Old Fashioned

This is an article/message I wrote over a year ago. I thought I would throw it at you MoFos just for the hell of it. Here it is.

Do I have a philosophy or belief system? Well, when it comes to humans and how
they should treat each other, yes I do. Basically, my belief system says
that "old fashioned" ideas are bad. What? How can that be bad??

Do me a favor: try to look at how racist, sexist, homophobic, religion
intolerant and otherwise bigoted the average person is. Now, compare that
average person to the average person 150 years ago. Big difference. The social
changes we have made in that time are absolutely staggering, and it amazes me
that many people can't understand that we are moving in the right direction.

These changes consist of one major principal: treat people like human beings
above all else. Were black slaves in America being treated like human beings?
Were wives being treated like humans when they were completely ruled by their
husbands and couldn't even vote in their own country? Were gays treated like
humans 150 years ago? The more advanced our society becomes, the more human we
will treat each other.

We are not natural creatures; we are sentient beings. When a bear protects her
territory by running after another bear, that is understandable, as we realize
that her instincts are telling her to do that, and we also realize that those
instincts serve a very good purpose for her. When a male lion kills the cubs in
the pride he just took over, we realize that he is being ruled by his instinct
to procreate. We have strong instincts, as we used to be natural creatures (as
prehumans), but we are sentient beings now, which means that our ability to
reason is the most dominant part of our lives. The more we realize that, the
more we will actually behave in sentient ways. We have come a very long way but
I believe we have much further to go.

Let's tackle the subject of gender for a moment. Nature makes men bigger and
stronger than women, as well as different emotionally and mentally. However, I
believe that most of the mental and emotional differences, and some of the
physical differences, are created by society rather than nature. The natural
differences caused prehumans and early humans to act in certain natural ways
and develope certain customs, beliefs and attitudes based on those natural
differences.

Considering the fact that there is very little muscular difference between boys
and girls under the age of 13, do you think that nature is the biggest reason
why boys are so much better than girls in sports, or is it because we raise
boys and girls to be completely different? We give girls baby dolls, Barbie
Dolls and cooking toys while we give boys bats, balls and G.I. Joe Dolls, and
you think that nature is the biggest factor? The dominance that boys have in
sports is drastically diminishing as we are giving girls more and more sports
opportunities.

Let's keep in mind that there are many natural differences based on race as
well; should we treat each other totally differently based on those
differences, or should we treat each person as an individual first? Our society
is becoming more and more equal because we are quickly realizing that the
latter answer is the better one. Again, it is very impressive, but we still
have a long way to go.

One thing that can keep you from understanding these simple concepts is if you
have a belief that humankind started with two sentient humans about 6,000 years
ago. If that story is true, then we were never ruled by nature to the extent
that I claim we were. I believe that religion is one of the major factors in
why it took so long for us to start to change our attitudes about how we should
treat human beings. I think you will find that the more religious one is, the
more old-fashioned that person is likely to be. If you can get past the stories
in genesis, I believe you can understand the natural and sentient facets of
humanity and understand why we are headed in the direction we are.

It is certainly possible for us to go backwards socially. If that ever happens,
then maybe "old-fashioned" will become an attitude that I can embrace; however,
for now, it is an attitude that I can only see as a negative one.

__________________
One of the biggest myths told is that being intelligent is the absence of the ability to do stupid things.

He said he wrote it over a year ago...so no...he was dang near thirty at the time, I believe.

Makes no sense. Just because SOME old-fashioned ideas were bad, it doesn't justify the statement "Basically, my belief system says that "old fashioned" ideas are bad." That's a ridiculous generalization.

What's a "natural creature"? Seems like an odd name for something simply less evolved, according to you.

Not true. For one, the physical makeup of a woman is fixed regardless of whether or not she's a tomboy playing baseball, or inside playing with dolls. Their bodies are clearly very different from our own. The earlier you go, the less difference you find between the sexes...but once the sex is determine, the gap is widened non-stop until complete maturity is reached.

As for sports: the dominance is only "diminishing" slightly. I wouldn't say someone who takes a glass of water and scoops out a bit of Lake Erie has really "diminished" its water supply by any reasonable measure.

