Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    16 Mar '13 21:45
    There's been a recent campaign by liberals (one of too many to count) to destigmatize behaviors that have a high probability of disastrous personal consequences and deleterious effects on society. A great example is teen pregnancy.

    At the same time, there's been a campaign to stigmatize legal, responsible, constitutionally protected behaviors that have an extremely low probability of negative effects - like legal gun ownership.

    Why is it ok for black teens who can't read to have children they can't raise, but not ok for responsible citizens to own guns?
  2. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    16 Mar '13 22:06
    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nyIZIiY81Ek
  3. 16 Mar '13 22:12 / 4 edits
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    There's been a recent campaign by liberals (one of too many to count) to destigmatize behaviors that have a high probability of disastrous personal consequences and deleterious effects on society. A great example is teen pregnancy.

    At the same time, there's been a campaign to stigmatize legal, responsible, constitutionally protected behaviors that ...[text shortened]... n't read to have children they can't raise, but not ok for responsible citizens to own guns?
    'Apples or oranges' (birth control and gun control), if you please?

    A teenage girl who falls pregnant (All by herself through a 'miracle'? Or doesn't
    the male who impregnated her bear equal responsibility for this girl's 'fall'?)
    may hurt her own future and that of her child (if born) and perhaps that of her
    own family. But a teenage girl's unwanted pregnancy does not hurt, at least
    not directly, anyone else who's not already very close to her. In contrast, a
    legally purchased firearm may be used to hurt, indeed to kill, in a short time
    many persons who had no previous connection to the gun's owner.

    "Have you seen this new movie, 'Massacre at the Mall'? It's about a teenage girl
    who goes to the mall and uses her pregnancy to terrify and to hurt many people!"

    If some right-wing people (mostly men) would stop their opposition to abortion
    or even to promoting birth control (apart from abstinence) among young women,
    I suspect there would be fewer unwanted pregnancies among teenage girls.

    How would you attempt to 'fix the pregnant teenage girl problem'? By branding
    an obviously stigmatizing 'scarlet A' onto the forehead of every pregnant unwed
    teenage girl? But wouldn't that just encourage her to do everything possible to
    conceal her pregnancy and to have a secret abortion, even if it's illegal?
    So it seems to me that 'pro-life' people should *not* be attempting to stigmatize
    pregnant unwed teenage girls if they really want more 'illegitimate' babies to live.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/11/sexualisation-young-girls-myth-or-reality?INTCMP=SRCH

    "Sex, lies, and teenage girls. Today's girls are reluctant victims of an intensely
    sexual culture, right? Wrong, says one American sociologist who claims our moral
    panic is based on urban myths that bear no relation to reality for most teens."
    --Stuart Jeffries (8 March 2013, 'The Guardian'

    "It's overwhelmingly white, middle-class, heterosexual girls who are portrayed as
    at risk in these stories of sexualised girls....We project on to girls all our insoluble
    anxieties. The idea is there is so much in our society that we can't fix. More
    manageable is protecting young girls from being sexualised, so we do that."
    --Danielle Egan

    Every 'irresponsible gun owner' started out as a presumed 'responsible gun owner'.
    An irresponsible gun owner's probably going to be more dangerous than a
    sexually irresponsible teenage girl (what about the sexually irresponsible
    teenage boys?) toward the general public.
  4. 16 Mar '13 22:30
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    'Apples or oranges', if you please?

    A teenage girl who falls pregnant (All by herself through a 'miracle'? Or doesn't
    the male who impregnated her bear equal responsibility for this girl's 'fall'?)
    may hurt her own future and that of her child (if born) and perhaps that of her
    own family. But a teenage girl's unwanted pregnancy does not hurt, at l ...[text shortened]... ally irresponsible
    teenage boys?) toward the general public.
    The abortion rate per capita is approximately seven times lower in the Netherlands than in the US, while the teenage pregnancy rate is about ten times lower. However, I would suspect that sasquatsch would be opposed to the methods used to achieve such low rates of abortion and teenage pregnancy.
  5. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    16 Mar '13 22:37 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    'Apples or oranges', if you please?

    A teenage girl who falls pregnant (All by herself through a 'miracle'? Or doesn't
    the male who impregnated her bear equal responsibility for this girl's 'fall'?)
    may hurt her own future and that of her child (if born) and perhaps that of her
    own family. But a teenage girl's unwanted pregnancy does not hurt, at l ally irresponsible
    teenage boys?) toward the general public.
    I hope you note that I did not assign responsibility solely to the girl. I said 'teens'. They bear equal responsibility for the act; unfortunately they bear unequal burden for the outcome.

    People of low socioeconomic status - white, black, or purple - tend to be that way because of a lack of life skills and consequent poor choices. Then they and their child(ren) become a burden on society. Then, people like me get accused by Barack Obama for not paying my fair share, when I've never been a drain on society's resources, only contributed to them. Shouldn't people be told to not become a burden to society, instead of being told to contribute cheerfully whatever the government tells them to?

    I have to challenge your statement that every illegal gun owner was on e a legal gun owner. Whole sections of American cities, most recently notably Chicago, have been torn apart by young black males committing gun violence with illegally purchased guns. That is the vast majority of the problem.
  6. 16 Mar '13 23:15
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    I hope you note that I did not assign responsibility solely to the girl. I said 'teens'. They bear equal responsibility for the act; unfortunately they bear unequal burden for the outcome.

