What Are You Doing Right Now
-
@MattSpeller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@MattSpeller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@NerdyDad said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
How many households still have their biological father in them? How many kids still live one, if not both, of their biological parents? How many children are being raised by a family member that is not their biological parent?
We are the first era to know who the biological father was. It's believed that the family unit is strengthening, not decaying. The past wasn't that idealogical. You can make lots of fine arguments that family units are not strong. but I don't think that you can make that argument in the relative sense to the past.
We are, for example, the generation with the lowest teen pregnancy rates, ever. So many assumed social problems of the past are effectively gone today. The past wasn't the rosy place that we imagine, not one hundred years ago, not a thousand years ago.
Since you brought it up, why is teen pregnancy a bad thing?
How about destroying one's chances of furthering education as a start. Insufficient income would be next....
What about teen pregnancy prevents further education? Insufficient income? Well, I guess all those kinds in China should just be dead then, eh? or you pick whatever third world country you like.
Teenagers (the majority) do not make any income to even support themselves in our society - how are they to provide for the child? Let alone further themselves!
And not just because teens are worthless (although they are, what a waste) but because they are legally barred from most jobs. Most teens can't legally work until 14 at least. And then most can't get anything like a "real" job till 16. And then those are still controlled by third parties that don't care about them and have very limited hours for work and all kinds of basic work is off limits (can't even use knives, for example.)
Until you are 18 you are not broadly employable through no fault of your own.
-
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@MattSpeller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@MattSpeller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@NerdyDad said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
How many households still have their biological father in them? How many kids still live one, if not both, of their biological parents? How many children are being raised by a family member that is not their biological parent?
We are the first era to know who the biological father was. It's believed that the family unit is strengthening, not decaying. The past wasn't that idealogical. You can make lots of fine arguments that family units are not strong. but I don't think that you can make that argument in the relative sense to the past.
We are, for example, the generation with the lowest teen pregnancy rates, ever. So many assumed social problems of the past are effectively gone today. The past wasn't the rosy place that we imagine, not one hundred years ago, not a thousand years ago.
Since you brought it up, why is teen pregnancy a bad thing?
How about destroying one's chances of furthering education as a start. Insufficient income would be next....
What about teen pregnancy prevents further education? Insufficient income? Well, I guess all those kinds in China should just be dead then, eh? or you pick whatever third world country you like.
Teenagers (the majority) do not make any income to even support themselves in our society - how are they to provide for the child? Let alone further themselves!
These are all modern problems. A problem brought on by our modern society.
As Scott said, you used to be an adult at 15.
I don't disagree that in this modern society, that teen pregnancy is personally detrimental, but in my mind it is because society allows it to be.
I think it is less that it allows it to be (although true to some degree for sure) but moreso because the world has changed. There is MORE TO LEARN, longer to live, longer to work than ever before. Naturally as our strongest life period to rear and care for children moves to later in life, the more advantages we give to kids born later and the more focus we put on not putting kids at a disadvantage by having kids earlier in life.
-
In 1750, having a kid at 14 years old already meant that you had finished school and were employable. You had a good twenty years of career in front of you, enough time for your kid(s) to have a kid or two before you retired. If you didn't have kids then, you'd not be around to get them to adult hood.
In 2017, your career doesn't start until you are nearly 28 (30s if you are a doctor) and you will work for the next 40+ years. Enough time to have kids and have their kids around before you retire. It's a totally different world. But if you look at it from an education and career aspect, we are attempting to have kids at the same point in our lives as we used to.
Otherwise, people would have been having kids when they were eight or nine before!
-
Going have to bow out for now. Have to head to Colo before going to @scottalanmiller's house tonight.
-
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@MattSpeller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@MattSpeller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@NerdyDad said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
How many households still have their biological father in them? How many kids still live one, if not both, of their biological parents? How many children are being raised by a family member that is not their biological parent?
We are the first era to know who the biological father was. It's believed that the family unit is strengthening, not decaying. The past wasn't that idealogical. You can make lots of fine arguments that family units are not strong. but I don't think that you can make that argument in the relative sense to the past.
