By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - The American family is falling apart

sundin13 said:
numberwang said:

I wonder if the rise in homelessness is caused the the decay of family structures?

 

I wonder if the rise in harp seal populations is caused by the decay of family structures?

I thought global warming killed the seals?



Around the Network
numberwang said:
sundin13 said:

I wonder if the rise in harp seal populations is caused by the decay of family structures?

I thought global warming killed the seals?

I guess the "decay of family structures" brought them back.

#correlation=causation



sundin13 said:

1) To act like "Marital Rape" is sufficiently different from "Spousal Rape" is to basically use semantics to build a wall where none exists. While "marital rape" does have some additional stigma, in effect, the two are extremely similar. This leads to point 2...

2) Your cutting of my sentence seems to have cut out all the context of my question. Go back and reread the whole sentence and you should see that you did not answer my question. My point was that, as marital rape and spousal rape are not sufficiently different, the act of marriage does not incur further risk in effect. This means that by getting married, all you are doing is changing the verbiage of abuse, not the effect or reality of said abuse. As such, there is no logic in saying that someone accepted the risk by getting married, as that risk was already there. Are you understanding what I'm saying?

3) To introduce these additional elements is to move the goalposts, more or less. Basically, you have been arguing from a position where responsibility of the raped individual for the actions that led to this occurrence is the default, assumed position. You are not arguing from specific circumstances where risk is more apparent, you are arguing from this broad statement, that responsibility is the default. This is the core of my problem with your argument. That these "mistakes" are inherent to the situation.

You are not asking for clarification as to whether these individuals were swimming in Australia or England (so to speak), you are simply placing the responsibility on the victim by default.

4) And finally, I would just like to stress that there is a pretty big difference between telling someone to make responsible decisions and telling someone that they have made poor choices. I'll add that one of my biggest problems with your arguments has been that you have been applying these criticisms to actions that someone took in the past. You have been pushing for telling a rape victim how their actions led to them being raped. I have no issue with, say, encouraging victims of domestic abuse to go to the police. I do have a pretty big problem with saying to victims of domestic abuse "You did say 'for better or for worse', so I mean, you shouldn't be surprised by the fact that you have been abused. You need to take responsibility for your actions."

First I want to say that in an ideal situation I would be speaking with a person that has NOT YET been raped so the core of my message would be about prevention in the form of advice to make responsible choices so I don't have to tell her that it's her fault or whatever you are saying I would try to tell that person.

Second I made that very clear in past posts that the language I hold here is a language of debate and not the actual language I would have with someone that is a victim of rape. So I'm sorry but you are wrong about my intentions. I would not tell someone that is a victim of rape that their choices are the cause of what happened etc. That would be pretty much the same as telling them that the rape is their fault, why would I do that? What I would do is discuss with them about how to NEVER be raped again by making responsible choices in the future. I have explained that already so I'm not sure why you keep believing that I'd be this guy pointing an accusing finger at the victim's poor choices.

I'm the guy that tells a little kid that just got burned out by matches "I told you it would burn" in the hopes that he understands that fire is not to be played with because it will inevitably burn. The ACTUAL responsibility of keeping the child safe from fire is STILL MINE, I CANNOT leave a little kid unattended cause if he hurts himself it would still be my entire responsibility. But if I don't try to make him take the very basic responsibility of his choice, if I tell him "poor little sweetie who got burned by that bad mister fire" in his head he does not have to be careful cause he will believe he has absolutely no part or responsibility in what happened. So he's gonna play with fire again cause the burn has nothing to do with his choices. But if I tell him "I told you that fire would burn" chances are he will get a little more wise and not play with fire next time cause hopefully he understands the very basic notion that CHOOSING to go ahead and play with fire will have a consequence of this unpleasant feel of burning.

I guess you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this cause I see no other outcome. But I want to point out that while I fundamentally disagree with your approach of the situation, I still respect your opinion.



Hiku said:

Basically, "never interact with anyone. If something bad happens, don't complain because you should have known it could happen."
Is that it?

Or is this is exclusive to something like marriage, and/or sexual abuse?

Ok I see what you mean but when I say "don't complain" I don't mean don't file charges or don't go to the police. Of course if a crime is committed you must defend yourself or the children or whatever the case may be.

When I say "don't complain" it's more of a figure of speech than something taken literally. It's more like don't be surprised something bad happened if you take risks (through marriage or any other situation that can potentially bring about danger)

And you're right about people when being abused probably thinking "I did not imagine this would happen". And from there my point is to tell them BEFORE bad stuff happens to TRY and imagine that this COULD happen precisely so that they can better anticipate and potentially avoid something bad happening and not find themselves in a situation where they totally did not see something bad coming because as you say they "did not imagine it could happen" which is the exact weakness an abuser will take advantage of.

