Society Will Crumble?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]ironcross wrote:

Oh, when you typed “righteous”, I thought you meant “righteous”:

right�·eous/�?r�«CH�?s/
Adjective:

  1. (of a person or conduct) Morally right or justifiable; virtuous.
  2. Perfectly wonderful; fine and genuine

It didn’t occur to me that maybe “righteous” was code for religious violence and domination. I figured if you meant that you probably wouldn’t have picked such a terrible descriptor for it.[/quote]

Dictionaries record usages of words not their meanings. Another usage:

‘1. Acting in accord with divine or moral law: free from guilt or sin.’

42

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

Oh, when you typed “righteous”, I thought you meant “righteous”:

right�??�?�·eous/�??r�??�?�«CH�??s/
Adjective:

  1. (of a person or conduct) Morally right or justifiable; virtuous.
  2. Perfectly wonderful; fine and genuine

It didn’t occur to me that maybe “righteous” was code for religious violence and domination. I figured if you meant that you probably wouldn’t have picked such a terrible descriptor for it.[/quote]

Dictionaries record usages of words not their meanings. Another usage:

‘1. Acting in accord with divine or moral law: free from guilt or sin.’

Are you saying that it would be a good idea to interpret the verse we’re discussing with a flexible definition of divine law and the resulting ideas of guilt and sin? I’m aware that’s a definition; but it’s pretty pointless in light of the over all topic.

43

[quote]ironcross wrote:

Are you saying that it would be a good idea to interpret the verse we’re discussing with a flexible definition of divine law and the resulting ideas of guilt and sin?
[/quote]

No. The concept of righteousness relates to man’s relationship with God and with mankind - at least that’s the way I understand it. It is not flexible. Morality and observance/faith are connected.

[quote]
I’m aware that’s a definition; but it’s pretty pointless in light of the over all topic.[/quote]

I thought the topic was ‘righteousness’ - especially as it relates to the references to Psalms.

44

[quote]ironcross wrote:
eous will inherent the earth, again.", even though that’s exactly what you said?

I think you just realized how silly it sounds to take the verse out of context to make it sound more prophetic and are now trying to back track.[/quote]

You’re either trolling, or you’re incredibly stupid.

45

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

However, if you really want to argue that this verse is flexible to represent any religion’s ethics at any time…[/quote]

I didn’t. It’s as if I had pointed and said ‘look there,’ only to look over and see you staring at my finger and not the object of my attention. [/quote]

So you didn’t really mean this: “Righteousness, however it may be defined by the system.” in application to this “So, the righteous will inherent the earth, again.”, even though that’s exactly what you said?[/quote]

Well, yes, I did say that. What’s your point?

That fact that you just said this, after I made it clear that I’m using a phrase to refer to the higher fertility of the religious, who in their dominance will determine “righteous.” As a Christian, I took a step back, and was speaking as a dispassionate party.

Nor, did I use the phrase to be ‘prophetic.’ I AM NOT USING THE IDEA, THAT WHATEVER HAPPENS SOME RELIGION WILL DOMINATE, THUS PROVING THE PROPHESY OF THE VERSE. Did you just see that? I didn’t use it as a verse. I used a phrase. That was one of the very first things I told you, when I said it was a play on words (or something like that) and linked to the verse. It’s a phrase that has it’s roots in that verse. One more time. I used a phrase. I was not authenticating. A flipping atheist could’ve said what I said, with the same meaning!

First you started off just questioning my use of one word, righteous. Obviously, I used it right. Leaving the sub-definition of ‘morally right’ open to whatever religion was dominant. That is, I spoke as removed 3rd party, there.

Now, you’ve retreated. Not me. You’ve begun some bizarre rant about me using the future dominance of an yet to be determined high fertility religion (but yeah Mak, probably Islam) to authenticate the prophesy of a bible verse…No you fool, I used a phrase!

46

[quote]Sloth wrote:

No, that’s amusement. Amused by you making a fool out of yourself over my imagined redefining of ‘righteous.’ All of this ‘righteous’ anger from you about it, and you have yet to quote where I DEFINED righteous at all. Much less, defined it to exclusively refer to the religious.

[b]It’s a play on http://bible.cc/psalms/37-29.htm[/b]

I am not saying righteous = religious.

I’m saying that the religious (from the context of my post) are the righteous I AM REFERRING to. However it is that THEY may determine what is righteous or not…[/quote]

47

Why are you all arguing about the definition of a word? How about trying “ahh, I see what you meant.” and moving on to talk about the meat of the argument. It’s more fun, I promise.

48

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Why are you all arguing about the definition of a word? How about trying “ahh, I see what you meant.” and moving on to talk about the meat of the argument. It’s more fun, I promise. [/quote]

You want a piece of this argument, too?

50

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
We made romantic love a prerequisite for marriage.
Now our marriages last three years.
[/quote]

We made marriage a shitty deal for men.

Now they dont marry anymore. [/quote]

Marriage has never been a bowl of roses. For over 98% of humanities history, you have been forced to live the rest of your life with someone you barely knew before marriage and many times didn’t particularly adore. Marriage was only about creating a new family unit; it wasn’t about love, having the perfect relationship, or happiness. Those are ideals you grew up reading in stories.

On the flip-side, society isn’t falling apart because the family unit is changing.
[/quote]

No, the family unit is changing because society is falling apart.

One of those pesky little unintended consequences.

Or the result of those unintended consequences, a third or fourth order consequence of you will. [/quote]

Society isn’t falling apart; it’s just changing to fit new circumstances where one person can support a family of four on their salary and kids don’t starve/freeze to death because they’re left home alone at an early age. Don’t forget that there have ALWAYS been problems of some kind, and no society has retained the exact same marriage/family traditions for any extended period of time. [/quote]

Our culture commits suicide right now.

We seem to have created a culture people do not want to bring children into.

Either we will simply die out, or we will be replaced by people who out reproduce us.

[/quote]

There isn’t a culture which is more advanced than us in terms of below-replacement-level population growth which is even close to dying off of the face the planet. When you show me one, I’ll believe this. Life is no longer about who has the most kids. If it was, Africa would be kicking Holland’s ass.[/quote]

Well, if you have one group of people who have 1.5 children on average and another that has around 5 or so, it takes 2-3 generations and then culture has changed drastically if the reason for them having more children is a different set of values.

Granted, buildings will still be there, and the geography will not disappear, but the people living there will have been replaced.

People like the Mormons from Utah or Anatolian goat herders spill over their banks eventually, that is the basic nature of exponential growth.

And, they take their culture with them, good or bad.

51

[quote]orion wrote:

Well, if you have one group of people who have 1.5 children on average and another that has around 5 or so, it takes 2-3 generations and then culture has changed drastically if the reason for them having more children is a different set of values.

Granted, buildings will still be there, and the geography will not disappear, but the people living there will have been replaced.

People like the Mormons from Utah or Anatolian goat herders spill over their banks eventually, that is the basic nature of exponential growth.

And, they take their culture with them, good or bad. [/quote]

I think someone in Norway predicted it to be 2083.

52

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
We made romantic love a prerequisite for marriage.
Now our marriages last three years.
[/quote]

We made marriage a shitty deal for men.

Now they dont marry anymore. [/quote]

Marriage has never been a bowl of roses. For over 98% of humanities history, you have been forced to live the rest of your life with someone you barely knew before marriage and many times didn’t particularly adore. Marriage was only about creating a new family unit; it wasn’t about love, having the perfect relationship, or happiness. Those are ideals you grew up reading in stories.

On the flip-side, society isn’t falling apart because the family unit is changing.
[/quote]

No, the family unit is changing because society is falling apart.

One of those pesky little unintended consequences.

Or the result of those unintended consequences, a third or fourth order consequence of you will. [/quote]

Society isn’t falling apart; it’s just changing to fit new circumstances where one person can support a family of four on their salary and kids don’t starve/freeze to death because they’re left home alone at an early age. Don’t forget that there have ALWAYS been problems of some kind, and no society has retained the exact same marriage/family traditions for any extended period of time. [/quote]

Our culture commits suicide right now.

We seem to have created a culture people do not want to bring children into.

Either we will simply die out, or we will be replaced by people who out reproduce us.

[/quote]

There isn’t a culture which is more advanced than us in terms of below-replacement-level population growth which is even close to dying off of the face the planet. When you show me one, I’ll believe this. Life is no longer about who has the most kids. If it was, Africa would be kicking Holland’s ass.[/quote]

Well, if you have one group of people who have 1.5 children on average and another that has around 5 or so, it takes 2-3 generations and then culture has changed drastically if the reason for them having more children is a different set of values.

Granted, buildings will still be there, and the geography will not disappear, but the people living there will have been replaced.

People like the Mormons from Utah or Anatolian goat herders spill over their banks eventually, that is the basic nature of exponential growth.

And, they take their culture with them, good or bad. [/quote]

I agree that the theory is pretty commonsense, but it doesn’t appear to be happening. What seems to really happen is there is a short period where one culture booms, but doesn’t come close to replacing the dominant culture with the lower-than-replacement fertility levels, and then advances, joins the dominant culture, and their own fertility levels fall. In the mean time, as I said, we have yet to see any of these lower-than-replacement fertility-level cultures disappear. What’s happening is that more of them are cropping up.

Given technological development, we could experience several generations of world-wide below-replacement-level birth rates without it bringing us close to extinction. Then, all it would take would be one generation where people had one more child than normal to sustain it.

53

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Why are you all arguing about the definition of a word? How about trying “ahh, I see what you meant.” and moving on to talk about the meat of the argument. It’s more fun, I promise. [/quote]

Because no one in recent memory besides Miss IC has so spuriously waltzed in and out of PWI acting so bizarrely at times.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001924/ ???
[/quote]

I’ve never met people in real life so happy to debate a word or other nonsense topic for literally days on end. It’s better than video games.

