Dostoevsky on Tolerance, does this describe our milieu?

The Barbarian said:

Vote.



Which demonstrably works better than autocracy, kings, oligarchies, etc.

Look at Russia, China, Venezuela, Hungary, Belarus, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.

Which of those do you think provides a better life for their people?

Click to expand...

The average person in those countries probably enjoys their life just fine. What, since they don't necessarily have an I-Phone you think they're worse off? I can agree there are abuses in those countries (does the USA get off scot free in this regard?) But so what. Why does Hungary have to accept LGBT or Muslim immigration? Why does Russia need the socially corrupting influence of western style Democracy? If the Russians really wanted to they could overturn the authorities above them, obviously they like Putin enough to keep him in power.

As much as I don't like Xi or the CCP the same is true for the Chinese as well.

But I'm not going to vote, probably not ever again in New Zealand. I don't see it as a way forward and my vote would mean little in the end to begin with.

The Barbarian said:

Since marriage is a religious ceremony, it should never have been taken up by the state. Once that happened, it became a civil issue, and therefore open to anyone, even nonreligious people.

What purpose does the state have for marriage? And how is it the state's business at all?

Click to expand...

The state's purpose for marriage should be the future generations which will be produced from such marriages. The problem with western governments is that since we've given people the ability to freely enter and exit marriage the costs and benefits of marriage have become skewed. To a point where people are delaying marriage as late as possible and having less children.

Marriage has lost all of its previous functions within society. It is no longer about legitimacy, rearing of children and fostering a stable family life. It's about individuals entering a contract of which they are free to walk away from at any time for almost any reason. Children be damned, family be damned, society be damned.

That's only the legal aspect. Culturally the sexual revolution has wrecked complete havock on people.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

The state's purpose for marriage should be the future generations which will be produced from such marriages.

Click to expand...

"Should be?"

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

The problem with western governments is that since we've given people the ability to freely enter and exit marriage the costs and benefits of marriage have become skewed. To a point where people are delaying marriage as late as possible and having less children.

Click to expand...

So you don't think economics has anything to do with this?

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

That's only the legal aspect. Culturally the sexual revolution has wrecked complete havock on people.

Click to expand...

Wreaked havoc? What does pillaging have to do with it? People are economic beings. It's hard to get them to do things that aren't in their economic self-interest. The old model of marriage, family, and house isn't a viable one for many people today.

The Barbarian said:

"Should be?"



So you don't think economics has anything to do with this?



Wreaked havoc? What does pillaging have to do with it? People are economic beings. It's hard to get them to do things that aren't in their economic self-interest. The old model of marriage, family, and house isn't a viable one for many people today.

Click to expand...

You're saying the old model isn't viable because it doesn't serve a modern economy, which makes me question your prerogatives. Shouldn't the economy be in the interest of families and conducive to their health? Why do we live in a sciety as such? Quite possibly because all of the incentives and reasons for having children in the past have disappeared. Modern democratic states increasingly take on more and more aspects that fathers and mothers and extended family would perform in the family and this is partially the reason why we don't see people today having families.

Especially as they become less religious they are filling the void with temporary obsessions. Being consumers of the free market of cheap plastic junk.

Of course economics has something to do with it. We're an economy of consumers and that's part of the problem. No one is just happy being bored. No one wants to take on the expense of a child and all the stress and problems that comes with when you can have a fun vacation to Europe or Japan or something.

We live in an instant gratification culture and secular democracy only advances that culture. Also yes, if the state exists for the people it represents and not for ideas or ideology then it is in the best interest of that state to have policies that encourage the primary citizens of that country to have children. I think Hungary has an excellent policy regarding that btw.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

You're saying the old model isn't viable because it doesn't serve a modern economy, which makes me question your prerogatives.

Click to expand...

Prerogatives? Are you sure that's the word you want?
Definition of PREROGATIVE

No, I'm saying the economic realities don't permit many people to do what you would like them to do. Fix the income disparities, bring real wages back to where they were a generation ago, and people will do what you would like, without prompting.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

Modern democratic states increasingly take on more and more aspects that fathers and mothers and extended family would perform in the family and this is partially the reason why we don't see people today having families.

Click to expand...

No. I see my kids having had to wait to have kids because it's economically difficult now. And the cost of educating them as I did my kids, has gone up much faster than inflation. It's not culture, it's economics.

The Barbarian said:

So how does that mean that homosexuals shouldn't have the same rights everyone else has? Could you explain that?

Click to expand...

I never said homosexuals shouldn't have rights. I said three year olds shouldn't be instructed about sexual identity (other than letting them know that they are a boy or a girl). I understand why they're doing it, but three year olds are nowhere near puberty and shouldn't have to worry about making such decisions for many years yet.

The Barbarian said:

Prerogatives? Are you sure that's the word you want?
Definition of PREROGATIVE

No, I'm saying the economic realities don't permit many people to do what you would like them to do. Fix the income disparities, bring real wages back to where they were a generation ago, and people will do what you would like, without prompting.

Click to expand...

Earning more money won't solve the problem by itself. Part of the problem is the culture attached to money and the instant gratification society we find ourselves in.

At the moment if you managed to make everyone happier by giving them a higher income they would still be spiritually dead and constantly seeking to sate their thirst with new products.

The GDP is all important after all and if it isn't growing, your losing.

The Barbarian said:

No. I see my kids having had to wait to have kids because it's economically difficult now. And the cost of educating them as I did my kids, has gone up much faster than inflation. It's not culture, it's economics.

Click to expand...

It's always economically difficult but are your kids so bad off that they couldn't sacrifice a part of themselves to raise the next generation? People have raised children in literal poverty and we in the West complain now that it's too hard? It's not that it's too economically difficult, but rather it's that raising children would interfere with the lifestyle we've become accustomed to. It would require genuine sacrifice that most young people today have not been equipped for or raised to deal with.

I don't disagree that there's an economic element. But how many children are your children likely to have? One or two? Probably not three. Going by statistics alone that's the average, especially of less devout Christian families. I don't say that to insult, but to contrast that with what a healthy and growing society should be doing. We should be seeing people having three or four children, Christian families especially but Christians have imbibed the modern kool-aid of western decadence. Unless they reach a certain standard, it is not good to have children. It's something so typical of our modern era.