View Poll Results: Was America better off in 1985, or are we better off today in 2015?

Voters
220. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1985 was better overall

    31 14.09%
  • 2015 is better overall

    189 85.91%
Page 45 of 45 FirstFirst ... 35434445
Results 441 to 447 of 447

Thread: 1985 vs 2015

  1. #441
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: 1985 vs 2015

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    This poll was running 50/50, then some tool non-member came and voted 100 times for 2015. Now the poll is worthless.

    Mods really should do something about that. Why even have a poll? Only members should get to vote.
    The mods know and are powerless to stop it they say.

  2. #442
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The anals of history
    Last Seen
    07-25-15 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,348

    Re: 1985 vs 2015

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    The mods know and are powerless to stop it they say.
    It's unfortunate. I consider it Internet vandalism. Somebody with an axe to grind against this site is getting their kicks destroying other people's polls. Well I hope they're happy smh.

  3. #443
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: 1985 vs 2015

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    It's unfortunate. I consider it Internet vandalism. Somebody with an axe to grind against this site is getting their kicks destroying other people's polls. Well I hope they're happy smh.
    The only way I have found around it (and forum poster who misidentify themselves in polls) is to make them public in the general politics forum, oherwise this is what happens.

  4. #444
    stb
    Nilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Beantown
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 09:17 PM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    6,217

    Re: 1985 vs 2015

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    I think it's a mixture of nature and nurture, so to speak.

    The environmental factor I blame the most is the lack of strong families. If you have a mother and father who care about your education, then you won't hang around the 7-11.

    The problem is there isn't much that can be done to attack this issue. The answer lies in conservative values and the traditional family, however society seems to be pushing us further from that by the day. No government action can curb societal trends.

    One thing that can be done, though, is to halt the liberal agenda to destroy the tradition family by electing and appointing conservative judges.

    But yes, the environment plays a big role. If you look at African Americans in particular, during slavery, they were not allowed to marry and fathers/sons were usually split up from their families and sold to other plantations. They were also not allowed to learn how to read or get an education. They were bred like animals for their physical strength.

    I think these things had a lasting impact on today's culture. Having massive public assistance and giveaway programs does nothing to help break this cycle, in fact it reinforces it
    The pro of the traditional family is that children have strong role models from which to draw life experience, right? Firstly the traditional conservative single family house is not the only way that kids can draw from strong role models. Look, for example, at the cohousing movement that originated in practically socialist Denmark. So I don't necessarily think that is the end all be all answer.

    What is important is a sense of community, which is being eroded in todays day and age. Without a sense of community, without a stake in society, one of the biggest incentives to contribute back to society is gone. When people looked back at the London riots, one of the main things pointed out was lack of ownership of houses of the rioters. No stake in society = a lack of respect towards it, which is what the 7/11 smoking kids suffer from. There's obviously no simple and easy answer to this conundrum, but blaming the kids for their disenfranchisement towards a society that offers them little but blame and scorn is not the way to go.
    "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK

  5. #445
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The anals of history
    Last Seen
    07-25-15 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,348

    Re: 1985 vs 2015

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    The only way I have found around it (and forum poster who misidentify themselves in polls) is to make them public in the general politics forum, oherwise this is what happens.
    Thanks, I'll do that next time.

  6. #446
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The anals of history
    Last Seen
    07-25-15 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,348

    Re: 1985 vs 2015

    Quote Originally Posted by Nilly View Post
    The pro of the traditional family is that children have strong role models from which to draw life experience, right? Firstly the traditional conservative single family house is not the only way that kids can draw from strong role models. Look, for example, at the cohousing movement that originated in practically socialist Denmark. So I don't necessarily think that is the end all be all answer. .
    It may not be the ONLY way, but it's the best proven model. And it so happens I am from Scandinavia, my dad grew up in Denmark, I was born in Sweden. The traditional family is alive and well in Scandinavia, perhaps more so than in the US. That is certainly the case for the lower classes, anyhow.

    The difference is that few Scandinavians are religious, so they choose not to marry. However nuclear families, with a mother, father, grandparents, etc are the norm... even in lower class areas. They just live together out of wedlock, because, as it is seen in Scandinavia, marriage is a religious institution and they are not religious, therefore it's not needed.

    You have to understand the culture if you are going to use them as an example.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nilly View Post
    What is important is a sense of community, which is being eroded in todays day and age. Without a sense of community, without a stake in society, one of the biggest incentives to contribute back to society is gone. When people looked back at the London riots, one of the main things pointed out was lack of ownership of houses of the rioters. No stake in society = a lack of respect towards it, which is what the 7/11 smoking kids suffer from.
    .

    I've never seen a credible study that shows that a "lack of community" leads to poor behavior.

    I have seen plenty that demonstrate the benefits of being raised within a traditional family. I've seen studies that demonstrate that someone raised in a traditional, nuclear family is more likely to do well in school, more likely to graduate, less likely to end up in prison or commit a crime, and are statistically likely to earn more in their lifetime.

    I've not seen anything like this with respect to a wider "community."

    I'm not trying to suggest that having a pastor, or a teacher, or some other role model in a child's life isn't going to make a positive impact. It certainly is. But it's no substitute for having a mom and a dad that love you, and it's not something that has been proven we can replicate at a large scale.

    You can't pay people to love and take care of kids. Money is not the issue. That's something that comes from the heart.


    Quote Originally Posted by Nilly View Post
    There's obviously no simple and easy answer to this conundrum, but blaming the kids for their disenfranchisement towards a society that offers them little but blame and scorn is not the way to go.
    I'm not blaming kids, per se. It depends on their age. A 5 year old is less to blame than a 17 year old, obviously. I do expect teens to be held accountable for their actions. It's part of how they learn what is and isn't acceptable behavior.

    That said, 90% of the blame does go on the parents. If you came at me and said we need to spend more money to bolster the traditional family, I would ask you what you had in mind and be in agreement, because then you're tackling the root of the issue. When you diffuse the responsibility to the greater "community," then I disagree. There is no substitute for a strong, loving family.

  7. #447
    stb
    Nilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Beantown
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 09:17 PM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    6,217

    Re: 1985 vs 2015

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    It may not be the ONLY way, but it's the best proven model. And it so happens I am from Scandinavia, my dad grew up in Denmark, I was born in Sweden. The traditional family is alive and well in Scandinavia, perhaps more so than in the US. That is certainly the case for the lower classes, anyhow.

    The difference is that few Scandinavians are religious, so they choose not to marry. However nuclear families, with a mother, father, grandparents, etc are the norm... even in lower class areas. They just live together out of wedlock, because, as it is seen in Scandinavia, marriage is a religious institution and they are not religious, therefore it's not needed.

    You have to understand the culture if you are going to use them as an example.
    I wasn't using Scandinavia as a whole as an example, I was using cohousing within Denmark as an example of where community helps fill in the role of family. It's an alternative to the 'traditional family' which actually draws from centuries of human culture. In fact, the 'traditional family' isn't really traditional at all. Humans have lived in communal multi generational groups for thousands of years, and in many places still do (in Danish co-housing, in India and large parts of south east Asia, in Amazonian tribes). The traditional family is a good way to instill good values into children but no, I don't think you can necessarily point to a study where it is objectively the best. There is no right way to have a family.

    Furthermore, you trying to paint this as a partisan issue whereby it's the liberal agenda destroying America was particularly hackish, particularly as it's impossible to deconstruct the death of the traditional family to either the right or the left. Consider one of the main reasons for the death of the traditional family, the fact that people in their 20's (such as myself) are marrying and settling down much later. I can guarantee you (from my experience - this time) that one of the main reasons for that is the inability for many of us, even with graduate degrees, to afford a home to settle down in. Considering the lack of affordable housing, the flooding of buy-to-let on the market, the spiralling tuition fees and income inequality, I challenge you to squarely foot the blame on the liberal agenda there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    I've never seen a credible study that shows that a "lack of community" leads to poor behavior.

    I have seen plenty that demonstrate the benefits of being raised within a traditional family. I've seen studies that demonstrate that someone raised in a traditional, nuclear family is more likely to do well in school, more likely to graduate, less likely to end up in prison or commit a crime, and are statistically likely to earn more in their lifetime.

    I've not seen anything like this with respect to a wider "community."

    I'm not trying to suggest that having a pastor, or a teacher, or some other role model in a child's life isn't going to make a positive impact. It certainly is. But it's no substitute for having a mom and a dad that love you, and it's not something that has been proven we can replicate at a large scale.

    You can't pay people to love and take care of kids. Money is not the issue. That's something that comes from the heart.
    Sociological studies on any kind of scale are practically impossible due to the lack of ability to control for confounding variables (such as wealth, access to healthcare, community). As mentioned in the examples above, it certainly is possible to have a happy society where the traditional American family structure is not adhered to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    I'm not blaming kids, per se. It depends on their age. A 5 year old is less to blame than a 17 year old, obviously. I do expect teens to be held accountable for their actions. It's part of how they learn what is and isn't acceptable behavior.

    That said, 90% of the blame does go on the parents. If you came at me and said we need to spend more money to bolster the traditional family, I would ask you what you had in mind and be in agreement, because then you're tackling the root of the issue. When you diffuse the responsibility to the greater "community," then I disagree. There is no substitute for a strong, loving family.
    If 90% of the blame is on the parents (that grew up in 1985) maybe it wasn't such a great year. Late 20th century America traded it's future for a better present (we continue to do so today) but lets not write off and condemn todays 17 year olds before they get started.
    "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK

Page 45 of 45 FirstFirst ... 35434445

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •