Yes, because everyone knows by now that "science" is merely another ̶r̶a̶c̶k̶e̶t̶ money-making scheme.Originally Posted by Burney
"Plenty of strikers can score goals," he said, gesturing to the famous old stands casting shadows around us.
"But a lot have found it difficult wearing the number 9 shirt for The Arsenal."
Well I think there is an argument that the promotion of homosexuality and similar causes has done precisely that. That isn't to say I wish we could go back to a less permissive time, but a number of babies have gone out with the bathwater - literally so in the case of the abortion debate. The fear is that, in moving away from a fairly restrictive and conservative society, we are simply moving to an equally restrictive 'progressive' model.
I know what you're getting at.
But I just think that the decline of religion took place without anyone making any contingencies for what would replace it for the majority of humans who are psychologically weak and need something simplistic and comforting to give their lives meaning.
And so it ended up being replaced by the fundamentalist religion of progressivism.
That is because you are taking it as a literal comparison, which it isn’t.
The point is merely to illustrate that the new generation will always promote/embrace things that older generations are not entirely comfortable with, or used to dealing with. Such as gender fluidity and all this touchy feely bull**** about stress.
Similarly, each generation will claim that the changes they embraced had some bold rationale and was a ruthless weighing of two great principles with a reasoned outcome. Such as you championing personal freedom over the preservation of civilisation when the older generation were just uncomfortable (pardon the pun) with the idea of bumming and believed that shirtlifting in general was the preserve of a few deviants who should be neither seen nor heard. This is just classic social conservatism in its own particular time and space- some call it bigotry, of course.
The point is that each generation senses the need to effect their own change, their own form of mini-enlightenment. Unfortunately the last decade or so has gone so far down the road of sensitivity that it allows people to make all kinds of excuses for their own behaviour under the guise of personal safety/freedom/rights/wellbeing- such as being too stressed to come to work because of some stupid memo.
The culture of complaint has been in place for decades. The current behaviours are beginning to constitute a culture of indulgence where any form of complaint, any reported malady or ill-effect from any kind of action is seen as a legitimate individual response to even the mildest form of perceived offence. The irony is that what is dressed up as a climate of inclusivity which brings us together is actually becoming a climate where we are summarily protected from the views of everyone who doesn’t agree with us- thus driving us further apart.
I could champion that as personal freedom, safety, wellbeing. I’m not going to because I am old so I can see that it is *******s and needs to stop.
The problem is that any orthodoxy requires repression to sustain it. That, it is becoming clear, is just as true for a 'progressive' orthodoxy as for the old, socially conservative one.
Society has always done that. Admittedly, it previously did it partly through ignorance or religious doctrine but it has always embraced ideas that made little or no sense in literal forms. Science is not a guide to social issues or morality and is as much as product of its environment as an explanation of it. Should science stifle freedom of expression?
Perhaps our best hope is the Allans. What happens when the inevitable culture clash takes place between gay/women hating Muzzies and progressives? Until now, as we know, the two sides have formed an unholy alliance, but that is purely a marriage of convenience to further each other's causes by shutting down opposing voices.
But what happens when 30, 40, 50 per cent of the country think that Gay Pride is an abomination? Could it be then that it all comes crashing down?
Science can very much be an extremely healthy guide to morality, you dumbo.
Its a social evolutionary principle, b. The progressive orthodoxy of one generation becomes the social conservative barrier that the next has to break down.
Nothing is eternally progressive, it is only labelled as such by its speed of success.
No. Of course not. However, our laws ought to be evidence-based where possible. Pandering to a social agenda that is simply not believed in by the vast majority of people for fear of being called illiberal is simply bizarre, though.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote