View Poll Results: If something is a tradition, should laws must reflect it?

Voters
37. You may not vote on this poll
  • No

    32 86.49%
  • Yes

    2 5.41%
  • Not Sure

    0 0%
  • I LOVE JEWS!!!!

    6 16.22%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 107

Thread: Traditions

  1. #41
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Charleston, South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    28,659

    Re: Traditions

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    They don't work. That's the whole point.
    They carried to us where we are now, didn't they?

    They're obviously doing something right.

    That's pretty funny. That massive violence or racism come from attempts at progress is a good joke. The "scientific racism" that you refer so was attempts to push traditions of bigotry and hate onto progress and science. It was a perversion of science and progress. Likewise it's hilarious that you think there was anything progressive about fascist regimes. They were all about tradition and traditional authoritarian models.
    First off, where are you getting the idea that science and progress are inherently "good," "moral," and "Libertarian" pursuits?

    They are mere tools, neither good, evil, nor liberating in and of themselves. What matters is the person making use of them, and their goal.

    For that matter, some of the most horrific regimes in human history (Red China, the USSR, and the Khmer Rouge, for instance) started off with "equality" and "human liberation" as their primary goals. Hell! Even Hitler and Napoleon were reasonably "progressive," at least where social policy was concerned.

    Simply put, it is not said that the "road to Hell is paved with good intentions" for nothing.

    Blind faith in progress, for progress' sake alone, can, and often does, end in disaster.

    And why do you think that idealism is blind?
    Because it often is, perhaps?
    Last edited by Gathomas88; 08-29-14 at 09:09 PM.

  2. #42
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    06-30-16 @ 07:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,309
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Traditions

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Okay, so if a specific family has a tradition of hating Gays, then there tradition is wrong and should be abandoned. Agree or disagree?



    Hahahahahahaha. That's hilarious. Hilariously wrong. You do realize that the Catholics enslaved thousands of orthodox Christians in the crusades right? And the Pope preached hatred of Muslims? Christians themselves butchered each other because of different beliefs. Slavery itself built much of America and that was hardly what you claim.
    I agree. Hating people is wrong even if those people are sinners.

    You do realize that you're clueless. The Catholics did not enslave the Orthodox, nor did the Pope preach hatred of anyone. Moreover the leaders of the raid on Constantinople were excommunicated by the Pope. Despite what neocons say, America wasn't exactly founded on Christian principles.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    Sounds like traditions ought to be weighed on their merits and their status as tradition doesn't matter. Kinda like any other idea, new or old. Funny, that.
    Should Americans switch to driving on the left side of the road?

  3. #43
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: Traditions

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleocon View Post
    Should Americans switch to driving on the left side of the road?
    No, because there's no benefit in it. Which side of the road is arbitrary. If there were a benefit, then that we drive on the right now would be no reason to continue. A better example is the metric system. We SHOULD use the metric system, but we don't because we're used to the English system. Tradition is holding us back.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gathomas88 View Post
    They carried to us where we are now, didn't they?

    They're obviously doing something right.

    For that matter, some of the most horrific regimes in human history (Red China, the USSR, and the Khmer Rouge, for instance) started off with "equality" and "human liberation" as their primary goals. Hell! Even Hitler and Napoleon were reasonably "progressive," at least where social policy was concerned.

    Because it often is, perhaps?
    You don't know any actual history, do you? (Quote edited to the most hilariously faulty statements) Most notably that you think any society in the 20th century was more horrific than any society in the 14th century. Or the 8th. Or pretty much every single one before the 20th. Higher bodycount from higher population amounts to squat. Vlad the Impaler or Genghis Khan, some very traditional guys, were far worse than Stalin, Hitler, and Mao combined. Not to mention centuries of Roman brutality. And for any progressive rhetoric those three espoused, their methods were rooted in tradition. Especially Hitler. The whole "Third Reich" thing was specifically to invoke traditions of the past.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Traditions can be good for removing (but also instilling, as you would rightly point out) alienation. In terms of public policy, traditions can establish at the very least small nuggets of truth as to what works, has worked, and what is desirable. Change is necessary, evaluating new ideas is also necessary, but balancing it with preexisting knowledge and traditions is also just as necessary. It has a "bearing" on usefulness in contemporary times as well as the future.
    Sounds to me like good ideas are good and past adoption of an idea has nothing to do with the merits of an idea. Evaluating all ideas is necessary. That we've done something in the past seems to make no difference at all. Those nuggets of truth will shine through of their own accord. They don't need any deference due to history.

