Why So Serious? (Just a name for my article.)

[packetpirate]

This is an article detailing and pointing out the flaws in today's "mature" society.

Where can I start? Maturity. You hear people complaining about the maturity of today's youth. I myself have trouble with this frequently. My dad thinks it's immature that I want to learn kendo and swing a stick around.

My point is that I think society is becoming too linear and sheep-like. They think that if they don't conform to everyone else's standards, then they're weird, or stupid. But what they don't realize is that everyone is an individual, and by taking that away and conforming to what everyone else wants you to do, is what actually makes you weird, or stupid, in my eyes.

Why should we have to mature and stop doing the things we loved to do as a kid? If someone enjoys building with LEGOS as a child, why should he have to stop using them after a certain age because people think it's immature? My opinion is that a lot of depression in the world and suicides are caused because people can't deal with the fact that the world won't accept them for who they are.

If people could just accept that everyone is different and not everyone wants to "grow up" or do certain things, I think a lot of the world's conflict would be solved. But no, people just NEED for other people to be just like them. People also complain about a loss of self-identity these days. Well if everyone would stop doing what everyone else wants them to, this wouldn't be a problem.

Another issue is religion. Christians being the worst of them all. (no offense to anyone, just let me make my point) I see Christians on the news or on the internet telling other people that they will suffer for eternity in a flaming realm of hatred because of simple life choices they make. Why should someone suffer because they like someone of the same gender? Or because they don't believe in a god who has never proven his existence? It is because these people, who force us to conform, want us all to be miserable with them.

I will probably think of more to add to this article, but for now, I want to hear what everyone else thinks and see if anyone has anything to add.

[Malamis]

This comes across as blatant trollbait, but its too well worded to be discarded. Plus you're apparently a brother and lexmechanic-aspirant (all hail assembler!), which grants you preferential treatment.
So i'll subject you to my non-descript criticisms for fun and profit :blush:
This is an article detailing and pointing out the flaws in today's "mature" society.

Society has always been flawed so long as you set one weighting for its characteristics over another. The only absolutely perfect society exists at the bottom of the sea near volcanic vents where atrophy and entropy have stabilised certain ecosystems to the point they maintain in mediocrity.

Where can I start? Maturity. You hear people complaining about the maturity of today's youth. I myself have trouble with this frequently. My dad thinks it's immature that I want to learn kendo and swing a stick around.

And mine thinks painting 3 cm tall lumps of plastic in purple livery is a waste of time. In both cases there are elements of truth on both sides. On the one hand, as the perpetual payer of bills, Papa-san will resent that the decades of work toward sustaining a family unit of whatever size has resulted in someone who does not share their level of "maturity" (described as outlook for sustained development) and actively discards their efforts for something immediately futile. On the other such pointless activities can and do develop peripheral skills which could be useful in reaching the same degree (in your case athletic aptitude and discipline, in my case a steady hand for fiddly work and patience) albeit less dedicated to that end.

My point is that I think society is becoming too linear and sheep-like.

Becoming? All thats changed is our perspective and perception of what is, was and ever shall be; amen. The mechanisms of doing it may have changed, but the core nature of the herd instinct(or The Almighty's ringing commandment, whichever you prefer) will force any congregation of individuals to accept some level of concession in co-operative multi-processing.

They think that if they don't conform to everyone else's standards, then they're weird, or stupid.

And they're right. Conformity is cheap and easy to maintain, while individuality in the face of conformity is , quite frankly, a chore with no immediately tangible benefits.

But what they don't realize is that everyone is an individual, and by taking that away and conforming to what everyone else wants you to do, is what actually makes you weird, or stupid, in my eyes.

And I mock you for your immaturity.
:D
But seriously, hyper-individuality is only a benefit when you don't actually need other people to function in pursuit of whatever you're pursuing, be it a gazelle, a paycheck or a breakthrough in the field of cloning.

Why should we have to mature and stop doing the things we loved to do as a kid? If someone enjoys building with LEGOS as a child,

it's LEGO with no S Damnit.

why should he have to stop using them after a certain age because people think it's immature?

Because ideally lego will have paled in comparison to car engines, rocket engines, rifles or some other manly thing for which LEGO is one of the best primers for.
Also there is the unfortunate reproductive imperative, which many follow and take as a validation of their existence, use as a measure of themselves for condescension to others (which is lots of fun), and which precludes the pursuit of, say, creating The Brick Testament (http://www.thebricktestament.com/) or Brick Commander (http://www.brickcommander.com/), .

My opinion is that a lot of depression in the world and suicides are caused because people can't deal with the fact that the world won't accept them for who they are.

And I maintain it the other way round; they refuse to adapt for what the world demands they be and do as a participant, and so choose not to be one. Its a shame that non suicidal options for this aren't taught in school (pioneering in Siberia comes to mind).

If people could just accept that everyone is different and not everyone wants to "grow up" or do certain things, I think a lot of the world's conflict would be solved.

Unfortunately, the ones who are forced to accept individuals are also the one who are forced to pay for their eccentricities or the fallout thereof. I for one despise my taxes supporting asylum seekers for example and dont mind it supporting single teen parents ( much), while there is undoubtedly someone somewhere who holds the exact opposite view.

But no, people just NEED for other people to be just like them.

Yup. You need me not to be a witch hunter, serial killer and stalker with access to your home addresses, despite the fact that my identity and satiisfaction may be pursued and expressed in all those activities. Society and the Law provide the baseline for interaction, and prevent excesses of individuality and personal perspective interfering with anyone else. I do however understand your lamentation of this being taken to far, and trust to the Singularity to make it all better. :-)

People also complain about a loss of self-identity these days. Well if everyone would stop doing what everyone else wants them to, this wouldn't be a problem.

See previous.

Another issue is religion. Christians being the worst of them all. (no offense to anyone, just let me make my point) I see Christians on the news or on the internet telling other people that they will suffer for eternity in a flaming realm of hatred because of simple life choices they make.

