Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   How Soon It Fades (Ben Smith & Byron York) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=6976)

sugarkang 08-19-2011 10:19 AM

Re: How Soon It Fades (Ben Smith & Byron York)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by whburgess (Post 222448)
I see you've given this some thought. You might could even get by cheaper then sending them money. Maybe Justin Beiber gear would do the job better and be cheaper.

I dig your vitamin idea, though, I think if a girl has a dad willing to do that, she's probably in a good environment anyway.

miceelf 08-19-2011 10:40 AM

Re: How Soon It Fades (Ben Smith & Byron York)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 222460)
I dig your vitamin idea, though, I think if a girl has a dad willing to do that, she's probably in a good environment anyway.

Yeah, that's a good point. This conversation reminds me of the Tiger Mom discussion. Any kid whose parents are even thinking about how they should parent (whatever the parents decide) is already ahead of the game.

badhatharry 08-19-2011 10:52 AM

Re: How Soon It Fades (Ben Smith & Byron York)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by whburgess (Post 222447)
I agree.

But the contemptuous labels like "Slut", "Cheap", "Easy, loose, woman" are much more effective then "big mistake"

Actually not, because they ignore the reasons girls have sex. And btw, your terms are still being used.

sugarkang 08-19-2011 12:17 PM

Re: How Soon It Fades (Ben Smith & Byron York)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 222446)
Here's the way I see it. Girls should be taught to understand that they hold the keys to the kingdom ...

That's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that they have been taught that, but it's all bank foreclosures and free open houses in the market.

stephanie 08-19-2011 12:28 PM

Re: How Soon It Fades (Ben Smith & Byron York)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by whburgess (Post 222445)
I was too young to take the man's advice. But what we did do when my daughter reached that risky age, is my wife told her that it was very important for college prospects for her to get that C in science up to the same level as her A's and B's, and that scientific studies had proven that birth control pills helped girls concentrate in their studies. That's how we put her on birth control.

Kind of like the current marketing thing about how birth control pills can also double as acne medicine.

whburgess 08-19-2011 03:19 PM

Re: How Soon It Fades (Ben Smith & Byron York)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 222463)
Actually not, because they ignore the reasons girls have sex. And btw, your terms are still being used.


I'm sure there are a lot of different factors in why most girls have sex.
And almost certainly more factors involved then why a boy has sex.
But, nevertheless, hormones is one of the biggest factors in why most girls have sex. Biology says it's time to have sex.

Putting shame on the girl for having sex is effective though. It's worked for most of history in almost all cultures. It has been the main means of preventing pregnancies in women who don't have the help of a husband in raising the child.

I agree the terms are still being used here in the USA. But I think we are making cultural progress in moving beyond that. The proof being all the girls who are getting pregnant.

whburgess 08-19-2011 03:28 PM

Re: How Soon It Fades (Ben Smith & Byron York)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 222457)
I appreciate that your earlier discussion of solutions included a pretty aggressive going after of the fathers in such cases.

Having had some contact with various communities where teen pregnancy is a real problem, it seems as if the entire function of many of the young men in such communities is to f**k up the lives of as many young women as possible.

It's disgusting really.

And the double standard has always disgusted me as well. All those men who would be proud of his son for 'getting some', but ashamed of his daughter. In fact, there are mothers like that as well.

But I do realize that these attitudes naturally evolved from the human situation, and there is nothing inherently fair or moral in nature.

whburgess 08-19-2011 03:35 PM

Re: How Soon It Fades (Ben Smith & Byron York)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 222472)
Kind of like the current marketing thing about how birth control pills can also double as acne medicine.

I didn't know about this. Great marketing idea.

miceelf 08-19-2011 03:46 PM

Re: How Soon It Fades (Ben Smith & Byron York)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by whburgess (Post 222489)
.
But I do realize that these attitudes naturally evolved from the human situation, and there is nothing inherently fair or moral in nature.

True. Although the parasitism of many young men these days is pretty extreme (unprecedented may be an extreme statement, but it feels that way) and even more than one might think from the double standard. Given the forbidden fruit thing and reverse psychology, it's hard to think about what exactly parents can be doing (especially parents who don't have a lot of free time, are single themselves and overstretched etc) to protect their daughters, but ugh.