So to make a direct answer to your questions:

Yes people should complain and report to the cops if they are abused both inside and outside marriage, they should also report if it's the spouse or boyfriend hitting them or acting dangerous in any way. Same with you getting stabbed in a subway, file charges against the stabber, file charges against the colleague that punches you and file charges against the family member that becomes violent. I never said not to.



sundin13 said:
numberwang said:

I thought global warming killed the seals?

I guess the "decay of family structures" brought them back.

#correlation=causation

Correlation is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for causality and can't be dismissed so easily if you have many individual observations that demonstrate the point (someone without a family can't rely on parents, siblings etc for support and can be on the streets faster).



Around the Network
CrazyGamer2017 said:

I'm the guy that tells a little kid that just got burned out by matches "I told you it would burn" in the hopes that he understands that fire is not to be played with because it will inevitably burn. The ACTUAL responsibility of keeping the child safe from fire is STILL MINE, I CANNOT leave a little kid unattended cause if he hurts himself it would still be my entire responsibility. But if I don't try to make him take the very basic responsibility of his choice, if I tell him "poor little sweetie who got burned by that bad mister fire" in his head he does not have to be careful cause he will believe he has absolutely no part or responsibility in what happened. So he's gonna play with fire again cause the burn has nothing to do with his choices. But if I tell him "I told you that fire would burn" chances are he will get a little more wise and not play with fire next time cause hopefully he understands the very basic notion that CHOOSING to go ahead and play with fire will have a consequence of this unpleasant feel of burning.

But people don't need to be told these things. Someone who just burned their hand is going to understand that fire burns. Someone who has just gotten out of an extremely abusive relationship isn't likely to simply jump back into another relationship, no matter how healthy that relationship would be. More often than not they are going to display a number of negative symptoms, such as being terrified of intimacy, finding it difficult to trust others, having difficulty making connections and often, blaming themselves for the fact that this happens, etc. You don't need to tell them "I told you it would burn", especially if they weren't playing with fire in the first place (again, you ignored the majority of my post which called you out for this assumption...). How you deal with victims is by helping them get over the trauma, not by drilling it into their head that this could happen again.

All that accomplishes is making it more difficult for them to get over that trauma (if they have already gotten out of the relationship) or making it more difficult to get out of that situation. Further, your nebulous "make good decisions" "advice" isn't likely to help anyone, especially when often, the victim doesn't have to make poor decisions to lead them into that situation.

numberwang said:
sundin13 said:

I guess the "decay of family structures" brought them back.

#correlation=causation

Correlation is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for causality and can't be dismissed so easily if you have many individual observations that demonstrate the point (someone without a family can't rely on parents, siblings etc for support and can be on the streets faster).

Feel free to substantiate your ponderings with literally any evidence, but until then, all you are doing is saying "look at how this graph looks! Wow!" which honestly, adds nothing to the conversation. Given your handling of the OP topic, I won't hold my breath.

I don't disagree with your argument, you just haven't actually made one yet.



the-pi-guy said:
numberwang said:

I wonder if the rise in homelessness is caused the the decay of family structures?

Or maybe it has to do with the rise of housing costs...  

Surveys show the following reasons: "eviction; doubled-up or severely overcrowded housing; domestic violence; job loss; and hazardous housing conditions" led to homelessness.

Wouldn't the first option to be move in with your more stable family? Without that more stable family, then you run out of a safe option. I'm not saying it's causation but we know that people stuck in poverty/homelessness are more likely to come from a broken family.



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

numberwang said:

 

[OFF-TOPIC]

"Non-White" "Non-Latino White" "Latino" ? Where are "White-Asians" "Non-White Asians" "Black Latinos" "Non-Black Latinos" "Asian Latinos" Non-Asian Non-Black Latinos" etc.....

I will NEVER understand the logic about how U.S. identify ethinicities. Never.



RolStoppable said:
numberwang said:

Correlation is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for causality and can't be dismissed so easily if you have many individual observations that demonstrate the point (someone without a family can't rely on parents, siblings etc for support and can be on the streets faster).

The war on drugs and therefore the republicans are the main culprit in all of this.

Drugs are good for family cohesion? Would you marry an addict?



Alot is going wrong in the US and it's being left behind.

Marriege is the least of the problems. Education, racism and safety are the biggest.