• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Payless dupes fashion influencers into paying hundreds for $20 shoes in cheeky ad campaign

I am 56 years old, I know for a fact that we used to be better, that we used to be more honest.

You believe this because you used to be aware of less dishonesty than you are now. It's an ubiquitous phenomenon that older generations despair the lack of morals and discipline of younger generations. This has been going on for as long as civilization has existed. If it were really society as a whole that was sliding down the path of immorality, civilization would have perished long ago. In fact morals and ethics have steadily progressed throughout human history along with social consciousness and technology, and there is no evidence to suggest that will ever change.

The dishonest will always exist. But we will steadily become better at detecting them and mitigating the damage they cause, and because of this they will make the news more often. This is actually a good thing even though it may seem like we're hearing more bad news than we used to.
 
You believe this because you used to be aware of less dishonesty than you are now. It's an ubiquitous phenomenon that older generations despair the lack of morals and discipline of younger generations. This has been going on for as long as civilization has existed. If it were really society as a whole that was sliding down the path of immorality, civilization would have perished long ago. In fact morals and ethics have steadily progressed throughout human history along with social consciousness and technology, and there is no evidence to suggest that will ever change.

The dishonest will always exist. But we will steadily become better at detecting them and mitigating the damage they cause, and because of this they will make the news more often. This is actually a good thing even though it may seem like we're hearing more bad news than we used to.

"That's what they always say, ignore it" is stupid.

The smart thing to do is to launch an investigation, go find out what the truth is.
 
"That's what they always say, ignore it" is stupid.

The smart thing to do is to launch an investigation, go find out what the truth is.

I'm all for investigations. Let's find out the truth. My only point is that the dishonesty of modern times is neither a new phenomenon, nor is it a sign that the worst is yet to come. All things considered, we can consider ourselves blessed that the problems of today usually tend to pale in comparison to the problems of the past.
 
I'm all for investigations. Let's find out the truth. My only point is that the dishonesty of modern times is neither a new phenomenon, nor is it a sign that the worst is yet to come. All things considered, we can consider ourselves blessed that the problems of today usually tend to pale in comparison to the problems of the past.

With as bad as things are already, and with the collapse of western Civilization picking up speed, you come off as an out of touch Pollyanna. People are continuing to get more stupid and more dishonest, almost all of our institutions are either weak or in outright collapse, and the New Chinese Empire is coming to clean our clocks.
 
With as bad as things are already, and with the collapse of western Civilization picking up speed, you come off as an out of touch Pollyanna. People are continuing to get more stupid and more dishonest, almost all of our institutions are either weak or in outright collapse, and the New Chinese Empire is coming to clean our clocks.

I assure you, none of that is true. Are things ideal? Not even close. But things are much better than they used to be, and will continue to improve. As evidence, we have all of human history. Things are not going to suddenly shift into reverse no matter how frightening the nightly news gets.
 
I assure you, none of that is true. Are things ideal? Not even close. But things are much better than they used to be, and will continue to improve. As evidence, we have all of human history. Things are not going to suddenly shift into reverse no matter how frightening the nightly news gets.

"Reverse" is not the same as "different", although the change to "different" is sometimes confused with it.

IF (and notice that this is a postulate) "current Western civilization" is not the best suited form of civilization for the actual conditions of the world (and those conditions include how the mass defines "best") then it is going to change into something else. The fact of "survival" is what determines "fitness to survive" and not the other way around.

That, of course, is what Charles Darwin meant when he said "the survival of the fittest" and not what a lot of people appear to think he meant. (For example, a man who was blind in one eye was "fitter for survival" during WWI than was a man with two eyes REGARDLESS of the fact that, under other "real world conditions" having two eyes gave the possessor an advantage in "survival".)
 
"Reverse" is not the same as "different", although the change to "different" is sometimes confused with it.

IF (and notice that this is a postulate) "current Western civilization" is not the best suited form of civilization for the actual conditions of the world (and those conditions include how the mass defines "best") then it is going to change into something else. The fact of "survival" is what determines "fitness to survive" and not the other way around.

That, of course, is what Charles Darwin meant when he said "the survival of the fittest" and not what a lot of people appear to think he meant. (For example, a man who was blind in one eye was "fitter for survival" during WWI than was a man with two eyes REGARDLESS of the fact that, under other "real world conditions" having two eyes gave the possessor an advantage in "survival".)

No doubt. Change is inevitable. In the long run, the change is always for the best even though it is uncomfortable in the short term. Even more so when it is effected by a species aware enough to consciously work toward it. I think it's important to keep in mind that the failures will always be more newsworthy than the successes. The more bad news we hear, the more people are going to be standing up and doing something about it. Not all of them will succeed. Some will only succeed in creating more problems. But the aggregate outcome will always be progress toward a brighter and safer future for humanity.
 
No doubt. Change is inevitable. In the long run, the change is always for the best even though it is uncomfortable in the short term. Even more so when it is effected by a species aware enough to consciously work toward it. I think it's important to keep in mind that the failures will always be more newsworthy than the successes. The more bad news we hear, the more people are going to be standing up and doing something about it. Not all of them will succeed. Some will only succeed in creating more problems. But the aggregate outcome will always be progress toward a brighter and safer future for humanity.

One surely hopes so.

Of course, the Germans thought that Herr Hitler was going to lead them toward a brighter and safer future and we know how that one turned out.
 
Back
Top Bottom