*Malamis equips zealot's robe, rosarius and butcher axe, receives +4 circumstance bonus to Knowledge(religion) checks*

Why should someone suffer because they like someone of the same gender?

Because it is written.

Or because they don't believe in a god who has never proven his existence?

Because it is written. [You're welcome to complain about this, its about the only thing that can't taken from the Abraham's seed, and a few dozen others no matter what anyone does or argues; we have a book that someone wrote. Shenanigans occur after any further level of definition.]

It is because these people, who force us to conform, want us all to be miserable with them.

Maybe for some ( or from what i've heard and read , most). The original justification for persecution (e.g. the glory days of puritan Scotland) was the zealous and wholehearted pursuit of The Holy Writ, born out of the joy and devotion that is found in redemption. Now, in Anglophoneland and most of Europe it is used as ;
a. a crutch to comfort the ignorant (to be racist, the example of the undereducated 'merikans subconsciously look to God for an excuse and justification, while their detractors use their faith as a [justifiable?] conformance criteria)
b. a tool to manipulate others to the benefit (real or imagined) of the group or individual (e.g. Klu Klux Klan, League of Temperance, Televangelists of ill-repute)
c. a convenient label for everything the labeler isn't.
Where as the original purpose (or at least the original result if you're a heathen) was a hope and a future in the face of insurmountable opposition, as well as a host of peripheral benefits., through co-operative multiprocessing on a wide scale.

I will probably think of more to add to this article, but for now, I want to hear what everyone else thinks and see if anyone has anything to add.
I predict Derfel will be here in less than 4 hours.

[nova]

So just for you to know what one person can call maturity can have a different meaning for another one.
But no, people just NEED for other people to be just like them.Just like you need society to be like you?

That is assuming you're entirely different from society.

You could always ignore your father's disregard toward kendo or kindly let him know that is something you enjoy doing, and no amount of criticism is going to chage your likes.

[Kinsao]

Well, without going into it too deeply, I think it's a good thing to be a bit childlike (I don't mean childish) every now and again.

I personally love Lego and Scalextric. :cool:

Oh, and I occasionally run, just for the hell of it and while wearing normal clothes!!! ;-)

[packetpirate]

Malamis, it seems to me as though you believe nobody has a right to live their lives the way that makes them happy. When talking about LEGO (I was using it plurally, don't get all pissy.), I meant why should we have to give it up ENTIRELY? Meaning a hobby or something. I'm talking about the people who do these things they enjoy doing in their spare time and are mocked for doing it because it seems childlike to the rest of society.

It seems to me like your parents ran your life as a child and now you can't think for yourself.

Everybody has a right to be themselves and telling them otherwise is what is going to be the downfall of the human race.

And as for your religious points... what the hell is wrong with you?
You would single out and condemn people just because someone else is telling you to? Nobody even knows who wrote the bible. Why are you so quick to believe something someone else tells you? In doing so, you become just as much a sheep as the rest of society.

[Malamis]

Malamis, it seems to me as though you believe nobody has a right to live their lives the way that makes them happy.

That about covers it. Creation (and the non-specific concept of a social structure) grants you the inalienable right to suffer and die from whatever ailments and burdens you so desire to maintain, anything else is window dressing.

When talking about LEGO (I was using it plurally, don't get all pissy.), I meant why should we have to give it up ENTIRELY? Meaning a hobby or something. I'm talking about the people who do these things they enjoy doing in their spare time and are mocked for doing it because it seems childlike to the rest of society.

I kinda realised that; Just offering one of the legitimate explanations i've come across when my own plastic toy based hobby comes into question.

It seems to me like your parents ran your life as a child and now you can't think for yourself.

LOL.
Something almost completely opposite. :emblaugh:
I just happen to subscribe to paternalist/imperialist (Adam Smith and David Hume for example) views of economic and social progress/arrangement, with a strong bias towards mechanical transhumanism.

Everybody has a right to be themselves and telling them otherwise is what is going to be the downfall of the human race.

See, I dont think that is actually a bad thing. We are only transitory creatures after all. (that is; transitive monkeys, transitive intellects or transitive spirits, whichever you like best).

And as for your religious points... what the hell is wrong with you?
You would single out and condemn people just because someone else is telling you to? Nobody even knows who wrote the bible. Why are you so quick to believe something someone else tells you? In doing so, you become just as much a sheep as the rest of society.
Pretty much. If for example I chose to join the army, it would probably be expected of me to kill and/or discomfort people under certain circumstances, in return for which I receive financial reward, sustenance and whatever else the recruiters are saying nowadays (mm.. adventure and patriotism?). Choosing (or otherwise) to participate in a religious grouping is not all that different; x is expected of you, and you'll (maybe?) get y in return, or indeed you will be granted y and are thenceforth expected to do x. The choice is largely which level of x you'd be willing to participate in, and how much corresponding y you would get.

If you ever sit down and bother to read Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy (and i'd recommend you don't without a really good reason, ignorance is bliss after all), you'd probably see that current legal and social expectations prevent quite a lot of it from being carried out. Specifically instructions for the killing of heathens and the destruction or looting of their property.

[packetpirate]

EDIT: Nevermind, I read that wrong.

[Mycernius]

I'll address this point for now. I might come back to the rest

Another issue is religion. Christians being the worst of them all. (no offense to anyone, just let me make my point) I see Christians on the news or on the internet telling other people that they will suffer for eternity in a flaming realm of hatred because of simple life choices they make.
You'll find all the Abrahmic faiths do this, not just the christians. In other words thy are as bad as each other. You think christians are intolerant of homosexuals, try this one from Islam:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1163510/All-homosexuals-stoned-death-says-Muslim-preacher-hate.html
(awaits no true scotman fallacy to turn up)

Why should someone suffer because they like someone of the same gender? Or because they don't believe in a god who has never proven his existence? It is because these people, who force us to conform, want us all to be miserable with them.
No, it is because their big book of fairy tales or some dead guy tells them so.
Despite this you'll find most believers are quite happy and content with their lives. Some just can't believe that people like me are happy without a sky daddy and actually think they are doing good by preaching hellfire.

