Moral Questions ...and No Answers

Not really funny though Darla. How will a jury convict a white man in Birmaingham for killing a black person when at least half of the white population are KKK members. At that time only about 20% of blacks were registered to vote. Think they had any blacks on the jury ?
 
uscitizen said:
Not really funny though Darla. How will a jury convict a white man in Birmaingham for killing a black person when at least half of the white population are KKK members. At that time only about 20% of blacks were registered to vote. Think they had any blacks on the jury ?
Click to expand...

No, I don't think they had any blacks on the juries. I'm aware of the history there. I just think it's funny anytime someone gets one off at Dixie's expense.
 
Darla said:
No, I don't think they had any blacks on the juries. I'm aware of the history there. I just think it's funny anytime someone gets one off at Dixie's expense.
Click to expand...

And at least most of that time if you were poor you had no lawyer in court. The court appointed lawyer and Mirinda (sp?) rights did not yet exist. coerced testimony was acceptable in court, etc.
 
Cypress said:
Back then, women were treated as second-class citizens in the work place. Men could sexually harass them as much as they wanted, without fear of consequences.

Maybe Dixie misses legal sexual harrassment.
Click to expand...


Dixie misses a f'ing dream world which never existed. People have a tendency to romanticize the past. I think it's most common in those who feel confused and unsure in the present. Conservatives are particularly prone to it, though we all do it to some extent. Remember the Clinton/Dole race? Dole was all about going back to the so-called "good ole days" when morality prevailed. But whose morality? The subject of how blacks were treated came up then too. But conservatives ate it up.
 
Care4all said:
He grew up in the 60's not the 70's, what does it say about the divorce rate in the 50's and 60's?

I agree with Dixie, coming from the same era....IT WAS as he said, in my neighborhood too...

There were very few if ANY single mothers or divorced mothers with any of the kids I hung out with...

all (happily?) married couples, a mom and a dad in the household.....

The thing is, in massachusetts, my old neighborhood, it could have been a neighborhood of the past.... all married couples with children from the one marriage.....both mom and dad present.

care
Click to expand...
I'm of the same vintage myself and, with all respect, I have to disagree. Statistics, when competently compiled and reproduced many times, really don't lie. The fact is that most of these imagined changes really don't exist. They just seem to because we all tend to romanticize the culture and time in which we grew up.

I don't mean that in a critical sense, by the way. Not even to Dixie. Well, okay: let's not go there. It's an entirely human trait to romanticize the past. I believe that it's called the "Golden Years Syndrome" in psychology.

When it comes to making policy, though, I think we need to rely on hard statistics, not personal impressions.
 
Cypress said:
Back then, women were treated as second-class citizens in the work place. Men could sexually harass them as much as they wanted, without fear of consequences.

Maybe Dixie misses legal sexual harrassment.
Click to expand...

now THIS is very TRUE! i lived thru it, even in the 80's! in 1984, i was the FIRST female shoe buyer that the company had hired! all male buyers, for the 20 previous years in this company/dept store!

now, the majority of retail Buyers are female.
 
Care4all said:
now THIS is very TRUE! i lived thru it, even in the 80's! in 1984, i was the FIRST female shoe buyer that the company had hired! all male buyers, for the 20 previous years in this company/dept store!

now, the majority of retail Buyers are female.
Click to expand...
I go back to my (now very upscale) home town today and I see a lot more dark faces on the street, too. Also a hell of a lot more Asian faces, but that's the Pacific Rim college town thing.

I will agree with one thing: I believe that divorce, cohabitation and single parenting are all less controversial today than they were then. They're not really more common, just less covert.
 
Look at the crime rate and infant mortality rate of the 70's.

Plus look at the cloaths they wore! Come on we are MUCH better off now when we dont wear polyester suits and such!
 
Hell in the 70's we lived in a very nice modern house. The Tampa Tribune even came out and did a photo spread of the place.

My mother still lives there. It aint so nice by todays standards. She does not have cathederal sealings or Jacuzzi bath tubs. No walk in closets or fancy lani in the back yard!
 
My mother used to volunteer for jury duty because back then women were not required but were allowed to be on juries.
 
this is NOT an accurate comparison of divorce rate. you really pulled this one outta your ass. this rate does not take into account the explosion of unmarried couples and singles. the REAL rate that tells the story is how many divorces per MARRIAGEs occur; i'll bet your ass that there is a big differenc in the percent of marriages ending in divorce from the 70's to the present.

