I am sure all of you have seen what I am speaking of, the diliberate emasculation of our soceity in general and our young boys in perticular.

Men are shown as bumbling idiots on TV, a black eye at school is a major crime, boys being taught that there natural aggresion is something bad to be suppressed instead of channeled into something positive.

People being taught that to defend yourself or family is wrong that the man who just raped your wife or kid just needs a little theropy not punishment.

People being taught that guns are bad if they were just not allowed to defend themself the world would be a safer place.

People being taught that the government is there to hold your hand throughout your life and they know what is best.

And a thousand other things that you see every day.

The point behind this and what I was wondering is how much of this do you think is in place to make the population meeker, weaker and easier lead?

Some of these things, such as messages shows give, about trusting the government to take care of you, make the population weaker, yet for each one, there is another to equal the balance. Plenty of movies about the government ruining peoples lives, just to cover something up.

Such as the movie, Mercury Rising, the government does evil things, for national security, and gives the message that people should not trust it.

Nevertheless, it must be said, some of the points I agree with, such as rapists do need therapy, perhaps some type of punishment, but not anything like a beating or death penalty. School fights are wrong, I believe fully, male aggression should not be encouraged in any way, focused is a loose term, it could mean something like training to kill easier, or writing a book. So, to me, young boys are shown all types of paths, not that they are influenced greatly by TV.

Real life experiences affect children much more I think.

I'm not so sure it is a deliberate plot to emasculate the US's young men - I think rather that it is politicians who in an attempt to make a name for themselves and gain notoriety, come up with "wouldn't it be nice if..." type laws that are pretty much the ruin of the nation.

When in fact, it is NOT the job of our politicians to change this country, it is their responsibility to represent the people...



[Edited on 8-2-2004 by intelgurl]

So, to me, young boys are shown all types of paths, not that they are influenced greatly by TV.

The point is not about TV its about the government trying to turn or children into little drones afraid to defend or take care of themselves, totally dependent on the government for both

Your gansta nation of little boys awaits. Turn on the radio or MTV. This argument is BS. The hippies lost.

We were a kinder, gentler nation 40 years ago. Not now by a long stretch. The thugs and bullies are in power and shaping young minds. Not the school teachers.

Well, the same concept is applied to the entire subject really, for with TV, Radio, government influence in all forms, laws, ect, young boys really are shown all types of paths.

Especially now that polititians are becoming more open with things, discussing matters that would not even be touched on before. Before boys were expected to be young, ruffhousing troublemakers, who are strong and defenders.

Now, they have a choice to me, they do not have to go into sports, it is acceptable if a boy plays music, sings, dances, writes, or does something nice and constructive like that.

What I mean to say is, it goes both ways you see. Perhaps before the government deliberately manipulated young boys into becoming strong, defenders of the country, in order to have good stock for soldiers, after all, they were needed in old times.

Television is a great tool of power and influence. The greatest tool to convey messages of thought and influence. its allowed an entire nation to articulate on a global scale.

Its a shame its not beings used for the better good, its clouded with so much nonsense.

Television should be used more so a educational tool than entertainment.

Deep

Your gansta nation of little boys awaits.

Since when is being taught to protect and take care of your self and your own being a gangster? I am not talking about running the streets packing uzis I am talking about protecting your self.

And as far as this nation being gentler 40 years ago bull# I was here 40 years ago and I know better.

Back then if someone broke into your house and you blowed them away shame on them you wouldnt spend a day in jail. If two kids in school got into a fight it was just boys will be boys the next day they would be friends again anyway.

This old times you speak of, boys will be boys, no that is not acceptable, blowing someone away for trespassing? This is arcade and absoultely horrid.

I am glad the nation has evolved and become more civilized.

However, I agree with Amuk, protecting a family properly does not mean being a gangster, that is a mean stereotype.

The only problem I have with this way of thinking Amuk, is it seems totally discriminatory against women, particularly young boys, what makes them the given defenders? Women are capable of defending themselves just as boys are, young boys are in many areas raped more by percentage, and killed more often after sex crimes occur. Women can also learn to defend their own families, and children, better than a man on average I would say, in some situations.

I almost feel, as if by speaking that men are the defenders, one is saying women are weak, this is unfair, and untrue.

[Edited on 8-2-2004 by QuestForSafety]

Before boys were expected to be young, ruffhousing troublemakers, who are strong and defenders.

And this was wrong how?

I cannot believe you would ask this, a boy has a right to his own destiny! Using them as defenders, just because it is traditional, this is taking away a boy's chance to do what he wishes.

There is nothing wrong with them becoming defender's of their own free will, but railroading them into this course, with manipulation is wrong, to me.

Women can also learn to defend their own families, and children, better than a man on average I would say, in some situations.

I have no problem with that as a matter of fact that is one of the things I have against the anti gun people is that guns put women on an equal footing in the self defense department.

And if you dont want to get shot breaking into someones house than dont break into there house instead of crying about them shooting you. I am not gonna wait to see if you arte just kidding around or if you plan to harm my family.

