Are the numerous mass shootings an evidence of America's moral decline?

[rsc2a]

....Not better....not worse....different.

(As an aside, the number of mass killings is about the historical norm. There hasn't been a sharp increase, just a sharp increase in the publicity of the events.)

Statistics can be massaged and used in a variety of ways to prove points, but if we are talking about spree killings, yes, they are on the rise.

I posted the actual data that shows otherwise.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]Nations go through predictable cycles from inception to death, and ours is most certainly exhibiting some characteristics that are troubling, even potential indicators of our eventual collapse.  I'd say that 50 million murdered babies dwarfs cold war apprehension.[/quote]

So you picked one example from a current problem area and one example from a past problem area without looking at any type of aggregate and expect me to take you seriously when you are discussing the aggregate? See generalization fallacy.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]The video below portrays a medical doctor in Washington responding to the latest massacre by stating the obvious, that there is evil among us, but she does what so many in our culture have done and declared such evil a sickness (therapeutic language) that seeks remedy in human terms.  Research confirms that a tremendously large number of the spree killers have been mentally ill, and therefore they seek to ignore the spiritual requirements for treatment and look for humanistic means of treatment.  Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord is still true, and this country is rapidly accelerating as it embraces many answers to its problem, but they're looking for those answers in all the wrong places.  [/quote]

These options are not mutually exclusive. False dilemma this time.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]I mentioned legalized pot, legalized gay marriage, shacking up, twerking, and mass murders.  Which one of these are morally acceptable to you?  If you answer "none of them" does that make you a fundy?[/quote]

Legalized pot and possibly "shacking up". Twerking is just stupid, but I find nothing inherently evil about it (although it can be used for immoral purposes...).

Obviously mass murder is wrong. It's also why I'm opposed to a lot of our 'national security' practices that sees no problem with indiscriminately dropping bombs on houses full of people.

As far as legalized gay marriage, I could care less what the State does, but seeing as how it's just a matter of contract for that sphere, I fail to see what the problem is. I don't have to recognize someone's contract as spiritually binding. Either way, the Church should focus on its own issues (with >50% divorce rates) and let the world deal with its own issues. I believe Paul said something about this...

 

[rsc2a]

lol, as I said earlier, coming from a scientific background, I know the pitfalls of statistics.  Context is king, as always.  Would you like to comment on that graph, or would you rather I explain how you've erred?

Knock yourself out.

 

[ThatGirl]

Exactly!  Not better, not worse but different.  Also, just because fundies say a thing is morally wrong doesn't make it morally wrong.

I mentioned legalized pot, legalized gay marriage, shacking up, twerking, and mass murders.  Which one of these are morally acceptable to you?  If you answer "none of them" does that make you a fundy?

I vote in favor of legalized pot as well as legalized gay marriage.  I see no evidence that shacking up is "the standard" as you say.  It simply occurs.  It has always been a part of society.  Of all the thousands of couples I know I think only two of them are not married but I'd have to do some thinking on that.  It certainly isn't "the standard".  And as has already been stated, twerking is not socially acceptable outside of ones own bedroom.  And mass shootings...who isn't against mass shootings?  I see that as more of a result of declaring gun free zones and announcing to anyone who is troubled that this is the place where you can do the most damage.  Once upon a time we didn't have gun free zones and people knew they couldn't just walk into a place and shoot people up without being overtaken.   

 

[Bruh]

I believe they are still a shame to many many people. Issue is that this stuff is forced and nobody says anything. We are all politically correct.

Nobody says anything?  There was public outcry from all age groups for weeks over Miley's "performance".  People are still analyzing and scrutinizing it.

Public outcry, indeed.  Even today I saw a news report that Elton John has come out against her and said that he believes he's watching her downfall and she will have a meltdown.  When Elton John is coming out against you for your morals, that's saying something.  Her actions have lost her a fiance, as well as the support of Hollywood.

As long as she is bringing in money Hollywood will continue to use her. 