We are, for example, the generation with the lowest teen pregnancy rates, ever. So many assumed social problems of the past are effectively gone today. The past wasn't the rosy place that we imagine, not one hundred years ago, not a thousand years ago.
Since you brought it up, why is teen pregnancy a bad thing?
How about destroying one's chances of furthering education as a start. Insufficient income would be next....
What about teen pregnancy prevents further education? Insufficient income? Well, I guess all those kinds in China should just be dead then, eh? or you pick whatever third world country you like.
Teenagers (the majority) do not make any income to even support themselves in our society - how are they to provide for the child? Let alone further themselves!
These are all modern problems. A problem brought on by our modern society.
As Scott said, you used to be an adult at 15.
I don't disagree that in this modern society, that teen pregnancy is personally detrimental, but in my mind it is because society allows it to be.
-
I'd argue that teenagers have rarely if ever been mature enough to raise children on their own - just because it had to be done for various reasons does not make it correct.
-
You also used to be able to challenge people to a duel and shoot them dead. This also does not make it right.
-
Society generally discourages stupid decisions - why would we change course on this one.
-
-
Also, keep in mind that the age of having kids is heavily dependent on death rates. Women used to die while having kids, constantly. Men had kids until they were old, often very old. Just with different, young women that they would "often" marry young in the hopes of them having kids. Women had to have kids at their medical prime or the risk was just too great. And because women were in short supply everyone had to marry them young and start trying to have kids straight away, or they'd get pregnant and die. It was a pretty morbid time. but it was what it was.
So our ideas of when kids were born was based mostly around the age of the mothers, not the fathers. Today, married couples tend to be of similar age. Men still older, but a few years, not a few decades. Men have not greatly changed when they have kids, but women have mostly out of medical necessity.
-
@MattSpeller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Society generally discourages stupid decisions - why would we change course on this one.
-
@NerdyDad said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Going have to bow out for now. Have to head to Colo before going to @scottalanmiller's house tonight.
Colorado? That's a long drive between now and this evening.
-
@MattSpeller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
- I'd argue that teenagers have rarely if ever been mature enough to raise children on their own - just because it had to be done for various reasons does not make it correct.
I'd argue that with ALL of adults.
-
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@RojoLoco said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@NerdyDad said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
How many households still have their biological father in them? How many kids still live one, if not both, of their biological parents? How many children are being raised by a family member that is not their biological parent?
We are the first era to know who the biological father was. It's believed that the family unit is strengthening, not decaying. The past wasn't that idealogical. You can make lots of fine arguments that family units are not strong. but I don't think that you can make that argument in the relative sense to the past.
We are, for example, the generation with the lowest teen pregnancy rates, ever. So many assumed social problems of the past are effectively gone today. The past wasn't the rosy place that we imagine, not one hundred years ago, not a thousand years ago.
Since you brought it up, why is teen pregnancy a bad thing? From what I can tell, mostly because society (people) have deemed it so. Of course biologically, we are living much longer than we did 100 years ago, and definitely a lot longer than 500 years ago, so the need to jump right into having children to keep the species alive is no longer there, but biologically I thought we were, as a species, designed to have children in the teenage years?
Because teenagers are still immature idiots, nowhere near ready to handle the responsibility of raising a child. There's something to be said for living some of your life, having some real world experiences before the shackles of Parenthood are upon you.
Huh, I wonder how we got here as a species then? Most of our human time on this earth had our species having children while being teens. That seems to disprove the lack of ability to raise children.
Frankly, I would say today's society of not holding people personally responsible for their actions has lead to bigger problems of why people don't raise their children responsibly.
That's my point. In modern society, teenagers have reached nowhere near the level of maturity of 100 or 500 years ago, ergo they have no business making babies. In the long ago, a teenager had been held to modern adult level responsibilities in order to survive. Having a kid was part of that. Now teenagers are soft and whiny, not great qualities for a potential parent.
-
@MattSpeller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
- You also used to be able to challenge people to a duel and shoot them dead. This also does not make it right.
Are you suggesting that dueling wasn't awesome? if so, I challenge you...
-
@RojoLoco said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@RojoLoco said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@NerdyDad said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
How many households still have their biological father in them? How many kids still live one, if not both, of their biological parents? How many children are being raised by a family member that is not their biological parent?
We are the first era to know who the biological father was. It's believed that the family unit is strengthening, not decaying. The past wasn't that idealogical. You can make lots of fine arguments that family units are not strong. but I don't think that you can make that argument in the relative sense to the past.
We are, for example, the generation with the lowest teen pregnancy rates, ever. So many assumed social problems of the past are effectively gone today. The past wasn't the rosy place that we imagine, not one hundred years ago, not a thousand years ago.
Since you brought it up, why is teen pregnancy a bad thing? From what I can tell, mostly because society (people) have deemed it so. Of course biologically, we are living much longer than we did 100 years ago, and definitely a lot longer than 500 years ago, so the need to jump right into having children to keep the species alive is no longer there, but biologically I thought we were, as a species, designed to have children in the teenage years?
Because teenagers are still immature idiots, nowhere near ready to handle the responsibility of raising a child. There's something to be said for living some of your life, having some real world experiences before the shackles of Parenthood are upon you.
Huh, I wonder how we got here as a species then? Most of our human time on this earth had our species having children while being teens. That seems to disprove the lack of ability to raise children.
Frankly, I would say today's society of not holding people personally responsible for their actions has lead to bigger problems of why people don't raise their children responsibly.
That's my point. In modern society, teenagers have reached nowhere near the level of maturity of 100 or 500 years ago, ergo they have no business making babies. In the long ago, a teenager had been held to modern adult level responsibilities in order to survive. Having a kid was part of that. Now teenagers are soft and whiny, not great qualities for a potential parent.
I just think that our standards for maturity are much higher.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@MattSpeller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
- You also used to be able to challenge people to a duel and shoot them dead. This also does not make it right.
Are you suggesting that dueling wasn't awesome? if so, I challenge you...
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@RojoLoco said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@RojoLoco said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@NerdyDad said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
How many households still have their biological father in them? How many kids still live one, if not both, of their biological parents? How many children are being raised by a family member that is not their biological parent?
We are the first era to know who the biological father was. It's believed that the family unit is strengthening, not decaying. The past wasn't that idealogical. You can make lots of fine arguments that family units are not strong. but I don't think that you can make that argument in the relative sense to the past.
We are, for example, the generation with the lowest teen pregnancy rates, ever. So many assumed social problems of the past are effectively gone today. The past wasn't the rosy place that we imagine, not one hundred years ago, not a thousand years ago.
Since you brought it up, why is teen pregnancy a bad thing? From what I can tell, mostly because society (people) have deemed it so. Of course biologically, we are living much longer than we did 100 years ago, and definitely a lot longer than 500 years ago, so the need to jump right into having children to keep the species alive is no longer there, but biologically I thought we were, as a species, designed to have children in the teenage years?
Because teenagers are still immature idiots, nowhere near ready to handle the responsibility of raising a child. There's something to be said for living some of your life, having some real world experiences before the shackles of Parenthood are upon you.
Huh, I wonder how we got here as a species then? Most of our human time on this earth had our species having children while being teens. That seems to disprove the lack of ability to raise children.
Frankly, I would say today's society of not holding people personally responsible for their actions has lead to bigger problems of why people don't raise their children responsibly.
That's my point. In modern society, teenagers have reached nowhere near the level of maturity of 100 or 500 years ago, ergo they have no business making babies. In the long ago, a teenager had been held to modern adult level responsibilities in order to survive. Having a kid was part of that. Now teenagers are soft and whiny, not great qualities for a potential parent.
I just think that our standards for maturity are much higher.
Man this meme is going to wear out fast at this pace.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@RojoLoco said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@RojoLoco said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@NerdyDad said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
How many households still have their biological father in them? How many kids still live one, if not both, of their biological parents? How many children are being raised by a family member that is not their biological parent?
We are the first era to know who the biological father was. It's believed that the family unit is strengthening, not decaying. The past wasn't that idealogical. You can make lots of fine arguments that family units are not strong. but I don't think that you can make that argument in the relative sense to the past.
