Solving the issue of violance

[Mock Turtle]

People die in car accidents every day. Seat belts and fair bags lower the risk. Stable families where mom and dad are caring for the children is the lowest risk for abuse we can find.

Possibly, and I'm not particularly a fan of single-parent families either, given that it is probably best for a child to have the benefits of both a loving mother and father, but times change and we have to adapt. That is one thing that is certain in life - change.

 

[Truth in love]

Possibly, and I'm not particularly a fan of single-parent families either, given that it is probably best for a child to have the benefits of both a loving mother and father, but times change and we have to adapt. That is one thing that is certain in life - change.

Change happens, but this change is costing lives is mass. You insist on limiting or banning guns, but are fine with the most powerful identified root cause of human suffering????

 

[Mock Turtle]

Change happens, but this change is costing lives is mass. You insist on limiting or banning guns, but are fine with the most powerful identified root cause of human suffering????

Sorry, only your claim as to be such. Why do you think so many other countries are fine without such weapons? I think you, and so many others, need to reimagine your culture and future, even if such is rather a big task.

 

[Truth in love]

Sorry, only your claim as to be such. Why do you think so many other countries are fine without such weapons? I think you, and so many others, need to reimagine your culture and future, even if such is rather a big task.

Never going to happen. I’m not sure how you are defining fine. In the US and many other nations we saw massive abuses of power during covid. Russia is invading Ukraine. We have massive problems with gangs. Last century governments murdered over 100 million civilians. So what happening now and what is history has you thinking it’s a good idea for people to be defenseless?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Never going to happen. I’m not sure how you are defining fine. In the US and many other nations we saw massive abuses of power during covid. Russia is invading Ukraine. We have massive problems with gangs. Last century governments murdered over 100 million civilians. So what happening now and what is history has you thinking it’s a good idea for people to be defenseless?

Citing some extreme examples of behaviour is often not the best way to look at normative behaviour and lifestyles. I think you should examine the past several hundred years if you think we presently are living in troubled times.

 

[Truth in love]

Citing some extreme examples of behaviour is often not the best way to look at normative behaviour and lifestyles. I think you should examine the past several hundred years if you think we presently are living in troubled times.

we are now, as we did in the 90’s the 60’s the 30’s on and one back. Troubled times is the norm of human life.

The examples are not all that extreme. From crusades to race purges to burning witches people who can’t defend themselves tend to be dead.

 

[Mock Turtle]

we are now, as we did in the 90’s the 60’s the 30’s on and one back. Troubled times is the norm of human life.

The examples are not all that extreme. From crusades to race purges to burning witches people who can’t defend themselves tend to be dead.

Not true for most I suspect. I live in the UK and have never seen a gun (in the wild) apart from one time at a quarry where I used to climb. One of those there doing target practice, legally I presume, let me fire the weapon - and he probably shouldn't have done so. Apart from that, and owning a .177 air pistol, I have never seen a gun or witnessed any in action. This is for over seventy years. Crime is actually not that common for most of us. One neighbour has been burgled whilst he was away, and even though I tried to look out for him, they managed to do so without alerting me. Hence one might see why firearms are not popular in the UK, or many other countries, given they seem to be an over-reaction to possible threats, and also contribute more problems than they solve. So why would the USA be so special as to require them?

PS I did actually have a firearms licence at one time, for yacht distress flares.

 

[F1fan]

several options I don’t think it is a single answer:
1. We stop incentivizing broken families. Going back to the 60’s a lot of people have tried to make alternative families the norm. They don’t work as well. Divorce is like war it’s always harmful. It may not always be the worst option, but it hurts the kids a lot.
2. Social learning theory tells us that people will mimic what they see. People tend to mimic the media. Stable families with loving able parents who are wiser than their kids are rare if not wholly gone. Cosby was the TV dad who I saw that was both loving and able. I loved watching home improvement but the way father are shown in it and many other shows promotes the idea that fathers are not all that useful.

3. Popenoe (who has made family is life study) suggested ending no fault divorce if kids are involved as it harms them a lot and requiring good cause to end a marriage.

4. We need to stop promoting single parenthood and ideas that grandma is a good as dad etc. we don’t want to shame kids, if we sold soda pop as being as healthy as water we’d be lying.

5. Men need to feel needed. When they understand how much their kids need them they often step up to the plate. If they believe that the welfare system will do it all for them they tend to wonder off.