It's not just about reproduction- boys are just less future oriented generally- crime, violence, substance use, and general risk taking are all much higher than for girls. In general, evolution works- the violent are mainly violent with each other, and the various forms of risk taking often take care of themselves, but in the sexual domain, I just see so many young women who would have been destined for college and other big things get f***ed up by young men who where never going any place good.

This post has been an episode of Misanthropic Fridays with Miceelf.

whburgess 08-19-2011 04:19 PM

Re: How Soon It Fades (Ben Smith & Byron York)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 222491)
True. Although the parasitism of many young men these days is pretty extreme (unprecedented may be an extreme statement, but it feels that way) and even more than one might think from the double standard. Given the forbidden fruit thing and reverse psychology, it's hard to think about what exactly parents can be doing (especially parents who don't have a lot of free time, are single themselves and overstretched etc) to protect their daughters, but ugh.

I think its difficult to overestimate the power of popular culture in these things.
I also think many of the parents themselves are at a disadvantage in being even able to appreciate and nurture the potential of their children and how important their own influence is, since they learned how to nurture their little ones form how they were nurtured.
It's not something that just happens in a culture as fluid, diverse, and with many options that we have.

I would add as a requirement for anyone getting public assistance that they must attend classes teaching what it means to be responsible for a child, how much care and focus is really required of a parent in the psychological development of that child, potential pitfalls, dangerous assumptions, etc....all the many mistakes that a parent who loves their child can make.

I think classes like this should be required in high school as well.

badhatharry 08-19-2011 04:47 PM

Re: How Soon It Fades (Ben Smith & Byron York)
 
[QUOTE=whburgess;222488 Putting shame on the girl for having sex is effective though. It's worked for most of history in almost all cultures. It has been the main means of preventing pregnancies in women who don't have the help of a husband in raising the child.

[/QUOTE]

You keep saying that shame has worked and then go on to say that it has been the main means of preventing illegitimate pregnancies and yet you offer no proof that it has. It's another case of coincidence is not correlation. Would you be willing to admit that there are many, equally important factors which account for less teen pregnancy? How about the fear of fathers and shotguns?

PS. I don't usually get so picky picky about people's assertions but this one just seems a little too ambitious.

whburgess 08-19-2011 05:09 PM

Re: How Soon It Fades (Ben Smith & Byron York)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 222496)
You keep saying that shame has worked and then go on to say that it has been the main means of preventing illegitimate pregnancies and yet you offer no proof that it has. It's another case of coincidence is not correlation. Would you be willing to admit that there are many, equally important factors which account for less teen pregnancy? How about the fear of fathers and shotguns?

PS. I don't usually get so picky picky about people's assertions but this one just seems a little too ambitious.


The sample pool (cultures, civilizations, tribes, etc) is very large, and the rate at which this phenomena occurs in the sample pool is way too high...I'd estimate at least 98%, for it to be coincidence.

You may doubt my estimate. You may think that the rate at which cultures in history attach shame to unattached women having sex is so much lower that coincidence rather then correlation can be reasonably assumed. We'll just have to agree to disagree if thats the case.

Or maybe you think the shaming of women is a by product of some sort of mechanism that is the real cause of the dramatically low rate of unattached female sexual behavior in relation to our current culture. I don't know what that would be. I don't think fathers with shotguns is enough to account for it.

miceelf 08-19-2011 05:13 PM

Re: How Soon It Fades (Ben Smith & Byron York)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by whburgess (Post 222493)
I would add as a requirement for anyone getting public assistance that they must attend classes teaching what it means to be responsible for a child, how much care and focus is really required of a parent in the psychological development of that child, potential pitfalls, dangerous assumptions, etc....all the many mistakes that a parent who loves their child can make.

I think classes like this should be required in high school as well.

I would agree with the goal of these. however, with my knowledge of what actually goes on in child welfare contexts, and specifically, how amazingly unhelpful "parenting classes" are in practice, I am hoping the version you propose above would be much more carefully crafted.

sugarkang 08-19-2011 11:01 PM

Re: How Soon It Fades (Ben Smith & Byron York)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 222496)
You keep saying that shame has worked and then go on to say that it has been the main means of preventing illegitimate pregnancies and yet you offer no proof that it has. It's another case of coincidence is not correlation. Would you be willing to admit that there are many, equally important factors which account for less teen pregnancy? How about the fear of fathers and shotguns?