[Malamis]

...
(awaits no true scotman fallacy to turn up)

Not sure what to make of that.

[Derfel]

The flaw in mature society is the severe lack of spine. Euphemism and suchlike.

People go out of their way and label things according to some abstract criterion that no one actually knows, and they proceed to argue about that which is uncertain to begin with.

Take a recreational activity. Lets use kendo, since it has already been brought up. You ask your average person, whether he approves of kendo or not, and chances are, that your question will be answered in the negative. You may now proceed to the reasoning. Ask said person the reason he disapproves of said activity. "Because its pointless." It could be said that this is a very fine argument, but hey, I bet that the same person will find sex without a view to procreation totally acceptable. I ask. What is more purposeless than sexual intercourse without a view to procreation? Now would be the right time to tell said person to stop reading the newspaper, watching the tv, listening to annoying oldies on radio, meeting with his old mates who have become alcoholics and get back to bloody work, because there is an immediate benefit there.

Society is essentially a bunch of people who have differing, arbitrary values. All I can suggest is my own approach. I like to call it the "jump off a bridge!" approach. Whenever you are approached by someone pretending to be your savior, you tell him to FO. It helped me greatly when I was dealing with my parents.

There are some arguments, that you know are bound to fail. Arguments involving society and god for example. These arguments require you to accept unsound premises. When you are told that "society thinks so" or "god said so", the person making the argument presupposes that society is right and god exists. They are arguments of the ignorant. They rely on allegations that would require arguments. It is like building a ceiling without a fundamentum.

So we have ruled out two arguments so far. (a) That recreational activities must serve a purpose other than causing the person(s) engaged in them joy, and (b) arguments referring to some ambiguous knowledge, or source of knowledge can be sustained.

Now we have here the "breadwinner" argument. That the head of the family, in his great wisdom, passed down from some imbecile, dead, ignorant fools whom you are meant to revere because they are... YOUR ANCESTORS! Blah Blah.
I don't think this argument is sustainable either.

What are we left with? A clear indication of society's lack of consistent thinking. The fact that ignorant people still to this day base their arguments on the prevailing moral atmosphere, when it is both inconsistent and temporary, and another issue: pretense.

People in general love to pretend. Its what we are best at. We pretend to feel sorry for the victims of tropical maladies. We pretend to feel sorry for the unfortunate starving children. We pretend to feel sorry the neighbours kid who has been kidnapped by a paedophile. We pretend to feel sorry for the former classmate who had to go for abortion. We pretend to feel sorry for all sorts of things. But do we really? A person who can watch the news, and genuinely feel sorry for all the unlucky bastards will suffer a nervous breakdown.

What society here does is, it scrutinizes honest opinion and conduct.
Society does not want me to say that I don't care about maladies, doomed kids, raped or aborted ones. There are just things you can't say for a reason. Abortion is not funny for example. We often hear the argument "What if it happened to you?" and this strips the whole reasoning bare. Behind it is fear. These negative things we hear about cause fear, and people can't just face it and admit to themselves that they're plainly afraid to be stricken by these things, so they maintain a whole system of self-deception instead.
What these benevolent people care about are not the victims of a war, but the phenomenon, and that it could happen to them and/or their country. Thats it for altruism.

I while ago I had a tutorial on various issues, one of them being abortion. After reaching my limit, I could not suppress it anymore, and started grinning when we were discussing said topic. So after the tutorial, a person approached me, and told me how abortion is not a funny topic.
So basically, a person came and told me I should not find it funny. This essentially means that said person was of the opinion that he had some sort of right to tell me what I should think, and I an obligation to do so.

Thats it for now, I will expand this if im not overwhelmed by the moral crusaders.

Rofl, as Malamis predicted I couldn't resist. But hey, someone's gotta hate society.

[packetpirate]

Derfel we seem a lot alike... I'm just not great at wording my opinions. Thanks for the input!

[Jericho-79]

Sounds like a really good article. Kudos!

[567567ww]

i don't know..............

[Derfel]

You'll find all the Abrahmic faiths do this, not just the christians. In other words thy are as bad as each other. You think christians are intolerant of homosexuals, try this one from Islam:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1163510/All-homosexuals-stoned-death-says-Muslim-preacher-hate.html

Yeah, but thats all ok. I mean, the UK is an Islamic country right? Under the Public Order Act 1986 only muslims aren't caught for hate speech. Islam does not abide by the laws of men, and neither does it turn to the courts of men for redress. Its like, when its Islam, politics come into the picture, and policy decisions save the violent mob pretending to be a peaceful protest. You say so much as "the prophet sucks d*ck." and the local gang will be molesting the authorities until they give in and call you in to account for your sins. Honestly, if this wasn't Jref, but a local UK forum, I bet I'd have my IP traced by a bunch of scripturefags and reported to the authorities.
Bah, im sure you know all this lol, I just couldn't resist. The situation is pissing me off.

Every single time I see that retard Choudary, I hope that someone bashes his head in.

[Mycernius]

Not sure what to make of that.
Not aimed at the scottish, just a name for a logical fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

This is though, 26-12 ;)

[Malamis]

Yeah, but thats all ok. I mean, the UK is an Islamic country right? Under the Public Order Act 1986 only muslims aren't caught for hate speech. Islam does not abide by the laws of men, and neither does it turn to the courts of men for redress. Its like, when its Islam, politics come into the picture, and policy decisions save the violent mob pretending to be a peaceful protest. You say so much as "the prophet sucks d*ck." and the local gang will be molesting the authorities until they give in and call you in to account for your sins. Honestly, if this wasn't Jref, but a local UK forum, I bet I'd have my IP traced by a bunch of scripturefags and reported to the authorities.
Bah, im sure you know all this lol, I just couldn't resist. The situation is pissing me off.

