Scorch the Earth and start again

A place for visitors to drop by and say hello.

Moderators: Starfleet Security, Federation Council

Picard
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 1860
Joined: May 20th, 2011, 11:24 pm
Contact:

Re: Scorch the Earth and start again

Post by Picard »

Humanity is a struggle to fight what we are and try to become what we should be. It is a noble goal, and something we should aspire to. However, it seems that nowdays any liberal change is qualified as progress. As with all things, there has to be a balance between the two and I think we’ve reached it.

I don’t like the argument that qualifies what a woman role should be. A woman role should be whatever she wishes to be. We must all acknowledge that men and woman are different, they complete us and we complete them. A single sex is not ‘superior’ to the other.

A big problem that encompasses everything we’ve discussed is the modern media, The power of the media is enormous and it often forces upon the masses beliefs and values that a minority believes should be accepted. The problem is that there is no rigorous study that exhaustively and truly examines if it is in the interest of the society in the long run.

No one is worrying about the bigger picture and the future of our society – we choose to qualify as progress anything that is trendy and gives more freedoms to the weak. But is this really helping anyone? Or it is really another brick in the wall of decadence of our modern society that could lead us to the same fate of another previous dominant culture? Namely, the Roman Empire and it’s fall.
Thank you,
Image
Image
Costello
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 2960
Joined: June 25th, 2011, 4:53 pm
Location: England
Contact:

Re: Scorch the Earth and start again

Post by Costello »

Picard wrote:However, it seems that nowadays any liberal change is qualified as progress.
What an elegant statement. That is precisely the problem.

These changes could lead to the destabilisation of the family construct, record low rates of fertility, gender dysphoria and sexual confusion. The fertility rate in Japan is very low and that is the most porn friendly, gender dysphoric land in the world.
Image
Warfire
Senior Captain
Senior Captain
Posts: 761
Joined: March 9th, 2012, 3:40 pm
STO Handle: @LordWarfire
Location: Reading, England

Re: Scorch the Earth and start again

Post by Warfire »

Costello wrote:These changes could lead to the destabilisation of the family construct, record low rates of fertility, gender dysphoria and sexual confusion. The fertility rate in Japan is very low and that is the most porn friendly, gender dysphoric land in the world.
Is this a problem? There is certainly an argument that we need less people on the globe, especially in developed nations.

The subjugation of people, for whatever reason and by whatever justification is a problem; the evolution of a society isn't automatically a problem. The redefinition of a "family unit" isn't automatically a problem either, in many cultures having a M-F couple raising children on their own is considered barbaric to the children - the whole tribe/extended family/grandparents should do that.

Even just two generations ago it was considered improper in the West for a parent not to stay at home and look after the children, now it's entirely normal. This is considered progress to some, and devolution to others. Who is correct? Is there a correct?

I should note that I'm interested in the debate, and raising a point in this conversation doesn't imply my feelings or agreement on that point. I'd argue that a decision is morally right if no one agreed, then argue it's morally unjust if opinions changed :)
Image
Image
Costello
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 2960
Joined: June 25th, 2011, 4:53 pm
Location: England
Contact:

Re: Scorch the Earth and start again

Post by Costello »

Warfire wrote:
Costello wrote:These changes could lead to the destabilisation of the family construct, record low rates of fertility, gender dysphoria and sexual confusion. The fertility rate in Japan is very low and that is the most porn friendly, gender dysphoric land in the world.
Is this a problem? There is certainly an argument that we need less people on the globe, especially in developed nations.

The subjugation of people, for whatever reason and by whatever justification is a problem; the evolution of a society isn't automatically a problem. The redefinition of a "family unit" isn't automatically a problem either, in many cultures having a M-F couple raising children on their own is considered barbaric to the children - the whole tribe/extended family/grandparents should do that.

Even just two generations ago it was considered improper in the West for a parent not to stay at home and look after the children, now it's entirely normal. This is considered progress to some, and devolution to others. Who is correct? Is there a correct?

I should note that I'm interested in the debate, and raising a point in this conversation doesn't imply my feelings or agreement on that point. I'd argue that a decision is morally right if no one agreed, then argue it's morally unjust if opinions changed :)
Is it evolution if it is socially engineered? I would argue that the breakdown of a binary construct which reliably produces offspring is a the potential loss of an essential component of survival. The natural world would seem to agree as well, where it applies in the same manner.

Your example of a stay-at-home parent has no implications that could potentially alter the future of the species. Gender dysphoria and ideas of sexuality based on superficial attributes that stray from the physical concern me as they distance themselves from the biological imperative that humankind has prolonged with a high degree of success since our inception.

Then again Warfire, I oppose the agendas of the new liberal elite.

(I'd also never presume for emotions to be a component of your argument. I have long held the belief that men above all must be masters of rationality and can therefore debate a topic without coming from an emotional frame of reference.)

However the main topic was Transablism.
Image
Warfire
Senior Captain
Senior Captain
Posts: 761
Joined: March 9th, 2012, 3:40 pm
STO Handle: @LordWarfire
Location: Reading, England

Re: Scorch the Earth and start again

Post by Warfire »

Changing from a "parent always at home" to a "parents home less" model does affect the future of the species - less interaction with parents means less social exposure - especially for "only children". Less social exposure reduces the child's ability to make friends, keep them, and find a suitable mate. To ensure this doesn't happen we shouldn't let both parents work - either by legislation, excessing taxation of childcare for example, or by rewarding staying at home with a transferable tax allowance etc.

This would be so deeply unpopular it would never stand.

Any tinkering with the "family" is dangerous as we are applying intellectual standards ("more children", "better children", etc) to emotional situations like the desire to reproduce etc.

Connecting back to Transablism - if it's a biologically transferable condition then it risks the future of the species. If it's a socially transferable condition (like tattoos, piercings, etc) it may risk the future of the species if the self given disablement reduces the effectiveness of a parent, or the likelihood of reproduction etc. If it's not transferable at all then it is like bad eyesight, it makes no real difference at all.
Image
Image
Costello
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 2960
Joined: June 25th, 2011, 4:53 pm
Location: England
Contact:

Re: Scorch the Earth and start again

Post by Costello »

Warfire wrote:Changing from a "parent always at home" to a "parents home less" model does affect the future of the species - less interaction with parents means less social exposure - especially for "only children". Less social exposure reduces the child's ability to make friends, keep them, and find a suitable mate. To ensure this doesn't happen we shouldn't let both parents work - either by legislation, excessing taxation of childcare for example, or by rewarding staying at home with a transferable tax allowance etc.

This would be so deeply unpopular it would never stand.

Any tinkering with the "family" is dangerous as we are applying intellectual standards ("more children", "better children", etc) to emotional situations like the desire to reproduce etc.
The detriment of this is already manifest I believe. Though there is definitely an argument for the results of poor parenting.

Warfire wrote:Connecting back to Transablism - if it's a biologically transferable condition then it risks the future of the species. If it's a socially transferable condition (like tattoos, piercings, etc) it may risk the future of the species if the self given disablement reduces the effectiveness of a parent, or the likelihood of reproduction etc. If it's not transferable at all then it is like bad eyesight, it makes no real difference at all.
You are applying a cogent methodology of understanding to a group that is not concerned with reason or logic. The trans trend is nearly entirely socially transferable, it's the result of an agenda that pairs victimhood with under-representation to provide a source of social proof and acceptance through their niche status.

There are countless instances of trans teens and children being reported. This is not biological this is emotional abuse, and the ripple effect that ensues could make a real difference in the coming years. This of course does not even factor in the school systems that are indoctrinating their students with gender studies courses.

We're in for a reckoning.
Image
Post Reply