6. While some of this can’t be done by government churches and other social institutions can step up and try to promote strong families.

Oddly your suggestions rely on mimicking ideals and ideal models as if it is that simple. But you don't mention what I think is the single core issue, and that is people who are immature and not very self-aware until their 40's or 50's. The USA is a nation with numerous souls and cultures, and no real single core identity. We are supposedly the nation of freedoms, but we are less and less a nation of educated and responsible people.

Many years ago comedian Steve Allen wrote a book called Dumpth and it outlined his experiences of American society over the decades and how there was more ignorance among citizens he encountered. And today we have a nation where 66% of adult conservatives believe Trump won the 2020 election. And you expect these people to be responsible and reliable parents? These are people that have been influenced by disinformation and are willing to mimic negative behaviors of those around them. So the solution less freedom of choice? Ban far right and far left media? Probably not a bad idea in a practical sense, but it still won't help the gullible have better sense.

The USA has a huge people problem. Other nations do as well, its not just America. If you want a more responsible and mature society you build it, and the best place to start is schools. Teach critical thinking so kids have that crucial tool. Have classes that build character and challenge kids. Let kids get hurt and let them walk it off. Life is hard and we need to prepare kids for what's to come. I suspect the future is going to be more difficult, especially with climate change and whatever that will bring.

 

[F1fan]

Why should some people in society have the power to be safe and others not?

In the USA safety is tied to resources to a large degree. Resources means money. Even though there are avenues for the poor to get help there seems a lack of adequate public resources. Just from my limited experiences it seems many poor people lack crucial life skills that more affluent people take for granted. Going back to social learning kids raised in poverty will learn that model of living and lessons, and not have better lessons and models available to them. So government investment in poor youth would likely help eliminate the patterns of poverty.

 

[danieldemol]

several options I don’t think it is a single answer:
1. We stop incentivizing broken families. Going back to the 60’s a lot of people have tried to make alternative families the norm. They don’t work as well. Divorce is like war it’s always harmful. It may not always be the worst option, but it hurts the kids a lot.
2. Social learning theory tells us that people will mimic what they see. People tend to mimic the media. Stable families with loving able parents who are wiser than their kids are rare if not wholly gone. Cosby was the TV dad who I saw that was both loving and able. I loved watching home improvement but the way father are shown in it and many other shows promotes the idea that fathers are not all that useful.

3. Popenoe (who has made family is life study) suggested ending no fault divorce if kids are involved as it harms them a lot and requiring good cause to end a marriage.

4. We need to stop promoting single parenthood and ideas that grandma is a good as dad etc. we don’t want to shame kids, if we sold soda pop as being as healthy as water we’d be lying.

5. Men need to feel needed. When they understand how much their kids need them they often step up to the plate. If they believe that the welfare system will do it all for them they tend to wonder off.

6. While some of this can’t be done by government churches and other social institutions can step up and try to promote strong families.

1. How do we currently incentivise broken families?

2. Given that you weren't able to control yourself from watching programs like home improvement how do you expect to control others from watching them?

3. I suspect we might need a separate thread to examine this point, so I'll make one.

4. I agree on this one.

5. Anyone who believes the welfare system can fulfill the role of a father is probably delusional, but that is not the purpose of the welfare system either. So I hope you are not using the need for a father as a non-sequitur excuse for abolishing much needed welfare.

6. Government is a far more effective means of reform than churches, because they can educate you on relevant needs without irrelevant dogmas attached.

In my opinion.

 

[Truth in love]

1. How do we currently incentivise broken families?

2. Given that you weren't able to control yourself from watching programs like home improvement how do you expect to control others from watching them?

3. I suspect we might need a separate thread to examine this point, so I'll make one.

4. I agree on this one.

5. Anyone who believes the welfare system can fulfill the role of a father is probably delusional, but that is not the purpose of the welfare system either. So I hope you are not using the need for a father as a non-sequitur excuse for abolishing much needed welfare.

6. Government is a far more effective means of reform than churches, because they can educate you on relevant needs without irrelevant dogmas attached.

In my opinion.

1. We stop paying people be not be married. It’s been done in the US for decades.

2. If we promote better entertainment with healthy role models it would be useful.

5. Welfare is needed. Government systems are not. It can and should be private.

6. I don’t buy that for a second. Government systems tend to be inefficient and heartless. People feeling care for is helpful. When the help is giving willingly the giver and receiver tend to feel better. When force is use the “giver” feels robbed and the receiver often rather than expressing gratitude is angry at not getting more.

