They had (and I think still have this) in Nova Scotia when I lived there. It was hugely annoying, as the law forced big stores like super markets to close, but drug stores, where they'll add two bucks to the normal cost of a loaf of bread or whatever were allowed to be open. Its a relic of a more religious society I guess.
Honestly I'd love a law that would say that no stores or business or anything can be open on Sunday.
Of course, I know such a law would never, ever happen.
They had (and I think still have this) in Nova Scotia when I lived there. It was hugely annoying, as the law forced big stores like super markets to close, but drug stores, where they'll add two bucks to the normal cost of a loaf of bread or whatever were allowed to be open. Its a relic of a more religious society I guess.
Honestly I'd love a law that would say that no stores or business or anything can be open on Sunday.
Of course, I know such a law would never, ever happen.
Why would you want that? Do you want Sundays off all the time or are you just super religious?
I can't tell you how many times I've had to go buy eggs or milk on a Sunday. In fact I just did so.
Wait, are we talking about New York City, East Coast, USA, Occident, world? :?
The West, mostly
Saying that church and state have no influence on the way we live is an interesting statement to make while you have, to my knowledge, never been anywhere close to Europe or Australia. I think the influence of the church in, for example, Italy is still very real. And that the state still has a lot of influence on how we behave here in the Netherlands. Our president talks about respect and what "being Dutch" means on a daily basis, if he had his way he would make a "don't be an ass law" right away.
Especially immigrants must follow a lot of rules about accepted behaviour before they can gain the Dutch nationality. And it is the government's task to come up with these rules, define accepted behaviour (which is not similar to what the constitution says) and decide who is Dutch enough and who is not.
They had (and I think still have this) in Nova Scotia when I lived there. It was hugely annoying, as the law forced big stores like super markets to close, but drug stores, where they'll add two bucks to the normal cost of a loaf of bread or whatever were allowed to be open. Its a relic of a more religious society I guess.
Honestly I'd love a law that would say that no stores or business or anything can be open on Sunday.
Of course, I know such a law would never, ever happen.
Why? Its extremely inconvenient for people who don't have a lot of time to take care of things like grocery shopping during the weekday, and results in stores being a packed nightmare on Saturday. I was curious so I went to wiki and I see Nova Scotia has basically given up on the restrictions after multiple court cases from the grocery industry.
Honestly I'd love a law that would say that no stores or business or anything can be open on Sunday.
Of course, I know such a law would never, ever happen.
Why would you want that? Do you want Sundays off all the time or are you just super religious?
I can't tell you how many times I've had to go buy eggs or milk on a Sunday. In fact I just did so.
I am not in anyone remotely a religious individual. I just think it would be nice for everyone to have one day off to relax and socialize.
Besides, if you knew that all stores would always be closed on Sunday, you'd plan around it and make sure you didn't need to shop on Sunday.
Like I said though, it will never happen, doesn't mesh with most peoples lifestyles these days. Nor would it mesh with corporations "money money money" philosophy.
I am not in anyone remotely a religious individual. I just think it would be nice for everyone to have one day off to relax and socialize.
Besides, if you knew that all stores would always be closed on Sunday, you'd plan around it and make sure you didn't need to shop on Sunday.
Like I said though, it will never happen, doesn't mesh with most peoples lifestyles these days.
Not everyone can have the day off on Sunday. And I'd rather not have stores packed on Saturday.
Why couldn't everyone (bar emergency workers who could be called in if shit happened, and certain specific other people) have sunday off?
And don't be dumb. Just because it is closed sunday doesn't mean that everyone has to go shopping saturday. Things last for more then a day in the fridge you know, they could shop at any other point during the week.
Inquisitor on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
I think we are viewing what it means to have power over people in very different ways. True, the Church can't just make an announcement and say "Gay marriage is now forbidden! Ha ha!" But it has convinced many people that allowing two men or two women to marry is akin to letting a man marry a box turtle, that gay marriage would be the downfall of modern civilization, that gay couples want to be able to marry so they can adopt children for perverse purposes, etc, etc. And people believe them, because the Church speaks from a (false, in my opinion) position of moral and historical authority. And those people then go out and vote the way the Church says they ought to. For a large enough value of influence, influence = power.