We are, for example, the generation with the lowest teen pregnancy rates, ever. So many assumed social problems of the past are effectively gone today. The past wasn't the rosy place that we imagine, not one hundred years ago, not a thousand years ago.
Since you brought it up, why is teen pregnancy a bad thing? From what I can tell, mostly because society (people) have deemed it so. Of course biologically, we are living much longer than we did 100 years ago, and definitely a lot longer than 500 years ago, so the need to jump right into having children to keep the species alive is no longer there, but biologically I thought we were, as a species, designed to have children in the teenage years?
Because teenagers are still immature idiots, nowhere near ready to handle the responsibility of raising a child. There's something to be said for living some of your life, having some real world experiences before the shackles of Parenthood are upon you.
Huh, I wonder how we got here as a species then? Most of our human time on this earth had our species having children while being teens. That seems to disprove the lack of ability to raise children.
Frankly, I would say today's society of not holding people personally responsible for their actions has lead to bigger problems of why people don't raise their children responsibly.
That's my point. In modern society, teenagers have reached nowhere near the level of maturity of 100 or 500 years ago, ergo they have no business making babies. In the long ago, a teenager had been held to modern adult level responsibilities in order to survive. Having a kid was part of that. Now teenagers are soft and whiny, not great qualities for a potential parent.
I just think that our standards for maturity are much higher.
Show me a modern 17 year old that could hang with an 1850 era 17 year old.
-
@RojoLoco said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@RojoLoco said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@RojoLoco said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@NerdyDad said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
How many households still have their biological father in them? How many kids still live one, if not both, of their biological parents? How many children are being raised by a family member that is not their biological parent?
We are the first era to know who the biological father was. It's believed that the family unit is strengthening, not decaying. The past wasn't that idealogical. You can make lots of fine arguments that family units are not strong. but I don't think that you can make that argument in the relative sense to the past.
We are, for example, the generation with the lowest teen pregnancy rates, ever. So many assumed social problems of the past are effectively gone today. The past wasn't the rosy place that we imagine, not one hundred years ago, not a thousand years ago.
Since you brought it up, why is teen pregnancy a bad thing? From what I can tell, mostly because society (people) have deemed it so. Of course biologically, we are living much longer than we did 100 years ago, and definitely a lot longer than 500 years ago, so the need to jump right into having children to keep the species alive is no longer there, but biologically I thought we were, as a species, designed to have children in the teenage years?
Because teenagers are still immature idiots, nowhere near ready to handle the responsibility of raising a child. There's something to be said for living some of your life, having some real world experiences before the shackles of Parenthood are upon you.
Huh, I wonder how we got here as a species then? Most of our human time on this earth had our species having children while being teens. That seems to disprove the lack of ability to raise children.
Frankly, I would say today's society of not holding people personally responsible for their actions has lead to bigger problems of why people don't raise their children responsibly.
That's my point. In modern society, teenagers have reached nowhere near the level of maturity of 100 or 500 years ago, ergo they have no business making babies. In the long ago, a teenager had been held to modern adult level responsibilities in order to survive. Having a kid was part of that. Now teenagers are soft and whiny, not great qualities for a potential parent.
I just think that our standards for maturity are much higher.
Show me a modern 17 year old that could hang with an 1850 era 17 year old.
Most actually, I bet. 1850s dandies weren't so smooth.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@RojoLoco said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@RojoLoco said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@RojoLoco said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@NerdyDad said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
How many households still have their biological father in them? How many kids still live one, if not both, of their biological parents? How many children are being raised by a family member that is not their biological parent?
We are the first era to know who the biological father was. It's believed that the family unit is strengthening, not decaying. The past wasn't that idealogical. You can make lots of fine arguments that family units are not strong. but I don't think that you can make that argument in the relative sense to the past.
We are, for example, the generation with the lowest teen pregnancy rates, ever. So many assumed social problems of the past are effectively gone today. The past wasn't the rosy place that we imagine, not one hundred years ago, not a thousand years ago.
Since you brought it up, why is teen pregnancy a bad thing? From what I can tell, mostly because society (people) have deemed it so. Of course biologically, we are living much longer than we did 100 years ago, and definitely a lot longer than 500 years ago, so the need to jump right into having children to keep the species alive is no longer there, but biologically I thought we were, as a species, designed to have children in the teenage years?
Because teenagers are still immature idiots, nowhere near ready to handle the responsibility of raising a child. There's something to be said for living some of your life, having some real world experiences before the shackles of Parenthood are upon you.
Huh, I wonder how we got here as a species then? Most of our human time on this earth had our species having children while being teens. That seems to disprove the lack of ability to raise children.
Frankly, I would say today's society of not holding people personally responsible for their actions has lead to bigger problems of why people don't raise their children responsibly.
That's my point. In modern society, teenagers have reached nowhere near the level of maturity of 100 or 500 years ago, ergo they have no business making babies. In the long ago, a teenager had been held to modern adult level responsibilities in order to survive. Having a kid was part of that. Now teenagers are soft and whiny, not great qualities for a potential parent.
I just think that our standards for maturity are much higher.
Show me a modern 17 year old that could hang with an 1850 era 17 year old.
Most actually, I bet. 1850s dandies weren't so smooth.
I wasn't talking about rich bitch 19th century teens. Show me a modern 17 year old that could hang for 1 day on a farm or ranch... something where they actually had to work to survive.
-
@RojoLoco said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@RojoLoco said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@RojoLoco said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@RojoLoco said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@NerdyDad said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
How many households still have their biological father in them? How many kids still live one, if not both, of their biological parents? How many children are being raised by a family member that is not their biological parent?
We are the first era to know who the biological father was. It's believed that the family unit is strengthening, not decaying. The past wasn't that idealogical. You can make lots of fine arguments that family units are not strong. but I don't think that you can make that argument in the relative sense to the past.
We are, for example, the generation with the lowest teen pregnancy rates, ever. So many assumed social problems of the past are effectively gone today. The past wasn't the rosy place that we imagine, not one hundred years ago, not a thousand years ago.
Since you brought it up, why is teen pregnancy a bad thing? From what I can tell, mostly because society (people) have deemed it so. Of course biologically, we are living much longer than we did 100 years ago, and definitely a lot longer than 500 years ago, so the need to jump right into having children to keep the species alive is no longer there, but biologically I thought we were, as a species, designed to have children in the teenage years?
Because teenagers are still immature idiots, nowhere near ready to handle the responsibility of raising a child. There's something to be said for living some of your life, having some real world experiences before the shackles of Parenthood are upon you.
Huh, I wonder how we got here as a species then? Most of our human time on this earth had our species having children while being teens. That seems to disprove the lack of ability to raise children.
Frankly, I would say today's society of not holding people personally responsible for their actions has lead to bigger problems of why people don't raise their children responsibly.
That's my point. In modern society, teenagers have reached nowhere near the level of maturity of 100 or 500 years ago, ergo they have no business making babies. In the long ago, a teenager had been held to modern adult level responsibilities in order to survive. Having a kid was part of that. Now teenagers are soft and whiny, not great qualities for a potential parent.
I just think that our standards for maturity are much higher.
Show me a modern 17 year old that could hang with an 1850 era 17 year old.
Most actually, I bet. 1850s dandies weren't so smooth.
I wasn't talking about rich bitch 19th century teens. Show me a modern 17 year old that could hang for 1 day on a farm or ranch... something where they actually had to work to survive.
Show me a modern day human that could stand toe to toe with a Neanderthal. When they actually had to work to survive.
-
@coliver said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@RojoLoco said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@RojoLoco said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@RojoLoco said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@RojoLoco said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@NerdyDad said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
How many households still have their biological father in them? How many kids still live one, if not both, of their biological parents? How many children are being raised by a family member that is not their biological parent?
We are the first era to know who the biological father was. It's believed that the family unit is strengthening, not decaying. The past wasn't that idealogical. You can make lots of fine arguments that family units are not strong. but I don't think that you can make that argument in the relative sense to the past.
