Oftencold
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2008
- Messages
- 5,044
- Reaction score
- 2,202
- Location
- A small village in Alaska
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Yep, without religion we'd all just be a bunch of heathen psychopaths. Our society would melt away into oblivion. :roll:
The standard of living for the poor and humanity in general has never been higher than it is today, so apparently society has been taking a pretty good direction.
I have come to the conclusion that no republic can long survive in a culture where voluntary idiocy is not regarded as an affront to decency, where the uninformed are encouraged to vote, where the needlessly unproductive are shielded from suffering for their deficiencies, and where the morals of the majority are constantly held to be grossly defective. Republicanism requires a more elevated sort of citizen participants.
I'd also add that a lack of religious dedication and instruction will be lethal to a free society as well, since the value we place on the freedom of others tends to be an expression of our abstract concept of Man. In a purely mechanical, non-spiritual model, a human is simply a thing.
In fine, I think that we've botched the whole "liberty" thing, and are in the last few decades of such a concept remaining in vogue. Modern Americans, as a whole, seem to me no more likely to pass on liberty to their progeny, than a child playing with matches in a paper house is likely to maintain shelter. (And for allegorically similar reasons.)
A personal tendency to frank assessment informed by historical awareness really sucks, you know.
What do such others of you who are fond of writing in complete paragraphs think about such prognostication?
You do know that Romans could say that just before the Visigoths came to call right? And the Carthaginians before them, just before the Romans annihilated them? The Aztecs, oh, well, you get it, and will choose to ignore it.
But you fail to grasp what religion is. It enforces an abstract model of human beings upon their fellows. Without it, what are you really but a machine, all of your "humanity" just an internal experience produced by chemical actions. In that model, simply killing you solves almost all problems associated with you. Any suffering you ever experienced, any injustice, or disappointment utterly evaporates at death. And we know that nations can think like that. The Germans did, the Russians did.
Ah, but you see, without religion, then we must assume that we're lying to people when we tell them that they have rights, of that there is a right and wrong, or any morality at all. There are just particles and waveforms. One perceives things like pain, but there is no real pain, nor in fact any "one" to perceive it. There can be no past injustice. No one can produce a molecule of pain experienced by the dead. One could spend great efforts and resources in a mechanistic world to end suffering, but it is far more efficient, effective and economical to end the sufferer instead. How can there be a right or wrong is disorganizing a collection of atoms, after all? That's all any living thing could be really, in a non-spiritual reality.Even if we were to both assume that religion betters society (which I wholeheartedly disagree with), the price you'd be paying for that betterment is lying to millions of people. If I could convince myself that another fantasy world existed beyond this one, I might do that, but it would look completely different than the one you've crafted for yourself.
And second, the nazis were devoutly catholic, so I have no idea why you brought that up.
In the past, idiots were held to be idiots, and barred from participation in government.Has there ever been a time when the bulk of humanity weren't idiots, voluntary or otherwise, and an understanding of "decency" was limited to those who practiced it?
By idealizing the past, we inevitably focus on the past that existed for the few, not the many, and we ignore the problematical in favor of this idealized version we have created. For every Jane Austin character living that genteel manor life there were hundreds who weren't. For every Ozzie and Harriet with a nice picket fence, there were dozens not so fortunate. Our "history" is limited to the history of a certain class, not the masses, which is quite understandable considering that a certain class writes the history.
This little paean to conservatism misses the point that the adherence to tradition does not deliver any sort of true freedom any more than liberalism does when it throws out the baby with the bathwater. Some things NEED to be conserved in a society, but we need to make sure that what we are conserving are not those social institutions that prevent freedom for the many in favor of advancing freedom for the few. If we wish to talk about morals, let's talk about actual morals, shall we? Any society that extends liberty only to the few while ignoring the needs of the many is not acting morally, and I would rather live in one that at least attempted to level the playing field on occasion, even if those for whom such liberty has been extended act as people in general have always acted.
Republicanism requires a more elevated sort of citizen participants.