    Often, yes. A rule, no. Caution is also used by disadvantaged groups wishing to prevent the advantaged from carrying out injustices.
    A call for caution from a disadvantaged group carries no weight. That's kind of the whole point of disadvantage. I'm not really sure what you're getting at.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  4. #44
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    30,045

    Re: Traditions

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post

    You don't know any actual history, do you? (Quote edited to the most hilariously faulty statements) Most notably that you think any society in the 20th century was more horrific than any society in the 14th century. Or the 8th. Or pretty much every single one before the 20th. Higher bodycount from higher population amounts to squat. Vlad the Impaler or Genghis Khan, some very traditional guys, were far worse than Stalin, Hitler, and Mao combined. Not to mention centuries of Roman brutality. And for any progressive rhetoric those three espoused, their methods were rooted in tradition. Especially Hitler. The whole "Third Reich" thing was specifically to invoke traditions of the past.
    Yup. It sucked a whole lot for women for a great deal of that time, because basically they existed and had 'privileges' based on the whims of men. Everywhere. It certainly did suck when compared to modern times in the industrialized countries (1st world).

    Of course, medical advances have certainly improved length and quality of life.

    And for anyone 'different,' whether it was individuals, minority groups/ethnicities or 'foreigners' (other countries), then it meant things like abuse, ostracization, exclusion, prison, death, conflict, war. At least in most of the industrialized world, we have overcome that...or are vigorously working on it.

    We have not yet completely conquered disease, racism, homophobia/gay discrimination, etc things like that here, but we have certainly made progress from the past.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  5. #45
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Charleston, South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    28,659

    Re: Traditions

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    You don't know any actual history, do you? (Quote edited to the most hilariously faulty statements) Most notably that you think any society in the 20th century was more horrific than any society in the 14th century. Or the 8th. Or pretty much every single one before the 20th. Higher bodycount from higher population amounts to squat.
    You realize that the upper end estimates on Mao's body count alone are like 100 million people, right? Stalin's run anywhere from 10 to 20 million. The Khmer Rouge, for their own part, killed more than 2 million people, in a country that only had a population of roughly 6 million, in less than a decade.

    All told, between the death tolls, the crimes against humanity, and the economic damage, Red Communism was likely the single most destructive ideology humanity has ever seen.

    It all started, because a bunch of starry eyed fools got the idea into their heads that they were capable of fundamentally rewriting human nature and building "utopia," if they were simply willing to make the necessary "sacrifices" involved. That was exactly my point.

    Unchecked "progressivism" can actually be quite dangerous in the wrong hands.

    Vlad the Impaler or Genghis Khan, some very traditional guys, were far worse than Stalin, Hitler, and Mao combined. Not to mention centuries of Roman brutality. And for any progressive rhetoric those three espoused, their methods were rooted in tradition. Especially Hitler. The whole "Third Reich" thing was specifically to invoke traditions of the past.
    To the contrary, Hitler was a radical revolutionary, if anything. What he was attempting to do was basically set himself up as a new "Muhammad" looking to oversee an unprecedented military, cultural, and political conquest akin to that which swept the Arabs into power in the 7th Century.

    In that vein, his ideas were really quite radical. He was essentially seeking to "weaponize" an entire nation and ethnic group, by collectively regimenting their lives, spiritual beliefs, ideology, and industry to the direction of a single man's twisted will.

    There wasn't a single thing "traditional" about it. The old Prussian aristocracy hated Hitler, by and large, for that exact reason.

    Likewise, Napoleon and Ghengis Khan were quite radical in their own times as well.

    Napoleon sought to unite Europe under a single empire, governed by Liberal rule of law, scientific reason, and meritocracy rather than aristocratic privilege or religious fiat. His ideas terrified the Monarchs of Europe for good reason.