We need more precise terminology, then. The power that you speak of is not "pure" power, which I will signify with a capital "P". You are speaking of power as the ability to have your views legislated. However, Power lies in the ability to pass legislation. I would say that legislation is not just in the realm of civics, but also in ethics as well. We have certain moral laws in our head that we abide by, and use to consider things right or wrong. At one point in time, the Church had this power. Then the State had this power. Now, I believe that in the minds of many, the State no longer has this power - even in the realm of civics: this power is now held by "Society." "Tradition" is means of one of the legislative powers of "Society."
I'm not even sure to start with your fear that progressivism will lead to things being painted only in black and white. There's a lot of "for us or against us!" rhetoric out there, and most of it ain't coming from the left wing. I don't really understand your abortion example, either. In what way is stripping women of bodily autonomy an example of ill-founded rhetoric? (Although maybe this isn't a good thread to start digging into that area.)
No, there are laws which are sexist that strip women of autonomy. This is a fact. The dangerous rhetoric, however, comes from attributing this oppressive power to an cultural bogeyman who propagates all societal evils.
They had (and I think still have this) in Nova Scotia when I lived there. It was hugely annoying, as the law forced big stores like super markets to close, but drug stores, where they'll add two bucks to the normal cost of a loaf of bread or whatever were allowed to be open. Its a relic of a more religious society I guess.
Honestly I'd love a law that would say that no stores or business or anything can be open on Sunday.
Of course, I know such a law would never, ever happen.
Why? Its extremely inconvenient for people who don't have a lot of time to take care of things like grocery shopping during the weekday, and results in stores being a packed nightmare on Saturday. I was curious so I went to wiki and I see Nova Scotia has basically given up on the restrictions after multiple court cases from the grocery industry.
It's also a big problem for Jews, especially orthodox ones, as we're not technically allowed to exchange money on Shabbat, though Reform and Conservative practitioners do. Hell, the orthodox aren't even supposed to touch money because it's associated w/ spending. For the other Jews, we have services.
Do you guys even attempt to read the OP before posting?
Yep. I just see a flaw in his elucidation of his premise: names are not gender-restricted because of some horrible plot, but rather mostly linguistically. French-derived names, for example, tend to add '-ette' and '-anne' and so on to signal femininity. It's not religious or even particularly cultural, it's just the way the language works. Claude/Claudette, Jean/Jeanne, Mari/Marianne, and so on. The same thing happens in other languages, though we mostly use Biblical and Latin-derived names these days. Take, for example, the English names Hailey and Hadley. First is used for girls, second for boys. Tan, Tania. First for boys, second for girls.
Sometimes names are chosen for meaning: a boy will be "Strength," a girl "Grace."
I suppose you might argue that those gender roles are unfair, but that's entirely separate from the issue of names.
Why couldn't everyone (bar emergency workers who could be called in if shit happened, and certain specific other people) have sunday off?
Because a lot of the things people like to do on Sundays would be closed otherwise? No movies, not restaurants, no libraries, no museums, no place open for casual shopping, etc.
And don't be dumb. Just because it is closed sunday doesn't mean that everyone has to go shopping saturday. Things last for more then a day in the fridge you know, they could shop at any other point during the week.
I go start night classes next year and won't be off until eight-thirty. Other people have other duties and obligations. Not everyone lives in the nine to five world you seem to.
I am not in anyone remotely a religious individual. I just think it would be nice for everyone to have one day off to relax and socialize.
Besides, if you knew that all stores would always be closed on Sunday, you'd plan around it and make sure you didn't need to shop on Sunday.
Like I said though, it will never happen, doesn't mesh with most peoples lifestyles these days.
Not everyone can have the day off on Sunday. And I'd rather not have stores packed on Saturday.
Why couldn't everyone (bar emergency workers who could be called in if shit happened, and certain specific other people) have sunday off?
And don't be dumb. Just because it is closed sunday doesn't mean that everyone has to go shopping saturday. Things last for more then a day in the fridge you know, they could shop at any other point during the week.