Naw HipLew, it can't be! Don't you see, Prissy has made a valid case, that thing are so much better today than yesterday! We are actually accumulating morals by watching Paris Hilton and listening to Howard Stern! There are far more people staying married and raising their families in a wholesome environment today... wy, just the domestic homicide rate shows it... we have more married people killing each other today, precisely because they are staying in their marriages longer, don't you see? Isn't it obvious?

...bunch of gaul darn idiot libs!
 
as is always the case, conservatives look longingly towards the past and liberals look hopefully and excitedly into the future.

Some people know that you cannot turn back the hands of time, and some people don't.
 
I wish we could turn back time to before the invasion of Iraq....
But then it would be deja vu all over again...
 
Dixie said:
this is NOT an accurate comparison of divorce rate. you really pulled this one outta your ass. this rate does not take into account the explosion of unmarried couples and singles. the REAL rate that tells the story is how many divorces per MARRIAGEs occur; i'll bet your ass that there is a big differenc in the percent of marriages ending in divorce from the 70's to the present.

Naw HipLew, it can't be! Don't you see, Prissy has made a valid case, that thing are so much better today than yesterday! We are actually accumulating morals by watching Paris Hilton and listening to Howard Stern! There are far more people staying married and raising their families in a wholesome environment today... wy, just the domestic homicide rate shows it... we have more married people killing each other today, precisely because they are staying in their marriages longer, don't you see? Isn't it obvious?

...bunch of gaul darn idiot libs!
Click to expand...

Even Damocles remembers a lot of kids from broken homes in the 1970s.

I'm just asking you to revise your assertion of those good-old days being morally superior. You southerners were stringing up black people from trees, and telling women they had to stay barefoot in the kitchen.
 
I'm just asking you to revise your assertion of those good-old days being morally superior. You southerners were stringing up black people from trees, and telling women they had to stay barefoot in the kitchen.
//

but that is what dixie likes about them :D
 
Cypress said:
Even Damocles remembers a lot of kids from broken homes in the 1970s.

I'm just asking you to revise your assertion of those good-old days being morally superior. You southerners were stringing up black people from trees, and telling women they had to stay barefoot in the kitchen.
Click to expand...

Don't forget it was also a time in which domestic violence wasn't commonly reported, and wasn't even considered a crime. Women had few if any legal protections, in reality. Today, people conducting divorce studies seem surprised by the number of divorces in long-time marrieds over the age of 60. The woman is the initiator in the majority of these divorces, and one of the top reasons cited is abuse. Imagine living with it your entire life, and finally having the courage to free yourself of it in your 60's. Today's society not only accepts these women, it congratulates them. No such societal conditions existed then. These very same women would have went to their graves trapped in abusive marriages. There is no doubt that many did.

Rape was also far more under-reported than it is today, and even though rape victims aren't exactly embraced today, it was far worse for a woman, even 30 years ago to come forward.

Who was it better for then? The white male. And only the white male.
 
"The good old days wernt always good and tomorrow aint as bad as it seems"
 
Care4all said:
now THIS is very TRUE! i lived thru it, even in the 80's! in 1984, i was the FIRST female shoe buyer that the company had hired! all male buyers, for the 20 previous years in this company/dept store!

now, the majority of retail Buyers are female.
Click to expand...

So, so true. I'll bet you were told that if you didn't work out they'd never hire another woman in that position, either! That's what happened when I became an insurance underwriter back in the "dark ages". The company had a policy to reimburse the tuition for employees who took the Ins. Institute courses. I enrolled but they told me that they wouldn't pay for mine because I was a woman. I responded that when I passed all the courses, as I most certainly would (and did) the company name would not appear anywhere in relation to me. They relented, but grudgingly. All this was entirely legal.
 
maineman said:
as is always the case, conservatives look longingly towards the past and liberals look hopefully and excitedly into the future.

Some people know that you cannot turn back the hands of time, and some people don't.
Click to expand...


And some people don't care about turning back the hands of time, they just want to hang on to some sense of moral decency and self respect in society, and realize civilizations which fail to uphold some kind of moral standard, eventually crumble and fail. Then there are some who are like spoiled kids in a candy store, and just want more decadence and filth permeating their lives, and don't see why it's a big problem.... in fact, they will ridicule and scorn the 'adults' for trying to maintain some sense of morality and dignity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top