Philosophy Now Forum

Yes conservatives do. Or do you deny it. Lol

Obvious Leo wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Society is a process.

More precisely society is an evolutionary process and societies which cannot evolve are societies which are doomed to fail. This make the US doubly vulnerable because all theocracies are intrinsically creationist in the design of their social structures. In addition to this the US model carries the burden of a hard-wired and inflexible constitution which is locked into an 18th century time warp by rewarding privilege.

And paradoxically it's mother country, is far more flexible.

The Inglorious One wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Society is a process.

More precisely society is an evolutionary process and societies which cannot evolve are societies which are doomed to fail.

True, but not every mutation is conducive to a higher or more civilized society.

You don't understand evolution. You think it is a progress towards some specific goal. It is not evolution is an adaptive process in which the relationship between the social norms match the aspirations of the people, and the needs of survival.

If you cannot evolve and ADAPT to the needs of survival then you shall fail. And that is why conservatism is a danger.

You don't get it.

The Inglorious One wrote:

artisticsolution wrote: Okay...because I wasn't talking about 'the fall of Rome' per se, I was trying to explain/ translate what inglorious really means.

It is common knowledge in America that conservatives believe that Homosexuality will lead to the 'fall of the usa'. Because they believe God won't protect the usa anymore since we made same sex marriage legal.

Conservatives like inglorious really believe liberal ideals are going to cause the usa to fall out of God's good graces and when that happens he will allow our demise by the evil forces that exist in the world.

I do not think this way...I am just letting you know where inglorious is coming from.

Just when you think a person can't make a more idiotic statement, he comes along and outdoes himself.

AH such sweet irony. It's YOU that has been making an arse of himself in this thread.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: If you cannot evolve and ADAPT to the needs of survival then you shall fail.

That's exactly what I've been saying. The difference is what we think those adaptive needs are.

A society needs structure in order to function. Too much "flexibility," like too much "open-mindedness," erodes away the structure upon which civilization is built. But that's not a bad thing, it's evolution: Siva destroys the old so Brahma can build anew.

The problem for "gays" is that society does not need to accommodate them in order to function, any more than football needs to accommodate people with clubfeet. Backlash is a real possibility if their demands become too problematic.

The Inglorious One wrote:Too much "flexibility," like too much "open-mindedness," erodes away the structure upon which civilization is built.

History is clearly not your long suit. Have you ever heard of a civilisation which collapsed as a consequence of too much flexibility or open-mindedness. Every major civilisation in human history ultimately collapsed because it failed to adapt to change.

The Inglorious One wrote: Only time will tell whether "gay" marriage is a step in the right direction. Personally, I don't think it is; it's just too destabilizing.

what does it destabilize?

i live in deep rural bible belt

the growing attitude here is that really, this makes no difference to the vast majority of peoples' lives at all

i was talking to a cranky old man at the coffee shop few days ago - he was saying that he was against mix race marriage back in the day - and now he can't even remember what the big deal was - he thinks that in a few years it will be like that with gay marriage

Kayla wrote:
i was talking to a cranky old man at the coffee shop few days ago - he was saying that he was against mix race marriage back in the day - and now he can't even remember what the big deal was - he thinks that in a few years it will be like that with gay marriage

That's what they say to your face. It's another story when you are not around.

Obvious Leo wrote:Every major civilisation in human history ultimately collapsed because it failed to adapt to change.

Every civilization has a supporting structure of some kind; no exceptions. Flexibility allows change, but without roots to anchor the structure, the whole thing washes away.

The Inglorious One wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: If you cannot evolve and ADAPT to the needs of survival then you shall fail.

That's exactly what I've been saying. The difference is what we think those adaptive needs are.

A society needs structure in order to function. Too much "flexibility," like too much "open-mindedness," erodes away the structure upon which civilization is built. But that's not a bad thing, it's evolution: Siva destroys the old so Brahma can build anew.

The problem for "gays" is that society does not need to accommodate them in order to function, any more than football needs to accommodate people with clubfeet. Backlash is a real possibility if their demands become too problematic.

Rubbish, rubbish rubbish.
Specialists in evolution might be very good at one, thing, but take away one element of their specialism and they die. What you want to a good generalist approach; omnivorousness, hunting and gathering, hybrid vigor. Purity is death - ask anyone victor over the Nazis.

When I say you don't understand evolution, I meant it.

Homosexuality is no impediment to survival. Any moron can have a child, and there are far too many on the planet.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Homosexuality is no impediment to survival.

Neither is it conducive to survival.

Any moron can have a child, and there are far too many on the planet.

You're living proof of that. "Rubbish, rubbish rubbish" is not exactly a coherent argument.

Kayla wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote: Only time will tell whether "gay" marriage is a step in the right direction. Personally, I don't think it is; it's just too destabilizing.

what does it destabilize?

I was hoping someone would ask. Ever hear of the "butterfly effect"? I don't see "gay" marriage being destabilizing in the short term, but there are always unintended consequences in the long term. You said you are in the Bible belt. I'm not Christian, but doesn't it say somewhere in the Bible that a foolish man builds his house upon the sand?

"Gay" marriage deligitimizes any distinction between males and females. Yet, one doesn't need to be a graduate in biology or psychology to know that the difference between the sexes is much more than skin deep. So, right off the bat, we know the whole movement for SSM is based on a lie, just like opposition to mixed-race marriage is based on a lie. (I'm in a mixed race marriage.)

You said yourself, "Issues like inheritance and ownership and stuff and so forth would be more complex." That alone is destabilizing. Someone else said that the "slippery slope" argument is a logical fallacy, but there are already demands that unions between siblings, parent and child, and multiple partners be legally recognized. What next? People wanting to marry members of another species?

Wait, that's already happened.

The Inglorious One wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Homosexuality is no impediment to survival.

Neither is it conducive to survival.

Any moron can have a child, and there are far too many on the planet.

You're living proof of that. "Rubbish, rubbish rubbish" is not exactly a coherent argument.

No Rubbish times three is not an argument, but everything else I said was a great one.

I disagree that homosexuality is not conducive to survival, on the contrary, a happy and healthy society that is respectful of the needs of its people is more likely to achieve the respect of its people in turn. It's only morons like you that think; "you're living proof of that", is some kind of argument, are too stupid an unimaginative to see the bigger picture.

The Inglorious One wrote:

Kayla wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote: Only time will tell whether "gay" marriage is a step in the right direction. Personally, I don't think it is; it's just too destabilizing.

what does it destabilize?

I was hoping someone would ask. Ever hear of the "butterfly effect"? I don't see "gay" marriage being destabilizing in the short term, but there are always unintended consequences in the long term..

Oh my god we are all going to die from gay butterfles!!!
Beware the gay butterflies!!

I've heard of homophobia, but this moron is scared of butterflies.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Homosexuality is no impediment to survival.

Neither is it conducive to survival.

Any moron can have a child, and there are far too many on the planet.

You're living proof of that. "Rubbish, rubbish rubbish" is not exactly a coherent argument.

No Rubbish times three is not an argument, but everything else I said was a great one.

If "everything else" were relevant or even made sense to me I would have addressed it. Calling something I cannot make sense of "rubbish" is juvenile.

...a happy and healthy society that is respectful of the needs of its people is more likely to achieve the respect of its people in turn.

I agree, but it is impossible to please everyone.

It's only morons like you that think; "you're living proof of that", is some kind of argument, are too stupid an unimaginative to see the bigger picture.

That not an argument.

Do you even know what philosophy is, what it entails? There is (to me) a fascinating but unfinished series of videos on YouTube that reads and explains Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit. Paragraph 24 (video #10) is something you should make an effort to understand, especially the part about "random thoughts."