I'll send your family flowers

[Edited on 8-2-2004 by Amuk]

That is so cruel, do you really mean that? Perhaps you just need to take a few breaths and get some fresh air. It sounds as if you are fuming with agression, and perhaps even domination over one's family.

Feeling some protectiveness is acceptable, but it goes too far, when you would kill someone, when you are not even sure whether they are trying to steal a radio for some drug money, attempting to vandalize your property, or perhaps even going to attempt murder. I mean phoning police would be more reasonable, you could just invest in a safe room rather than a gun. It would be much more safe as well, as you would not shoot a family member by mistake.

By the way, I said woman are just as good as men at defending, as in, they could also physically defend their family, it is not only men who grow muscles, I know many strong females, who could drop the average male rapist or attacker like a sack of dirt. Not all can of course, but that does not mean resorting to weaponry. The point of course being, females are Not weaklings.

[Edited on 8-2-2004 by QuestForSafety]

[Edited on 8-2-2004 by QuestForSafety]

This is exactlly what I am talking they have you convinced that risking your familys life is better than harming the poor misunderstood man that is breaking into your house to kill and rape and steal. I personaly dont care why hes doing it unless he wrote it on a note noone will ever find out.

As far as a 100 pound woman defending themself against a 250 pound rapist I wont even argue with you about this, ask some of the women on this board who have been raped, and I am sure they are some, how good that works out.

You need to grow up kid

Originally posted by Amuk
I am sure all of you have seen what I am speaking of, the diliberate emasculation of our soceity in general and our young boys in perticular.

Men are shown as bumbling idiots on TV, a black eye at school is a major crime, boys being taught that there natural aggresion is something bad to be suppressed instead of channeled into something positive.

People being taught that to defend yourself or family is wrong that the man who just raped your wife or kid just needs a little theropy not punishment.

People being taught that guns are bad if they were just not allowed to defend themself the world would be a safer place.

People being taught that the government is there to hold your hand throughout your life and they know what is best.

And a thousand other things that you see every day.

The point behind this and what I was wondering is how much of this do you think is in place to make the population meeker, weaker and easier lead?

and who do we blame for that? The same people who want to get rid of dodge ball in gym class and the pledge. LIBERALS, im looking your direction

It may be you who needs to grow up, let go of your stereotypes, and admit that you could be crushed by some women. Just as any man could. Just as many women could be crushed by some men.

You are a fool to think men are all stronger than women, some are, many are, but a lot of women are stronger than a lot of men as well. Just because sometimes people are taught women are weaker, it does not make this written in stone, women often proudly overcome the obstacles, and prove they can be just as strong as any primitive thinking man.

By the way, you know that being stronger, on an unrelated note, could also mean being SMARTER than a stupid male, and having a safe room to hide in during emergency, where police could be dispatched. Police who can handle situations in trained manners, not a possesive civillian with a gun. Police, which incidentally may include women, as part of the response team.

[Edited on 8-2-2004 by QuestForSafety]

[Edited on 8-2-2004 by QuestForSafety]

Originally posted by KrazyIvan
and who do we blame for that? The same people who want to get rid of dodge ball in gym class and the pledge. LIBERALS, im looking your direction

Um, Ivan, I'm a liberal and I think it's perfectly alright to use reasonable force to defend your property. I thought that this was still law. You can still use reasonable force to defend your things right? I know you can't shoot to kill but who would want to unless you're sick in the head? I mean, you shoot out the guys legs or his arms or something and call the cops. Makes sense to me and I'm pretty sure that right will never be taken away. Too many supporters of it - liberals and conservatives - the majority of the populace believes in defending ones property within reason.

And I still believe in the kids will be kids mindset. Let the little guys duke it out. Although many school staff back in New Zealand looked the other way when we had our fights, this post is about the sissification of America. In which case I would have to agree. Americans think theyre still hardcore but theyre being brought up more strictly than ever before. I wouldn't blame it on conservatives or liberals, just frightened, concerned parents.


It has some what of a degenerative feedback loop to it. You bring the kids up in an overbearing environment, they grow up leave home and don't know what to do with all their freedom, they do some things they aren't supposed to do to harm society, parents become more overbearing. It's a long process and it is making the country worse off socialogically as a result.

and who do we blame for that? The same people who want to get rid of dodge ball in gym class and the pledge. LIBERALS, im looking your direction

NOOOOOO!!!! Dodgeball was awesome. Only the weak perished.

Though I disagree with some of what you say, I am pleased to see you mainly on my side this time. Oh, and I am also very pleased you are Liberal, and would allow self defence, but agree with me that only cruel, sick, SAVAGES would want to kill a person for trespassing, when they could have the alternative of doing something else, even if it is something harmful like shooting in the leg, but only as a last resort.

As for you Crazy Ivan, it gets pretty boring when conservatives can think of no other tactic than to blame Liberal's for everything, no matter how relevant it actually is to their political stance.