 

[F1fan]

1. We stop paying people be not be married. It’s been done in the US for decades.

Benefits aren't paid for not being married. There are single parent homes that don't get payments.

What you should have said is that there are programs that aid families in financial need, especially with children. Single parent homes face more financial challenges due to single incomes. So do you want to eliminate this help?

2. If we promote better entertainment with healthy role models it would be useful.

So, what? Government takes over the entertainment industry? Or forces standards like they had back in the 30's? You're still not making better kids. You say nothing about education or mental health as if society will just default into Leave it to Beaver.

5. Welfare is needed. Government systems are not. It can and should be private.

What government systems? Are you aware of the rampant greed and problems with private prisons? The private companies need about 7-% occupancy to make profits, and there has been indications that have led to longer sentences.

Privatized prisons lead to more inmates, longer sentences, study finds - WSU Insider

These private prisons might cost less in direct cost, but they are less safe, have more violence, and worse conditions for the inmates. Public services are best when they are ethical and invest what is necessary, not for what brings profit.

The more you privatize the more the services will be compromised and often more costly to society in the long run in the negative effects. Government is a non-profit agency hired to provide services and manage our affairs. It's not bad.

6. I don’t buy that for a second. Government systems tend to be inefficient and heartless. People feeling care for is helpful. When the help is giving willingly the giver and receiver tend to feel better. When force is use the “giver” feels robbed and the receiver often rather than expressing gratitude is angry at not getting more.

Everyone will have their own experiences. In the USA we squeeze government to such a degree that it's often understaffed so the performance is low. Do you really think private management will do better as they squeeze investments and salaries to increase profits? Our best bet is to fund our government with what it needs so it can serve us better. The right loves to hate government (as they try to take over government) and thinks it can be run like a business. My link above illustrates it is a failed agenda.

 

[Truth in love]

1. Its unlawful for the government to run a religion. Also its unlawful for the feds to run a charity.
2. No we pressure the media industry to make better stuff.
5. the fact that a private company can be greedy does not mean that the government is not or that all private companies are. Government is to protect our rights. Nothing else. "That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression." Alabama state constitution section 35. They nailed this one well. Any action by government that is not protecting a right is evil.
6. see item 5.

 

[danieldemol]

1. We stop paying people be not be married. It’s been done in the US for decades.

Given that my knowledge of US welfare system is lacking, I doubt there is a payment called "paid not to be married allowance", what specific payments are you proposing we stop and how do you propose we deal with the damage done to single mothers - simply force them to be married to collect their payments? How will that work if a woman has been traumatised by past relationship/(s) and doesn't feel ready for another one?

2. If we promote better entertainment with healthy role models it would be useful.

I was hoping you would see that saying "promote" without saying how to promote is a non-answer by now. Your church could produce a movie and see if it sells, but outside that I suppose we can only lobby actors to make family friendly entertainment. Problem being if it doesn't sell it may not be produced in spite of the lobying.

5. Welfare is needed. Government systems are not. It can and should be private.

To the contrary churches have had 2000 years to set up a system that provides for the poor as efficiently through giving as welfare does through tax. Their utter failure to do so has resulted in a ridiculous situation where some are racing to be trillionaires while others go homeless/hungry etc.

6. I don’t buy that for a second.

You don't buy that religions preach irrelevant dogmas mixed in with their helpful advice? Do you subscribe to all religions because if not you are probably already rejecting the teachings of most religions as containing irrelevant dogma.

Government systems tend to be inefficient and heartless.

And yet for all their alleged inneficiency they provide more material support for the poor than do churches which are extremely wealthy to say the least. I would argue that it is the churches that are inneficient at helping the poor because many of them waste money building beutiful temples/churches that the poor do not get to live in. I suppose by comparison the government has the whitehouse, but I doubt that compares to all of US churches put together.

People feeling care for is helpful.

I feel cared for more by the labour party than by any Christian church but do go on.

When the help is giving willingly the giver and receiver tend to feel better. When force is use the “giver” feels robbed and the receiver often rather than expressing gratitude is angry at not getting more.

Great, so let your church provide as much for the needy without preaching dogmas as the US welfare system provides then you'll have a leg to stand on. And the "giver" of taxation only feels robbed when they are left with millions because they are greedy, nothing more.