    Where Ghengis Khan is concerned, the very notion of uniting the various tribes of the steppes under a single banner, and using them to take, and hold, non-nomadic empires was more than "radical" enough at the time to land him on any list.

    Your mistake here is that you are subconsciously buying into the absurd idea of the "end of history," and defining "progress" as being linear movement only towards forms of human development which you happen to agree with as such. I'm sorry, but that simply doesn't work.

    "Progress" takes many forms, many of them moving humanity forward in completely the wrong direction.
    Last edited by Gathomas88; 08-30-14 at 03:09 AM.

  6. #46
    Question authority
    Grand Mal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    on an island off the left coast of Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    16,515
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Traditions

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Jews have been hated so long it's become a tradition. My great grandfather hated Jews, my grandfather hated Jews, my father hates Jews....should I hate Jews because it's tradition?

    If something is a tradition, should laws reflect it?

    *note: my family actually doesn't hate Jews, this is just for argument's sake

    EDIT: Haha, brain fart in the poll question.
    Why friggin' bother?
    I mean, actually, why would you ask this question? Do you think there's room for discussion?
    "I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid people. I meant that stupid people are generally Conservatives."
    -John Stuart Mill-

  7. #47
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: Traditions

    Quote Originally Posted by Gathomas88 View Post
    You realize that the upper end estimates on Mao's body count alone are like 100 million people, right? Stalin's run anywhere from 10 to 20 million. The Khmer Rouge, for their own part, killed more than 2 million people, in a country that only had a population of roughly 6 million, in less than a decade.

    All told, between the death tolls, the crimes against humanity, and the economic damage, Red Communism was likely the single most destructive ideology humanity has ever seen.

    It all started, because a bunch of starry eyed fools got the idea into their heads that they were capable of fundamentally rewriting human nature and building "utopia," if they were simply willing to make the necessary "sacrifices" involved. That was exactly my point.

    Unchecked "progressivism" can actually be quite dangerous in the wrong hands.



    To the contrary, Hitler was a radical revolutionary, if anything. What he was attempting to do was basically set himself up as a new "Muhammad" looking to oversee an unprecedented military, cultural, and political conquest akin to that which swept the Arabs into power in the 7th Century.

    In that vein, his ideas were really quite radical. He was essentially seeking to "weaponize" an entire nation and ethnic group, by collectively regimenting their lives, spiritual beliefs, ideology, and industry to the direction of a single man's twisted will.

    There wasn't a single thing "traditional" about it. The old Prussian aristocracy hated Hitler, by and large, for that exact reason.

    Likewise, Napoleon and Ghengis Khan were quite radical in their own times as well.

    Napoleon sought to unite Europe under a single empire, governed by Liberal rule of law, scientific reason, and meritocracy rather than aristocratic privilege or religious fiat. His ideas terrified the Monarchs of Europe for good reason.

    Where Ghengis Khan is concerned, the very notion of uniting the various tribes of the steppes under a single banner, and using them to take, and hold, non-nomadic empires was more than "radical" enough at the time to land him on any list.

    Your mistake here is that you are subconsciously buying into the absurd idea of the "end of history," and defining "progress" as being linear movement only towards forms of human development which you happen to agree with as such. I'm sorry, but that simply doesn't work.

    "Progress" takes many forms, many of them moving humanity forward in completely the wrong direction.
    You know these facts (though you certainly cherry pick the ones you prefer and ignore the ones you don't), but you don't seem to understand what they mean.

    Especially here: "It all started, because a bunch of starry eyed fools got the idea into their heads that they were capable of fundamentally rewriting human nature and building "utopia," if they were simply willing to make the necessary "sacrifices" involved. That was exactly my point." If this is your takeaway from all that, then you miss pretty much everything important about the history we're discussing. I don't really know how to get these notions across to you when you're so dead set on just reinforcing this bizarre idea that trying to do better makes us worse. The first step that you might want to undertake is to realize the difference between correlation and causation. You cite Genghis Khan's adoption of meritocracy as if it were somehow the cause of his violence. Or that trying to be more egalitarian is what made Mao's China brutal and repressive. Do you not realize that it was these two cultures' inability and lack of desire to escape their brutal and violent histories that set them up for the violence they caused in their heydays? They did violence because violence was their tradition.