54

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Why are you all arguing about the definition of a word? How about trying “ahh, I see what you meant.” and moving on to talk about the meat of the argument. It’s more fun, I promise. [/quote]

You want a piece of this argument, too?[/quote]

I think you had a point, I can vaguely remember it, but it was way back on page one. No use in bringing it back now.

55

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Why are you all arguing about the definition of a word? How about trying “ahh, I see what you meant.” and moving on to talk about the meat of the argument. It’s more fun, I promise. [/quote]

You want a piece of this argument, too?[/quote]

I think you had a point, I can vaguely remember it, but it was way back on page one. No use in bringing it back now. [/quote]

Oh yeah? Well, I will bring it back now!

[quote]Everything he lambasts social conversatives for, is important to the question. If you look at marriage as an institution in which everybody must have equal opportunity to express their individual civil rights, you’ll never reverse this.

…

Don’t get me wrong, this will turn around, in the distant future. But not because the graying, entitlement-broke society found some oh-so convenient secular, socially-liberal, hyper-individualist way to promote child-bearing and rearing in intact homes made up of father and mothers.

No, it’ll be because that old society will have replaced itself with the devout who were already among them, and with the devout they had to ship in to keep the economy and old-age welfare state going for as long as possible. These devout, actually bearing children. Basically, the righteous will inherent the earth. Again.

…

…Look, human beings don’t have to make wealth acquisition, consumer goods, sex, drugs, frivolous entertainment, the heights of education, and themselves the highest things in life. There’s no secular absolute value system that says we must. So, we can reject being ruled by those things. Religion is one avenue for finding different meaning. And Islam is one of the shops on that avenue.

In a world where people now propose ‘female-bodied’ where we might have said woman…Or, female-bodied for a transgendered man, where we might have said perv…In a world where sisters and daughters are pressured to act like whores, display a bit of lesbianism (or at least pretend at it) for their male contemporaries, get college degrees (perhaps a Master’s, or even a PHd), find a high-powered career, and think of themselves as individualists…When children are simply an economic, educational (for the woman), and romantic (limiting partners) cost…Well, delayed marriage (if ever), delayed/limited child birth (if any children) result…Contraception and the ultimate act of freedom, abortion, make their impact felt.[/quote]

BAM!

56

[quote]Sloth wrote:
In a world where people now propose ‘female-bodied’ where we might have said woman…Or, female-bodied for a transgendered man, where we might have said perv…In a world where sisters and daughters are pressured to act like whores, display a bit of lesbianism (or at least pretend at it) for their male contemporaries, get college degrees (perhaps a Master’s, or even a PHd), find a high-powered career, and think of themselves as individualists…When children are simply an economic, educational (for the woman), and romantic (limiting partners) cost…Well, delayed marriage (if ever), delayed/limited child birth (if any children) result…Contraception and the ultimate act of freedom, abortion, make their impact felt.[/quote]

Yes, but is complaining about gay marriage (by your own admission a small percentage of the population) and abortion (deeply entrenched into society) going to do anything? Things are going to have to get worse before they can get better.

We’re seeing the process of repair now as more and more males realize marriage is a shitty deal for them. Less get married, people start to notice, and it forces action. What that action is will decide if we get swallowed up by Islam or start to recover.

Make no-fault divorce and alimony mutually exclusive in addition to men being reluctant to marry and I will all but guarantee that people will at least think carefully before getting married.

The majority of women are well aware of their biological window, and if they have to pick between a high powered career at twenty-five or a family without the assurance that they can simply get married later and either have a late family or huge divorce settlement…

57

[quote]Makavali wrote:

Yes, but is complaining about gay marriage (by your own admission a small percentage of the population) and abortion (deeply entrenched into society) going to do anything? Things are going to have to get worse before they can get better.[/quote]

First, you have to respect the beginning of a human life. It has to be sacred and awe-inspiring. Do that and the society becomes one which is family friendly, directing men and women towards child-bearing. Secondly, showing your children that marriage is nothing more than some superfluous institution in which to exercise individualistic civil rights and lifestyles, and they’ll begin to believe you. Nobody is impressed with a government rubber-stamping an increasing arrangement of consenting adults, in whatever combination, simply for the sake of rubber-stamping it. It either serves a critical role for civilization, or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, it deserves no more recognition than a pair of roommates. Want marriage to mean something? Give it a critical meaning, put it on a pedestal, and make it untouchable.

It’ll be revival, conversion, or become a footnote in history.

So fewer marriages, fewer children, and what children are born, born outside of intact homes. Down comes the welfare state. And economic growth.

High-powered career.

58

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Why are you all arguing about the definition of a word? How about trying “ahh, I see what you meant.” and moving on to talk about the meat of the argument. It’s more fun, I promise. [/quote]

Because no one in recent memory besides Miss IC has so spuriously waltzed in and out of PWI acting so bizarrely at times.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001924/ ???
[/quote]

Oleena.

59

I kind of think joebassin might be the boyfriend guy, too.