Don't even get me started...the idea that religion has held back forward-thinking is nonsense. I'll give you a "grace period" here to retract that...otherwise, I'll have to start citing examples of major forward Christian thinking and ideals throughout history.

That said, the entire point of the essay is rather ruined by your generalization about old-fashioned ideals. Why you couldn't have limited your statement to SPECIFIC old-fashioned ideals is beyond me.

By the way, the "treat people like human beings" line gets us nowhere. "People" is just another word for "human beings," really. If you'd gone back to the South before the Civil War, and had said that, they'd have told you blacks were not human beings, really.

So I don't agree with your assertion that it all boils down to that, either.

LS and Yoda,

I appreciate the honesty, but I think it is relevant to point out that this was a message for another message board that was merely in the form of an article, not my submission to the "greatest article of all time" contest. I wasn't claiming it to be a great article; I merely thought it was an interesting subject to bring up. Sorry for not being clear on that.

Slavery or virtual slavery based on race, nationality, religion and gender; inquisitions; The Crusades; beheadings; human burnings; gladiators; rapes; hangings; democracy; critical thinking; voting rights, professional rights. These are all things (and there are probably many more I haven't thought of yet) that we have either eliminated, improved upon or introduced in our history, improving our society. Ridiculous generalization? No, I think we are seeing a legitimate social patern here.


A natural creature relies more on instincts than intelligence. We don't. Our instincts are strong, but not as strong as our ability to reason.

Preposterous. No one's physical makeup is fixed. If a woman rarely uses her muscles they will be small, while if she uses them a lot they will be bigger; the same thing goes for men. Take a look at some female body builders and tell me that "the physical makeup of a woman is fixed" again. Perhaps you thought I was suggesting that the average woman can be as big as the average man or the the biggest woman could be as big as the biggest man? You don't think that lowly of me. I wasn't claiming that society is the biggest reason for MEN dominating over WOMEN in sports, but why boys 13 and under have been so much better than girls 13 and under. It's mostly society, and those differences are disappearing fast as girls get more involved in sports.

Toys play a HUGE part in how our kids develope. When I was a kid, I saw many girls (not most) playing almost exclusively with dolls and cooking toys. Hardly anything else. Boys got car driving toys, sports toys, blocks, etc, etc. That has been changing and nowadays both girls and boys are getting a wider range of toys; I see that as a good thing.

Of course they are, and mostly by nature. I never said they weren't. However, social differences have played a small part. It's not like I'm suggesting that given the same opportunities as a man, a woman could become the MVP in the NFL for crying out loud. But the big improvements we've seen to the performance of women and girls in sports due to the increase in sports availability to females is an example of how society can have some impact on physical prowess that may appear to some as 100% natural.

Society has a much bigger impact on other things, however. How many female doctors and lawyers were there 200 years ago? 100 years ago? How many now? Some would say we are going in the wrong direction, that we need to go back to the old ways of thinking: men are strong like iron, women are beautiful like flowers. Well, yeah, men are usually stronger by nature, and I personally wouldn't argue with someone saying women are more beautiful; but should we concentrate on those differences to the extent that we used to or even to the extenet that we still do? I say no. We should treat each person as an individual first, and worry about other stuff after.

When it comes to muscles, there isn't a very big difference between girls and boys under the age of 13. There are exceptions, of course. For example, a pubescent 10 year old boy gaining tons of testosterone causing his muscles to grow faster than most boys and girls his age.

I'm sorry, but you don't seem to know this subject very well, Chris. You might want to study it a bit more before debating it. Just a thought.



It depends on how early a time you compare to this time, obviously. Five year ago, ok; but what about 15? 50? 150? 150 years ago, American women barely played any sports at all.

If you believe that the Adam and Eve story is true (which I don't think you do) then you probably don't believe in prehumans, and probably don't believe that we were once more ruled by instincts than reason. That was what I was concentrating on much more than religion in general. But by all means, I'd like to see your examples if you feel like listing them.


Since the message was an attempt to explain my belief system on how humans should be treated, perhaps it should have been more general rather than more specific.