Picture this: you work at a place that closes at, say, 6 pm. You want to buy something from a store that closes at 6 pm. You are unable to buy it during the week because of your job. You go there on Saturday, just like everyone else in your extremely common position. It is packed. You hate yourself. You go home and drink until you forget how ugly everyone is. Is that what you want? Is it?
Many stores, especially grocery stores etc, are open late, but there are also many stores that close in the early evening.
Why couldn't everyone (bar emergency workers who could be called in if shit happened, and certain specific other people) have sunday off?
Because a lot of the things people like to do on Sundays would be closed otherwise? No movies, not restaurants, no libraries, no museums, no place open for casual shopping, etc.
And don't be dumb. Just because it is closed sunday doesn't mean that everyone has to go shopping saturday. Things last for more then a day in the fridge you know, they could shop at any other point during the week.
I go start night classes next year and won't be off until eight-thirty. Other people have other duties and obligations. Not everyone lives in the nine to five world you seem to.
Actually, I work a part time job mostly at nights and go to college as a full time student, so my classes are strewn randomly throughout the day. Nice assumption though.
I had a feeling my idea would prove unpopular though, oh well.
Actually, I work a part time job mostly at nights and go to college as a full time student, so my classes are strewn randomly throughout the day. Nice assumption though.
I had a feeling my idea would prove unpopular though, oh well.
So you can go to the grocery store after classes or before classes or whatever.
Actually, I work a part time job mostly at nights and go to college as a full time student, so my classes are strewn randomly throughout the day. Nice assumption though.
I had a feeling my idea would prove unpopular though, oh well.
I made the assumption because you seem blindingly oblivious how much it would suck.
Podly (and others), speaking the way you do makes you look like an idiot. Stop. You're making my flesh catch fire.
You may find an essay titled, "Consequences of Erudite Vernacular Utilized Irrespective of Necessity: Problems with Using Long Words Needlessly" (D. Oppenheimer) illuminating.
Buried deep within Podly's uselessly masturbatory rhetorical waftings is a simple idea: blaming an imaginary, monolithic "society" for our problems is not only useless but actually counterproductive. Since overriding societal influences such as a totalitarian government or pervasive and powerful church are absent from most western democracies, "society" is now a pure function of the beliefs and actions of its individuals. Blaming "society" for a given problem is foolish because, now more than ever, we influence society; in fact, we are society.
At least, that seems to be his contention. I'm not sure I'd agree that overriding societal influences are necessarily banished just yet. In parts of America (e.g. Salt Lake City) the church still exerts a disproportionate amount of control over society. Also, the traditional media outlets, by choosing to present one bit of information and not another, have a disproportionate influence over society. I do think that we have allowed "society" to become a scapegoat to a greater degree than is helpful, though. It's nothing new, but at least in the past that level of blame was more obviously justified. Nowadays people blame "society" for what is really nothing more than the collective results of the actions they take. It's sort of a collective action problem; any given person won't see too much benefit from behaving differently by himself; thus he does nothing and it becomes another of "society's" problems.
CycloneRanger on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
Buried deep within Podly's uselessly masturbatory rhetorical waftings is a simple idea: blaming an imaginary, monolithic "society" for our problems is not only useless but actually counterproductive. Since overriding societal influences such as a totalitarian government or pervasive and powerful church are absent from most western democracies, "society" is now a pure function of the beliefs and actions of its individuals. Blaming "society" for a given problem is foolish because, now more than ever, we influence society; in fact, we are society.
At least, that seems to be his contention. I'm not sure I'd agree that overriding societal influences are necessarily banished just yet. In parts of America (e.g. Salt Lake City) the church still exerts a disproportionate amount of control over society. Also, the traditional media outlets, by choosing to present one bit of information and not another, have a disproportionate influence over society. I do think that we have allowed "society" to become a scapegoat to a greater degree than is helpful, though. It's nothing new, but at least in the past that level of blame was more obviously justified. Nowadays people blame "society" for what is really nothing more than the collective results of the actions they take. It's sort of a collective action problem; any given person won't see too much benefit from behaving differently by himself; thus he does nothing and it becomes another of "society's" problems.
