Options

How "future-proof" are your views? (thread comes with a bonus quiz!)

ShanadeusShanadeus Registered User regular
edited January 2011 in Debate and/or Discourse
Here's the free quiz I made just for you:

Click

If you've taken my quiz now you probably know what this thread is about, how long it will take before you're looked at the same way we look at homophobes nowadays - basically how "future-proof" your beliefs are.
If you've been exposed to a lot of science-fiction then chances are that you're going to be a bit more future-proof when it comes to the more predictable things that we've basically grown up with through the books and movies on the subject.

While sci-fi might try to make us more apprehensive when it comes to robots (Frankenstein-complex etc) and super humans (gattaca and similar) we at least gain some sense of familiarity with the subject that I believe removes some to a lot of the uncertainty and fears that many people experience today when it comes to homosexuality - which in turns fuel their disapproval of it.

Now in the quiz I made I did a little random time line where these big potential issues are shown to pop up sequentially and where the approval of one means the approval of the ones before for simplicity's sake. This isn't necessarily the case as one might very well be against polyamory for an example because one believe it's harmful for the children yet be for inter-species marriages, I've also yet to meet any racist people that approve of homosexuality which I believe would be an appropriate modern day analogy to these two future topics - many argued against interracial relationships with the same fear for the children ("think of the children who will grow up with no proper racial identity").

So let's debate and/or discourse on this (and feel free to post the results you got in the quiz).

Shanadeus on
«1345

Posts

  • Options
    tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Your quiz is a bit flawed. I don't believe in polygamous marriage being legally recognized, not because I think it is somehow wrong or abhorrant but because many benefits of legal unions become absurd when distributed to too large a group.

    Honestly, it's tough to say what will happen and when. True rampant AI may never exist, we may have no luck increasing the intelligence of animals. Human augmentation may be incredibly difficult to achieve.

    tbloxham on
    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • Options
    ShanadeusShanadeus Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    It's a very simplified quiz meant to just quickly introduce people to the topic of the thread - I'm also a bit crap at making them.
    Anyway, the point isn't when these things will happen but how we will approach them whenever they appear.

    Someone who grew up when slavery was generally accepted was more likely to be against interracial relations and not be that willing of acknowledging blacks as equal beings - but there were still a select few who had future-proof views that they didn't need to change as blacks were freed from slavery and later on given equal rights.

    I know that it's very speculative but I'm sure that people in the past had some inkling of blacks and homosexuals in the future being granted equal rights so we can do the same sort of speculation now as well for our future.

    Shanadeus on
  • Options
    L Ron HowardL Ron Howard The duck MinnesotaRegistered User regular
    edited January 2011
    My quiz said that by 2020 I'll be old?
    Does that mean that in 2021 we'll be able to marry many same-sex highly intelligent mechanical animals at the same time?

    Woot!

    L Ron Howard on
  • Options
    LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    I love my gay robot chimp husbands!

    Also, "It`s wrong to change the nature of man" is one of the vaguest questions I can think of.

    Lawndart on
  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    I think this would be a better quiz if it instead told me if I was Team Edward or Team Jacob.

    Inquiring minds must know!

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited January 2011
    I think the nature of your quiz kind of falls down in that it extrapolates past issues of civil rights, issues which have effectively been around since the dawn of man, to future issues based on technology that doesn't exist now and might not exist in the future at all.

    There have been gay folks for pretty much always. There have been different races for pretty much always (more or less). Gays and non-dominant races are just instances of people who exhibit superficial traits or engage in past times that are different from the norm, but they're still people doing nothing to harm everybody.

    Most people on these boards agree that discriminating against these people is bad, because they're people and they're harming nobody. But now you take that and extrapolate to a human marrying some Super Dog that has human intelligence, and the implication of your quiz is that you're narrow-minded if you don't think this is totally awesome, because that's where society will head someday.

    But we don't know jack about Super Dog. Are we talking about some dog that can speak in human language and is just as intelligent as a person and can breed with humans to create some ManDog hybrid that is also fully intelligent? Or are we talking Lassie with a couple extra IQ points? Or something in between? Because all that is kinda relevant.

    The only way to really interpret your "quiz" is to assume that all these various classes of human-like entities are pretty much emotionally and intellectually identical to a human being, at which point it's one step short of tautological. Sure, human intellects should be allowed to marry/whatever with human intellects if such unions don't appreciably harm anyone. Whooo, profundity.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    ShanadeusShanadeus Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    My quiz said that by 2020 I'll be old?
    Does that mean that in 2021 we'll be able to marry many same-sex highly intelligent mechanical animals at the same time?