 

[Holy Mole]

As for the mass shootings...what easier way to get everyone's attention and maybe even make the cover of TIME or some other major publication?
It's the media idiots that glorify this and the fools that buy it...throw in a lack of the fear of God....and voila!

 

[ALAYMAN]

I posted the actual data that shows otherwise.

No, you perfectly demonstrated the point I made when I said that statistics can be used to prove a variety of views, based on how they are analyzed.  The statistics you cited are compiled from all shootings where multiple victims were injured and/or killed no matter the type of shootings.

Why the difference? Fox is looking at all mass shootings involving four or more victims — that's the standard FBI definition. Mother Jones, by contrast, had a much more restrictive definition, excluding things like armed robbery or gang violence. They were trying to focus on spree killings that were similar in style to Virginia Tech or Aurora or Newtown. The definitions make a big difference: On Fox's criteria, there's no uptick. On Mother Jones', there's a clear increase.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/17/graph-of-the-day-perhaps-mass-shootings-arent-becoming-more-common/

So you picked one example from a current problem area and one example from a past problem area without looking at any type of aggregate and expect me to take you seriously when you are discussing the aggregate? See generalization fallacy.

The fact that you would call either the current culture of death/abortions OR the epidemic of spree shootings a "past problem" shows how you use deception, rationalization, or sophistry in your method of argumentation.  Why would I want to get into a detailed discussion with somebody who has demonstrated such a tendency time and again?

These options are not mutually exclusive. False dilemma this time.

Again, your failure to admit that our society currently suffers from a lack of responsibility, and that that problem is exacerbated by applying the therapeutic mindset to situations that need to be dealt with regarding the proper spiritual framework shows how deceived our Christian people have become.  Either that, or you just like arguing more than breathing.

 

[christundivided]

To me, America is the leading nation in the world when it comes to "morality". Yet, I don't think "she" has ever been overly moral. I can't help but believe that American patriotism has often exaggerated her moral strength. I do believe we mostly do what's "right" in the world when no one else does. Yet, in my eyes, morality is actually more than just "doing what's right in this world". It also includes "spiritual things". "Things" from another country. In this, America has never been overly "moral".

I do think there has to be a balance struck between morality including the spiritual things of God and living among people that willing reject those truths. If I include "spiritual things" in morality.... then American has long been in decline but it might be more along the lines of never being what she should have been.

Having "said" that, America is changing. I don't think anyone can deny this. Some here have said its for the better in some areas and for the worse in others. At best, that is just wishful thinking. What some see as an "improvement" is nothing more than a TOTAL shift to abandon our children to themselves.

Pro 29:15  The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.

I am not for abuse and I honestly believe that the vast majority of proverbial texts alluding to punish.... are actually references to the suffering of Christ.  Yet, the answer the last 30 years or so...... has been to give our children everything they want and nothing they NEED.

It is the source of the rise in acceptance of Homosexuality. It is the source in the rise of adultery, promiscuity, and right on down the line.

The bruising abusive "rod" should have been abandoned....... but it shouldn't been cast away and replaced with "NOTHING".

I read that Miley reasoning for her sudden change over the last year or two was due the fact she really didn't get to be herself growing up. NOW, she was going to do exactly what she wanted to do.

and here we are..... millions and millions of baby boomers, next gens and etc...... all doing what we want to do. We've crashed the "ceiling". We've "evolved" in a more accepting culture.

We'll we've gotten exactly what that mentality brings. How can you have any morality at all when nothing is unacceptable?

 

[ALAYMAN]

I vote in favor of legalized pot as well as legalized gay marriage.  I see no evidence that shacking up is "the standard" as you say.  It simply occurs.  It has always been a part of society.  Of all the thousands of couples I know I think only two of them are not married but I'd have to do some thinking on that.  It certainly isn't "the standard".  And as has already been stated, twerking is not socially acceptable outside of ones own bedroom.  And mass shootings...who isn't against mass shootings?  I see that as more of a result of declaring gun free zones and announcing to anyone who is troubled that this is the place where you can do the most damage.  Once upon a time we didn't have gun free zones and people knew they couldn't just walk into a place and shoot people up without being overtaken. 

