Disturbing Statistics

[sr71plt]

I don't trust these statistics in the slightest.

I can believe that the issues exist. But, no, I don't believe in the credibility of such "X ratio of people believe this" statistics.

 

[TE999]

Again, when you have nothing of substance to post, you might as well just rail and try to be funny (backing out of the room with a sloppy grin on your face and trying not to show the nervous sweat).

I sure as Hell wouldn't be backing into a room if you were standing there with a sloppy grin on your face.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I sure as Hell wouldn't be backing into a room if you were standing there with a sloppy grin on your face.

Bigots attack gay folk for *being gay.*

And for some reason they often imagine that every single gay man in the universe wants to fuck them in their precious and unique butthole.

It's laughable-- and transparent. And should be embarrassing.

 

[sr71plt]

I sure as Hell wouldn't be backing into a room if you were standing there with a sloppy grin on your face.

I don't mind in the least you being so revealing to the forum folks on your prejudices. I've just been helping you along in showing yourself.

 

[Harry Leg]

I don't trust these statistics in the slightest.

You dont have to. I'm not entirely sure I do either. Maybe they're inaccurate, or just plain wrong. It doesnt really matter though. The issue still exists. You can see evidence supporting that almost everywhere you look. You dont need numbers to tell you that there is a problem.

 

[Exquisition]

50% of all 3 to 6 year-old girls worry about being fat

15% to 18% of girls under 12 now wear mascara, eyeliner and lipstick regularly

25% of young American women would rather win America's Next Top Model than the Nobel Peace Prize

Maybe Im out of touch but I found these statistics sadly disturbing.

Taken from this article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-bloom/how-to-talk-to-little-gir_b_882510.html

Aren't articles such as these designed to evoke exactly this type of response? I mean, EVERY generation looks wistfully back and says "in my day it was never like this...." doesn't it? Personally, I HATE articles like this that paint these 'worrying' scenarios. I guarantee you could find articles from 100 years ago with a similar bent.

 

[sr71plt]

Aren't articles such as these designed to evoke exactly this type of response? I mean, EVERY generation looks wistfully back and says "in my day it was never like this...." doesn't it? Personally, I HATE articles like this that paint these 'worrying' scenarios. I guarantee you could find articles from 100 years ago with a similar bent.

Well, yes. That's the recognized polling method these days. Look at your agenda and then devise a poll that gets the statistics to match the agenda.

As I noted before, though, I think these are real issues. I just don't need fake or impossible-to-get statistics to recognize them as real issues. I guess you could get a star from a popular TV series to do a commercial saying that they big problems. That seems to be popular these days.

 

[oggbashan]

Aren't articles such as these designed to evoke exactly this type of response? I mean, EVERY generation looks wistfully back and says "in my day it was never like this...." doesn't it? Personally, I HATE articles like this that paint these 'worrying' scenarios. I guarantee you could find articles from 100 years ago with a similar bent.

The Ancient Greeks and Romans moaned about the younger generations. There are similar moans in The Bible.

Cicero 106 -43BC: O tempora, O mores! (O what times, what habits!)

Horace 65-8BC:

1. Difficilis, querulus, laudator temporis acti se puero, castigator, censorque minorum. Multa ferunt anni venientes commoda secum, multa recendentes adimunt.
(Testy, a grumbler, inclined to praise the way the world went when he was a boy, to play the critic and censor of the new generation. The tide of years as it rises brings many conveniences, as it ebbs carries many away.)

2. Aetas parentum peior avis tulit
Nos nequiores, mox daturos
Progenium vitiosiorem.
(Our sires' age was worse than our grandsires'. We their sons are more worthless than they: so in our turn we shall give the world a progeny yet more corrupt.)

 

[Lokishoney]

Hmmmmm....

 

[TE999]

Bigots attack gay folk for *being gay.*

And for some reason they often imagine that every single gay man in the universe wants to fuck them in their precious and unique butthole.

It's laughable-- and transparent. And should be embarrassing.

All's fair in love and flame war, Stella. Although I will admit I was being intellectually lazy and hurtful in my choice of ripostes to SR. That was totally beneath me and I should have known better. I promise to consider my remarks more carefully in the future. Personally I don't care what anyone's sexual orientation is and whatever kinks go with it. It doesn't affect me.

I don't mind in the least you being so revealing to the forum folks on your prejudices. I've just been helping you along in showing yourself.

Is that what you were doing? And here I just thought you were being your usual smarmy self. See my reply to Stella up there for clarification on my past remarks to you since I saw her post first.

Sexual orientation aside, you're still a bleeding heart Liberal and I do enjoy a verbal joust with you on occasion as long as we stick to the subject.

 

[Exquisition]

The Ancient Greeks and Romans moaned about the younger generations. There are similar moans in The Bible.

Cicero 106 -43BC: O tempora, O mores! (O what times, what habits!)