We are, for example, the generation with the lowest teen pregnancy rates, ever. So many assumed social problems of the past are effectively gone today. The past wasn't the rosy place that we imagine, not one hundred years ago, not a thousand years ago.
Since you brought it up, why is teen pregnancy a bad thing? From what I can tell, mostly because society (people) have deemed it so. Of course biologically, we are living much longer than we did 100 years ago, and definitely a lot longer than 500 years ago, so the need to jump right into having children to keep the species alive is no longer there, but biologically I thought we were, as a species, designed to have children in the teenage years?
Because teenagers are still immature idiots, nowhere near ready to handle the responsibility of raising a child. There's something to be said for living some of your life, having some real world experiences before the shackles of Parenthood are upon you.
Huh, I wonder how we got here as a species then? Most of our human time on this earth had our species having children while being teens. That seems to disprove the lack of ability to raise children.
Frankly, I would say today's society of not holding people personally responsible for their actions has lead to bigger problems of why people don't raise their children responsibly.
That's my point. In modern society, teenagers have reached nowhere near the level of maturity of 100 or 500 years ago, ergo they have no business making babies. In the long ago, a teenager had been held to modern adult level responsibilities in order to survive. Having a kid was part of that. Now teenagers are soft and whiny, not great qualities for a potential parent.
I just think that our standards for maturity are much higher.
Show me a modern 17 year old that could hang with an 1850 era 17 year old.
Most actually, I bet. 1850s dandies weren't so smooth.
I wasn't talking about rich bitch 19th century teens. Show me a modern 17 year old that could hang for 1 day on a farm or ranch... something where they actually had to work to survive.
Show me a modern day human that could stand toe to toe with a Neanderthal. When they actually had to work to survive.
Unga bunga. Captain Caaaaaaaaaaavvvvvvveeeee Maaaaaaaaaaaan!
Edit: Holy crap, I feel old.
-
@coliver said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@RojoLoco said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@RojoLoco said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@RojoLoco said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@RojoLoco said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@NerdyDad said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
How many households still have their biological father in them? How many kids still live one, if not both, of their biological parents? How many children are being raised by a family member that is not their biological parent?
We are the first era to know who the biological father was. It's believed that the family unit is strengthening, not decaying. The past wasn't that idealogical. You can make lots of fine arguments that family units are not strong. but I don't think that you can make that argument in the relative sense to the past.
We are, for example, the generation with the lowest teen pregnancy rates, ever. So many assumed social problems of the past are effectively gone today. The past wasn't the rosy place that we imagine, not one hundred years ago, not a thousand years ago.
Since you brought it up, why is teen pregnancy a bad thing? From what I can tell, mostly because society (people) have deemed it so. Of course biologically, we are living much longer than we did 100 years ago, and definitely a lot longer than 500 years ago, so the need to jump right into having children to keep the species alive is no longer there, but biologically I thought we were, as a species, designed to have children in the teenage years?
Because teenagers are still immature idiots, nowhere near ready to handle the responsibility of raising a child. There's something to be said for living some of your life, having some real world experiences before the shackles of Parenthood are upon you.
Huh, I wonder how we got here as a species then? Most of our human time on this earth had our species having children while being teens. That seems to disprove the lack of ability to raise children.
Frankly, I would say today's society of not holding people personally responsible for their actions has lead to bigger problems of why people don't raise their children responsibly.
That's my point. In modern society, teenagers have reached nowhere near the level of maturity of 100 or 500 years ago, ergo they have no business making babies. In the long ago, a teenager had been held to modern adult level responsibilities in order to survive. Having a kid was part of that. Now teenagers are soft and whiny, not great qualities for a potential parent.
I just think that our standards for maturity are much higher.
Show me a modern 17 year old that could hang with an 1850 era 17 year old.
Most actually, I bet. 1850s dandies weren't so smooth.
I wasn't talking about rich bitch 19th century teens. Show me a modern 17 year old that could hang for 1 day on a farm or ranch... something where they actually had to work to survive.
Show me a modern day human that could stand toe to toe with a Neanderthal. When they actually had to work to survive.
Actually, most Europeans are the descendants of the Neaderthals.