Actually, the Media is another example of the abstracted "Big Other." Books and blogs are huge mediums of communication, yet the Media are conceived of as a unit with terrible intentions.
Actually, the Media is another example of the abstracted "Big Other." Books and blogs are huge mediums of communication, yet the Media are conceived of as a unit with terrible intentions.
Actually, the Media is another example of the abstracted "Big Other." Books and blogs are huge mediums of communication, yet the Media are conceived of as a unit with terrible intentions.
Actually, the Media is another example of the abstracted "Big Other." Books and blogs are huge mediums of communication, yet the Media are conceived of as a unit with terrible intentions.
Reading through the new and improved OP, I get this weird tingling in my forehead. Dig it, and I'm not articulate by any means, but dig it:
My first reaction to Podly's OP was, basically, "I'm not to blame for mores, so why should I feel bad about laying the blame outside myself?" My next reaction was, basically, "Oh, he's not speaking on an individual level, he's talking about a more macro concept." With that in mind, it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The way I see it, any person that criticizes social mores and norms handed down by Tradition and Society are likely to actively eschew those same mores and norms. If that's true, they aren't to blame, are they?
So, instead of blaming the nebulous, abstract sociology concepts, should they just be blaming the people that actively enforce, encourage, and carry on the mores they have a problem with?
Unless I completely missed the point of the OP, I really don't see the importance of the issue. The blame is still outside the people that reject whatever standards, but they're blaming something that's more concrete.
I think Podly is talking about the people who actually follow the rules but then bitch about them.
That or he's of the crowd who doggedly insists that everyone is part of society even if they ignore many of the rules of society so its still their fault.
Buried deep within Podly's uselessly masturbatory rhetorical waftings is a simple idea: blaming an imaginary, monolithic "society" for our problems is not only useless but actually counterproductive. Since overriding societal influences such as a totalitarian government or pervasive and powerful church are absent from most western democracies, "society" is now a pure function of the beliefs and actions of its individuals. Blaming "society" for a given problem is foolish because, now more than ever, we influence society; in fact, we are society.
At least, that seems to be his contention. I'm not sure I'd agree that overriding societal influences are necessarily banished just yet. In parts of America (e.g. Salt Lake City) the church still exerts a disproportionate amount of control over society. Also, the traditional media outlets, by choosing to present one bit of information and not another, have a disproportionate influence over society. I do think that we have allowed "society" to become a scapegoat to a greater degree than is helpful, though. It's nothing new, but at least in the past that level of blame was more obviously justified. Nowadays people blame "society" for what is really nothing more than the collective results of the actions they take. It's sort of a collective action problem; any given person won't see too much benefit from behaving differently by himself; thus he does nothing and it becomes another of "society's" problems.
Actually, the Media is another example of the abstracted "Big Other." Books and blogs are huge mediums of communication, yet the Media are conceived of as a unit with terrible intentions.
Yeah, that's why I said "traditional media outlets". I was thinking specifically of the network news channels. The ease of publishing (especially via the Internet) has reduced the problem a little, but I still think it's accurate to say that traditional media wield a disproportionate influence, particularly with the older generations.
CycloneRanger on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
The way I see it, any person that criticizes social mores and norms handed down by Tradition and Society are likely to actively eschew those same mores and norms. If that's true, they aren't to blame, are they?
No, and they're making progress on a personal level. But things need to progress on a cultural level as well.
Let's look the language you use: "Tradition" and "Society" are the agents who "hand down" the social mores. This simply isn't true. In reality there is no nominal entity that hands down these mores. It is society. When you look at them the way you do, the fight is against "Society" and "Tradition." You cannot fight that which does not exist. You are just fighting yourself. Progress will only be made if we realize there is no enemy, that we have to diagnose ourselves and work on healing ourselves.
Incenj, you need to do some basic sociology reading. Society changes/effects the individual.The Individual effects/changes society.
Society has failed to make me religious, to make me believe in morals, and any number of other behaviors.
So, no.
Not everyone is a passive entity adrift on a sea of majority consensus.