Every single time I see that retard Choudary, I hope that someone bashes his head in.

Oddly enough no, i'm in one of the (presently at least) impenetrable bastions of violent racial hatred and hadn't realised how good I have it :D

[Drew-san]

What is more purposeless than sexual intercourse without a view to procreation?A lot of things. -_-'

[Malamis]

A lot of things. -_-'
This debate for example :-)

[Haru-san`sTeiraa]

At first I didn't quite know what to say about this, I'm still not sure but I'll try my best so bear with me.

First, you aren't really blaming religion itself, but the people who follow it. A religion is only as benevolent as its followers, and I think almost every religion has been on the receiving and commiting end of persecution. Society and Religion are just reflections of human thinking. You see, most human beings are not content to stay in their own business, they have to know what everyone else is up to and everything that happens around them. While it is human nature to know these things, some take it too far and make it their business to interfere with others' goings ons and can't leave well enough alone. It would be natural to watch if your neighbor was acting strange or if he and the misses were arguing so loud that you could hear it the next street over, but you aren't going to barge into his house and demand they stop or you'll kill them would you? On second thought, I'd rather not read that answer.

As for the individuality and linear, herd society thing; If you want to be creative and your own person and aren't actually trying to seek attention then you want care what society thinks. You will be your own person and society's norms won't phase you the slightest and when people call you weird, you'll just shrug your shoulders and say," Oh well, at least I'm not one of the flock, baaaa!" If you let what others think of you get to you or let them run your life without a fight then I don't think you were ever really an individual to begin with.

I am a practicing Wiccan or "Neo-Pagan" in a small Christian community where there is almost every Christian denomination church in our town. When I was in sixth grade I came out that I wasn't a Christian, there actually was a collective gasp and an awkward silence. It is practically unheard of in my whole town to be anything other Christian or Atheist. Apparently the belief of nothing is better than a duotheistic reigion. They made fun of me for awhile, but when I took all the teasing with a smile and was nice to them I think they felt guilty. You really can kill with kindness.

A suicide in my book is cowardice and a cry for attention, and thats all I have to say about that subject.

In my opinion abortion is murder and is mostly used as birth control, which should not be allowed. In fact, I think abortion should be eliminated unless a woman is going to die if she has the baby. I don't care if she is raped, she can put it up for adoption. (I feel strongly on this so unless you want about 2 or 3 weeks worth of debate I wouldn't start...)If you think it is funny, then all the better for you!

If hobbies are useless what are we supposed to occupy our free time with? I love legos ( I don't care if its wrong) and I wish I had some, I also like Barbies, Hello Kitty, and stuffed animals. It is easier to be like everyone else, but it takes alot more courage and wisdom to be an individual and not care what everyone else thinks of you, and I give kudos and encouragement to those people.

[Mars Man]

In my opinion abortion is murder and is mostly used as birth control, which should not be allowed. In fact, I think abortion should be eliminated unless a woman is going to die if she has the baby. I don't care if she is raped, she can put it up for adoption. (I feel strongly on this so unless you want about 2 or 3 weeks worth of debate I wouldn't start...)

With the OP not having been here since about the time period that this particular thread had been started in, and the thread itself not having been active from around that time, I'd say that we would have some room to play around with some of the notions touched on in that OP, and the basic discussion that followed.

For this reason, I'm willing to take up your offer, Haru-san`sTeiraa san--of course, if you are willing to take the time and effort to argue it well. I'll start things off by saying that we will need to make clear distinctions between the terms 'murder,' 'kill,' and 'destroy.'

I would suggest that by 'destroy,' we are referring to an act which disrupts an immediate, internally related and closed system. By 'kill,' we are referring to an act which destroys the active internal systematic process of exchange between inner-systems which make a single, individual entity (which we commonly define as being a living entity; animate or inanimate). And then, by 'murder' we are referring to an act which kills a single, animate individual entity of any species, beyond a reasonably acceptable reason for having done so, judged from the stand point of practical, universal reasoning based on the average of known concerns related to that accepted reason for the act of 'killing.'

I realize this is wordy, but to put it in simpler terms would weaken the concept's coherence. For the sake of argument, are these definitions workable to you, Haru-san`sTeiraa san?

MM

[Haru-san`sTeiraa]

Alright MM, I accept those definitions. Are you going to tell me now that a fetus isn't an animate entity?
Or that abortion take place because a majority thinks its acceptable? You've piqued my interest now with what your take will be.

[hideway]

I completely agree with the OP on most of what he said. But I find that maturity is only reached when you stop worrying too much about what others want you to do and start being true to yourself. I see maturity not as the following of a certain set of rules but as the appearance of your true self, your ideas, your actions, your ambitions and, of course, the so much needed ability to acknowledge that others are different and that you shouldn't force them to be as you like. This last takes self confidence, tolerance and compassion to achieve, which I find to be the core stone of maturity itself.

I wonder if I'm the only one thinking like this.

[Tsuyoiko]

As for the individuality and linear, herd society thing; If you want to be creative and your own person and aren't actually trying to seek attention then you want care what society thinks. You will be your own person and society's norms won't phase you the slightest and when people call you weird, you'll just shrug your shoulders and say," Oh well, at least I'm not one of the flock, baaaa!" If you let what others think of you get to you or let them run your life without a fight then I don't think you were ever really an individual to begin with.

It is easier to be like everyone else, but it takes alot more courage and wisdom to be an individual and not care what everyone else thinks of you, and I give kudos and encouragement to those people.