Oh, I think it does get us somewhere. Whether you use the word people, human, individual or whatever, people giving other people more freedom and humane treatment has been a huge improvement in our history, especially in the last couple hundred years. One way to say it is: "People treating people more like PEOPLE." I don't get the disagreement with using the word human. I also don't get how your comment about Civil War southerners not considering blacks to be human supports your argument in the slightest. Not that it matters much, but I don't really agree with the statement anyways. I think many of them did, while many didn't.

No clarification needed. Makes no difference, as far as I can see.

A few things:

• An "inquisition" is just an investigation. Are you referring to SPECIFIC inquisitions?
  
• The Crusades were a counter-attack to REPEATED provocations. That part's usually left out...as is the fact that Christians have been about as persecuted as any group of people in history.
  
• Rapes? Is that a joke? Rape is not an old-fashioned idea...it's a timeless idea. An idea is not old-fashioned just because it once existed long ago. By that logic, TALKING is an old-fashioned idea. It exists now and probably will forever, unfortunately. The implication throughout your article is clearly that by "old fashioned ideas," you mean things accepted as good and moral in older times that are not actually good and moral.
  
• Critical thinking? Are you trying to tell me that you believe critical thinking was born in modern times? And isn't critical thinking a GOOD thing, anyway?

BTW: yes, there are MANY more you haven't thought of. But what does a list like this prove, anyway? There are millions of ideas and concepts that were born hundreds and even thousands of years ago...do you think that listing a dozen of them proves anything at all? I certainly hope not.

Or maybe you've forgotten that The Bible, around 2,000 years old, is the basis for almost all modern morality, most of which YOU personally subscribe to.

This brings back memories of our old arguments about why you should or should not care about the well-being of your family after you die. The only reason you should, really, is because of your instinct to preserve your species in general. But if your reason is stronger, WHY would you concern yourself with that? Or is your position that you merely don't feel willing to fight your instincts on that one?

I don't mean fixed in that sense. Your basic physical tendencies and leanings ARE fixed. You have to fight like mad to change them. In short: men being stronger than women in general has next to nothing to do with whether or not you buy them a G.I. Joe or an EZ-Bake oven.

Why?

I propose something similar: we treat each IDEA as an individual IDEA first, and worry about whether or not it's "old fashioned" after.

Realize something: compared to our time, almost all ideas are old-fashioned ideas. The good and the bad. To disapprove of "old fashioned ideas" is ridiculous. How about we just disapprove of BAD ideas? I suppose you'll say that you think the majority of bad ideas are old-fashioned, yes? Well, so are the majority of good ideas...because the majority of ideas, period, originated in the past. Very few ideas today originated anywhere other than the past.

Your specific targetting of "old fashioned ideals" is clearly a way to tie your distaste for religion (which was more widespread in the past, even though it's very widespread today) into the issue.

With all due respect, I don't think you have any idea of what I know on the subject. Anyway, that's funny coming from a guy who just, well, repeated himself, basically. I heard ya' the first time.

Like I said: the gap widens over time. This applies to physical appearance as well. It's why we dress baby girls up in pink and baby boys up in blue: you can't really determine their gender sans gential-inspection early on. Ever see a 13 year old boy with long hair? Looks a lot more feminine than a 30 year old man with long hair. As you get older, your gender obviously becomes more refined and settle.

Not that it matters at all to the issue at hand.

We're not talking about merely playing sports...but rather, dominance. To say that women were, say, .001% capable of overthrowing that dominance, when they were formerly .00001% capable...well, the Lake Erie analogy says it best.

The only women who will REALLY break those walls will be, I hate to use the word, the freaks, most likely. The ones on ESPN2 looking hideous -- the ones you mentioned...professional bodybuilders (lest anyone thinks of me as sexist, most of the men look hideous these days, too. The whole sport is ugly).

I'm not sure if I believe in the story or not. But it's not really applicable.

Now, as I've stated before, compiling a list of this sort is not proof at all. But, since you seem to be fond of it, here goes:

• Galileo's teaching that the Earth revolved around the sun was basically FUNDED by the Catholic Church. The Pope of the time did not persecute him for this...he wrote a poem celebrating his works! The persecution came later, and for a very different reason.
  