PS. I don't usually get so picky picky about people's assertions but this one just seems a little too ambitious.

I don't think shame works all by itself. It has to be supported by the cultural system, which in this country used to mean Christianity. But as we trend away from strict sexual standards, the ability of shame to serve as a non-legal deterrent weakens.


Quote:

Originally Posted by whburgess (Post 222488)
Putting shame on the girl for having sex is effective though. It's worked for most of history in almost all cultures. It has been the main means of preventing pregnancies in women who don't have the help of a husband in raising the child.

I agree the terms are still being used here in the USA. But I think we are making cultural progress in moving beyond that. The proof being all the girls who are getting pregnant.

I agree that shame works with the caveat mentioned. But my inner feminist kicks in here, too. I can't support a system that demonizes a girl/woman's decision to engage in sexual activity. I've got an idea for an alternate solution, but nobody would like it.

apple 08-20-2011 03:08 PM

Re: How Soon It Fades (Ben Smith & Byron York)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 222576)
I agree that shame works with the caveat mentioned. But my inner feminist kicks in here, too. I can't support a system that demonizes a girl/woman's decision to engage in sexual activity. I've got an idea for an alternate solution, but nobody would like it.

I might. Tell us.

stephanie 08-20-2011 10:52 PM

Re: How Soon It Fades (Ben Smith & Byron York)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 222501)
I would agree with the goal of these. however, with my knowledge of what actually goes on in child welfare contexts, and specifically, how amazingly unhelpful "parenting classes" are in practice, I am hoping the version you propose above would be much more carefully crafted.

This is interesting, since I generally trust you and generally trust Kleiman, who has some examples of parenting interventions that sound useful. Thoughts on those specifically?

miceelf 08-21-2011 12:32 AM

Re: How Soon It Fades (Ben Smith & Byron York)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 222700)
This is interesting, since I generally trust you and generally trust Kleiman, who has some examples of parenting interventions that sound useful. Thoughts on those specifically?

I am not familiar with the ones Kleiman is talking about- can you point me in that direction?

Diane1976 08-21-2011 11:00 PM

Re: How Soon It Fades (Ben Smith & Byron York)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 222233)
not really, but never mond.



I don't know about the Herbert Hoover or Bush, but I would say that one real way that Obama has stood in the way of job creation is the passage of the Affordable Care Act.

I don't get how Obama's health care reforms prevented the creation of jobs. In Canada we have an unusual situation where our economy seems to be doing better than the US, our money is closer to par or better, and our unemployment rate is lower, which as far as I know has not happened in years, if ever. Normally, we assume that if the US economy goes bad ours will be worse, because they're integrated. Some people say it's because of our resource based economy, oil, etc., but for a hundred years we've been told this makes us poorer than the US, i.e. we are doomed to be "hewers of wood and drawers of water". All of a sudden, that's not a bad thing. I can't explain this, but how Obama's health care reforms would have anything to do with it, is beyond me. Canada already has what Americans would consider a completely socialist health system.

I do agree with what I think you said earlier, that whether you have a slightly more liberal or conservative government hardly matters much since the basic economic system never changes no matter what government is in power. And, that's just as well because there is no other one that we would consider any better. I do think different governments have a long term effect on the overall quality of life of the population and the values the country reflects. And they play a role in mitigating the harsher effects of the free market system and ensuring some reasonable level of equality.

Don Zeko 08-21-2011 11:10 PM

Re: How Soon It Fades (Ben Smith & Byron York)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 222233)
not really, but never mond.



I don't know about the Herbert Hoover or Bush, but I would say that one real way that Obama has stood in the way of job creation is the passage of the Affordable Care Act.

Yes, the ACA is reaching back in time from 2014 when most of it will be implemented to kill jobs now through mechanisms that are unclear and impossible to measure. That's definitely a reasonable interpretation of the evidence.

miceelf 08-22-2011 12:17 AM

Re: How Soon It Fades (Ben Smith & Byron York)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Diane1976 (Post 222835)
I don't get how Obama's health care reforms prevented the creation of jobs. In Canada we have an unusual situation where our economy seems to be doing better than the US, our money is closer to par or better, and our unemployment rate is lower, which as far as I know has not happened in years, if ever. Normally, we assume that if the US economy goes bad ours will be worse, because they're integrated. Some people say it's because of our resource based economy, oil, etc., but for a hundred years we've been told this makes us poorer than the US, i.e. we are doomed to be "hewers of wood and drawers of water". All of a sudden, that's not a bad thing. I can't explain this, but how Obama's health care reforms would have anything to do with it, is beyond me. Canada already has what Americans would consider a completely socialist health system.

Yeah, I think Canada's current good standing is neither because of nor in spite of it's vastly superior (for 98% of the population) health care system.

Rather, I suspect it's because Canada's banking system, through a combination of more aggressive regulation and the cultural aversion Canadians have to risk, weathered the storm that battered the US.

Sulla the Dictator 08-22-2011 12:48 AM

Re: How Soon It Fades (Ben Smith & Byron York)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 222847)
Yeah, I think Canada's current good standing is neither because of nor in spite of it's vastly superior (for 98% of the population) health care system.

Rather, I suspect it's because Canada's banking system, through a combination of more aggressive regulation and the cultural aversion Canadians have to risk, weathered the storm that battered the US.

I suspect it has something to do with oil at $80 a barrel and central Canadian oil sands, and a population of 30 million people.

sugarkang 08-22-2011 12:54 AM

Re: How Soon It Fades (Ben Smith & Byron York)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 222856)
I suspect it has something to do with oil at $80 a barrel and central Canadian oil sands, and a population of 30 million people.

In addition, I thought they got their spending under control in the 90s, but I could be wrong about this.

miceelf 08-22-2011 07:16 AM

Re: How Soon It Fades (Ben Smith & Byron York)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 222858)
In addition, I thought they got their spending under control in the 90s, but I could be wrong about this.

If so, that's actually a point in favor of their health care system being a positive.

miceelf 08-22-2011 07:16 AM

Re: How Soon It Fades (Ben Smith & Byron York)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 222856)
I suspect it has something to do with oil at $80 a barrel and central Canadian oil sands, and a population of 30 million people.

Texas.

stephanie 08-22-2011 12:40 PM

Re: How Soon It Fades (Ben Smith & Byron York)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 222711)
I am not familiar with the ones Kleiman is talking about- can you point me in that direction?

I was thinking mainly of his nurse home visits idea, but it seems he's backed off that idea as crime prevention, at least, although still thinks it is something worth doing for other reasons.

Disappointing results.

miceelf 08-22-2011 12:55 PM

Re: How Soon It Fades (Ben Smith & Byron York)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 222891)
I was thinking mainly of his nurse home visits idea, but it seems he's backed off that idea as crime prevention, at least, although still thinks it is something worth doing for other reasons.

Disappointing results.

Ah. Yes, that actually makes more sense. Home visits were not what i was talking about. I was talking about the typical parenting classes that are given to parents who are investigated by Child Protective Services, often as a condition of getting their kids back. More general parenting classes like the ones Sugar was talking about, have significant but quite small effects.

badhatharry 08-22-2011 01:57 PM

Re: How Soon It Fades (Ben Smith & Byron York)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 222837)
Yes, the ACA is reaching back in time from 2014 when most of it will be implemented to kill jobs now through mechanisms that are unclear and impossible to measure. That's definitely a reasonable interpretation of the evidence.

Yeah, uncertainty about what the legislation will mean, what the actual legislation involves and so many waivers one wonders who the heck is keeping track of them wouldn't be a problem to any business person who is deciding whether to hire or to keep what she has in place.

Sulla the Dictator 08-22-2011 04:09 PM

Re: How Soon It Fades (Ben Smith & Byron York)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 222837)
Yes, the ACA is reaching back in time from 2014 when most of it will be implemented to kill jobs now through mechanisms that are unclear and impossible to measure. That's definitely a reasonable interpretation of the evidence.

Absolutely. Any legitimate, successful business plans in advance. If you start to expand your business now, finish expansion and hiring in 2012, you need to consider the liability the ACA is going to be in 2014. It is only two years away.

Don Zeko 08-22-2011 05:15 PM

Re: How Soon It Fades (Ben Smith & Byron York)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 222906)
Absolutely. Any legitimate, successful business plans in advance. If you start to expand your business now, finish expansion and hiring in 2012, you need to consider the liability the ACA is going to be in 2014. It is only two years away.