Horace 65-8BC:

1. Difficilis, querulus, laudator temporis acti se puero, castigator, censorque minorum. Multa ferunt anni venientes commoda secum, multa recendentes adimunt.
(Testy, a grumbler, inclined to praise the way the world went when he was a boy, to play the critic and censor of the new generation. The tide of years as it rises brings many conveniences, as it ebbs carries many away.)

2. Aetas parentum peior avis tulit
Nos nequiores, mox daturos
Progenium vitiosiorem.
(Our sires' age was worse than our grandsires'. We their sons are more worthless than they: so in our turn we shall give the world a progeny yet more corrupt.)

Oggbashan : fantastic post - thanks.

 

[Exquisition]

All's fair in love and flame war, Stella. Although I will admit I was being intellectually lazy and hurtful in my choice of ripostes to SR. That was totally beneath me and I should have known better. I promise to consider my remarks more carefully in the future. Personally I don't care what anyone's sexual orientation is and whatever kinks go with it. It doesn't affect me.



Is that what you were doing? And here I just thought you were being your usual smarmy self. See my reply to Stella up there for clarification on my past remarks to you since I saw her post first.

Sexual orientation aside, you're still a bleeding heart Liberal and I do enjoy a verbal joust with you on occasion as long as we stick to the subject.

Don't tell me you're a neo-con from the deep South-East, pilgrim. It's more than I could bear.

 

[TE999]

Don't tell me you're a neo-con from the deep South-East, pilgrim. It's more than I could bear.

Well, I'm a Libertarian from Florida if that's any consolation.

What is a 'Neo-Con' anyway? I get called that a lot around here so I know it's a pejorative.

 

[Exquisition]

Well, I'm a Libertarian from Florida if that's any consolation.

What is a 'Neo-Con' anyway? I get called that a lot around here so I know it's a pejorative.

Relgious fundamentalist with, shall we say, fairly extreme Republican views?

 

[Stella_Omega]

What is a 'Neo-Con' anyway? I get called that a lot around here so I know it's a pejorative.

By their words shall ye know them.

 

[TE999]

Religious fundamentalist with, shall we say, fairly extreme Republican views?

Um ... oh, so wrong. My religious views are none of your business anyway.

For the last fucking time I AM A LIBERTARIAN! L-I-B-E-R-T-A-R-I-A-N. Got that?

Upon reflection, I don't think anyone here knows what a Neoconservative really is or espouses anyway ... it's just another knee-jerk pejorative Liberals use against anyone who disagrees with them ... like 'warmonger' or 'racist' or Fascist' or 'Nazi' or 'hater' or 'homophobe'.

Here, read about the much maligned 'Neo-Cons'. You just may find yourself agreeing with some of their views; unless you're so ideologically entrenched in Liberal thought you refuse to consider another point of view. If that's the case, I pity you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

Just for the hell of it, here's what Libertarians think. For the record, I'm not married to any single ideology ... Libertarianism is about as close to how I think as it gets ... and I don't agree with it completely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

 

[sr71plt]

it's just another knee-jerk pejorative Liberals use against anyone who disagrees with them ... like 'warmonger' or 'racist' or Fascist' or 'Nazi' or 'hater' or 'homophobe'.

Or like you, on the flip side, using the term "liberal"?

 

[TE999]

Or like you, on the flip side, using the term "liberal"?

Not really. 'Liberal', like 'Conservative', 'Neoconservative', 'Anarchist',' Libertarian', 'Marxist', 'Leninist', 'Communist', 'Independent', 'Socialist' and the like are recognized designations given to various and sundry political, social and economic points of view and, by association, to individuals and/or groups that espouse and promote said views.

There are Liberal Republicans and Conservative Democrats and all shades between in both parties. For the record, some of the most virulent racists that ever drew breath were Democrats and all weren't from the South either. Look it up.

From your stance on most things social and political, you sound like a Liberal. If you are not, please enlighten me.

 

[sr71plt]

"Neoconservative" is in Webster's, so it's as much a good term as any of the ones you mention. It also, incidentally, means a liberal who has turned into a conservative, which probably will come as a big surprise to some in this discussion--including you, perhaps(?)

I don't believe all that much in labels--especially when other smug people are applying them to me to then go off on me. I support most liberal views, yes, but not all--as I exhibited to you on one of these threads and you promptly ignored because it didn't suit your agenda. I more or less believe what I believe and don't pretend I don't just to fit wholly into one dogma or the other.

(And, by the way, you've already been told but didn't seem to catch it. Obama isn't really a liberal. He's right of center. How he voted in the Senate was to position himself for a run for the presidency in an available slot--Hillary had the center/leftish. It's sort of like Romney isn't really a conservative. He's actually to the left of Obama when he isn't seeking Republican base support. Now libertarians, they are just deadbeats who want others to carry the burden for services they enjoy for them. I've got some deabeat relatives who are liberatarians--and living in Florida and under warrant in two other states for tax evasion.)