    Woot!


    Yeah, the quiz is just a sampler of what the thread is about.
    It doesn't necessarily have to follow the linear development of:

    [Sociological change] -> [Human biological change] -> [Non-human biological change] -> [Non-human artificial change]

    but the quiz format was a bit limited so I had to simplify things.

    Who knows, maybe polyamorous relationships will become a big thing like homosexual relationships are today after the public have accepted AI's as persons.

    The point is anyway that when for an example polyamorous marriages become a hotly debated topic you might be acting the same way someone against homosexual marriages is acting today.

    Shanadeus on
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited January 2011
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Are we talking about some dog that can speak in human language and is just as intelligent as a person and can breed with humans to create some ManDog hybrid that is also fully intelligent?

    Half man. Half bear. Half pig.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    chiasaur11chiasaur11 Never doubt a raccoon. Do you think it's trademarked?Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Feral wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Are we talking about some dog that can speak in human language and is just as intelligent as a person and can breed with humans to create some ManDog hybrid that is also fully intelligent?

    Half man. Half bear. Half pig.

    ALL COP!

    chiasaur11 on
  • Options
    L Ron HowardL Ron Howard The duck MinnesotaRegistered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Lawndart wrote: »
    I love my gay robot chimp husbands!

    Also, "It`s wrong to change the nature of man" is one of the vaguest questions I can think of.

    TBH, when I read that, I really wish the answer to that was something about a miserable pile of secrets.

    L Ron Howard on
  • Options
    GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Here's the other thing: who says that polyamorous marriages are necessarily a step in the future, as opposed to a step in the past? Over the course of history, the trend has been for a man to be mated to fewer women, not more. Harems are a part of that timeline: link up to as many women as you like, and when you're bored with them, send them away and get a new batch.

    Gosling on
    I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Hear that feral?

    Stop being so backwards.

    Good point though.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Lawndart wrote: »
    I love my gay robot chimp husbands!

    Also, "It`s wrong to change the nature of man" is one of the vaguest questions I can think of.

    Only death can change the nature of man.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Hear that feral?

    Stop being so backwards.

    Good point though.

    I oppose poly marriage, actually.

    Which amuses me to no end, because I end up being the polyamorous guy arguing against poly marriage, versus a bunch of monogamous people arguing for it.

    :rotate:

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Your assumption seems to be that history and society are inevitably moving in a particular direction. That's a dangerous assumption, and there are a lot of historical examples to show that "progress" isn't really a given.

    A bad economic depression, a serious world war and/or some type of natural disaster might very well change the societal status of homosexuals, women, minorities and so on. We only recently (in a historic sense) eliminated slavery in the Western world, for example, but it's not impossible to see a future where the institution is revived.

    Similarly, women's rights are, in a lot of ways, a luxury that we can afford due to our economic prosperity and lack of real outside threats. But if some sort of societal calamity occurred where law and order broke down significantly, you'd see a serious regression in women's rights (look at places like Somalia and Afghanistan, where women are limited in their freedom due to a number of reasons, including safety).

    As for homosexual rights, it's only due to the decline of the influence of religion that we're seeing this development. Imagine a scenario where Islam becomes the dominant religion in France or Sweden. What do you think would happen to gay rights then?

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Feral wrote: »
    Lawndart wrote: »
    I love my gay robot chimp husbands!

    Also, "It`s wrong to change the nature of man" is one of the vaguest questions I can think of.

    Only death can change the nature of man.

    Well that and what ever it was that happened to Doctor Manhatten.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Your assumption seems to be that history and society are inevitably moving in a particular direction. That's a dangerous assumption, and there are a lot of historical examples to show that "progress" isn't really a given.

    A bad economic depression, a serious world war and/or some type of natural disaster might very well change the societal status of homosexuals, women, minorities and so on. We only recently (in a historic sense) eliminated slavery in the Western world, for example, but it's not impossible to see a future where the institution is revived.

    Similarly, women's rights are, in a lot of ways, a luxury that we can afford due to our economic prosperity and lack of real outside threats. But if some sort of societal calamity occurred where law and order broke down significantly, you'd see a serious regression in women's rights (look at places like Somalia and Afghanistan, where women are limited in their freedom due to a number of reasons, including safety).