So you're for legalized pot, gay marriage, and don't think shacking up is a real problem in our society, and you think THAT perspective is in the main of Bible-believing evangelical Christianity?

And your anecdotal evidence about people not shacking up doesn't match up to any real data on the subject.

Nearly half of women aged 15 to 44 years old "cohabited" outside of marriage between 2006 and 2010, compared with 43 percent in 2002 and 34 percent in 1995. The report is based on in-person interviews with more than 12,000 women in that age group.

http://consumer.healthday.com/public-health-information-30/centers-for-disease-control-news-120/more-u-s-couples-living-together-instead-of-marrying-cdc-finds-675096.html

 

[christundivided]

Exactly!  Not better, not worse but different.  Also, just because fundies say a thing is morally wrong doesn't make it morally wrong.

I mentioned legalized pot, legalized gay marriage, shacking up, twerking, and mass murders.  Which one of these are morally acceptable to you?  If you answer "none of them" does that make you a fundy?

Legalized pot and legalized gay marriage are two things I voted for in WA's last general election (both passed, btw). I am of course against mass murders. Shacking up and twerking I'd have to take on a case-by-case basis. But the clips I've seen of Miley Cyrus' VMA award performance were not good, though I have enjoyed some of her work before.

If you were to LIST what you morally object to in society.....

Would it all fit on the front of a small flag post-it note?

I hope you do realize that morality, by definition, creates distinction. A distinction between what is acceptable and what is not.

Let's use a little logic here..... If your list of what's objectionable won't fit on a small "post-it" note..... then how MUCH morality can that said to be?

Now, I realize that some items my carry LARGE moral implications while others do not. I'd think "mass murder" would be a large ticket on anyone's item.

 

[rsc2a]

I posted the actual data that shows otherwise.

No, you perfectly demonstrated the point I made when I said that statistics can be used to prove a variety of views, based on how they are analyzed.  The statistics you cited are compiled from all shootings where multiple victims were injured and/or killed no matter the type of shootings.

Why the difference? Fox is looking at all mass shootings involving four or more victims — that's the standard FBI definition. Mother Jones, by contrast, had a much more restrictive definition, excluding things like armed robbery or gang violence. They were trying to focus on spree killings that were similar in style to Virginia Tech or Aurora or Newtown. The definitions make a big difference: On Fox's criteria, there's no uptick. On Mother Jones', there's a clear increase.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/17/graph-of-the-day-perhaps-mass-shootings-arent-becoming-more-common/

Oh...so when you say mass shootings, you don't really mean mass shootings. Unless you change the definition of mass shootings to mean something else...


[quote author=ALAYMAN]

So you picked one example from a current problem area and one example from a past problem area without looking at any type of aggregate and expect me to take you seriously when you are discussing the aggregate? See generalization fallacy.

The fact that you would call either the current culture of death/abortions OR the epidemic of spree shootings a "past problem" shows how you use deception, rationalization, or sophistry in your method of argumentation.  Why would I want to get into a detailed discussion with somebody who has demonstrated such a tendency time and again?[/quote]

Try to follow along:

Abortion would be a current problem. Concern about the Soviets dropping nukes on our schools would be a past problem. You know those were the two examples you selected, right?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

These options are not mutually exclusive. False dilemma this time.

Again, your failure to admit that our society currently suffers from a lack of responsibility, and that that problem is exacerbated by applying the therapeutic mindset to situations that need to be dealt with regarding the proper spiritual framework shows how deceived our Christian people have become.  Either that, or you just like arguing more than breathing.[/quote]

I haven't said anything about a lack of responsibility. The false dichotomy was your position that people have to choose between either the "spiritual" solution or the "humanistic" solution. People need God, yes...but sometimes they also need accountability groups, counseling, or Prozac.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Oh...so when you say mass shootings, you don't really mean mass shootings. Unless you change the definition of mass shootings to mean something else...

Nice sophistry.  It was clear that I was talking about the phenomenon of spree shootings.  Your statistical proof disappears when you take context into consideration.  Just deal with it and quit pouting.