That's not "society" in the sociological sense of the word, that's factions of the world around you which have contributed to your socialization within society, whether you follow their 'rules' or not.
OP: the Latin sucks. There is no such verb as "tradizio". I think you might be going for trado, one of the meanings of which is to hand down as any kind of inheritance to posterity.
EDIT: or maybe traditio which comes from trado. It means surrender, but has a secondary meaning of giving over by means of words, or an instruction.
I think Podly is talking about the people who actually follow the rules but then bitch about them.
So those people are hypocritical. How many of them are there? I can't imagine there's a significant number of people that a bitching about things within their control and then not doing anything about it.
I did all that to the sentence above because I suddenly realized that what I'm trying to say probably ins't applicable, or something. I'm a psychologist, so I realize how much the underlined, bolded, and italicized line is bullshit, but I can't think of a more accurate way to portray the idea that I wanted to. Let me go a little James Joyce in making an attempt to.
That woman that sits at home while her husband's at work, and spites the sky for the parched skin on her dishwasher hands and her unattainable aspirations of a career and a life is, ostensibly, bitching about nebulous concepts holding her down, so if youre interpretation, Incenj, is correct, she's exactly who Podly's talking about. But the object of her ire might have a face in her husband, yeah? I don't know, maybe she attributes his misogyny and whatever else to society as well, or his parents, or something. Maybe it is a select few people that bitch about it and do something about it. When I look my father in the face and openly, unabashedly criticize his bullshit about homosexuality or religion, I guess I'm joining the sparse ranks of people that are proactive in dealing with their disgust in the Tevyes of the world, but I still find it difficult to believe that any significant number of people will simultaneously hate and further the kind of values, mores and norms we're talking about. At least, not any people that are adjusted members of a society, which, if the bell curve is accurate at all, is about 75% of people.
Incenj, you need to do some basic sociology reading. Society changes/effects the individual.The Individual effects/changes society.
Society has failed to make me religious, to make me believe in morals, and any number of other behaviors.
So, no.
Not everyone is a passive entity adrift on a sea of majority consensus.
That's not "society" in the sociological sense of the word, that's factions of the world around you which have contributed to your socialization within society, whether you follow their 'rules' or not.
OP: the Latin sucks. There is no such verb as "tradizio". I think you might be going for trado, one of the meanings of which is to hand down as any kind of inheritance to posterity.
EDIT: or maybe traditio which comes from trado. It means surrender, but has a secondary meaning of giving over by means of words, or an instruction.
Yeah, the second one. Though I should have been more diligent and posted a more rounded etymology.
Tradition is what is given by a society, and a society is... hrmm. I almost put down that it's an influential group of people, but that's not it at all. Some specification is in order, I suppose.
We could define society as that which is changed and controlled by an influential group of people, but that's still hazy and indefinite. I'm starting to see the problem, but I'm not wholly ready to give up on the "Podly's wrong" hypothesis.
Posts
Honestly I'd love a law that would say that no stores or business or anything can be open on Sunday.
Of course, I know such a law would never, ever happen.
Why would you want that? Do you want Sundays off all the time or are you just super religious?
I can't tell you how many times I've had to go buy eggs or milk on a Sunday. In fact I just did so.
How would that be beneficial?
Saying that church and state have no influence on the way we live is an interesting statement to make while you have, to my knowledge, never been anywhere close to Europe or Australia. I think the influence of the church in, for example, Italy is still very real. And that the state still has a lot of influence on how we behave here in the Netherlands. Our president talks about respect and what "being Dutch" means on a daily basis, if he had his way he would make a "don't be an ass law" right away.
Especially immigrants must follow a lot of rules about accepted behaviour before they can gain the Dutch nationality. And it is the government's task to come up with these rules, define accepted behaviour (which is not similar to what the constitution says) and decide who is Dutch enough and who is not.
Why? Its extremely inconvenient for people who don't have a lot of time to take care of things like grocery shopping during the weekday, and results in stores being a packed nightmare on Saturday. I was curious so I went to wiki and I see Nova Scotia has basically given up on the restrictions after multiple court cases from the grocery industry.
