Comments on: Sex and the next generation of young immigrant women — by guestblogger Lulu

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Sun, 10 Oct 2010 18:15:31 +0000

It’s one reason why Democrats were so big on low income housing and forcing banks to give out loans to high risk people, you know. They got to export their voters elsewhere, which benefited them politically. The party of crime and criminals, you may say. Sure Democrats profited from Fannie Mae, but they also had a longer term plan in motion.

If we can spontaneously create the tea party in a year, we can improve the lives of all children over three.

Only if you use the Tea Party model. But government, teacher union bureaucrats, and such won’t let you. You think they’ll let the Tea Party take over the youngins and start forming an army of youths which will then be recruited into the Tea Party?
Won’t work otherwise, which is why they will not allow it to work in the first place. This is not just a case of copying the Tea Party and everything will work out. Things are more complicated than that. It always is in the world of adults.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Sun, 10 Oct 2010 18:10:48 +0000

MikeD makes some good points and his perspective on macroscopic societal issues and microscopic individual limitations is accurate, as far as it goes.

The issue with mentorship is that it does not work when children cannot join the mentor’s adult hierarchy. Children have their own world and customs but adults have a different world and different rules.

If a mentor existed that could start from junior high and end in college, with the requisite individual joining the mentor’s company, hierarchy, social circle, or enter into a professional relationship with said mentor, then it would work. It would work, it would spread, and it would grow roots from the ground up.

But it doesn’t work that way. Precisely because there are forces in America that wish to keep power to themselves and they don’t particularly like sharing such power and influence with upstarts that weren’t born from the Ruling Class. Thus children are kept in schools to keep them out of the way of adults and no effort is given to integrating the future of children into the day of Today. Instead, Democrats see such children gardens as a resource to be siphoned and exploited for Democrat power, union recruits, death cult membership, and so on and so forth.
This is not exclusive to the Baby Boomer generation, who ostentatiously had problems with figures of authority and thus never learned how to handle the reigns of power peacefully nor learned to receive power legitimately transfered to them from the Old Guard. It’s not just them. It’s all the generations that came after them too, that they influenced, corrupted, and taught to despise themselves and their country.
“Crime is way down”

Due to Libs cleansing America of black babies via abortion. Coincidentally, the housing bubble got a lot of low income ghetto neighborhoods to move out to “make it on their own”. Then they got bankrupted. Crime didn’t “decrease” in big cities. The Democrats just exported them to the suburbs. The wave of criminal activity in such suburbs reached critical mass when a specific number of ghetto victims and criminals inhabited said neighborhood.

By: suek

suek — Sun, 10 Oct 2010 17:37:00 +0000

>>Out-of-wedlock is a vague correlation that is also associated with increased numbers of girls attending college.>>

So…you’re saying that the huge difference between white illegitimate births and black illegitimate births is due to all those black women going to college???

>>Not caring for and not protecting children is the depraved act.>>

And that’s it? That’s the entire definition of depravity?

Who determines the extent and parameters of “caring for and protecting” children?

>>It’s called mentorship, and it could be a heck of a lot more widespread than it is today. >>

Who decides what mentorships should be directing young people to do or not do? What standards are mentors supposed to be encouraging?

By: Scott in SF

Scott in SF — Sun, 10 Oct 2010 13:51:49 +0000

Not caring for and not protecting children is the depraved act. Out-of-wedlock is a vague correlation that is also associated with increased numbers of girls attending college. Just stop the non-sense.
We do have a non-governmental option, one that people on the left and the right agree works. It’s called mentorship, and it could be a heck of a lot more widespread than it is today. It is of course possible to be more systematic about mentorship, to create free volunteer institutions which promote mentorship like the girl scouts, but ultimately the responsibility is yours.
If we can spontaneously create the tea party in a year, we can improve the lives of all children over three. (Without spending a dime, ha, ha.)
And don’t give me this “society is falling apart” line. Crime is way down, every kid has access to a computer and a cell phone, the US economy is still the envy of the world, and our military is still powerful beyond any ever seen- ever. As Thomas Sowell put it, everyone’s medical care is better and cheaper now than it was in the 1960′s, no matter who you are.
Freedom comes with responsibility, conservatives need to learn that lesson too!

By: Danny Lemieux

Danny Lemieux — Sun, 10 Oct 2010 06:30:44 +0000

The huge question is, how do you “enforce” responsibility? I suspect you don’t just pass a bunch of laws and expect them to work.

I agree, MikeD. The flip side of this is, how do you stop government enabling bad behavior. Government has made it easy to bear children out of wedlock, even incentivized it, by promising to use other peoples’ money to “support” those children. Although I don’t know if this still occurs, there was a time when government cut benefits when unwed mothers decided to marry the the fathers of their children. Why do you need families if the government has promised to provide all the life support?