I think the really amusing thing--on your need to categorize me--is that on this very thread, I took/take what is a conservative--probably even a libertarian--stance on this "it takes a village" stuff on kids' weight and makeup--and you didn't even notice, because you only see what you want to see to make yourself feel superior and to feed your hate and "it sucks to have lost" needs.

 

[Stella_Omega]

All's fair in love and flame war, Stella. Although I will admit I was being intellectually lazy and hurtful in my choice of ripostes to SR. That was totally beneath me and I should have known better. I promise to consider my remarks more carefully in the future. Personally I don't care what anyone's sexual orientation is and whatever kinks go with it. It doesn't affect me.

How was it totally beneath you? From what we have been shown here? It's just about as high as your intellect can reach. As in, you will really have a lot of considering to do

Case in point, you seem to think what you said was "hurtful." Which implies that it would be hurtful to you. Which would mean that you actually and truly think that gay is an insult.

Which would mean that every part of your last sentence is a lie.

Question is, who are you trying to lie to? 'cause if it's yourself, that would be a pity. If it's the readers here-- it's not working.

As for your political affiliation-- you are correct. I have never used "Neo con" in the sense of that article, nor does anyone I know. What I speak of as "Neo Con" or "New Conservatives" is best explained by the line in my sig.

 

[sr71plt]

I don't think I use the term "neoconservative" much, if at all, or to mean anything, even the dictionary definition. What's being mentioned here with that term, I think I usually term "reactionary" or "Neanderthal." When I think of Libertarian, I think more in terms of "pea-brained deadbeat."

 

[MissMaidenMinx]

Justifiably so. I think maybe we dont spend enough time seriously examining how our children are being influenced, as a society. The amount of time they spend in front of screens in pretty staggering. Smartphones, iPads, TVs, computers, game consoles consume a huge amount of their time. The influence technology has on them should not be taken lightly.
In just a few decades, the way children are raised has changed dramatically. Maybe they are safer than they were a generation or two ago, but they seem more stressed out.

Safer? Who lets their kids play outside until the street lights come on anymore? How many parents refuse to let their kids go to the park on their own? How many parents flip out when their childs phone battery goes dead and they can't call them to check up on them? Sure not as many kids will suffer broken bones from all the safety measures in place these days but that robs children of essential opportunities to learn their boundaries.

Personally, when it comes to screen time for my boy, everything is monitored. One thing I won't let him watch is music shows. I don't want him thinking half clad girls is normal.

 

[SweetWitch]

What's wrong with some make-up or anything that would boost a girl's confidence? My daughter Extasty [3 yrs old] Know she's pretty, and I think that helps her meet new friends.

I'm having a hard time with this statement. There is more to a woman or a girl than how well they fill a bikini or how well their eyes look with just the right eye shadow. A woman--and hence, her child counterpart--is an interesting mix of intelligence, mystery and humor. Her face and her figure are--or should be--the least of her attributes. What matters is what she is inside, what she can offer to society and what she inspires in those who know and love her.

There is SO MUCH WRONG with makeup boosting a three year old's confidence. At Three years old, a child should not be taught that confidence is something you buy in a jar.

At three years old, does Extasty know what "pretty" means?

Does she know that she's smart? Or a hard worker? Or maybe a good dancer? Does she know how to do her chores, and is she proud of doing them?

Well said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
They are not all that disturbing to me.




I would say these things are more the concern of the mothers AND FATHERS than the little girls involved.

Of course it's a concern to the parents, or it should be. A little girl should be encourage to improve her mind, to be a good friend and to love herself and all her special gifts. Teaching her that everything will work out if she just wears enough makeup or that special helper bra is a recipe for disaster. Have you ever seen a 13-year-old suffering from anorexia? Have you seen a 12-year-old who just gave birth? I remember a girl that age having a baby in the next room over from me when I had my daughter. The nurses had to shut the TV off so she would feed her baby instead of watching cartoons. At 12 or 13, a child should not be having babies or starving herself to death. She should be giggling, going to school, enjoying her childhood. Lack of self-esteem can kill. In girls, it can be more deadly than with any other component of society.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I don't think I use the term "neoconservative" much, if at all, or to mean anything, even the dictionary definition. What's being mentioned here with that term, I think I usually term "reactionary" or "Neanderthal." When I think of Libertarian, I think more in terms of "pea-brained deadbeat."

Dammit, don't be insulting Neanderthals.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Safer? Who lets their kids play outside until the street lights come on anymore? How many parents refuse to let their kids go to the park on their own? How many parents flip out when their childs phone battery goes dead and they can't call them to check up on them? Sure not as many kids will suffer broken bones from all the safety measures in place these days but that robs children of essential opportunities to learn their boundaries.

Personally, when it comes to screen time for my boy, everything is monitored. One thing I won't let him watch is music shows. I don't want him thinking half clad girls is normal.

Do you also keep him from going to the beach?