Ah, but you see, without religion, then we must assume that we're lying to people when we tell them that they have rights, of that there is a right and wrong, or any morality at all. There are just particles and waveforms. One perceives things like pain, but there is no real pain, nor in fact any "one" to perceive it. There can be no past injustice. No one can produce a molecule of pain experienced by the dead. One could spend great efforts and resources in a mechanistic world to end suffering, but it is far more efficient, effective and economical to end the sufferer instead. How can there be a right or wrong is disorganizing a collection of atoms, after all? That's all any living thing could be really, in a non-spiritual reality.
Or put another way, spreading you butter on toast could have no lesser meaning than crushing your daughter under a train.
The very instant that one thinks that there is a right and wrong, a good and evil, or a real, transient being behind anyone's eyes, they have established a religion.
Oh, and a little research will reveal unto you that there were Catholic Nazis, but Nazis were not inherently Catholic. It would have been quite curious if they were, coming as they did from the land that gave birth to Protestantism and Lutheranism.
Would these be white, landowning males, or do you have a better solution?
Sorry, I left my English to bigoted moron dictionary at home, so I may not properly understand what your sloganeering is attempting to express.
Try "educated, ethical, productive and honorable."
I have come to the conclusion that no republic can long survive in a culture where voluntary idiocy is not regarded as an affront to decency, where the uninformed are encouraged to vote, where the needlessly unproductive are shielded from suffering for their deficiencies, and where the morals of the majority are constantly held to be grossly defective. Republicanism requires a more elevated sort of citizen participants.
I'd also add that a lack of religious dedication and instruction will be lethal to a free society as well, since the value we place on the freedom of others tends to be an expression of our abstract concept of Man. In a purely mechanical, non-spiritual model, a human is simply a thing.
In fine, I think that we've botched the whole "liberty" thing, and are in the last few decades of such a concept remaining in vogue. Modern Americans, as a whole, seem to me no more likely to pass on liberty to their progeny, than a child playing with matches in a paper house is likely to maintain shelter. (And for allegorically similar reasons.)
A personal tendency to frank assessment informed by historical awareness really sucks, you know.
What do such others of you who are fond of writing in complete paragraphs think about such prognostication?
Ah, but you see, without religion, then we must assume that we're lying to people when we tell them that they have rights, of that there is a right and wrong, or any morality at all. There are just particles and waveforms. One perceives things like pain, but there is no real pain, nor in fact any "one" to perceive it. There can be no past injustice. No one can produce a molecule of pain experienced by the dead. One could spend great efforts and resources in a mechanistic world to end suffering, but it is far more efficient, effective and economical to end the sufferer instead. How can there be a right or wrong is disorganizing a collection of atoms, after all? That's all any living thing could be really, in a non-spiritual reality.
Or put another way, spreading you butter on toast could have no lesser meaning than crushing your daughter under a train.
The very instant that one thinks that there is a right and wrong, a good and evil, or a real, transient being behind anyone's eyes, they have established a religion.
I disagree with your philosophical musing. Morals do not require divine intervention. Our actions have meaning to us because we believe they have meaning. If your concept were true, atheists would just go around killing and stealing all the time, wouldn't they?
I think that there are other elements that are just as important. People stated looking to do "good works," without pain to themselves. Churches and charities make demands, and require that people be convinced to give. On the other government action can often be structure to seem to make others pay for one's Utopian visions. And people rarely consider just what governments are. Governments are a polite way of pointing a gun at your neighbor and saying "comply." A fondness for expansive and detailed government action on a wide front is utterly incompatible with liberty.Our system was compromised as soon as people got the idea that they could vote themselves into other peoples' pockets. I think with the expansion of the government and the entitlement system that powers the democrat strategy of appealing to the dumbest 50% of the voters with class warfare rhetoric may be the final nail in the coffin for this country.
I was using the historical basis for mass disenfranchisement in your country as an example as to why the ideas suggested in the OP aren't particularly good. In America, the original basis for voting was white males who owned property, on the basis that these were the people who had an investment in the country and were more likely to be educated. A bit of historical education on your part means you wouldn't have to go home to get your dictionary.