Try to follow along:

Abortion would be a current problem. Concern about the Soviets dropping nukes on our schools would be a past problem. You know those were the two examples you selected, right?

LOL!  YOU brought the soviet issue to the discussion.  This type of dung is why you have zero credibility with me.

I haven't said anything about a lack of responsibility. The false dichotomy was your position that people have to choose between either the "spiritual" solution or the "humanistic" solution. People need God, yes...but sometimes they also need accountability groups, counseling, or Prozac.

Right, and it is a fig newton of your imagination to make the gargantuan asinine leap to claim that I have asserted that none of those latter things ever do any good.  What I did say, and you stretched into the convenient strawman that you did, was that our society too often has a therapeutic approach to sin, and when they call sin a sickness, then the humanism that is behind that approach will fail to adequately deal with the soul's more serious issue.

 

[rsc2a]

Oh...so when you say mass shootings, you don't really mean mass shootings. Unless you change the definition of mass shootings to mean something else...

Nice sophistry.  It was clear that I was talking about the phenomenon of spree shootings.  Your statistical proof disappears when you take context into consideration.  Just deal with it and quit pouting.

Your original post:

I'm only 44 years old, but in my short lifetime it seems the moral fabric of America has undergone monumental changes.  Pot is now good.  Gay is okay, even better than okay.  Shacking up is the standard now.  Twerking, jerking, going birzerking....absolute insanity and constant shifting sands with no moral anchor.  The fruit of postmodern relativistic thought.  So, do you think that these mass shootings are fruit from a generation of nihilists, rationalists, and skeptics that is coming to the natural conclusion that life is ultimately meaningless, so it don't matter if I vent my rage and take other folk out with me? - Alayman

Maybe you didn't mean mass shootings. Maybe you really meant bananas. Maybe you meant glorg. I am basing my comments on what normal people understand words to mean.


[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Try to follow along:

Abortion would be a current problem. Concern about the Soviets dropping nukes on our schools would be a past problem. You know those were the two examples you selected, right?

LOL!  YOU brought the soviet issue to the discussion.  This type of dung is why you have zero credibility with me.[/quote]

Your comment,  you know, the one I was replying to -

Nations go through predictable cycles from inception to death, and ours is most certainly exhibiting some characteristics that are troubling, even potential indicators of our eventual collapse.  I'd say that 50 million murdered babies dwarfs cold war apprehension. - Alayman

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

I haven't said anything about a lack of responsibility. The false dichotomy was your position that people have to choose between either the "spiritual" solution or the "humanistic" solution. People need God, yes...but sometimes they also need accountability groups, counseling, or Prozac.

Right, and it is a fig newton of your imagination to make the gargantuan asinine leap to claim that I have asserted that none of those latter things ever do any good.  What I did say, and you stretched into the convenient strawman that you did, was that our society too often has a therapeutic approach to sin, and when they call sin a sickness, then the humanism that is behind that approach will fail to adequately deal with the soul's more serious issue.[/quote]

1 - Sin is a disease.
1a - Sometimes people need a therapeutic approach to deal with the effects of sin.
2 - You explicitly separated the spiritual from the physical, in this case, the on methods of treatment.
2a - There is a particular name for a "Christian" belief that seeks to separate the spiritual from the physical...

 

[ALAYMAN]

Your original post:

I'd lol, but it's so sad and pathetic that it ain't funny anymore.  It's like the guy who tells the same joke, over, and over, and over, and over.  The first time it may have been slightly humorous, but the 8th time it gets really, really old.

Why do you think I mentioned cold war apprehensions?  Could it have been in response to the fact that you compared such cold-war apprehensions to the slaughter of multiple people, regularly via spree killings?  Could it have been that it was YOU who first brought the cold war into the discussion?  Yes, yes is the answer to that question, and you know you did.  Here it is, your first post, before I ever said anything about Russia or cold wars...

