiterate and instead hope that someone else comes along that I can talk with.
A coherent argument is not throwing out a random collection of anecdotes and statistics and saying, “This supports my conclusion. You have to figure out the structure of the argument yourself.” A coherent argument is a structure. You have to give some theoretical statements, some statistics, and some anecdotes and show using some logical inferences that these support a subconclusion. You do this for however many subconclusions are necessary. You then use the subconclusions to build some higher-level subconclusions. You continue to build them up (in a sort of tree structure) until you reach the ultimate conclusion of your argument. The random collection of anecdotes, statistics, and (rather shaky) theories about what is good for children that you and New Deal Democrat have offered don’t build up to a coherent argument. This is too bad. You and New Deal Democrat actually have an interesting case to make, but you can’t be bothered to make it.
Again you seem more focused on New Deal Democrat’s debating skills, or lack thereof, than in showing any evidence you actually looked at the cites he proffered, cites, which, I might add, you demanded. After he delivered, you first, in three posts, pretended he hadn’t, and then when it was made plain that he had, you shifted modes into “lack of coherent argument;” yet your demand for a citation infers you had already conceded a coherent argument when you asked for proof of the facts the argument was based on. If you fail to understand the argument to begin with, ask for clarification befoire you ask for proof of fact. There’s a simple reason for that–you might be asking for proof of the wrong fact.
This is sophomoric “debating” but I suppose I’ll forgive you a fourth time, at least, just so long as you don’t repeat your last post a second time.
New Deal Democrat has not offered a coherent argument, and you should know that. He has merely thrown out random statistics. Some of those statistics are wrong, and he has not shown in what way this affects his argument. There’s no structure in his statements, and there isn’t much in your statements either. You just keep saying that the argument is already there when it clearly isn’t.
Dood, like, yeah, dig it, there’s some major femininity on the beach by the bonfire, and one of their boyfriends just texted me that the males were off for a fight against some dweebs, and like, I’m figuring we could grab some brewskis and go mac cause the guys are all gonna go to jail, and like, we can get them drunk and convince the babes they were all just testosterone laden jerks anyway, so like, hey man, you listenin’, hey like are you in or out?
hey I heard those babes got some righteous weed, too dood, did I mention that?
I still think the ball is in your court, Mr. Wagner, to discuss the citations you demanded rather than debate whether or not New Deal Democrat has sufficient debating skills to engage Your Worthiness.
Start talking about the content of his citations, (hint hint)
Burp. Sorry ladies, no I don’t usually bring my laptop to bonfires–yes romance is in the air–YES! I’ll stop talking to the pseudointellectual at the straight dope–
Hey, you wanna nother beer? cause, like my buddy brought a bunch, an…
Hell no I don’t like Lady Gaga. I’m outta here.
:dubious: What kind of gibberish is this?
The same sort you’ll get out of me the next time you shout CITE! CITE! and then proceed by refusing any rational discussion on the cites already posted, like Wendell did.
That’s not what he did. Also:
That seems more like a dismissal of how bad things were for a great many people. And including all those children that you want to “protect” by having them grow up and live miserable lives. Especially the girls, who get to grow up to be chattel. Live-in servants and sex toys, basically.
Er, cites must come WITH rational discussion.
NDD made an argument, with specific claims.
Cites were demanded.
NDD provided cites, none of which on their face appear to offer any support to the claims he’d previously made.
He was called out on that, and invited to connect his cites to his prior argument.
At this point you jumped in, with some completely random multi-post blather about brewskis. I submit it is you who does not understand the context of the discussion, and equally, you who are engaging in