    As for homosexual rights, it's only due to the decline of the influence of religion that we're seeing this development. Imagine a scenario where Islam becomes the dominant religion in France or Sweden. What do you think would happen to gay rights then?

    I largely agree with this post, although even Islam's attitudes towards gays isn't necessarily one of active violent persecution - it is in most theocratic Islamic countries right now, but historically at different points in time it was quietly tolerated. Ultimately, though, that bolsters your point, that civil rights do not necessarily progress from less to more linearly over time.

    And you're also right that there tends to be a positive relationship between natural resources and sexual stratification; and an inverse relationship between violent conflict and sexual stratification. It doesn't hold true across all times and places, but it's a recognized pattern.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    LoklarLoklar Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    2100 and beyond - The distant future

    Congratulations! You've shown yourself to have a future proof open mindedness and no matter what will happen in the future we believe you are the right person for welcoming it!

    If someone wants to mary a horse or a Chessmaster robot, who am I to get in the way?

    Loklar on
  • Options
    TaxexemptionTaxexemption Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Its wrong to change the nature of man? That's a question? Really? That question is so vague as to have no meaning. What is that supposed to be in reference to, genetics and racial purity? vague notions of morality that may be genetic in origin?


    "Animals should never be able to marry humans no matter how intelligent they are"


    I don't think you can accurately predict the outcome of this. It is my position that an animal does not have the intelligence to give consent, and that relationships where one person is of vastly different intelligence to another is unhealthy. Are we talking about animals who are so smart they teach Physics and calculus at our college? If so, there are a lot of more important moral questions that take place between then and now. Like is it moral to engineer a species to have that kind of intelligence.

    "Artificial intelligences should no matter the circumstance not count as a real person"

    as long as it is artificial intelligence the answer should be agree. Real intelligence is another matter entirely.

    Taxexemption on
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited January 2011
    If we uplift a nonhuman animal that it can think and speak and give consent comparable to a human, I don't see any reason offhand why we should forbid human-nonhuman marriage.

    Of course, this would depend entirely on the consequences of the uplifting technology and the circumstances of the milieu in which the uplifting occurs.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Feral wrote: »
    Hear that feral?

    Stop being so backwards.

    Good point though.

    I oppose poly marriage, actually.

    Which amuses me to no end, because I end up being the polyamorous guy arguing against poly marriage, versus a bunch of monogamous people arguing for it.

    :rotate:

    I always have a weird time with those conversations. For two reasons: the first being that nobody can ever decide how poly marriage would actually work (since it isn't possible to just analogise to an existing social structure, like with gay marriage), and the second being that it doesn't seem to be a thing that anyone actually wants, or at least cares enough about to do something about it.

    japan on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Its wrong to change the nature of man? That's a question? Really? That question is so vague as to have no meaning. What is that supposed to be in reference to, genetics and racial purity? vague notions of morality that may be genetic in origin?


    "Animals should never be able to marry humans no matter how intelligent they are"


    I don't think you can accurately predict the outcome of this. It is my position that an animal does not have the intelligence to give consent, and that relationships where one person is of vastly different intelligence to another is unhealthy. Are we talking about animals who are so smart they teach Physics and calculus at our college? If so, there are a lot of more important moral questions that take place between then and now. Like is it moral to engineer a species to have that kind of intelligence.

    Man, talk about the hazards of an unclear antecedent. I thought "they" was referring to the humans. Like, if you're smart enough it's cool if you marry a sheep. Which I was down with, because I'm a pretty smart guy and I like to keep my options open.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    TaxexemptionTaxexemption Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    japan wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Hear that feral?

    Stop being so backwards.

    Good point though.

    I oppose poly marriage, actually.

    Which amuses me to no end, because I end up being the polyamorous guy arguing against poly marriage, versus a bunch of monogamous people arguing for it.

    :rotate:

    I always have a weird time with those conversations. For two reasons: the first being that nobody can ever decide how poly marriage would actually work (since it isn't possible to just analogise to an existing social structure, like with gay marriage), and the second being that it doesn't seem to be a thing that anyone actually wants, or at least cares enough about to do something about it.


    He's called Robert Heinlein, he wrote on the subject occasionally. There is also some informative wikipedia articles. There was a book called Stranger in a Strange land, it rather shocked a lot of the world some decades back.

    Taxexemption on
  • Options
    ShanadeusShanadeus Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Sure, you might never experience the day that people fight the right to marry as a group or the creation of sapient artificial beings that demand rights, these things might never happen at all as many of you have pointed out and if they do they might also occur in a vastly different way than the previous big schisms in society.