On the other hand, children aren't downed on simply because their parents "don't match". Driving while drunk is universally (in America) frowned on. It's no longer acceptable to beat the absolute tar out of your kid because he told a lie. We no longer worry about the USSR blowing us to smithereens. Smoking is no longer cool. Skin color is no longer a determinative factor in whether you are electable or not. Women can pursue a career without being looked down upon as stepping outside their place. Factories cannot dump unlimited amounts of raw toxins into our air and water. And the fact that someone is different doesn't automatically give others (the 'normals') a right to abuse them.

---rsc2OBTUSE

Now do me a favor, and go away, because you're nothing but an obtuse gnat.

 

[ThatGirl]

I vote in favor of legalized pot as well as legalized gay marriage.  I see no evidence that shacking up is "the standard" as you say.  It simply occurs.  It has always been a part of society.  Of all the thousands of couples I know I think only two of them are not married but I'd have to do some thinking on that.  It certainly isn't "the standard".  And as has already been stated, twerking is not socially acceptable outside of ones own bedroom.  And mass shootings...who isn't against mass shootings?  I see that as more of a result of declaring gun free zones and announcing to anyone who is troubled that this is the place where you can do the most damage.  Once upon a time we didn't have gun free zones and people knew they couldn't just walk into a place and shoot people up without being overtaken. 

So you're for legalized pot, gay marriage, and don't think shacking up is a real problem in our society, and you think THAT perspective is in the main of Bible-believing evangelical Christianity?

And your anecdotal evidence about people not shacking up doesn't match up to any real data on the subject.

Nearly half of women aged 15 to 44 years old "cohabited" outside of marriage between 2006 and 2010, compared with 43 percent in 2002 and 34 percent in 1995. The report is based on in-person interviews with more than 12,000 women in that age group.

http://consumer.healthday.com/public-health-information-30/centers-for-disease-control-news-120/more-u-s-couples-living-together-instead-of-marrying-cdc-finds-675096.html

Yes, I'm for legalizing pot and if you understood all the ramification you might too.  And there's a reason why people of all moral stances can agree on the gay marriage question.  It's because we all agree on the most important aspect of the question; no marriage whether gay or straight has got the slightest thing to do with the government.  Get the government out of the business of regulating/licensing/defining personal relationships.

Also, I didn't say that shacking up isn't a problem in our society.  I said it isn't "the standard" as you say it is.  6,000 women between the ages of 15-44 cohabitating at some point within a 4 year span does not constitute a "standard". 

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]...---rsc2OBTUSE

Now do me a favor, and go away, because you're nothing but an obtuse gnat.
[/quote]

One day I'll be surprised by you and see evidence of Christ in your actions...

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Legalized pot and legalized gay marriage are two things I voted for in WA's last general election (both passed, btw). I am of course against mass murders. Shacking up and twerking I'd have to take on a case-by-case basis. But the clips I've seen of Miley Cyrus' VMA award performance were not good, though I have enjoyed some of her work before.

I'm for legalized pot.  I lean very libertarian.  If you choose to smoke/take pot, then just take responsibility for the consequences, if any, that's all. 

I'm also fine with gay unions, but I wish they wouldn't change the definition of marriage.  I'm fine with them getting all of the same benefits, etc., and I don't care what else they call it if they'd just call it something else. 

As I've said before, the word "marriage" carries with it an identity the same way "lesbian" carries with it an identity.  Let's not mess with the words. 

 

[4everfsu]

Mass shootings had their beginnings in the 1960s. No you never heard of the mass shootings then, but the foundation for which there is no value to life began when the Supreme Court ruled abortion a law of the land. People have grown up since then brainwashed that life inside the womb is not scared or valuable. Thus people today do not value life at all, no matter at what age or stage.

 

[ALAYMAN]

One day I'll be surprised by you and see evidence of Christ in your actions...

Try some intellectual honesty for a change, you'd be surprised how much it would keep me from pointing out your obtusity.  You continue to ignore the fact that you're the one who brought the coldwar into this, all the while claiming I did.  That is the height of stupidity, or arrogance.