How is maturity related to individuality? It seems that, generally speaking, society equates certain ways of standing out in a crowd with immaturity. That reminds me of a long-running discussion we had not so long ago about a doctor who had blue hair. Some people (Malamis among them, if I remember correctly) were convinced that immaturity was the only explanation for his having blue hair.

When you say, "If you ... aren't actually trying to seek attention then you want [sic] care what society thinks", I think you've hit on something important - it's a person's motives for behaving as they do that can tell us something about how mature they are, not their behaviour in itself. Of course, while the behaviour is plain to see, motives are usually hidden, so it's difficult to make judgements about these. So people infer motives based on experience or prejudice. If someone stands out in a crowd because they want attention, that probably is a sign of immaturity. I think the reason society equates the two is that they fail to see a subtlety; they assume that if someone stands out, they do so intentionally. However, it's possible to stand out as a side effect, when your true motive is something else, something that may actually be a sign of maturity.

The irony there is that individuals who jump to conclusions about other people's motives are showing their own immaturity, specifically an immaturity of their reasoning faculties. I use immaturity in a quite literal sense there, as in a lack in development.

I see maturity not as the following of a certain set of rules but as the appearance of your true self, your ideas, your actions, your ambitions and, of course, the so much needed ability to acknowledge that others are different and that you shouldn't force them to be as you like. This last takes self confidence, tolerance and compassion to achieve, which I find to be the core stone of maturity itself.

This seems like a very well-reasoned definition of maturity. To have that kind of self-knowledge and interpersonal understanding can only come through experience and introspection. You're right to require the two things: to be "mature", a person has to accept their own self and tolerate other people.

It seems that when "society" uses the word "maturity", what they really mean is "accepted wisdom".

[Derfel]

First, you aren't really blaming religion itself, but the people who follow it. A religion is only as benevolent as its followers, and I think almost every religion has been on the receiving and commiting end of persecution. Society and Religion are just reflections of human thinking. You see, most human beings are not content to stay in their own business, they have to know what everyone else is up to and everything that happens around them. While it is human nature to know these things, some take it too far and make it their business to interfere with others' goings ons and can't leave well enough alone. It would be natural to watch if your neighbor was acting strange or if he and the misses were arguing so loud that you could hear it the next street over, but you aren't going to barge into his house and demand they stop or you'll kill them would you? On second thought, I'd rather not read that answer.

Birds of a feather flock together. Religion usually tells people that there are things far more important than corporeal existence. It is not the reflection of society, but the force that suppresses the true face of society through the application of outdated views extracted from society decades, centuries and milleniae ago and compiled into a set of rules. It is the face of our society bloody ages back.

As for the individuality and linear, herd society thing; If you want to be creative and your own person and aren't actually trying to seek attention then you want care what society thinks. You will be your own person and society's norms won't phase you the slightest and when people call you weird, you'll just shrug your shoulders and say," Oh well, at least I'm not one of the flock, baaaa!" If you let what others think of you get to you or let them run your life without a fight then I don't think you were ever really an individual to begin with.

Society forces you to conform or lose out on a number of things. Thats how society works. Its a choice.

I am a practicing Wiccan or "Neo-Pagan" in a small Christian community where there is almost every Christian denomination church in our town. When I was in sixth grade I came out that I wasn't a Christian, there actually was a collective gasp and an awkward silence. It is practically unheard of in my whole town to be anything other Christian or Atheist. Apparently the belief of nothing is better than a duotheistic reigion. They made fun of me for awhile, but when I took all the teasing with a smile and was nice to them I think they felt guilty. You really can kill with kindness.

You think of religion as a mere expression of opinions, so why must you follow one if you already identified the phenomenon? If you haul religion down from the heavens, surely, you can only derive from it human knowledge, which you can without religion, probably more successfully even.

A suicide in my book is cowardice and a cry for attention, and thats all I have to say about that subject.

That is what I thought for a long while, and still think to some extent. Cowardice is our main incentive. I think suicide is a bit paradoxical, your instincts drive you to escape from some form of unwanted feelings, impressions or whatever. Now interestingly, it is done by inflicting what is probably the most negative status. It is in that sense cowardice, yeah, but the same for not committing suicide. Cowardice forces upon us that narrowly utilitarian thinking that lets us judge (very often poorly), what is in our best interest.

In my opinion abortion is murder and is mostly used as birth control, which should not be allowed. In fact, I think abortion should be eliminated unless a woman is going to die if she has the baby. I don't care if she is raped, she can put it up for adoption. (I feel strongly on this so unless you want about 2 or 3 weeks worth of debate I wouldn't start...)If you think it is funny, then all the better for you!

You put forward a premise. In the absence of arguments or proof, I am unwilling to accept it. What is murder? What is a foetus? Why is it not destruction or killing? Why is destruction or killing wrong? When are they justified? etc

If hobbies are useless what are we supposed to occupy our free time with? I love legos ( I don't care if its wrong) and I wish I had some, I also like Barbies, Hello Kitty, and stuffed animals. It is easier to be like everyone else, but it takes alot more courage and wisdom to be an individual and not care what everyone else thinks of you, and I give kudos and encouragement to those people.


Whether hobbies are useless or not will depend on the premises we are willing to accept. Religion can easily differentiate between individual hobbies and assign to them artificial qualities, attributes, merits basically. If we take atheism or one of the atheistic philosophies the whole picture becomes much more obvious. We have instincts, whatever our instincts dictate, we will try to achieve. Our instincts drive us to pursue joy, so we will engage in activities that form our hobbies. This is accepting the premise that there can be a purpose, and a second premise that said purpose is to serve our instincts. If we choose not to accept one or either of the above premises, the whole picture will be different. If we deny both (or through the first one the second and all variants along with it), hobbies will become pointless and purposeless, just like everything else.

Now, this is quite arbitrary, but its our best shot at freedom (provided we have any).
Obviously, there are some fishy premises you can derive from dodgy sources and there are more steady ones. Obviously your choice (again, provided we enjoy such liberty), and in light of that choice, your perception of hobbies will change.