    But just as there is something to gain from answering the trolley problem I believe that there is something to gain from answering what things you would support and oppose - and of course from discussing them.

    Shanadeus on
  • Options
    JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    That is one vague and....not very useful survey. The 'changing a nature of a man' question? WTH does that even mean?

    It also told me I hated gays when I finished the survey, even though in the survey I said that I in fact do not hate gays.

    JihadJesus on
  • Options
    JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    There qwould indeed be some weird shit that poly marriage would have to deal with. If Poly A is in a coma, who has power to make decisions about his care, Poly B or Poly C? Is it based on seniority? Do they have to reach consensus? If so, what happens if they don't? And so on.

    JihadJesus on
  • Options
    japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    japan wrote: »
    I always have a weird time with those conversations. For two reasons: the first being that nobody can ever decide how poly marriage would actually work (since it isn't possible to just analogise to an existing social structure, like with gay marriage), and the second being that it doesn't seem to be a thing that anyone actually wants, or at least cares enough about to do something about it.


    He's called Robert Heinlein, he wrote on the subject occasionally. There is also some informative wikipedia articles. There was a book called Stranger in a Strange land, it rather shocked a lot of the world some decades back.

    I realise that reasonable suggestions for how it could work exist, however in any internet discussion of the issue you will rarely find that any two participants are talking about the same one. Even (perhaps especially) if they are directly arguing with each other.

    japan on
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited January 2011
    Shanadeus wrote: »
    But just as there is something to gain from answering the trolley problem I believe that there is something to gain from answering what things you would support and oppose - and of course from discussing them.

    That's cool - I'd been wondering if it was possible to make the Warlord Hypothetical any stupider.

    I think an in-depth discussion of any of the sub-issues in the OP's quiz would be more informative than the sort of general "Are you an Open-Minded enough dude to save the president?" thing we have here.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    That is one vague and....not very useful survey. The 'changing a nature of a man' question? WTH does that even mean?

    It also told me I hated gays when I finished the survey, even though in the survey I said that I in fact do not hate gays.

    Oh man the homophobia runs deep in this one.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Your assumption seems to be that history and society are inevitably moving in a particular direction. That's a dangerous assumption, and there are a lot of historical examples to show that "progress" isn't really a given.

    A bad economic depression, a serious world war and/or some type of natural disaster might very well change the societal status of homosexuals, women, minorities and so on. We only recently (in a historic sense) eliminated slavery in the Western world, for example, but it's not impossible to see a future where the institution is revived.

    Similarly, women's rights are, in a lot of ways, a luxury that we can afford due to our economic prosperity and lack of real outside threats. But if some sort of societal calamity occurred where law and order broke down significantly, you'd see a serious regression in women's rights (look at places like Somalia and Afghanistan, where women are limited in their freedom due to a number of reasons, including safety).

    As for homosexual rights, it's only due to the decline of the influence of religion that we're seeing this development. Imagine a scenario where Islam becomes the dominant religion in France or Sweden. What do you think would happen to gay rights then?

    While I certainly agree that regression and stagnation in history show that clear linear progress isn't a given I also think it's a bit easy to claim that overall progress isn't real.

    Yes, societies can regress (sometimes even astonishingly fast and big like Afghanistan) but at the same time I'd say that things have always become better than they used to be. The fact that the car breaks down or we have to take a backtrack does not mean that we're not getting closer to where we're driving.

    Julius on
  • Options
    JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    edited January 2011
    japan wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Hear that feral?

    Stop being so backwards.

    Good point though.

    I oppose poly marriage, actually.

    Which amuses me to no end, because I end up being the polyamorous guy arguing against poly marriage, versus a bunch of monogamous people arguing for it.

    :rotate:

    I always have a weird time with those conversations. For two reasons: the first being that nobody can ever decide how poly marriage would actually work (since it isn't possible to just analogise to an existing social structure, like with gay marriage), and the second being that it doesn't seem to be a thing that anyone actually wants, or at least cares enough about to do something about it.


    He's called Robert Heinlein, he wrote on the subject occasionally. There is also some informative wikipedia articles. There was a book called Stranger in a Strange land, it rather shocked a lot of the world some decades back.

    The problem is not that you can't think of a structure where poly marriage works, it's that it's hard as fuck to think of a good way for how it would work in our society as it is.

