- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 66,828
- Reaction score
- 30,089
- Location
- Rolesville, NC
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Someone didn't read "The Lottery".
In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.
Tradition, GK Chesterton pointed out, is merely a form of democracy that does not discount people on account of their having been born earlier than you.
Since this is actually a broader question about whether we should let tradition guide us, rather than a narrow question on antisemitism, I would cite him here:
Simply put, unless those arguing for stripping away tradition can articulate (accurately, not hyperbolically) why we evolved that social custom to fit a need in the first place, they should not be trusted when they present a cost-benefit analysis of their proposals.
So if a specific family has a tradition of hating Jews, then there tradition is wrong and should be abandoned.
Jew hatred (or hatred of any group of people) is of course contrary to the Christian tradition which helped build our society.
Like anything else, it depends on the tradition or practice. In many ways, however, I fundamentally agree with the idea that public policy should reflect American principles and traditions. This allows me, however, to engage in a debate as to which principle and tradition should be valued over another in matters of policy.
That would depend upon the tradition in question, and its intrinsic value.
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.
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.
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.
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.
To an extent, but with an important qualification. Both Gath and I agree with the concept that a known system or idea often carries a number of benefits that new ideas do not.
Well, yes. I would simply opt more on the side of caution rather than innovation for innovation's sake alone.
If things have been done a certain way for the last ten thousand years, and the system seems to function at an acceptable level under that model, there's probably a good reason for it.
And these benefits are?
Likewise, calls for "caution" are too often simply the reaction to a disadvantaged group crying out for justice. "Acceptable levels" all too often only means acceptable to those who benefit most from a system. But let's be honest, there is nothing we do today that we do the same way we did ten thousand years ago. Our social order is different. Our technology is different. Our values would be unrecognizable to them.
And these benefits are? Just because something was a good idea in the past, or was perceived to be a good idea in the past, has no bearing on its usefulness today.
Likewise, calls for "caution" are too often simply the reaction to a disadvantaged group crying out for justice.
We actually know they work, for one. :lol:
A lot of the time, those reactionary fears turn out to be well founded. :shrug:
Jumping onto the latest bandwagon for blind idealism and "PROGRESS!!!1!!1" sakes alone is how we wound up with disasters like the French Revolution, Napoleon, Eugenics, "Scientific Racism," Soviet Communism, Adolf Hitler, and the appalling messes that were 19th Century and early 20th Century medicine.
They don't work. That's the whole point.
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.
And why do you think that idealism is blind?
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.
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?
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?
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.
Often, yes. A rule, no. Caution is also used by disadvantaged groups wishing to prevent the advantaged from carrying out injustices.
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.
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.
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.
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. :lol:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?