That would depend upon the tradition in question, and its intrinsic value.
I "get" where the OP was going, but I struggle with calling the hatred of a particular group or person/persons as a "tradition".
If my great grandfather beat his wife, and my grandfather beat his wife, and my father beat his wife, I'm not sure I'd call it a family tradition. I'd call it more a family problem.
By the way, I voted "No" in the poll.
But then you're judging each tradition on its merits rather than just the fact of its tradition status alone. Which is pretty much the point.
Because there's no benefit to it and significant cost to switching. The point of this thread is to address whether the mere fact that switching is happening is an inherent negative. It isn't. Only the benefits and costs are... because any idea, traditional or not, should simply be weighed on its merits.
And what is the cost to switching?
Having to make all the cars with the driver's side on the right, having a lot of cars with the driver on the outside of the road, which is more dangerous, and the very likely situation that people would forget. Driving on the wrong side of the road is already a primary cause of accidents, this would merely exacerbate the situation.
The obvious mistake you're making is talking about something that is ultimately arbitrary. Which side we drove on in the first place was a completely arbitrary choice. It didn't matter one way or the other. Both options have equal merit. When we're talking about social mores, that is seldom the case.
So would you acknowledge that tradition can be a valid basis for decision making?
No, it isn't. And your smug attempt to mischaracterize the issue doesn't change that. Every idea gets evaluated on its merits, regardless of whether it's a new idea or an old one.
Then why shouldn't we change to driving on the left?
Then why shouldn't we change to driving on the left?
If the tradition has a purpose the reasoning would be just as important today as it would have been back then.
Many traditions are just benign. They are neutral. Such as there is nothing really bad about decorating a house in traditional colors of a season. Some have become benign so they aren't really needed but also do no harm. Such as a father giving away a daughter or the family giving away the daughter when she marries or a guy asking permission from a girl's father to marry her. These are traditions that were necessary for the social structure that existed in the past but have since become unnecessary given our new culture where the family has little to no say in who anyone marries. This makes the tradition not needed, so it should not be mandatory, and if it fades away completely, there is nothing wrong with that. But there are some traditions that people want to be mandatory that are harmful or simply should not be made mandatory because others want to be able to not participate in them and there is no need for them to do so.
...not necessarily. For example, traditions that are still prevalent in Middle Eastern architecture, where houses are built in compounds and surrounded with walls in order to help discourage wife-stealing, are no longer necessary in Western housing, where we have evolved a different set of traditions to define how one can find a spouse. Similarly, our cities are no longer walled. So that is a tradition that at one point played an important purpose of helping to disincentivize socially destructive behavior, that is no longer necessary. By understanding the purpose of the walls, we can ascertain whether or not we can get rid of the tradition. Not all purposes are timeless, and conditions that make them best served by one or more adaptation do change.
I think you are mistaking "traditions that people still see reason for, but with whom you disagree" with "people who want to continue with tradition for no reason". And that is precisely why those of us who are cautious about throwing complex structures overboard feel that folks are doing so without bothering to conduct cost/benefit analysis, or are throwing in shallow, strawman assessments that do not attempt to honestly take into account those traditions' original use and purpose.
And yet people still construct walls around their own personal homes.
I never said I disagreed with any of the traditions that I mentioned. (In fact, my father gave me away and my husband asked my father if he could marry me before we got married. Granted we were getting married even if he had said no.) They are traditions that are nothing more than that though. They aren't legally binding, as most aren't and most have no reason to be legally binding otherwise they would be laws not merely traditions.
And yet people still construct walls around their own personal homes.
I never said I disagreed with any of the traditions that I mentioned. (In fact, my father gave me away and my husband asked my father if he could marry me before we got married. Granted we were getting married even if he had said no.) They are traditions that are nothing more than that though. They aren't legally binding, as most aren't and most have no reason to be legally binding otherwise they would be laws not merely traditions.
Without specifics, a sweeping statement like that carries basically zero weight in a debate. Which is not to say (as I already pointed out) that his ideas were in fact full of flaws, but you need to do better than just these empty one-offs.Pretty much, yes. Basically none of the man's ideas were grounded in reality, but rather abstract ideology built upon Enlightenment era philosophical fluff.
They have, but not for that reason at all. These ideas worked (and continue to work) just fine for a very small number of people who agree to abide by them, such as the population of a kibbutz or an ashram. They fail for larger populations only because there's always someone who wants all the power for himself.They have failed just about everywhere they have been tried, for exactly that reason.
Don't try to paper over the fact that both Republican China and Tsarist Russia killed plenty of their own people with whom they were unhappy. To judge the relative merits of governments exclusively by body count is just silly.Neither Republican China nor Tsarist Russia were responsible for butchering their own populations by the tens of millions.
An even simpler fact is that revolution takes place when the government fails its people. Thinking about what could have happened instead is rather useless.The simple fact of the matter is that "Revolution" was never necessary to bring those societies forward in the first place. More moderate, and incremental means could have achieved similar or better results, without the needless bloodshed and barbarity Mao or the USSR inflicted.
:shrug: some people do - and sometimes that is for security (for those whose circumstances advise it), privacy, or decoration. The original level of impetus is still there only for select individuals - for example, the White House has a wall, and for good reason. Your house, however, likely does not require a wall in order to help keep people who live a couple of neighborhoods over from kidnapping and marrying your daughters.
However, to take that and then extrapolate from it "obviously this tradition serves no purpose, and we can get rid of it" would serve poorly for one who designed (for example) houses for those who are likely targets for harassment/kidnapping/assassination.
:shrug: the boundary between "tradition" and "law" is pretty permeable.
Without specifics, a sweeping statement like that carries basically zero weight in a debate. Which is not to say (as I already pointed out) that his ideas were in fact full of flaws, but you need to do better than just these empty one-offs.
They have, but not for that reason at all. These ideas worked (and continue to work) just fine for a very small number of people who agree to abide by them, such as the population of a kibbutz or an ashram. They fail for larger populations only because there's always someone who wants all the power for himself.
Don't try to paper over the fact that both Republican China and Tsarist Russia killed plenty of their own people with whom they were unhappy.
To judge the relative merits of governments exclusively by body count is just silly.
In the longer term, the ordinary peasants turned out to be somewhat better off under Stalin and Mao than they were under their predecessors.
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.
Freshly quickened by the divine correction, you must apply the strength of your righteousness to another matter which concerns you as well as God. For your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends.
Really, so Serbian Orthodox were not enslaved by Catholic Crusaders? Want to bet on that?
You appear not to know who Pope Urban II was:
Pope Urban II's Speech Calling for the First Crusade
We finally agree on something. America wasn't exactly founded on Christian principles
Why friggin' bother?
I mean, actually, why would you ask this question? Do you think there's room for discussion?
It's a dodge.
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?