    People of low socioeconomic status - white, black, or purple - tend to be that way because of a lack of life skills and consequent poor choices. Then they and ...[text shortened]... ting gun violence with illegally purchased guns. That is the vast majority of the problem.
    Thanks for making it clear that you believe that teenage boys are just
    as responsible as teenage girls for unwanted teenage pregnancies.

    I was not disputing, of course, your belief (which I share) that unwanted teenage
    pregnancy is a social problem, which tends to have adverse consequences for the
    teenage mothers and their children as well as for the rest of society, which must
    bear some extra financial burden in taking care of these children if their young
    mothers or other family members cannot take care of them. I was disputing,
    however, your implied claim that unwanted teenage pregnancy and legal gun
    ownership are comparable issues in their effects and consequences.

    Here's my statement (in its only edit, I added 'presumed' to make it clearer):
    "Every 'irresponsible gun owner' started out as presumed 'responsible gun owner'."
    Please note that I wrote nothing, contrary to what you claimed, about 'illegal
    gun owner' and 'legal gun owner'. I was quite aware that someone who never
    was a 'legal gun owner' could acquire (perhaps by theft) a gun illegally.

    My point is that (just like every pregnant teenage girl started out as a virgin)
    every 'irresponsible gun owner' (like Adam Lanza's mother) started out presumed
    to be a 'responsible gun owner'. Before the day that her son used some of her
    guns to kill 26 other people as well as herself, Nancy Lanza was presumed to be
    a 'responsible gun owner'.
  7. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    17 Mar '13 00:43
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    The abortion rate per capita is approximately seven times lower in the Netherlands than in the US, while the teenage pregnancy rate is about ten times lower. However, I would suspect that sasquatsch would be opposed to the methods used to achieve such low rates of abortion and teenage pregnancy.
    You would suspect wrong.
  8. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    17 Mar '13 00:56
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Thanks for making it clear that you believe that teenage boys are just
    as responsible as teenage girls for unwanted teenage pregnancies.

    I was not disputing, of course, your belief (which I share) that unwanted teenage
    pregnancy is a social problem, which tends to have adverse consequences for the
    teenage mothers and their children as well as for the ...[text shortened]... ell as herself, Nancy Lanza was presumed to be
    a 'responsible gun owner'.
    I'd like to put a finer point on the argument, on which I may not have been sufficiently clear in my original post.

    I certainly think that background checks are a good idea.

    However, I wasn't comparing the relative effects of each problem. (Sidebar: I don't think the relative effects are comparable. Teenage pregnancy and gun violence to hand-in-hand; the use of legally owned guns to commit illegal acts has extremely tragic, but extremely rare (from a statistical standpoint) effects on society.). But I admit I haven't taken the time to research the issue. Your pedagogic and scholarly credentials are, I have no doubt, far more burnished than mine.

    My point was that a liberally biased American media looks to excuse behavior whose consequences are nearly statistically certain to have a negative outcome, while it concentrates on a behavior whose consequences are extremely unlikely to have a negative outcome. Further, the media fails to differentiate between legally owned guns in Nebraska and illegally owned guns in metropolitan Chicago. The media also fails to make the connection between people of low socioeconomic status in urban environments raised in single family homes and the likelihood of violence, gun or otherwise, originating in that household.

    Put another way, Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow do not like farmers who own guns, wear flannel, and go to church. So they twist facts to suit their needs, and ignore the ones that don't fit their worldview.
  9. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    17 Mar '13 01:06
    Loughner and Lanza dont fit your assumptions.
  10. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    17 Mar '13 01:21
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    There's been a recent campaign by liberals (one of too many to count) to destigmatize behaviors that have a high probability of disastrous personal consequences and deleterious effects on society. A great example is teen pregnancy.

    At the same time, there's been a campaign to stigmatize legal, responsible, constitutionally protected behaviors that ...[text shortened]... n't read to have children they can't raise, but not ok for responsible citizens to own guns?
    Why black teens who can't read, why not white teens who can't read?
  11. 17 Mar '13 01:41
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    The abortion rate per capita is approximately seven times lower in the Netherlands than in the US, while the teenage pregnancy rate is about ten times lower. However, I would suspect that sasquatsch would be opposed to the methods used to achieve such low rates of abortion and teenage pregnancy.
    Not if the females are all armed.
  12. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    17 Mar '13 02:19
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    Why black teens who can't read, why not white teens who can't read?
    All of them. I said black because the ludicrously high murder rate in Chicago (nearly exclusively black on black) has been in the news recently. But if you have to know, yes. All of these people who would rather breed than be productive individuals are a drain on society. The 'Jerry Springer' genre - I don't care what happens to them.
  13. 17 Mar '13 08:18
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    You would suspect wrong.
    You would favour teenagers having taxpayer-subsidized access to contraceptives?
  14. 17 Mar '13 09:07
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    All of them. I said black because the ludicrously high murder rate in Chicago (nearly exclusively black on black) has been in the news recently.
    Not in the Top 15 of US cities for murder and non-negligent manslaughter, apparently. Why pick on Chicago when St Louis in the next state west has more than twice its murder rate?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate
  15. 17 Mar '13 10:24
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    There's been a recent campaign by liberals (one of too many to count) to destigmatize behaviors that have a high probability of disastrous personal consequences and deleterious effects on society. A great example is teen pregnancy.

    At the same time, there's been a campaign to stigmatize legal, responsible, constitutionally protected behaviors that ...[text shortened]... n't read to have children they can't raise, but not ok for responsible citizens to own guns?
    why is it ok for rednecks to drink moonshine but not ok for hippies(or everyone) to smoke ganja?