Sigh. OK, fine. Let's stipulate that this is actually going on. If so, they what are some objective economic indicators that might result from this dynamic? Wouldn't we expect a spike in unemployment following the ACA's enactment in 2010? Wouldn't we also expect higher rates of job creation in other countries that didn't pass new liberal legislation in 2009 and 2010? Is there any emperical evidence at all that you can point to to prove that this is happening?

Sulla the Dictator 08-22-2011 06:26 PM

Re: How Soon It Fades (Ben Smith & Byron York)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 222911)
Sigh. OK, fine. Let's stipulate that this is actually going on. If so, they what are some objective economic indicators that might result from this dynamic? Wouldn't we expect a spike in unemployment following the ACA's enactment in 2010?

Perhaps. Or we would expect to see a drag on employment, where this negative factor helps to balance out positive factors which would otherwise lower the unemployment rate. We arguably are seeing that.

Quote:

Wouldn't we also expect higher rates of job creation in other countries that didn't pass new liberal legislation in 2009 and 2010?
You mean the BRICs? I think we have seen higher rates of job creation there, no?

Quote:

Is there any emperical evidence at all that you can point to to prove that this is happening?
No, because legitimate economic analysis requires some time between the enactment of the law and rigorous study of effects. I have anecdotal evidence already, though. :) And I have a healthy suspicion of federal intervention in markets.

Don Zeko 08-22-2011 06:44 PM

Re: How Soon It Fades (Ben Smith & Byron York)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 222920)
Perhaps. Or we would expect to see a drag on employment, where this negative factor helps to balance out positive factors which would otherwise lower the unemployment rate. We arguably are seeing that.

No, we're not. Your theory implies that we would see a sharp change in economic indicators following the passage of the ACA. After all, if this is all about the expectations of entrepreneurs, then those expectations would change dramatically upon passage of the bill. So if I were to look up new jobs created in, say, the three months prior to the ACA's passage and the three months following, the latter would have weaker numbers, right? Oh, wait. It turns out that if you look at the data you see the exact opposite.

http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/...4049176349.gif

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 222920)
You mean the BRICs? I think we have seen higher rates of job creation there, no?

No, I mean every other country on the globe that didn't pass a universal health care bill in late 2009. But if you look at the data, you see a couple of things. First, there's a lot of statistical noise and variation from country to country that can be spun by ideologues to say any damn thing they want. And second, you see that high and sustained unemployment is a global problem that doesn't correlate with how people pay for health care.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 222920)
No, because legitimate economic analysis requires some time between the enactment of the law and rigorous study of effects. I have anecdotal evidence already, though. :) And I have a healthy suspicion of federal intervention in markets.

Oh, well if you've got anecdotal evidence and pre-existing ideological commitments, I guess that's plenty good enough. I take it all back. it's obviously Obama's job-killing future policies, not something silly like weak aggregate demand or consumer debt. My bad.

sugarkang 08-22-2011 07:29 PM

Re: How Soon It Fades (Ben Smith & Byron York)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 222923)
First, there's a lot of statistical noise and variation from country to country that can be spun by ideologues to say any damn thing they want. And second, you see that high and sustained unemployment is a global problem that doesn't correlate with how people pay for health care.

Countries by unemployment rate:

1.9% Singapore
2.9% Switzerland
3.7% South Korea
4.1% China
4.9% Japan
4.9% Australia

6.0% Germany
7.6% United Kingdom
8.1% Italy *
9.1% United States
9.5% France (for the past 20 years)
12.4% Portugal *
14.0% Ireland *
15.0% Greece *
20.9% Spain *


* PIIGS

Don Zeko 08-22-2011 07:44 PM

Re: How Soon It Fades (Ben Smith & Byron York)
 
When did Germany join that acronym?

sugarkang 08-22-2011 07:47 PM

Re: How Soon It Fades (Ben Smith & Byron York)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 222944)
When did Germany join that acronym?

Fixed. I've had Germany on my mind because of the proposed Euro Bonds. They are so screwed.

Don Zeko 08-22-2011 07:50 PM

Re: How Soon It Fades (Ben Smith & Byron York)
 
Looks that way, but who knows? If NATO has blundered through the Lybian war to a successful, low-cost conclusion, maybe pessimism about the Eurozone is less warranted than I think it is.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.