The trap we are in is that it is now so easy to attack those that promote cutting off such benefits as heartless…and yes, it may be heartless to the individual whose benefits get cut but the overall harm to an entire class of people has been incalculable.

By: Mike Devx

Mike Devx — Sun, 10 Oct 2010 01:43:03 +0000

Scott in SF says,
> The same goes for conflating sexual freedom or the freedom to divorce with human depravity. Conflate the issues and your arguments will be dismissed.

I have to disagree. The dominant memes in a society or civilization are what controls the behavior of most of the people in that society. For far too long, a form of “freedom” that represents societal anarchy has been the dominant meme, rather than a form of “freedom” that promotes individual responsibility along with that freedom. In other words, freedom without responsibility is the liberal game, and it’s been in control for far too long. Freedom with enforced responsibility is where conservatives ought to go.

The huge question is, how do you “enforce” responsibility? I suspect you don’t just pass a bunch of laws and expect them to work. (That’s what the Democrats have been trying to do during these rancid Obama-Pelosi-Reid years 2006-present, and it hasn’t worked out well for them, has it, ramming their laws down the throats of the American citizens who wanted nothing to do with their crazy agenda.)

Certainly the reintroduction of individual shame into our society would help. There are those who think that personal shame is destructive. I totally disagree.

There must be other ways as well to strongly promote individual responsibility within a culture. You can’t merely rely on individuals mentoring individuals in the face of societal anarchy and total abandonment of societal promotion of individual responsibility. Those individuals trying to fight the anarchy tide are like people on the shore of the ocean, spooning teaspoons of water into a cup. It’s not enough.

Just as we have to fundamentally change Washington D.C. to effect real political change to save this country, we have to fundamentally alter our society as well.

By: suek

suek — Sat, 09 Oct 2010 23:59:09 +0000

>>We can punish those who we believe are depraved>> Who is "we", and who decides what is depraved?

By: Saturday Afternoon – Playing Catch Up – Laundry Time , An Ol' Broad's Ramblings

Sat, 09 Oct 2010 22:48:03 +0000

[...] Sex and the next generation of young immigrant women – Bookworm Room [...]

By: Scott in SF

Scott in SF — Sat, 09 Oct 2010 18:17:34 +0000

I dislike that this post conflates the issues of illegal immigration and the problem of human depravity. They are indeed conflated in the real world but conflating them will cause half of the population to dismiss them.
The same goes for conflating sexual freedom or the freedom to divorce with human depravity. Conflate the issues and your arguments will be dismissed.
This is just partisan culture war non-sense; if one group of moralists were to get their way over others, American freedom would cease to exist. (Brain dead liberals, meet your cousins: brain dead conservatives.)
_________
However, we all agree on this basic issue:
Human depravity has always been with us and it always will be.
1. Sometimes it can be reduced by good mentoring.
2. When that fails we have the option to isolate the individuals we believe are depraved and attempt to control their environment while rewarding them for good behavior. This is what is usually called ‘behavior modification.’ (The presumption of this model is amoral, it simply sees depravity as a lack of self control.)
3. We can punish those who we believe are depraved either with violence, loss of freedom, or public humiliation. (The presumption here is that resorting to 1 or 2 will not work; Or that punishment has a morally corrective effect on others.)
—–
There are no other options!!!
_______________
I think, across the board, everyone agrees that good mentoring is the way to go! My only contribution is to say that ‘programs’ which pay people to be mentors will always be woefully inadequate. You can not pay someone enough to be a good mentor, it is too much work. Way too much work. To improve the human condition (and that is what we are talking about) we have to share the value that mentoring should be a part of every successful person’s life. If we could get the partisan culture wars out of the argument we might be able to move forward on this, otherwise, not.
_________________
Whether to utilize method 2 or 3 from above is a judgment call. Such a decision should be made by someone with experience, but it will often be controversial. In my opinion 2 is much better than 3, especially when dealing with social depravity like impulsive sex or drunken violence. 2 may work some of the time on asocial depravity like heroin addicts who kill for money or violent rapists–but most of the time we need 3 for that.
__________________
This is not a new issue, read the Founder’s take on it:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

Or Laozi:
The best kind of teaching is like a shadowy presence.
The next best is kindness and reward,
After that, fear and punishment,
And finally, just cut them off.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Sat, 09 Oct 2010 18:14:12 +0000

Society can fluctuate and cycle between one extreme and then another like a pendulum. The issue is, that can only happen if you are not invaded and conquered by a foreign power. Without military strength or cultural dominance in this world, the chances of the US surviving long enough to let the pendulum swing the other way is not so assured.

After all, Byzantim and Constantinople never got that chance. They didn’t switch from Christianity to Islam and back again. They stayed what their conquers stayed as.