[Haru-san`sTeiraa]

You think of religion as a mere expression of opinions, so why must you follow one if you already identified the phenomenon? If you haul religion down from the heavens, surely, you can only derive from it human knowledge, which you can without religion, probably more successfully even.

You put forward a premise. In the absence of arguments or proof, I am unwilling to accept it. What is murder? What is a foetus? Why is it not destruction or killing? Why is destruction or killing wrong? When are they justified? etc


I follow a Wiccan path because their expression of opinions is similar to my own views, and I enjoy the insight of others (obviously as I am here). It seems as if religions are like clubs. Some you join because you are interested, some because you feel obligated, and every once in a while, some because you are forced or given no other option. They all have their rules and you know there are some that won't be to keen if you want to leave.
Basically I practice Wicca simply because it interests me to do so.

Destruction isn't wrong because it can be found in nature because to create sometimes you must also destroy. Killing I don't believe is wrong if it is done out of necessity, not simply desire. Murder would be based on morality mostly, but I think it is merely killing because of desire to or discomfort, not out of necessity. To me a fetus is a developing baby, which begins to develop the moment the X and Y join together. If a criminal can get charged with double homicide by killing a pregnant woman, then wouldn't it seem correct to charge a woman with at least manslaughter if she got an abortion? In either case, the child will not have had a chance to live. I don't mean to sound cruel about if a woman was raped, but even though I understand that she may not want a constant reminder of the incident, that doesn't mean that she has a right to decide the fate of another, a fetus cannot defend itself and make the argument about why they have a right to live. Have you ever smashed a hen's egg only to find a baby chick has started to grow? It is very sad and disturbing to look at, and I was very young when my cousin did it and I saw that poor unborn chick lying helplessly on the ground, I knew we had done something wrong and it made me feel like a monster. It seems that the experience has made me realize that there is a disgusting sense of power and control when you can decide whether something lives or dies, and I don't ever want to have to make the decision again, but if I did I would always choose to let whatever it was live. How can a woman take away someone's chance at life and not feel remorse or wonder if she did the right thing? People will argue a woman has a right to her own body, but doesn't any form of creation deserve a chance to live and grow like its mother did? How can a person be so sefish as to covet that which they prize but seek to take away? If it is a girl who is very young or who won't be able to have a child I understand its use then. It may sound a little contradictory, but I am being honest with my opinions. If a woman is going to die if she has a baby, then her life should be deemed more important than the fetus. But this is only in life-threatening situations, not for anything but.

[Mars Man]

Some important points made on a number of themes, above. For the moment, I'll adhere to the one I have started.

Thanks for spelling out your position more, there, Haru-san`sTeiraa san. (May I address you as HT, to save time, please? MM is fine with me.) Now as you had, in a moment of wondering in your previous post, asked if I 'were going to tell you that a fetus wasn't an animate entity,' I would respond that we need not worry about that so much at first. Additionally, and quite the opposite (in a way), I will argue that life is a basis of systems that build entities (animate/in~)) and that it it more realistic to focus on sentience and self-survival ability when giving consideration to the jurisdiction of individual being.

I will lay out my general position here (as you have in above posts), and then argue the support for it, and expound on it, as we go.

Up to a point in the development of an embryo (which itself will be some 8 weeks into gestation) I aruge that to terminate pregnancy is the full, natural right of the individual woman. I hold that point to be up to around 14 weeks. I hold that up until this general point, society ought not have the right to demand an act on any pregant woman's behalf against her will.

I argue that to abort a foetus (under around 8 weeks into gestation) is an act of killing a living entity extending from a separate living entity. This should not be seen as murder because we are only looking at the destruction of internal systems.


To abort a embryo (under that basic 14 week mark) can only be seen as murder if the particular case can be shown to be beyond reasonably acceptable reason for having done so, judged from the points mentioned earlier. This is largely due to the individual being's lack of having that required state of sentience and ability to survive individually.




To me a fetus is a developing baby, which begins to develop the moment the X and Y join together.

This will be one very good area to start with. Primarily, because it is not nearly as neat and simple as it might be thought to be. I'll go into that as soon as I get the chance...as always, I'm quite busy. Thanks. MM

[Derfel]

I follow a Wiccan path because their expression of opinions is similar to my own views, and I enjoy the insight of others (obviously as I am here). It seems as if religions are like clubs. Some you join because you are interested, some because you feel obligated, and every once in a while, some because you are forced or given no other option. They all have their rules and you know there are some that won't be to keen if you want to leave.
Basically I practice Wicca simply because it interests me to do so.

That makes sense now.

Destruction isn't wrong because it can be found in nature because to create sometimes you must also destroy. Killing I don't believe is wrong if it is done out of necessity, not simply desire. Murder would be based on morality mostly, but I think it is merely killing because of desire to or discomfort, not out of necessity. To me a fetus is a developing baby, which begins to develop the moment the X and Y join together. If a criminal can get charged with double homicide by killing a pregnant woman, then wouldn't it seem correct to charge a woman with at least manslaughter if she got an abortion? In either case, the child will not have had a chance to live. I don't mean to sound cruel about if a woman was raped, but even though I understand that she may not want a constant reminder of the incident, that doesn't mean that she has a right to decide the fate of another, a fetus cannot defend itself and make the argument about why they have a right to live. Have you ever smashed a hen's egg only to find a baby chick has started to grow? It is very sad and disturbing to look at, and I was very young when my cousin did it and I saw that poor unborn chick lying helplessly on the ground, I knew we had done something wrong and it made me feel like a monster. It seems that the experience has made me realize that there is a disgusting sense of power and control when you can decide whether something lives or dies, and I don't ever want to have to make the decision again, but if I did I would always choose to let whatever it was live. How can a woman take away someone's chance at life and not feel remorse or wonder if she did the right thing? People will argue a woman has a right to her own body, but doesn't any form of creation deserve a chance to live and grow like its mother did? How can a person be so sefish as to covet that which they prize but seek to take away? If it is a girl who is very young or who won't be able to have a child I understand its use then. It may sound a little contradictory, but I am being honest with my opinions. If a woman is going to die if she has a baby, then her life should be deemed more important than the fetus. But this is only in life-threatening situations, not for anything but.

