THIS...

Angry I was wondering if you are married? If so how long ?You said you live in NC where at?

 

This was the post you were seeking I believe:

 

Ahhhh, thank you Sir!!!

 

You are very welcome, M'lady

 

You are describing a small portion of society. Most women did not work outside the home. Most people farmed at least part time and the biggest influence on a child's life was their family and immediate community. Children worked with their parents and siblings and gained a sense of usefulness to family and community, and developed a psychological maturity that more closely followed their physical maturity. Since about the 1950s, thanks to public schools, kids spend too much time with their peers and not enough with mature adults they can emulate.

 

Most people were living in urban areas from before the 1920's onward.

http://www.census.gov/population/censusdata/urpop0090.txt

Not really the majority of the children in this century I do not believe. Do you have some references for this view?

 

It all balances out, I got a feeling it will be McD's in Edison, NJ this evening. :?

 

And this is when the changes that I am describing first started ...just after the turn of the century. With the invention of television and larger consolidated public schools, the sphere of influence for a child became much larger. The negative effects started ramping up in the 50s and have continued growing to this day.

Right, I was describing children before the early part of the 20th century and saying that kids today spend more time exclusively with their peer group compared to most children throughout history. No I don't have references.

 

I am here Angeleyes and I am not scared.

 

Well whoopie doo , It wasn't directed to you and was a joke .

 

I can give reference to studies and experts who agree that teenagers have been isolated into their peer group, segregated and ignored by adults. Why are we hearing of all these student/teacher relationships? Do you have a clue to what all this "online predator" stuff is really about? The "children" at risk are actually teenagers on the web seeking connection and relationships with ADULTS!! THEY WANT IT, THEY NEED IT!! I think I previously stated that teenage was in the past, a time of apprenticeship. Adults taking them and leading them to the next phase of life - families, self sufficiency. There are some noteable studies that this concept of teenagers being less mature and "children" is a very new phenomena, unique to this country, and is actually harmful. It is noted as a contributor to the high teenage pregnancy rate and the drop out rate, and an increasing alienation between them and our adult society. But don't ask me to waste time getting references unless you are going to read them!!

Sphere of influence? Are you going to tell me that kids today have more to deal with than kids before them? Do you mean drugs and predators off the internet that they should just be saying no to are more complicated than food clothing and shelter and surviving on their own? What about the kids of the depression in the 30s? What about slavery? Ever read about the stoways or the young mates who went to sea? I could go on. Do you know how old Billy the Kid was when he had to survive in a very vicious world where everyone wore a gun it was so lovely? Our kids are beyond rotten today from TV and these jokes we call schools. These are not spheres of influence, they are babysitters feeding the most incredible boredom and lack of place for these kids because we adults have LOST IT!! Sex is normal for them whatever generation because it is mother nature ruling, not the church, not people who DO NOTHING FOR THESE KIDS, WHO HAVE NO CLUE!!

I lived the 50's!! It was not the ideal fantasy people make it out to be. It was followed by the greatest cultural revolution ever to occur in this country. That is because NOBODY WAS HAPPY WITH THE 50's WAY OF LIFE WHO ACTUALLY HAD TO LIVE IT!!

 

You guys are posting to fast for me. Go back and read your history - the industrial revolution was going on by the turn of the century. The mass of population then and even more so now, was urban. The rest I agree with.

 

Josey, I am an old school women's libber. I do not know what happened to us. Women worked equally with men from the beginning of time. Yes men had superior physical strength but she had superior life survival strength. There have been many various social arrangements defining different roles for the two. Power games have always been played between the sexes, but feminists ignore class which is a greater determiner of rights than anything. Ask Catherine the Great or Queen Elizabeth or Queen Isabella, or Cleopatra, etc etc. Women were not simply housewives until the 50's.

 

I know that Angel. You are cool.

 

well ty

 

Sorry. I had work. I'm popular.

I can't really tell you exactly where I live or anything too specific about myself because to do so gives a determined person nuggets of info that they would need to "unmask" my otherwise completely anonymous identity. One of the most important lessons I carry with me is that who I am and what my past consists of, for better or worse, has no bearing on how true or false what I say is. If I don't tell you about myself, but rather make my points and insist on arguing the merits of my points alone, there is less of a chance that you will jump to an invalid conclusion based on who I am. Assuming that I'm wrong based on me saying "I molested a child" would be invalid, and assuming that I'm right because I said that "I'm a pastor of a local church" would also be invalid. What I say needs to be what is addressed, not where I'm coming from. If I explain everything on paper, with no person to attach to it, that's the best analogy I can think of as to how I want to present it. People who disagree with what I present (or how I present it) tend to fire off an assumption that I'm some kind of child molester. People who agree, which seems to initially start at zero, tend to assume that I'm a pretty intelligent and enlightened character. I'm not a child molester, nor am I a clairvoyant genius--and it wouldn't change the status of my words if I was.

I understand that it might make you trust me a little more if I tell you some things about myself. There's only one problem with that: how do you know that I didn't just reach a big rubber glove in my butt and pull everything out? There's no way to know. The only thing you can be assured is the truth is what you can verify for yourself. That's another reason that I really don't want my personal details to be brought into it.

I am a seeker of truth, nothing more, and sexual crimes aren't the only thing I seek knowledge about. Taxation, freedom and liberty, human rights, sociology, economics, technology, and even how to figure out which one of the plums at the grocery store will taste the best when I get it home and start chowing down.

When I believe I have enough evidence to establish a correct opinion, I assert that opinion. When the information changes, I change my opinion to match the new information weighed against the old information.

That's al for now, kids.

 

So do you play with your butt often? sorry couldn't resist lmao

 

Angel, You need to reconcile personal honesty with your positions.

 

It was again, a joke lighten up .Tell me a little about you are you apart of his website too? I was wondering about that.

 

Internet Explorer, Netscape, and Mozilla Firefox respect the colors set on my site, UNLESS someone has set the browser to NOT respect those colors, or if some kind of software such as ad banner filtration is being employed that is also "sanitizing" the HTML. One of the reasons I prefer a dark background with somewhat light text is due to the computer screen glow. A computer screen is not a piece of paper--paper doesn't glow or emit light, but a computer screen does. While I screwed up and put very bright text on a totally black background, something closer to very light gray text on a dark gray background would have been far easier on the eyes, especially at night with minimal ambient lighting. A dark background emits less light, but a low contrast is also important, which was the crux of my problem.

Perhaps some sort of a background pattern is in order, though...