In my opinion

 

[Truth in love]

Given that my knowledge of US welfare system is lacking, I doubt there is a payment called "paid not to be married allowance", what specific payments are you proposing we stop and how do you propose we deal with the damage done to single mothers - simply force them to be married to collect their payments? How will that work if a woman has been traumatised by past relationship/(s) and doesn't feel ready for another one?


I was hoping you would see that saying "promote" without saying how to promote is a non-answer by now. Your church could produce a movie and see if it sells, but outside that I suppose we can only lobby actors to make family friendly entertainment. Problem being if it doesn't sell it may not be produced in spite of the lobying.


To the contrary churches have had 2000 years to set up a system that provides for the poor as efficiently through giving as welfare does through tax. Their utter failure to do so has resulted in a ridiculous situation where some are racing to be trillionaires while others go homeless/hungry etc.


You don't buy that religions preach irrelevant dogmas mixed in with their helpful advice? Do you subscribe to all religions because if not you are probably already rejecting the teachings of most religions as containing irrelevant dogma.


And yet for all their alleged inneficiency they provide more material support for the poor than do churches which are extremely wealthy to say the least. I would argue that it is the churches that are inneficient at helping the poor because many of them waste money building beutiful temples/churches that the poor do not get to live in. I suppose by comparison the government has the whitehouse, but I doubt that compares to all of US churches put together.

I feel cared for more by the labour party than by any Christian church but do go on.


Great, so let your church provide as much for the needy without preaching dogmas as the US welfare system provides then you'll have a leg to stand on. And the "giver" of taxation only feels robbed when they are left with millions because they are greedy, nothing more.

In my opinion

LBJ (one of the worst presidents we’ve ever had which is saying something) overhauled the benefits system and unmarried women and children got more money then if dad was around. This and a few other stunts after the economic prospects of the African American community. They used to lead the US in business ownership and family stability. Now they are all by leading the nation in every unhealthy measure. People run around and blame it on slavery leftovers, but the data says otherwise.

Hollywood is a hard one.
Many churches are extremely efficient in their welfare systems. They lack the power to extract wealth in mass.

I’ll stand by the church mode for welfare.

 

[fantome profane]

LBJ (one of the worst presidents we’ve ever had which is saying something) overhauled the benefits system and unmarried women and children got more money then if dad was around. This and a few other stunts after the economic prospects of the African American community. They used to lead the US in business ownership and family stability. Now they are all by leading the nation in every unhealthy measure. People run around and blame it on slavery leftovers, but the data says otherwise.

Hollywood is a hard one.
Many churches are extremely efficient in their welfare systems. They lack the power to extract wealth in mass.

I’ll stand by the church mode for welfare.

So you are opposed to giving money to widows and you think this will help with mass shootings.

 

[Truth in love]

So you are opposed to giving money to widows and you think this will help with mass shootings.

This is like me saying “Rape is evil”. And you say “sex is good and people need to reproduce”


I’m all for helping the poor. How it is done matters. It needs to be done legally and the US federal government has no authority to run welfare programs.

 

[F1fan]

LBJ (one of the worst presidents we’ve ever had which is saying something)

Actually one of the best and smartest we ever have. But like most of your opinions this one is also incorrect and contrary to fact. You seem to be a mouthpiece for right wing extremism and offer no credible points of view. Your views are not thought out nor reasoned.

 

[Truth in love]

Actually one of the best and smartest we ever have. But like most of your opinions this one is also incorrect and contrary to fact. You seem to be a mouthpiece for right wing extremism and offer no credible points of view. Your views are not thought out nor reasoned.

I see so agree with you or be insulted. Thanks but that not how adults behave in a discussion or debate.

 

[F1fan]

I see so agree with you or be insulted. Thanks but that not how adults behave in a discussion or debate.

You made a false claim, and made no effort to back up the claim you made, so it was dismissed for being false on it's face.

If you going to make divisive political comments you should make sure you have a reasoned basis for them. That way you can at least earn respect for trying.

I could have let the comment sit. But you see that is how bad habits form, so I though it appropriate to point out your error, and your lack of any argument for your claim, despite it being in error. Your hold this view, yes? Do you have any idea why you hold it? Perhaps not. It's likely just political bias. My feedback offers you something to chew on.