So everyone got at least one guaranteed day off a week. [The UK only lets shops open for 6 hours on a Sunday, btw]
I find the people who advocate Sundays-as-free to be rather disingenuous though - they only ever talk about the service industry.
I am not in anyone remotely a religious individual. I just think it would be nice for everyone to have one day off to relax and socialize.
Besides, if you knew that all stores would always be closed on Sunday, you'd plan around it and make sure you didn't need to shop on Sunday.
Like I said though, it will never happen, doesn't mesh with most peoples lifestyles these days. Nor would it mesh with corporations "money money money" philosophy.
People like Sunday to be a day of rest.
Or at least, that's the reason shops aren't allowed open around here.
That would be horrible.
I have a hard enough time enjoying Sundays and weekdays as it is with things closing relatively early.
And oh god TV is just covered in sports and religious crap all Sunday...
Seriously, you're not allowed to make decisions any more. :x
Why couldn't everyone (bar emergency workers who could be called in if shit happened, and certain specific other people) have sunday off?
And don't be dumb. Just because it is closed sunday doesn't mean that everyone has to go shopping saturday. Things last for more then a day in the fridge you know, they could shop at any other point during the week.
We need more precise terminology, then. The power that you speak of is not "pure" power, which I will signify with a capital "P". You are speaking of power as the ability to have your views legislated. However, Power lies in the ability to pass legislation. I would say that legislation is not just in the realm of civics, but also in ethics as well. We have certain moral laws in our head that we abide by, and use to consider things right or wrong. At one point in time, the Church had this power. Then the State had this power. Now, I believe that in the minds of many, the State no longer has this power - even in the realm of civics: this power is now held by "Society." "Tradition" is means of one of the legislative powers of "Society."
No, there are laws which are sexist that strip women of autonomy. This is a fact. The dangerous rhetoric, however, comes from attributing this oppressive power to an cultural bogeyman who propagates all societal evils.
It's also a big problem for Jews, especially orthodox ones, as we're not technically allowed to exchange money on Shabbat, though Reform and Conservative practitioners do. Hell, the orthodox aren't even supposed to touch money because it's associated w/ spending. For the other Jews, we have services.
QUOTE=Evil Multifarious;3715791]
I hear she makes a pretty good breakfast.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but he also makes very good glassware.
Pwnd.
I go start night classes next year and won't be off until eight-thirty. Other people have other duties and obligations. Not everyone lives in the nine to five world you seem to.
Picture this: you work at a place that closes at, say, 6 pm. You want to buy something from a store that closes at 6 pm. You are unable to buy it during the week because of your job. You go there on Saturday, just like everyone else in your extremely common position. It is packed. You hate yourself. You go home and drink until you forget how ugly everyone is. Is that what you want? Is it?
Many stores, especially grocery stores etc, are open late, but there are also many stores that close in the early evening.
Actually, I work a part time job mostly at nights and go to college as a full time student, so my classes are strewn randomly throughout the day. Nice assumption though.
I had a feeling my idea would prove unpopular though, oh well.
--
uh anyway, lolofftopic much?
My bad.
You may find an essay titled, "Consequences of Erudite Vernacular Utilized Irrespective of Necessity: Problems with Using Long Words Needlessly" (D. Oppenheimer) illuminating.
http://web.princeton.edu/sites/opplab/Opp%20Consequences%20of%20Erudite%20Vernacular.pdf
At least, that seems to be his contention. I'm not sure I'd agree that overriding societal influences are necessarily banished just yet. In parts of America (e.g. Salt Lake City) the church still exerts a disproportionate amount of control over society. Also, the traditional media outlets, by choosing to present one bit of information and not another, have a disproportionate influence over society. I do think that we have allowed "society" to become a scapegoat to a greater degree than is helpful, though. It's nothing new, but at least in the past that level of blame was more obviously justified. Nowadays people blame "society" for what is really nothing more than the collective results of the actions they take. It's sort of a collective action problem; any given person won't see too much benefit from behaving differently by himself; thus he does nothing and it becomes another of "society's" problems.
Actually, the Media is another example of the abstracted "Big Other." Books and blogs are huge mediums of communication, yet the Media are conceived of as a unit with terrible intentions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch
I know this is tongue and cheek, but many people actually believe this.