Yes, I'm for legalizing pot and if you understood all the ramification you might too.  And there's a reason why people of all moral stances can agree on the gay marriage question.  It's because we all agree on the most important aspect of the question; no marriage whether gay or straight has got the slightest thing to do with the government.  Get the government out of the business of regulating/licensing/defining personal relationships.

Aleshanee beat me to it.  In opening that door to tolerance, you're going to have to deal with other infringements into your church.  The gay agenda won't be satisfied with toleration, but keep pretending that libertarianism is the answer.

Also, I didn't say that shacking up isn't a problem in our society.  I said it isn't "the standard" as you say it is.  6,000 women between the ages of 15-44 cohabitating at some point within a 4 year span does not constitute a "standard". 

Look at the OP, and then use some reasonable inference as to figure out what "the standard" means.  It's huge change from the previous attitudes towards the sanctity and dignity of marriage.  You said you knew 2 couples out of 1000.  How's that even remotely close to the numbers I cited?  Things are changing at breakneck speed, and so many Christians are apparently oblivious to it.  I have a son who is going to have to deal with it, so it's pretty important to me.  As Aleshanee referred to a couple of posts back, the wholesale corruption of society, especially the entertainment media, has begun to boil the frog that began in the lukewarm kettle.  Case in point.  My boy likes Star Wars the cartoon.  He was watching it on one of the cartoon networks a few minutes ago.  A commercial came on between segments advertising the latest and greatest horror movie, depicting all sorts of violent themes and scary images.  What is that doing on in the middle of a cartoon on nickelodian?  You know what came on after it?  Some adult cartoon that used profanity within the first 30 seconds.  But Elvis shakin' his pelvis and bomb shelters are the same thing.  Yeah, right.

 

[Holy Mole]

Yes, I'm for legalizing pot and if you understood all the ramification you might too.  And there's a reason why people of all moral stances can agree on the gay marriage question.  It's because we all agree on the most important aspect of the question; no marriage whether gay or straight has got the slightest thing to do with the government.  Get the government out of the business of regulating/licensing/defining personal relationships.

Also, I didn't say that shacking up isn't a problem in our society.  I said it isn't "the standard" as you say it is.  6,000 women between the ages of 15-44 cohabitating at some point within a 4 year span does not constitute a "standard".

i agree with you on a lot of issues.... but not on the issue of legalizing marijuana.... when i did my research on medical marijuana for a term paper in premed, years ago, i found out that when you strip away all the political talking points from both sides of the issue... and look specifically at what the drug thc does in the human body... and how it makes changes in dna that effect even the offspring of a casual user ... the ramifications for legalizing it and making its use as common as alcoholic beverages are today is much worse than current cost of trying to control it...and when compared to moderate alcohol use the moderate use of marijuana is many times more dangerous with longer lasting effects......  .

i could go into a more detailed description about absorption rates... targeted tissues... pharmacodynamics etc. etc.... but it be would like writing my term paper all over again..... and would take up several pages of the forum.....  but for most people just to learn that it is many times more cancerous than tobacco is enough.... especially in a world where even staunch liberals have declared war on the tobacco industry because of the long term health care costs being passed on to non smokers through increased insurance premiums and the issue of second hand smoke effecting bystanders...........  legalize marijuana and health care costs related to marijuana use will rise for both users an nonusers alike to the point they will make current costs for problems related to other recreational substance use look minor by comparison.....

and on the other issue...  it;s too late to get the government out of the marriage business....  they should have never been invited in....  but what you have to ask yourself is are you comfortable with your church being forced to open it;s doors and make it;s facilities available for gay weddings?...... and are you comfortable with your pastor being told he must either perform such weddings or risk subjecting both himself and the church to lawsuits that could put him out of the ministry and the church out of business?....... because that is what it will come to if gay marriage is legalized .... the gay advocates even admit that;s the next step in their political agenda ..... .. . is that what you want?..... 

Great insight. I used to listen to Michael Savage who was quite libertarian in many ways but not towards Cannibis; he was totally opposed to it despite his political leanings. With a PhD in a pertinent field of study he had his reasons well studied and documented. He sited some of the same facts that you did.