Coexistence, is it possible?

[Will Graham]

I think you are getting into the fact that when given freedom some people will run rampant, which is a fair point. That is not the same as subjugating an entire race or gender because they are different. People will always clash, but I do not think that is precedent for thinking theortically even that legislation giving people rights may lead to more destruction of society. You asked how I know certain legislation makes coexistence more likely or easier. Well I do not of course, it is very likely, but impossible to prove. Though I do not think a world where people were treated like animals could breed co-existence more than ours.

I have no idea how come you are so eager to disregard laws, generally inm a democracy they are a reflection of society's attitudes.

The simplest way I can put this is as follows. From back when we had slaves and racism was totally ok, how have we gotten to a point where they are no longer ok? If humans are only out for themselves and do not truly care for others, how did this happen? If we are not progressing how were the slaves freed? Did attitudes really not change from slaves are ok, to slavery is abhorrent?

 

[Harlequin]

I don't believe democracy is a fair reflection of a society's attitudes let alone the best example. In fact I feel that the best example would be a society where people did treat one another like animals. Cavemen for example had the most natural form of governance. Their's wasn't a society based on pantomimic politics, lies and arbitrary rules, it was a society based on power and merit alone. The victor was the ruler, a system where the pieces of the jigsaw fit exactly where they fell. I don't believe that's a system we should employ in this day and age, but I certainly don't feel as if they were primitive or incorrect for having such an attitude.

I'll agree with you that legislation has made coexistence much more viable but what I mean is whether we chose to keep slaves or not it still doesn't make an ounce of difference to how human's are instinctively driven by self interest.

Consider this point, if we were to rob countries for their resources, wouldn't the more humane thing be to just slaughter the population and take the goods rather than take it anyway and force them and generations after their's to live in an impoverished society? Consider the amount of people in India living below the poverty line, should the UK do the moral thing and compensate them for the enormous wealth they stole in the colonial era? Perhaps, but we'd never see that happen in this economic climate for certain.

The world isn't a better place because of some token legislation here or there. The world is still vastly unfair and that's not going to improve. When desperation grips something, be it an individual, a society or the entire globe morals fly out the window and everything becomes strictly about business. It's a romantic idea to believe people would treat each other how they would like to be treated and could coexist, but it will never happen as long as competition remains - which it always will.

Sorry if the post lacks coherence, I'm quite sleepy

 

[Will Graham]

I don't believe democracy is a fair reflection of a society's attitudes let alone the best example. In fact I feel that the best example would be a society where people did treat one another like animals. Cavemen for example had the most natural form of governance. Their's wasn't a society based on pantomimic politics, lies and arbitrary rules, it was a society based on power and merit alone. The victor was the ruler, a system where the pieces of the jigsaw fit exactly where they fell. I don't believe that's a system we should employ in this day and age, but I certainly don't feel as if they were primitive or incorrect for having such an attitude.

The victor is still the ruler, the only difference is that the tools of power have changed

I'll agree with you that legislation has made coexistence much more viable but what I mean is whether we chose to keep slaves or not it still doesn't make an ounce of difference to how human's are instinctively driven by self interest.

Like I said if people at large were totally governed by self interest and had no interest in co-existence, why were slaves freed?

Consider this point, if we were to rob countries for their resources, wouldn't the more humane thing be to just slaughter the population and take the goods rather than take it anyway and force them and generations after their's to live in an impoverished society? Consider the amount of people in India living below the poverty line, should the UK do the moral thing and compensate them for the enormous wealth they stole in the colonial era? Perhaps, but we'd never see that happen in this economic climate for certain.
The world isn't a better place because of some token legislation here or there. The world is still vastly unfair and that's not going to improve. When desperation grips something, be it an individual, a society or the entire globe morals fly out the window and everything becomes strictly about business. It's a romantic idea to believe people would treat each other how they would like to be treated and could coexist, but it will never happen as long as competition remains - which it always will.

Firstly if it is more humane to kill them, it is also more humane to slaughter every single living person. Then they will never feel any pain again, nothing bad will ever happen to them again. I think everyone has an obligation to help them, not just the UK. The actions of the colonial British empire are not the fault of its current denizens. The world is better because of some token legislation, in the west at least. Even if overall they are only small improvements, they are still improvements. Just because terrible things are still happening, does not mean nothing at all has changed. Also if we could not co-exist we would no longer exist. We have the means to wipe ourselves out several times over but we're still here. It may not be the ideal airy fairy co-existence you see in pictures, it may be uneasy and uncomfortable, but we are co-existing right now.

 

[Harlequin]

Your idea of improvement and mine differ greatly in many aspects and being more of a traditionalist I know I probably don't have to go too far into it for you to see we won't agree on a wide range of ideas. If anything I believe humans have regressed since WWI and II for example, and that's saying a hell of a lot.

 

[Will Graham]

I would really like to hear how you think we have regressed as a civilisation since world war 2

 

[Harlequin]

Well as I said with the degradation of tradition. Western society at least.

 

[Will Graham]

What traditions specifically? Tradition around that time included segregating blacks and whites, stay at home wives who had no place in a man's world, and hating communists

 

[Harlequin]

Well I feel a lot of respect in society has completely vanished from a hundred years ago. I feel like men and women have different roles in life too, which have dissolved into just doing what you want really which has also fucked up the society we live in and continues to do so. All of this in my humble opinion of course. You'll probably say there's no pride to be taken in being a housewife and that it degrades women into being second class citizens, to which I would say is very narrow minded indeed.

 

[Will Graham]

Well I feel a lot of respect in society has completely vanished from a hundred years ago. I feel like men and women have different roles in life too, which have dissolved into just doing what you want really which has also fucked up the society we live in and continues to do so. All of this in my humble opinion of course. You'll probably say there's no pride to be taken in being a housewife and that it degrades women into being second class citizens, to which I would say is very narrow minded indeed.

I like most other people was raised by a housewife and have nothing but respect for people who choose to be housewives. What I do take issue with is the idea that a woman should be a housewife simply because she is a woman. I do not think deciding people have to be a certain way the instant they are ejected from the womb would breed co-existence in any meaningful way.

 

[CassinoChips]

You'll probably say there's no pride to be taken in being a housewife and that it degrades women into being second class citizens, to which I would say is very narrow minded indeed.

Absolutely nothing wrong with being a housewife. The difference is that today, women have the choice to be a stay-at-home mom, or have a career, or blend the two, or not have kids at all. Up until very recently, relatively speaking, the only option for women was to be a housewife and stay-at-home mom, or join a convent. A woman with a professional career as an executive was unfathomable. Choice is progress.