  The FIRST person to publicly question the idea that the Sun revolved around the Earth was Nicholas Copernicus, a staunch Christian. Heliocentricity, no matter how you look at it, came about through Christians.
  
  No one tells you THAT. Least of all those looking to make a case against religion. Those people just stop once they've found the "evidence" they're specifically looking for.
  
  
• Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates all believed in some sort of God. Surely these men qualify as forward-thinkers? Most of their beliefs in morality and equality (heck, almost ALL of them) stemmed from their believe in a Divine Power.
  
  How about Albert Einstein, who likely believed in God, but not religion?
  
  
• An early supporter of evolution, in a way, Seneca claimed (he was born in 3 B.C.) that all of mankind would be overthrown "in an hour" and that a circle of life of sorts would start anew. Quite a ways ahead of Darwin...who got the idea from his grandfather, I might add.
  
  
• Scientist/Historian Lynn White asserted that "The attitudes, motivations and most of the basic skills of modern technology before the electronics revolution originated not in Mediterranean antiquity but during the 'barbarian' Middle Ages." Early concepts of planes, cars, and submarines came from this time.
  
  The concept of bookkeeping came from a Christian, last I checked. Saint Benedict is sometimes called the "godfather of libraries," and is largely responsible for the preservation of literature through the Middle Ages.
  
  Most monks during this time were pioneers in waterpowered machines. Almost all the data we have about hammer forges before the year 1200 for example, we have because of things written by Cistercian monks! The clergy of that day acted as Priest, Scholar, AND Scientist. These days, skills are more specific and refined, so that a "jack of all trades" is harder to produce (Jim Thorpe wouldn't dominate several sports today...he'd have to pick one and focus on it), but back then, your Priest, or Monk, was a person you could turn to for all sorts of help and practical knowledge.
  
  Oh, and did I mention that many of them studied medicine far in advance of many more popular fellows in the field?
  
  Of course, no one tells you THAT side of things.
  
  
• A monk at Malmesbury Abbey, roughly a THOUSAND years ago, tried to fly a primitive hang glider.
  
  
• The Declaration of Independence and our country's foundation is rooted in religion, no matter how much you want to deny it. Early settlers came here to avoid persecution and find religious freedom...there was hardly an Atheist or Agnostic to be found among them. The greatest (and one of the freest) countries in the history of the world was founded on the idea that men were CREATED equal...that objectively, they had unalienable rights. And objectivity necessitates a God of some sort.
  
  If you take almost nothing away from my little rant, take this:
  
  There's no way around the fact that you live in a wonderful country populated largely by Christians, built largely by Christians, and founded largely by Christians on largely Christian principles.

There are more...many more. LIBRARIES full of these things. Like I said: a little list like this proves nothing...but since you seem to be fond of one, there's one for you.

As you can see, religion is clearly not holding anyone or anything back. There is no conflict between a belief in God, and a desire to study the world around you. Racism and sexism are present regardless of religion. Religion was merely the excuse to inflict certain things...not the cause.

It's amazing how much of popular knowledge is missing a crucial piece of the puzzle. When you live in a world so vastly sure of the existence of God, I guess you have to latch onto anything, no matter how misleading or untrue, to try to hold up the ridiculous notion that no such thing exists.

Atheism would have you believe that it's logical and rational, but if you break it down, you'll find it relies on Faith and a lot of very uncompelling assumptions.

You know what I find amusing? The fact that you emphasize moving away from the animals and towards peace and wisdom and knowledge. Funny, sounds like something out of The Bible, doesn't it? The belief that we are above the animals and therefore should act as such (act our age, so to speak) is a Biblical one. It is Atheism that blurs the lines between us and animals, because, as far as its concerned, we're just a bit farther along then them...not inherently above.

I'd say more than "perhaps," but hey, whatever.

It supports my argument because you sum up one of your stances as being, basically "treat people like human beings" -- the point about the South is that that principle would have done no good whatsoever. They didn't think blacks WERE human beings. THAT was the problem, basically.