    I legitimately don't understand how you can fail to understand this. Nor do I see how you can turn this into any kind of argument in favor of giving weight to an idea merely because we've done it before.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  8. #48
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    30,045

    Re: Traditions

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    I legitimately don't understand how you can fail to understand this. Nor do I see how you can turn this into any kind of argument in favor of giving weight to an idea merely because we've done it before.
    No kidding. It's not like we had a choice, "here we are today". Time passes and species survive or they dont.

    Humans are survivors and gifted with the great abilities to adapt and invent.

    It's not like there were any other options LOL.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  9. #49
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Charleston, South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    28,659

    Re: Traditions

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    You know these facts (though you certainly cherry pick the ones you prefer and ignore the ones you don't), but you don't seem to understand what they mean.

    Especially here: "It all started, because a bunch of starry eyed fools got the idea into their heads that they were capable of fundamentally rewriting human nature and building "utopia," if they were simply willing to make the necessary "sacrifices" involved. That was exactly my point." If this is your takeaway from all that, then you miss pretty much everything important about the history we're discussing. I don't really know how to get these notions across to you when you're so dead set on just reinforcing this bizarre idea that trying to do better makes us worse. The first step that you might want to undertake is to realize the difference between correlation and causation. You cite Genghis Khan's adoption of meritocracy as if it were somehow the cause of his violence. Or that trying to be more egalitarian is what made Mao's China brutal and repressive. Do you not realize that it was these two cultures' inability and lack of desire to escape their brutal and violent histories that set them up for the violence they caused in their heydays? They did violence because violence was their tradition.

    I legitimately don't understand how you can fail to understand this. Nor do I see how you can turn this into any kind of argument in favor of giving weight to an idea merely because we've done it before.
    I'm not missing anything. Change is inevitable, and can be quite positive.

    I'm not going to deny it.

    I'm simply suggesting that it should be approached cautiously, because haphazard change, for change's sake alone, often tends to lead to outcomes worse than the supposed "injustices" they were meant to correct.

    No, that usually is not because of "traditional values" getting in the way either. Most of the time, it is simply because the "progress" in question was misguided or overzealous to begin with.

    Most of Red Communism's body count, for instance, was due to the "egalitarian" enforcement of collectivized of agriculture. It resulted in famines, more often than not, and required brutal repression in order to keep workers from abandoning the farms in question.

  10. #50
    Left the building
    Fearandloathing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,508

    Re: Traditions

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Jews have been hated so long it's become a tradition. My great grandfather hated Jews, my grandfather hated Jews, my father hates Jews....should I hate Jews because it's tradition?

    If something is a tradition, should laws reflect it?

    *note: my family actually doesn't hate Jews, this is just for argument's sake

    EDIT: Haha, brain fart in the poll question.


    With such a poorly framed argument it is hard to know what you mean.

    I would not ever say hate is "traditional" in any sense of the word. Most historical hatred has some legitimacy somewhere. Asked who broke the ceasefire in Bosnia, a Canadian peacekeeper once replied "take your pick. whoever it was it was started a few hundred years ago."

    The Palestinians believe they have been driven from their homeland and many have suffered and lost loved ones, as have Israeli's, cause for hate on both sides.

    Note the ongoing 'war' between Democrats and Republicans in the US, many an argument involves the actions of dead presidents.

    But are you calking about "hate" or traditional stereotyping? My long dead Polish grandmother referred to a neighbor lady as "the Jew", but they had coffee and pastries together every so often?

    Or are you talking about "taught" bigotry, where people pass along to any, usually their children, the myths and biases of generations? If so, you have dne yourself a disservice by choosing Jews specifically as the debate will undoubtedly degenerate into Israel - Palestinian arguments.
    ""You know, when we sell to other countries, even if they're allies -- you never know about an ally. An ally can turn."
    Donald Trump, 11/23/17

Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •