why is western culture becoming so shameless?

Religion as an instruction manual?

*Instructions unclear, declared jihad against my neighbour and murdered them all*

Religion is not a good instruction manual for society, laws are.

What do you think laws are based on? The metaphysical notion that human life is inherently valuable is based on Judeo-Christian values, and this notion is what our laws are derived from. Nobody believes that the law is what gives them human rights, they believe they have inherent human rights from birth that supersede any and all laws of man. That's a value system.
 
The metaphysical notion that human life is inherently valuable is based on Judeo-Christian values, and this notion is what our laws are derived from.
Who's this Judeo-Christ I keep hearing of? hint
 
Thank the left for being the downfall of western civ. Cucks.
 
What do you think laws are based on? The metaphysical notion that human life is inherently valuable is based on Judeo-Christian values, and this notion is what our laws are derived from. Nobody believes that the law is what gives them human rights, they believe they have inherent human rights from birth that supersede any and all laws of man. That's a value system.

Fake news.
 
Interesting post, of which I agree but think of it in slightly different terms of which you may or may not agree with. Jordan Peterson inspired.

Humans are animals at our core: Chaotic, hedonistic organisms carrying out a Darwinian mission of survival and reproduction, each with our own subjective experiences.

Humans like any other mammals are social creatures. Respect for the individual can be seen in other species of animals; a dominant wolf will spare the life of a lesser if he exposes his neck. This is a very basic form of order within a dominance hierarchy. This is an objective system, which respects the subjective. Order (collective) respecting the individual (subject.)

If a Chimp leader becomes too tyrannical and starts killing off members of their group, lesser chimps with a stronger bond will attack it and take over; order and respect is put above an individual's subjective hedonism.

When many subjects (individuals) become a group, order arises organically; it's built into our core programming.

The point you bring up is that order comes in different forms: tyrannical leaders, religious kings, false prophets, and men who claim divinity, and religion. Each presents its own set of problems but the order is fair, and protects the individual, and gives our subjective experiences some form of order and protection, it will stand the test of time in an objectively verifiable manner.

I think for all it's faults, religion brings a bit of order in an uncertain and chaotic world. It has brought many people together and is a complex form of the human subjective experience.

God could be seen as the ultimate order; a perfect order unattainable by an imperfect subject like humans. A guide to follow, instead of persueing our own hedonistic, chaotic Darwinian solo-mission or the order of a tryrannical leader who is but a fellow subjective hedonist.

I think religion is extremely underrated as an organizing principle for society. A set of rules, which is important. But not man made, which means that they're not malleable by man, which is the underrated part. Man-made rules are inconstant. Each new generation of man is equally entitled to create a new set of rules, discarding the rules of men long dead. Divine rules can be more consistent over time because each new generation of man has no entitlement to change the rules of the superior being, far removed from their lives.
 
What do you think laws are based on? The metaphysical notion that human life is inherently valuable is based on Judeo-Christian values, and this notion is what our laws are derived from. Nobody believes that the law is what gives them human rights, they believe they have inherent human rights from birth that supersede any and all laws of man. That's a value system.
The term "Judeo-Christian" is an early 20th century invention, its not anything that a person sincerely of the Jewish or Christian tradition before its invention would recognize as real and to this day many don't because its not.

And I'd argue the legal system of the West derives more from the Greco-Roman tradition than from Christianity.
 
I blame the hippies.

e56f526ceb4c1734c2de3279959abf0c.jpg

The one of the right would get it. Get her in a swimsuit yeah boy!
 
I would like to see a return to more traditional family values.

Inb4 but that means burqas for everyone lol

People have always behaved like this. They just for the most part lied about it and acted like it wasn't happening.
 
No people didnt always behave like this.

Yeah, they really have. Talk to your grandparents if they're still alive. Look at the way people behaved. There is a lot of idealistic revisioning of the last 100 years or so if you actually look into it.
 
The term "Judeo-Christian" is an early 20th century invention, its not anything that a person sincerely of the Jewish or Christian tradition before its invention would recognize as real and to this day many don't because its not.

And I'd argue the legal system of the West derives more from the Greco-Roman tradition than from Christianity.

In the Anglo world our legal system is much more based upon the Germanic/Old English precedent than the Roman law, though it incorporates much (most?) of it.
 
Yeah, they really have. Talk to your grandparents if they're still alive. Look at the way people behaved. There is a lot of idealistic revisioning of the last 100 years or so if you actually look into it.

They did behave just as badly in many cases, but the particular behaviors were not as widespread because there were still serious consequences attached to such behavior.
 
In the Anglo world our legal system is much more based upon the Germanic/Old English precedent than the Roman law, though it incorporates much (most?) of it.

Isnt common law an english only thing? i would expect Germanic countries to follow common law if what you said was the case.

I
 
They did behave just as badly in many cases, but the particular behaviors were not as widespread because there were still serious consequences attached to such behavior.

They were just as widespread. The difference is that you could do something and get away with it far longer before your neighbors found out to judge you. There were no email trails, no text messages, no real surveillance. True, there was also no liquor stores and no drug dealers so certain vices were less prevalent because production was difficult. But we know drinking to excess was common going back as far as we have recorded stories. We know opium and other drugs were subject to abuse.

More importantly, we know of many civilizations throughout history that tried to rein in the excesses of their era. One generation after another implementing morality laws to try and recapture the perceived purity of conduct that their ancestors lived under. When in reality, cheating on your wife, drinking to excess and lashing out in violence get painted over when you're telling your personal stories of heroism, lol.
 
Isnt common law an english only thing? i would expect Germanic countries to follow common law if what you said was the case.

I

It originated with the Germanic tribes, including the Saxons and Jutes and all that, but they have largely abandoned it on the Continent, yes.
 
Yeah, they really have. Talk to your grandparents if they're still alive. Look at the way people behaved. There is a lot of idealistic revisioning of the last 100 years or so if you actually look into it.

No my grandparents lived in a different world. Of course people idealize it too but although human nature might not be different, how it manifests in society is not the same throughout the ages.
 
They were just as widespread. The difference is that you could do something and get away with it far longer before your neighbors found out to judge you. There were no email trails, no text messages, no real surveillance. True, there was also no liquor stores and no drug dealers so certain vices were less prevalent because production was difficult. But we know drinking to excess was common going back as far as we have recorded stories. We know opium and other drugs were subject to abuse.

More importantly, we know of many civilizations throughout history that tried to rein in the excesses of their era. One generation after another implementing morality laws to try and recapture the perceived purity of conduct that their ancestors lived under. When in reality, cheating on your wife, drinking to excess and lashing out in violence get painted over when you're telling your personal stories of heroism, lol.

Living in denser areas meant more eyes watching; less mobility and more social cohesion meant many things, including less "freedom" but also that seriously anti-social behavior had a higher cost. Alcoholism has probably decreased, as has drug use, but other anti social activities (crime for example) have risen dramatically in the last century.
 
Living in denser areas meant more eyes watching; less mobility and more social cohesion meant many things, including less "freedom" but also that seriously anti-social behavior had a higher cost. Alcoholism has probably decreased, as has drug use, but other anti social activities (crime for example) have risen dramatically in the last century.

Seriously anti-social behavior had far less consequences because the chances of being caught were far less. Crime rose dramatically because our ability to identify perpetrators rose dramatically, not because people suddenly saw more reason to commit crime.

200 years ago, sneaking into your neighbor's house and killing everyone was less likely to result in an arrest, let alone a conviction. No DNA, no real criminal databases. A criminal in Texas could just take a carriage to Maine and his criminal record would never follow him. He could move 2 towns over and change his name since there was no formal identification process. Kill or rob a man and take the fastest horse out of town before people even know there was crime.

No fingerprints, no dental records, etc.

The increased ability to catch criminals doesn't mean that we had an increase in actual criminals. It's also why I don't care when people talk about our prison population being larger than the rest of the world. We're better at catching criminals than they are.
 
Seriously anti-social behavior had far less consequences because the chances of being caught were far less. Crime rose dramatically because our ability to identify perpetrators rose dramatically, not because people suddenly saw more reason to commit crime.

200 years ago, sneaking into your neighbor's house and killing everyone was less likely to result in an arrest, let alone a conviction. No DNA, no real criminal databases. A criminal in Texas could just take a carriage to Maine and his criminal record would never follow him. He could move 2 towns over and change his name since there was no formal identification process. Kill or rob a man and take the fastest horse out of town before people even know there was crime.

No fingerprints, no dental records, etc.

The increased ability to catch criminals doesn't mean that we had an increase in actual criminals. It's also why I don't care when people talk about our prison population being larger than the rest of the world. We're better at catching criminals than they are.

I don't think crime has decreased, and you are missing a piece of that puzzle- the community used to enforce the law on its own. A crowd assembled in any American town could and often did tar and feather, or lynch, perpetrators. Any watcher a witness, any group of citizens a law enforcement body. More effective (and messy) than modern policing.
 
Back
Top