The disagreement with the word human is that it's just a synonym for the word people. You're essentially saying "treat people like people."

As opposed to like fish.

Sorry. Needed the comic relief.
By the way; Chris is on fire everyone. Read that post. It's the man at his best.

__________________
www.esotericrabbit.com

Damn straight. Where are YOUR hang-gliding Monks, Fire? C'mon, you've gotta put something up against the hang-gliding Monks. I'll settle for an Agnostic in a Jetpack.

I see no reason to debate you right now, as you are on full irrational mode at the moment. I have corrected several misinterpretations you have made of my arguments, and you have continued on as if you don't understand or haven't even read most of my response. Read it again, and get back to me if you wish.

You mean, I think, that you see no reason to debate with him right now.

Small point, but you know me.

The only one I see is your assertion that some people in the South considered black people to be human...which is largely irrelevant to the subject at hand.

If you don't wish to continue, that's your decision...but don't try to pass it off as if it's merely because I am on "irrational mode." Please...this coming from the man who responded with "You're acting retarded" in another argument.

The fact of the matter is that your argument is far too loose with its assumptions and generalizations, and most of them do not hold water. If you still think I've misinterpreted your arguments, well, spell it out for me and we'll go from there.

FYI: the Agnostic in a Jetpack line was a joke. I wasn't actually berating you.

Yup.

Yoda,

When you have re-read my response and found the half dozen things you previously missed, let me know.

Sounds like a cop-out of magnificent proportions, to be blunt. You said many things in your post that didn't make a whole lot of sense...so, I replied to them and told you why. Apparently you're not willing to do the same when you disagree or think someone has missed something.

If I've misinterpreted and messed up so much, you should have no trouble roasting me alive with your response. Methinks, given your response in the OTHER thread discussing religion, this has nothing to do with misinterpretation.

By the way: I just re-read my post. Perhaps I'm just ignorant, but I don't see what you're referring to. Feel free to enlighten me at any time.

Did you ignore the last part of that sentence? I was obviously listing negative things that have been eliminated or improved, AS WELL AS postive things that have been introduced. In your current state though ( a very irrational one, perhaps stemnig from anger at my so-called article?), that wasn't obvious to you.

You seemed to ignore all of that and are still acting like I was talking about women when I was talking about girls under the age of 13.

Since your reading comprehension appears to be completely shot right now, I'll say it again... That article had very little if anything to do with religion in general. The Adam and Eve story had to do with prehumans and instinct. If you believe the Adam and Eve story, you will have a hard time understanding how we used to be dominated more by nature than by reason. Pretty simple.

This is something else you seemed to skip over. Having a bad day, Chris? It certainly seems so.

Your list makes no more sense in that context. Examples:

• My earlier comment about inquisitions still stands.
  
• Critical thinking has been improved? Critical thinking is as it always was: some people use it, some people don't.
  
• Religion and gender? I don't follow. Are you referring to religion's attitude towards gender? If so, what religion? Some haven't improved much at all.

Not at all. Read my response again. The word "women" can and is sometimes used to encompass all females. Does your disagreement here stem only from the use of the word "women" instead of "girls"?

There are several things...

1 - I understand perfectly well that you claim that we used to be dominated more by instincts and less by reason.

2 - The article had a lot more to do with religion than you are acknowleding, though most of it was implied and not said outright. The ties you make between religion and faulty thinking are not as subtle as you seem to think.

3 - You said you'd like to see a list, so I wrote you up a little list. Ta-da.

Actually, I'm having a great day. I'll have an even better day if you reply to the other argument in the other thread with something a bit more intellectually stimulating then "You're retarded," though.

As for skipping over: not at all. You're just repeating yourself with that for the most part. The minor change doesn't change the point: that as much as you'd like to think that that's the big solution in a nutshell, it isn't. It's vague and unhelpful.

Again: the implication is DISTURBINGLY clear...religion supports old-fashioned ideas...old-fashioned ideas are bad. That's your essay in a nutshell. You can twist it and skew it to try to make it look as if it has nothing to do with religion, but it does.

