Quote - the irony here is just too great to resist.    It's quite funny.  Hilarious, in fact.  Thanks for that one.

Not interested in insults, lame attempts at ridicule, etc., as I have already stated.

Instead, let me respond to some of your other claims with some more high-sounding rhetoric you can then pathetically dismiss as hilarious without any substantive acknowledgment (I am now certain) that you might not be all-knowing:

Quote - Ah -- OK.  I get it.  So the pressures of the Great Depression, a couple of world wars, the threat of the atomic bomb, and a few other suchlike minor incidents didn't have much bearing on those young people's lives back then, eh?  It's so-o-o-o-o-o-o much harder today -- with Xbox's and full cable TV + DVD players in every 8-year-old's room.  Tough life.

Again, you restate and attempt to change the meaning of what I said. I never said or suggested that such events had little or no bearing on young people's lives; and it is quite obvious you don't "get it."

It is well understood by physiologists that an advanced biological organism's average, day-to-day stress level has far more to do with immediate, constant stimuli, constant flux, and the perception of immediate threats than with great, infrequent events occurring peripherally to their direct life-and-death survival. It is true of human beings as it is true of any other creature with a sophisticated, well-developed nervous system.

Call it high-sounding rhetoric if you will, but instead of closing down to every thought but your own, and wasting my time as well as yours with pointlessness, how about go ask someone who has actually studied the subject?

Quote - You continue to make the spurious claim that gazillions of crimes were committed that we know nothing about -- in an attempt to make the well-known crimes of today seem less by comparison.  Prove it.  Prove that those hidden events actually happened in per capita numbers to compare to today's outrageous numbers.

You cannot logically make the assumptions that you have to make in order to "prove" such an unfounded point.  You can only guess, and imply, and suggest.  Not establish.

I can point to the ruins of ancient civilizations, and to well-known historical facts.  You are the one who is making assumptions.

And again you restate in order to change the meaning, and then demand that I prove your mischaracterizations.

I never suggested that gazillions of crimes were committed. What I suggested, as anyone who wishes to go back and read what I actually wrote can attest, is that in many respects we simply don't know, and not knowing means that to insist that our state of immorality or amorality is so much worse today is, at least to a significant degree, as much speculation and assumption as anything else. You are essentially comparing what is largely and thoroughly known, documented, statistically categorized, analyzed, and often covered incessantly by our often sensationalistic media to what is largely unknown, undocumented, etc.,  and saying that what is largely known is far worse. How absurd. I hope this is not what you term "logic." Nor have I ever suggested that crimes of the past in any way make the well-known crimes of today seem less by comparison. And since I never made either one of those claims, I don't feel particularly compelled to prove your mischaracterizations of what I actually said.

As for pointing to the ruins of ancient civilizations, and to well-known historical facts, yes you can do that, and sometimes you do, but mostly you merely claim to be uncommonly familiar with these matters because, presumably, you are such an expert on history. Perhaps this is because you don't have, or don't want to take, the time to actually lay it all out to make a coherent case, or perhaps it's for some other reason. But until you actually do lay it all out, in an ordered, logical, deductive and/or inductive manner, we will all simply have to make our own various assumptions about the depth and breadth of your understanding of these historical matters and how knowing them substantively supports, or doesn't, your point of view. And even assuming you do so at some point, which I don't expect, since as I've pointed out I've never actually made many of the claims you have suggested I've made, it will not be likely to, in many respects, adequately refute many of the various actual points I have made.

In any case, as I said, most of your facts are anecdotal as opposed to an attempt to muster a point-by-point argument.

As for the rest of your recent, various and sundry comments, as I said, I'm not interested in insults, attempts at ridicule and so forth. As is often the case, you resort to these tactics, among others, when you wish to avoid attempts at rebuttal, presumably because, other than such folderol, you have nothing much to say.