    Julius on
  • Options
    Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    That quiz...

    Is this a stealth furry-acceptance thread?

    Regina Fong on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    That quiz...

    Is this a stealth furry-acceptance thread?

    Ain't no stealth involved.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    Delta AssaultDelta Assault Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Changing the nature of a man? Is that like... a pacemaker? Dental fillings? Breast implants?

    Delta Assault on
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Changing the nature of a man? Is that like... a pacemaker? Dental fillings? Breast implants?

    You have to start with at least 12 months of hormone therapy.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Feral wrote: »
    Changing the nature of a man? Is that like... a pacemaker? Dental fillings? Breast implants?

    You have to start with at least 12 months of hormone therapy.

    Oh yeah in that case its totally wrong.

    Wrong to chop off a dude's wang.

    might as well tell a guy he can't hang out with his best friend.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Julius wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Your assumption seems to be that history and society are inevitably moving in a particular direction. That's a dangerous assumption, and there are a lot of historical examples to show that "progress" isn't really a given.

    A bad economic depression, a serious world war and/or some type of natural disaster might very well change the societal status of homosexuals, women, minorities and so on. We only recently (in a historic sense) eliminated slavery in the Western world, for example, but it's not impossible to see a future where the institution is revived.

    Similarly, women's rights are, in a lot of ways, a luxury that we can afford due to our economic prosperity and lack of real outside threats. But if some sort of societal calamity occurred where law and order broke down significantly, you'd see a serious regression in women's rights (look at places like Somalia and Afghanistan, where women are limited in their freedom due to a number of reasons, including safety).

    As for homosexual rights, it's only due to the decline of the influence of religion that we're seeing this development. Imagine a scenario where Islam becomes the dominant religion in France or Sweden. What do you think would happen to gay rights then?

    While I certainly agree that regression and stagnation in history show that clear linear progress isn't a given I also think it's a bit easy to claim that overall progress isn't real.

    Yes, societies can regress (sometimes even astonishingly fast and big like Afghanistan) but at the same time I'd say that things have always become better than they used to be. The fact that the car breaks down or we have to take a backtrack does not mean that we're not getting closer to where we're driving.
    Always? No, not even close. As an example, after the collapse of the Roman Empire, populations in certain parts of Europe shrank by 90%, or more. We didn't recover all of the engineering and scientific knowledge from the Classical Era until sometime in the 19th century. As Feral pointed out upthread, the treatment of homosexuality in many parts of the Muslim world is worse now than it was at the high point of Muslim civilization.

    Progress and civilization are fragile things. You can easily lose 500 years of progress in a few short years.

    And keep in mind that the development of liberal democracy in the West is due to the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, neither of which was ever a sure thing. If Genghis Khan hadn't dropped dead when he did, the Mongols might well have swept into Western Europe and killed the seeds of the modern era in its crib. Look at the difference between Russia's development and that of Western Europe. Now imagine the Golden Horde had conquered all of Europe. Do you think we'd be living in free and democratic societies today?

    My point is that what we have in the West today in terms of freedom, democracy and Enlightenment-era values, is a historical exception to the human condition.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Options
    chiasaur11chiasaur11 Never doubt a raccoon. Do you think it's trademarked?Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Changing the nature of a man? Is that like... a pacemaker? Dental fillings? Breast implants?

    I think it's making a deal for immortality with Ravel Puzzlewell.

    chiasaur11 on
  • Options
    THEPAIN73THEPAIN73 Shiny. Real shiny.Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    Feral wrote: »
    Changing the nature of a man? Is that like... a pacemaker? Dental fillings? Breast implants?

    You have to start with at least 12 months of hormone therapy.

    Oh yeah in that case its totally wrong.

    Wrong to chop off a dude's wang.

    might as well tell a guy he can't hang out with his best friend.

    I am against chopped off wangs.

    :v:

    THEPAIN73 on
    Facebook | Amazon | Twitter | Youtube | PSN: ThePain73 | Steam: ThePain73
    3DS FC: 5343-7720-0490
  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited January 2011
    THEPAIN73 wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Changing the nature of a man? Is that like... a pacemaker? Dental fillings? Breast implants?

    You have to start with at least 12 months of hormone therapy.

    Oh yeah in that case its totally wrong.

    Wrong to chop off a dude's wang.

    might as well tell a guy he can't hang out with his best friend.

    I am against chopped off wangs.

    :v:

    Well of course you are son

    /claps on back

    That's because you're a real American

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.