It's not that tongue in cheek.
They control a pretty huge amount of public outlets of information.
Remember: The average person has no fucking clue how to or interest in research.
My first reaction to Podly's OP was, basically, "I'm not to blame for mores, so why should I feel bad about laying the blame outside myself?" My next reaction was, basically, "Oh, he's not speaking on an individual level, he's talking about a more macro concept." With that in mind, it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The way I see it, any person that criticizes social mores and norms handed down by Tradition and Society are likely to actively eschew those same mores and norms. If that's true, they aren't to blame, are they?
So, instead of blaming the nebulous, abstract sociology concepts, should they just be blaming the people that actively enforce, encourage, and carry on the mores they have a problem with?
Unless I completely missed the point of the OP, I really don't see the importance of the issue. The blame is still outside the people that reject whatever standards, but they're blaming something that's more concrete.
You dig?
That or he's of the crowd who doggedly insists that everyone is part of society even if they ignore many of the rules of society so its still their fault.
No, and they're making progress on a personal level. But things need to progress on a cultural level as well.
Let's look the language you use: "Tradition" and "Society" are the agents who "hand down" the social mores. This simply isn't true. In reality there is no nominal entity that hands down these mores. It is society. When you look at them the way you do, the fight is against "Society" and "Tradition." You cannot fight that which does not exist. You are just fighting yourself. Progress will only be made if we realize there is no enemy, that we have to diagnose ourselves and work on healing ourselves.
That they form a majority is what makes it a "social" issue.
Incenj, you need to do some basic sociology reading. Society changes/effects the individual.The Individual effects/changes society.
Society has failed to make me religious, to make me believe in morals, and any number of other behaviors.
So, no.
Not everyone is a passive entity adrift on a sea of majority consensus.
Sometimes I think you are autistic or something.
That's not "society" in the sociological sense of the word, that's factions of the world around you which have contributed to your socialization within society, whether you follow their 'rules' or not.
OP: the Latin sucks. There is no such verb as "tradizio". I think you might be going for trado, one of the meanings of which is to hand down as any kind of inheritance to posterity.
EDIT: or maybe traditio which comes from trado. It means surrender, but has a secondary meaning of giving over by means of words, or an instruction.
So those people are hypocritical. How many of them are there? I can't imagine there's a significant number of people that a bitching about things within their control and then not doing anything about it.
I did all that to the sentence above because I suddenly realized that what I'm trying to say probably ins't applicable, or something. I'm a psychologist, so I realize how much the underlined, bolded, and italicized line is bullshit, but I can't think of a more accurate way to portray the idea that I wanted to. Let me go a little James Joyce in making an attempt to.
That woman that sits at home while her husband's at work, and spites the sky for the parched skin on her dishwasher hands and her unattainable aspirations of a career and a life is, ostensibly, bitching about nebulous concepts holding her down, so if youre interpretation, Incenj, is correct, she's exactly who Podly's talking about. But the object of her ire might have a face in her husband, yeah? I don't know, maybe she attributes his misogyny and whatever else to society as well, or his parents, or something. Maybe it is a select few people that bitch about it and do something about it. When I look my father in the face and openly, unabashedly criticize his bullshit about homosexuality or religion, I guess I'm joining the sparse ranks of people that are proactive in dealing with their disgust in the Tevyes of the world, but I still find it difficult to believe that any significant number of people will simultaneously hate and further the kind of values, mores and norms we're talking about. At least, not any people that are adjusted members of a society, which, if the bell curve is accurate at all, is about 75% of people.
You're both way off. "Society" changes us because our peers are greater influences than our parents.
Obligatory wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiet_Revolution
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
Yeah, the second one. Though I should have been more diligent and posted a more rounded etymology.
I'd say this is a necessary but not sufficient condition for change.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
We could define society as that which is changed and controlled by an influential group of people, but that's still hazy and indefinite. I'm starting to see the problem, but I'm not wholly ready to give up on the "Podly's wrong" hypothesis.
I meant changing us from our original state towards what tradition decrees.