Ok, so now we have your subjective terms as to who should be in the enfranchised minority. How do you judge a persons education, ethics, productivity and honour?
There's no crystal ball. The most complex modelling is subject to the vagaries of assumption and artificiality. I would point out that what people usually fear is the unknown. However American history progresses, we can be sure it will persist, failing some global armageddon that would render appraisal of any nation moot. Revolution signifies only transition, not conclusion. A people exist post-upheaval; they aren't destroyed. 200 years, you say? lulz Most of the world is steeped in millennia of history. Even the New World, at a mere 500 years old, neatly eclipses the scope of your perspective. Further, what you interpret as a timeline of horror, is only the dynamic of a healthy and responsive system. Your scaremongering is misplaced and hysterical. The end was never nigh. It likely never will be.No nation and no form of government is permanent. The reason is because human beings are involved and human beings are imperfect.
No matter if it's a republic, monarchy, dictatorship, communism, socialism, capitalism...all eventually collapse due to corruption and mismanagement.
Every nation in the world is/was born in blood and revolution and eventually they all die in blood and revolution. It's the natural progression of all human endeavors.
Eventually a government is infiltrated by people who warp, twist and manipulate it to benefit themselves or their "group" to the detriment of the rest of the people.
Look at the u.s. A perfect example of a government infiltrated and destroyed from within by special interest groups and corruption. It will probably last a few more years but the slide into totalitarianism and corruption is measurable almost on a daily basis.
The average lifespan of a nation is around 200 years. Some have obviously lasted longer...some not nearly as long but they ALL collapse in revolution when the government becomes too oppressive and corrupt. The u.s is on borrowed time at this point.
It's coming. Believe that.
Rather, the economic underclass was held to be irrelevant, and denied representation.In the past, idiots were held to be idiots, and barred from participation in government.
Nothing more dangerous than restricting the ballot. Give it a shot. See what happens. I take it that 'hope n' change' denotes those with views that run counter to your own?The sort of people who think that "hope 'n' change" is a political philosophy, for instance, never should be allowed to handle something as dangerous as a ballot.
What should it be? Purchased?Myself, I don't even think that citizenship should be hereditary.
You mean aside from physical violence, tyrannical enforcement of subjugation spanning generations, legislated inequality, immorality, fundamental violations of civil rights and rejection of basic humanity?And lately with all the demands for government to provide healthcare, housing food and jobs, I've begun to wonder in what fundamental ways that differs from slavery.
Nothing more dangerous than restricting the ballot. Give it a shot. See what happens. I take it that 'hope n' change' denotes those with views that run counter to your own?
There's no crystal ball. The most complex modelling is subject to the vagaries of assumption and artificiality. I would point out that what people usually fear is the unknown.
However American history progresses, we can be sure it will persist, failing some global armageddon that would render appraisal of any nation moot.
That is exactly what I said. It is a natural, inevitable process.Revolution signifies only transition, not conclusion.
A people exist post-upheaval; they aren't destroyed.
"lulz" all you want. Read some history. I said the average lifespan of a nation works out to around 200 years.and that's true...now you're purposely misunderstanding to somehow imply that I said the world is going to end..or something...but "lulz" it up...200 years, you say? lulz Most of the world is steeped in millennia of history.
Even the New World, at a mere 500 years old, neatly eclipses the scope of your perspective.
Further, what you interpret as a timeline of horror, is only the dynamic of a healthy and responsive system.
Your scaremongering is misplaced and hysterical. The end was never nigh. It likely never will be.
Centuries of stable tyranny. Sure, that's one way of maintaining acquiescence. Post-Democracy? You can't close Pandora's Box.You mean, like Rome and Britain did for centuries of stable government?
Education as baseline for eligibility? That's a floodgate, dude. Not to mention elitist as hell. Those bound by any social contract (that being the citizenry) are afforded rights. Rights that were hard won.Of course voting should be restricted. What possible justification is there for allowing the illiterate to vote, or encouraging people who can't name the three branches of government to do so? Seriously, give the idea some thought. The ignorant have absolutely no business voting. None.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?