307 replies to this topic

[USU78]

Stone holm, on 23 May 2013 - 02:53 PM, said:

I want to make sure that I am not being accused of hyperbole.  You are talking about having unwed pregnant teenagers expelled from school, and you are talking about sequestering all gays in order to avoid the spread of AIDS right?

We're talking about social sanctions against undesirable behavior, whether it's stigmatizing or something with more teeth.  Prior to the adoption of Jack Kerouac morality as a proposed social norm, there was relatively little (and quite manageable) incidence of the things I mentioned.  Girls weren't expelled:  they were educated in Girls' Homes across the country.  I'm aware of three within 35 miles of Brigham City, where I did most of my schooling, in Mantua Valley, just south of and still visible from the highway, an old house a couple of blocks from Logan High School, and one up Logan Canyon.  While there were exceptions where girls simply dropped out of school altogether, most girls tended to take advantage of the girls' home option.  She needn't face the cattiness in the hallways or the catcalls and imposed misery of the social sanction.  Was it tough on the girls?  Of course it was.  Was it effective in enjoining (to the extent something can be mandated by such actions)  bastardy?  In the main, absolutely yes.

Was it cruel (SSS's objection)?  Certainly less cruel to the first-born children of nearly all girls:  they didn't have to worry about almost assured poverty, disease, crime and abuse.  I must be cruel, to be kind.  Freedom of bad choice must often give way to socialization.  The sanction of stigma or other, more intrusive injunction, never removes freedom of choice.  It simply makes the consequences very clear, and the embarrassment and shame resulting therefrom are very useful in encouraging right choices.

The result of their loss as educational and injunctive strategies is the horrors that our children and grandchildren are now facing.

We do them no favors by what we're doing now.

[thesometimesaint]

IOW. You made me do this, but if you didn't,  I would do worse.

[Stone holm]

USU78, on 24 May 2013 - 11:36 AM, said:

We're talking about social sanctions against undesirable behavior, whether it's stigmatizing or something with more teeth.  Prior to the adoption of Jack Kerouac morality as a proposed social norm, there was relatively little (and quite manageable) incidence of the things I mentioned.  Girls weren't expelled:  they were educated in Girls' Homes across the country.  I'm aware of three within 35 miles of Brigham City, where I did most of my schooling, in Mantua Valley, just south of and still visible from the highway, an old house a couple of blocks from Logan High School, and one up Logan Canyon.  While there were exceptions where girls simply dropped out of school altogether, most girls tended to take advantage of the girls' home option.  She needn't face the cattiness in the hallways or the catcalls and imposed misery of the social sanction.  Was it tough on the girls?  Of course it was.  Was it effective in enjoining (to the extent something can be mandated by such actions)  bastardy?  In the main, absolutely yes.

Was it cruel (SSS's objection)?  Certainly less cruel to the first-born children of nearly all girls:  they didn't have to worry about almost assured poverty, disease, crime and abuse.  I must be cruel, to be kind.  Freedom of bad choice must often give way to socialization.  The sanction of stigma or other, more intrusive injunction, never removes freedom of choice.  It simply makes the consequences very clear, and the embarrassment and shame resulting therefrom are very useful in encouraging right choices.

The result of their loss as educational and injunctive strategies is the horrors that our children and grandchildren are now facing.

We do them no favors by what we're doing now.

In Indiana they were expelled from attending school at the public school, there was no other public venue for them.  That was counterproductive, during the 19th Century we had bastardy laws which prejudiced the rights and privileges of the children born out of wedlock, those were eventually stricken down as violating the Constitution.  It is not clear to me exactly how far back you want to reel in time.  The innovation with the single most impact on sexual promiscuity which led to this was the introduction of the birth control pill which liberated women from the risk of pregnancy associated with sex.  Since the consequences of pre-marital sex which resulted in pregnancy fell almost exclusively upon the females, the stigma was almost exclusively aimed at women.  Men in fact in many circumstances, especially teenagers, actually sometimes enjoyed a warped sense of acclaim for engaging in premarital sex.

[USU78]

Stone holm, on 24 May 2013 - 12:38 PM, said:

The innovation with the single most impact on sexual promiscuity which led to this was the introduction of the birth control pill which liberated women from the risk of pregnancy associated with sex.  Since the consequences of pre-marital sex which resulted in pregnancy fell almost exclusively upon the females, the stigma was almost exclusively aimed at women.  Men in fact in many circumstances, especially teenagers, actually sometimes enjoyed a warped sense of acclaim for engaging in premarital sex.

Such is a common argument:  I don't buy it as the cause, but as a symptom of the cause, and as something good and useful and therapeutic that gets corrupted by bad hats.

Humans, with few exceptions, are not alley cats.  People can make better choices than the ones they make.  Incentivizing good choices is better for society than incentivizing bad choices.

SSS' arguments are all for incentivizing bad choices.

Which is why I reject his arguments.

Edited by USU78, 22 hours ago.

[Stone holm]

USU78, on 24 May 2013 - 02:02 PM, said:

Such is a common argument:  I don't buy it as the cause, but as a symptom of the cause, and as something good and useful and therapeutic that gets corrupted by bad hats.

Humans, with few exceptions, are not alley cats.  People can make better choices than the ones they make.  Incentivizing good choices is better for society than incentivizing bad choices.

SSS' arguments are all for incentivizing bad choices.

Which is why I reject his arguments.

Yeah, well I suppose I am way out of date on the subject, but back in my day the single biggest deterrent that teenagers had to "going all the way" was the possibility of the girl getting pregnant.  So maybe preaching was a deterrent, but not so much in the good ole Bible Belt of Indiana. I think that pretty much disappeared with the pill.

[thesometimesaint]

USU78, on 24 May 2013 - 02:02 PM, said:

Such is a common argument:  I don't buy it as the cause, but as a symptom of the cause, and as something good and useful and therapeutic that gets corrupted by bad hats.

Humans, with few exceptions, are not alley cats.  People can make better choices than the ones they make.  Incentivizing good choices is better for society than incentivizing bad choices.

SSS' arguments are all for incentivizing bad choices.

Which is why I reject his arguments.

You catch more flies with honey than you do vinegar. Which is more effective incentivizing good behavior, our just punishing bad? We became very good at punishing people over the last 6000 years, and it has not worked. The only known cure for our social ills is a good high quality education and medical intervention to help clean up the mess when people inevitably fail.

Of course you reject them. You'd rather punish people than help them.

[USU78]

thesometimesaint, on 25 May 2013 - 11:12 AM, said:

You catch more flies with honey than you do vinegar. Which is more effective incentivizing good behavior, our just punishing bad? We became very good at punishing people over the last 6000 years, and it has not worked. The only known cure for our social ills is a good high quality education and medical intervention to help clean up the mess when people inevitably fail.

Of course you reject them. You'd rather punish people than help them.

You're not paying attention.  Today a kid who acts out sexually with one of the same sex is actually encouraged to pursue homosexuality.  Today girls are encouraged to explore their sexuality at ages horrifying to caring adults.  Today we spend billions to protect our blood supply because risktakers and those who already know they're infected with HIV are encouraged to lie . . . Hey, we'll cover your sins, bud . . . go ahead and lie on your paperwork, we're gonna test every unit of blood anyway.

Your encouragement of license via policies of what you call "incentivizing good behavior" don't incentivize good behavior at all.  They have the opposite effect.

[thesometimesaint]

USU78, on 25 May 2013 - 11:21 AM, said:

You're not paying attention.  Today a kid who acts out sexually with one of the same sex is actually encouraged to pursue homosexuality.  Today girls are encouraged to explore their sexuality at ages horrifying to caring adults.  Today we spend billions to protect our blood supply because risktakers and those who already know they're infected with HIV are encouraged to lie . . . Hey, we'll cover your sins, bud . . . go ahead and lie on your paperwork, we're gonna test every unit of blood anyway.

Your encouragement of license via policies of what you call "incentivizing good behavior" don't incentivize good behavior at all.  They have the opposite effect.

That supposed encouragement hasn't been working. The rate of homosexuality has remained very consistent over the millennia. Between 1&1/2% and 2 percent.

Let's have more caring parents that actually know what they're talking about, and are imparting that caring and knowledge to their children. That wouldn't  eliminate all unwed pregnancies, but it will greatly decrease them.

The blood supply always needs to tested for one disease or another, along with type and Rh factor.  If you are taking some drugs you're not supposed to give whole blood.  IE: Some heart medicines, and anti-rejection drugs. Also keep in mind that the AIDS virus hides, taking years and sometimes decades to show up. The most common way AIDS is transmitted isn't by homosexuals, but by heterosexuals. So quarantining just homosexuals is ineffective at best.

I've never encouraged lying. From a purely practical standpoint it is ineffective, and wastes precious time and resources to deal with the lie, and not the underlying problem that needs to be solved. Morally it is reprehensible I always taught my children to tell me the truth. Because no matter how bad the problem  is, dealing with the lie doesn't solve the problem. Not they never lied, but they knew they could always come to me with their problems, and together we could work on solving them.

I trust my bank, but I also verify what they are doing with my money.

You are quite wrong. Punishment MAY extinguish bad behavior, but it CAN NOT EVER replace it with good behavior. Therefor the bad behavior returns or is made worse.