Even if it doesn't, I'd still have (and have had) major objections to your clarification of what consitutes an "old fashioned" idea. As I pointed out already, virtually all ideas are old fashioned in the sense that they originated a long time ago. So what's the deal, Fire?

I'm heading out, but I'll clarify something you misunderstood.

I'm referring to enslaving someone because they are black, Jewish, Christian, Irish, female, etc. It was a list within a list; I wasn't really saying anything about "religion and women". Hope you get it now. Chat at ya later.

Yay! Finally a peek into your head...



I see what you are getting at... I would maintain that some old fashioned ideals are worth saving, you know..the whole "do unto others" thing pretty much holds water today. It is amazing that in watching "Leave it to Beaver" episodes we are looking at people who thought blacks were not competent to vote etc. It's stunning how close that is to us on the timeline of humanity.

I agree with this. We always hear of "The good old days," but if we look back to even our grandfather's time, people were WAY less tolerant of differences. My grandfather referred to having a "nig*ermaid" as a child... it was not meant as derogatory language, only a description. Here in the south it still exists. My parents bought a house in a very small town close to me. I went with my dad to the courthouse/post office to register his address and they still had water fountains in the building that were labeled "Colored" and "White". I don't think anyone pays attention to them anymore but all this is RECENT.... like in my lifetime.

Okay... the caveat I will take with this is the in making the slaves in America a focal point. It's cutting nuts, and your viewpoint is valid, I do have issues with slavery being the sole responsibility of America. I will tell you that having lived in New York state then moving to the south it is a completely different world of race relations. The hate shown towards white folks by black folks here is way on the rise. I'm seeing reverse discrimination on a daily basis and no one is squeaking about it. I don't see how it's any better or different than the reverse of it but there sure is more tolerance of it.

Hmmm... I don't know about this. I hear what you're saying but I remain unconvinced that we are a product of evolution. I see the similarities but I don't buy them. We have instincts... we are capable of thought but I don't think one will ever be exclusive of the other, in fact I think they require the presence of each other to exist in a synergistic relationship. I DO think some people are more prone to thought and reason and some are more prone to instinct but drawing a line and saying that we are one or the other is maybe stepping too far out there for me.

You don't have children, do you? Well, firstly I think the similarities in boys and girls at a young age are due to the fact that the hormones are not in swing until puberty. As soon as that engine starts the diffeences become obvious. As for the toy statement, well, my son liked dolls when he was 2-3 years old. I didn't discourage him from playing with them. I bought him several when he asked for them. Now he's nine and into sports and boy stuff... playing with dolls didn't 'ruin' him at all. It comes out now that he just loves babies. He still does... he plays with them every chance he gets. My daughter like "boy" stuff (I think to emulate her brother) and I encourage her to play with whatever she wants to play with. She's grown into the girliest girl I've ever met. To me this underscores that the differences are inherent to gender...not to surroundings. ALL people are individual..some girls excel at sports, some boys do not... no biggie, that's what makes the world turn.

Do you mean externally? Culturally? probably both. Many of those differences I think are due the adaptation of climate over centuries. I won't bore you with my perceptions on physical anthropologies because it's not the point of this discussion. I DO support treating everyone on an individual basis.

6000? Anyways... I do think religious differences play an important role in the separation of humanity. We only have to look one year in the past to be reminded of that.

I think you're on the right track overall. Acceptance of differences will be the paramount (tantamount(?) ) factor in healing wounds between human beings. Will it happen? Not without some huge event I'm afraid to open eyes to a much wider focus than they are accustomed to being opened.

Thanks for clarifying that.

Anyway, the rest of what I said stands, same as ever. I think your statement that it has very little to do with religion in general holds no weight. Examples:

• "I believe that religion is one of the major factors in
  why it took so long for us to start to change our attitudes about how we should treat human beings."
  
• "I think you will find that the more religious one is, the
  more old-fashioned that person is likely to be."

Seems like you're blaming religion significantly for the old fashioned ideas which you call bad.

Seeing as how almost all of what is today considered moral stems from ideas that are old, I'd say the entire concept of old fashioned ideas being bad is at fault. The only possible explanation I can see is that Fire's using some odd definition of the phrase "old fashioned."


Good question.