We can only do things out of necessity. Instincts press us to. Yeah, sure, sometimes deranged and deformed these instincts are, but in the current situation, we're talking about quite a normal and tame one. We merely want comfort and convenience.

Bit different here. If a criminal kills a pregnant woman, he will only be charged for the murder of the child if that is subsequently born alive and dies. A bit more sensible approach if you ask me.

Life feeds upon life. This has been the way for millions and millions of years. If a find, in an egg, a semi-developed chick, well, sure, I will feel a bit bad, then think "Ultimately, if it had lived, I'd probably have eaten another chicken." Vegetables are life, bacteria are life, hell, even Republicans are life.

Feel remorse? Why exactly should a woman feel remorse? She hasn't taken away anyone's chance at life. I never met a person who said to me "Damn, I screwed my chance at life!" I have only met people who were born at some point. Chance is the domain speculation, where you can see the usual potential human argument.

Pregnancy is the woman's biologically granted permission for a creature to exist parasitically in her body. It essentially leeches "life" from the host. Why should a woman not be entitled to get rid of it?

Yeah, all forms of creatures deserve all sorts of things. Doesn't mean it will ever be granted. We govern ourselves, we can't be just each and every time and follow some bollocks objective moral code and make decisions based on that. Whichever method has more utility, better results overall, shall be preferred. Abortion generates happiness at the cost of very little frustration on the side of the opposition.

Also, you go and make the decision for the child who might just hypothetically go (his experiences and views of life expressed in short) "Oh **** this, when did I ever want to be an unwanted, poor orphan who was sodomised by the wardens?" You will have created a being who is unable to stand proud with spine, but who will at the same time cling to his life because the most basic instincts prevail. His life will be a bloody torture, and you responsible for it.

Preference shall be given to those already born in all circumstances. If I was a woman, and some holy man told me I can't have an abortion, I'd probably grab a coat hanger, bash him proper with it, then abort the child with the damn coat hanger. If the right to self-determination is not protected, the world can screw itself, no reason to play by society's rules, because they fail.

[Haru-san`sTeiraa]

Instinct? You call wanting to get rid of a developing human being instinct? It is neither necessity nor instinct. Necessity is something you need to do and can't live without doing. Instinct is survival tactics passed down through generations of the same species until it becomes implanted into your brain that you don't even really have to think about it. Abortion is no where near instinct as it takes a lot of thinking on whether or not to do so. You as a male cannot get pregnant so cannot understand what it would be like to be so.

There are parasitic bacterium in your body too that are necessary for your survival. You can't get rid of them. Having children is needed for humanity's survival, so why should we be able to get rid of a pregnancy.

Like I said,you can never be pregnant. You will never understand how it would feel to kill what could possibly be a living being just like you are. Deciding whether or not something should live or die shouldn't be up to us, because then we are playing god. It doesn't matter if you believe in god or not, to have power and control over another life, even if it is prospective, is a terrifying choice to make.

Do you really think most of those women are happy after they had an abortion? They're probably still miserable. The ones who got raped were still raped. The ones using it as birth control will probably get pregnant again. Sure, they won't have to deal with a baby later on, but they'll have to deal with the fact that they killed their own child. Only someone sick wouldn't feel remorse for the rest of their lives.

Morals have been around a very long time. Which king said "an eye for an eye"? They are needed to help keep people from doing things that are wrong and they establish those boundaries. Stealing, murdering, raping, they are all wrong because they affect someone else by hurting them somehow or taking what is theirs.

Not all children grow up like that, a lot are put in foster care and are well taken care of, or adopted. Just because your birth parents didn't want you doesn't mean someone else wouldn't. I do feel sorry for the ones that grow up without ever knowing a family, but it doesn't mean they always feel sorry for themselves. Sometimes they grow up stronger than the ones with families because they have only themselves to rely on.

and yes MM you can call me HT or Haru, whichever.

[Derfel]

Instinct? You call wanting to get rid of a developing human being instinct? It is neither necessity nor instinct. Necessity is something you need to do and can't live without doing. Instinct is survival tactics passed down through generations of the same species until it becomes implanted into your brain that you don't even really have to think about it. Abortion is no where near instinct as it takes a lot of thinking on whether or not to do so. You as a male cannot get pregnant so cannot understand what it would be like to be so.

Instincts are genetic, they are not taught. Reflexes may be developed, but not instincts, though as they are interconnected (your instincts will influence the reflexes you develop). We instinctively seek comfort and avoid pain and suffering. A pregnancy is proven to be capable of causing both.

There are parasitic bacterium in your body too that are necessary for your survival. You can't get rid of them. Having children is needed for humanity's survival, so why should we be able to get rid of a pregnancy.

Procreation is necessary for humanity, not every individual child. Besides, we're not really on the brink of extinction. Additionally, survival of our species is our aim as one species, individuals may have different goals. Social engineering is plain degrading.

Like I said,you can never be pregnant. You will never understand how it would feel to kill what could possibly be a living being just like you are. Deciding whether or not something should live or die shouldn't be up to us, because then we are playing god. It doesn't matter if you believe in god or not, to have power and control over another life, even if it is prospective, is a terrifying choice to make.

Why is it a terrifying choice? Sure, it is physically impossible for me to become pregnant, but from what I've seen, plenty of women make said decision, many without much remorse or regret. Its all a matter of whether they get 'mind controlled' by the hormones and to what extent. Essentially, by allowing and forbidding abortion you merely vary the standing of two parties. You either take away the woman's right to self-determination and bestowing said right upon the unborn or leaving the right intact. Now, my view is that since the mother is already a mature human, not a potential one, her standing in this matter should be stronger, the decision should be made in her favour. I'm having the feeling that out of the two of us I am the feminist ahahaha.

Do you really think most of those women are happy after they had an abortion? They're probably still miserable. The ones who got raped were still raped. The ones using it as birth control will probably get pregnant again. Sure, they won't have to deal with a baby later on, but they'll have to deal with the fact that they killed their own child. Only someone sick wouldn't feel remorse for the rest of their lives.

Happy? Perhaps some, most probably not. Happier? Overwhelmingly yes. If someone's been raped, thats not going to change, its fact, she won't be 'unraped', but surely, it is still possible to avoid the weakness, fatigue and pain connected with pregnancy and childbirth and same economic loss caused by the undesired state of affairs and the child. Cut rape victims some slack, honestly, they've been raped. I have never been raped, but I assume its not a cheerful experience, they need to recover not bear a bloody child.

Morals have been around a very long time. Which king said "an eye for an eye"? They are needed to help keep people from doing things that are wrong and they establish those boundaries. Stealing, murdering, raping, they are all wrong because they affect someone else by hurting them somehow or taking what is theirs.

Hammurabi, though he didn't actually say it, his laws were just carved into stone, the famous black stele for example. Though it has to be said that the Lex Talionis, the whole system of equal retaliation doesn't really influence modern law much.

Again, this is how our society works, we live at each others' expense. Some forms of damage are recognised as morally reprehensible and/or illegal, some aren't. There are underlying criteria such as "Does said conduct destabilise society? Does it cause recognisable loss or harm (eg. is there an aggrieved party protected by law?)? Is it justified by utilitarian principle? Is it a matter of private life?" and on and on and on.

In the case of an embryo, what is taken from it? Nothing, really. The mother merely denies to transfer what is hers to the embryo. Surely, she doesn't have any obligation to keep another creature alive at her own vitality's cost if that is not her wish.

Not all children grow up like that, a lot are put in foster care and are well taken care of, or adopted. Just because your birth parents didn't want you doesn't mean someone else wouldn't. I do feel sorry for the ones that grow up without ever knowing a family, but it doesn't mean they always feel sorry for themselves. Sometimes they grow up stronger than the ones with families because they have only themselves to rely on.

and yes MM you can call me HT or Haru, whichever.

A sperm and an egg make up an embryo. Through menstruation hell loads of eggs are discarded. Men have it easy, they just wank or resort to preventive measures. Each egg with the corresponding sperms then is a potential independent life that never developed. Thats how things are. People who were never born and were thus never sent to orphanages are the same. Imagine people salvaging all those eggs and sperms, it would be pretty absurd.

[Haru-san`sTeiraa]

I do agree with you on the fact men have it easy, you try bleeding like a stuck pig for a week and have cramps and see how happy you are,lol. I can understand where you are coming from on somethings but others I really don't understand others and probably never will. I've grown up in a very Republican state and have grown up to have very conservative values while you seem to be somewhat liberal in your opinions. I don't have any problems with it at all though because it makes for very interesting discussions. I'm just glad I've been able to relatively hold my own against all of you adults and be treated with courtesy and respect. You have actually taken time to read what I have written, instead of just dismissing me simply as another angsty 16 year old. I guess that you reap what you sow and that if you act mature people will treat you as such and I just want to say thank you for taking the time to debate with me!

Derfel I'm really sorry but I have stated all of my arguments and have nothing further to use as an argument, suffice to say I ran out of steam!

[Mars Man]

While I reason that it would not be necessary to respond to every point laid out in the immediate above posts, I would like to continue focusing on the flow--if not for anything else, for information.

Primodal gamate cells are, basically, sexless, but carried by both genders (and I'll focus on the H. sapien here). The sexual development of the entity will determine, through hormonal flows, the development of those cells--to ovum or sperm. There are a number of factors which, along the way, can cancel out such development so that we will have infertile entities, therefore nature is very much in control at this point. (as easily seen)

The gamates meet up; the larger female with the much smaller male. Fertilization will make the zygote. Whether one has an XX combination, an X0, XY, or any others (such as XXY, XYY, or XXXY; and so on) will depend on genotype arrangements--so to speak. X0 foetuses most often end in spontaneous abortion (miscarrage), as well as some others.

Up until around the 8 week point, the foetus will have not brain. It is totally dependent on its source of nurishment and minerals--as though it were simply an extension of the female's body--and has no function at all as an idividual entity.

Neuronal migration kicks in in the last months of gestation, and it is actually from that point that that we can see an individual being. However, somewhat before that, 14 weeks, we can draw a basic line because the embryo would generally be able to survive on it's own, if it were prematurely delivered after around that point.

the appeal to instinct, in the case of choosing to abort, may be a bit oversimplified, yet when all possible or likely related matters are considered, I am of the opinion that nature itself is rolling the dice, here. We could kind of step back, look at it from afar, and term it instinct.

The law regarding the murder of a pregant woman being a double murder matter, is due to the understanding that a carrying woman in such a case would be of the intention to carry the developing embryo to full term. It would be illogical to assert that that law, which is to protect the unborn, due to be born infants, provides a reason to assert that a woman who wishes to abort a foetus or early embryo should be guilty or murder.

One reason why simply demanding that all pregnacies be brought to full term, and deliveries made, and then adoption procedures be demanded is weak, is that we are clearly dealing with genetical material in all cases. To adopt a child, regardless of how noble and loving a deed, is to accept that those who adopt, have no relation to, nor control over, the genetic material that will outplay in the being that it is. Every child is 50% of its biological father, and 50% of its biological mother, within various arrangements of genetical material.

A further point, would be to weigh whether an abortion would be considered 'murder' in every case; or, even, most cases.