Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

I told you I had some more of these. What do you think?

1. If same sex marriages were generally legalized, should non-homosexual same-sex couples be able to marry and take advantage of any benefits available to all other married couples?

2. Are people conditioned by society to react in certain ways to devastating events? In other words, do these events sometimes have a more negative impact on many people and their ability to recover from them because we are taught how we should feel/respond? Examples might be death of a close family member, personal assault, causing the death of another, etc.

3. Is all change ultimately driven by the certainty of death?

4. The U.S. Civil War ended in 1865 after the deaths of roughly 600,000. Are current government controls sufficient to guarantee that another civil war could not happen in the U. S.?

5. If assisted suicide were made legal, should it be restricted to the terminally ill?

6. I’ve read that some countries are harvesting the organs of condemned criminals to save/improve lives of their citizens. Do you have a problem with this?

7. Can the failures of most empires be traced to nepotism?

8. Orson Scott Card wrote Ender’s Game. Do you think Card suggests that each generation is responsible for saving previous generations from the older ones’ colossal mistakes? If so, is he correct?

Boredalt - 80 Dwarf Priest - Dissension

1. There is nothing stopping (generally) non-romantic heterosexual couples from marrying to take advantage of any benefits. Barring things like immigration fraud, of course (though these things happen anyways, let's pretend they are duly policed). So there's no reason why not.

2. In many cultures, death is celebrated. Culture absolutely has a large effect on our reactions to devastating events. There are still personal reactions that are more universal, but even those are tuned up or down based on society. For example, in a stiff-upper-lip society you might mourn something but it would be unseemly to make a big show of it, while in more expressive societies you might be wailing in the streets and tearing your clothes.

3. A lot of change is driven by the hope for sex.

4. The only way a real civil war could happen is if it happened in the military itself. Back in the 19th century, a bunch of guys with muskets could conceivably put up a fight against the national military. In the modern world, a bunch of rednecks with the absolutely most powerful weaponry they could get, legally or illegally, would be wiped out. Sure, they might take a lot of civilians down with them, but they would lose. Unless the military was split among both sides, with the technology available to both sides, it wouldn't be a fight.

5. If it is legal as a matter of self-determination, no. If it is legal as a matter of medical pragmatism about helping people in pain, then yes.

6. If the family of the criminal approves, no. However, it does present a possible incentive to arrest people just to farm their organs, so it would have to be very carefully monitored.

7. Partly, but I think that the fall and the nepotism can both be traced to an increasingly apathetic and uninvolved citizenry. The formation of an empire requires a strong government, and a government can't be strong if the people are not happy with it. Even if it is an autocracy, it will be undermined if it's constantly being challenged from below. However, once an empire is achieved, the people can tend to grow complacent, taking what they have for granted, and increasingly self-indulgent. This allows the government to become less effective (through such things as nepotism), and eventually it will fall apart, probably to a new emerging power. It's like a geopolitical free market in a way.

8. Haven't read it (though it's in my queue on my Kindle).

Akina: bitch I will stab you in the face

1. Sure, besides how would you stop them?

2. There probably is some social conditioning, but any traumatic event that is not common to us personally usually elicits one of a handful of grief responses.

3. I'd say pain, but not just physical.

4. As long as most people have enough to lose, a civil war is unlikely.

5. Depends on how you view the right to life, but if their was a competence evaluation I don't see why it should be restricted.

6. Can't see how thats ethical unless it's voluntary quid pro quo.

7. I would guess it has more to do with expanding beyond the ability to provide adequate security and maintain a sustainable economy, but thats just my take from playing too much Civ.

8. Never read it, but every generation gets to deal with the mistakes of their predecessors while making new ones for the next. We get some things right as well and benefit from past successes.

No, because the purpose of marriage in the context of a gay relationship is romance, and the purpose of marriage in the context of a straight relationship is to facilitate the realities of procreation and gender inequity.

It's a loaded question motivated entirely by bigotry because if this had any basis in fact, heterosexuals would do it already.



Yes. People often get bent out of shape about things they care little about because it's socially appropriate to do so and they convince themselves to superficially manifest emotions at odds with their subconscious feelings.



No, change is driven by human greed and stupidity.



Meaningless question, civil wars don't happen because of government controls or absence thereof, they happen because two or more factions have a claim to power, can't compromise, and have the means of violence available to them.

The question is also meaningless because there is no chronological frame of reference. Given human nature and the cyclical nature of history, it is a certainty that eventually there will be a civil war at some point in the future; however, the future is infinite, so over time, the chance of a civil war on any given year will approach but ever equal 100%.



No, right to life becomes an un-freedom when it becomes mandatory, and one's life, how and whether to live it, is an individual choice. The ban on suicide is ultimately a shill for others' unhappiness.



No, and it should be mandatory for everyone. No one should have the right to withhold things that can save lives because they are squeamish. It's no different than the Good Samaritan Law or conscription.



No, to even think this is ignorant. Most empires fall because of cultural decay.



The wording of this question is irrational - I believe you mean future generations. Answer is no because generations of individuals don't have a collective agenda any more than nations do a collective mind controlling the red button.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

1. Counter question, would it be better to remove all benefits from marriage?

2. The word "react" makes this kind of fuzzy. If you mean the instinctual feelings, then I believe that society may have some impact, but less impact than other events and conditions in an individual's life. Reacting with outward displays is absolutely influenced by society (think about the stereotypes, the reserved and dignified asian cultures, the flailing and wailing in african-american culture). This question might have a more definate answer if it was asked of a closer-knit society/culture.

3. There is no constant in change.

4. I think there would simply be too many variables to accurately say. Cultural diffusion would limit civil war more than the government, we can't get more than a pittance of people to vote, much less work up enough to take up arms and rebel.

5. Yes, but that just opens a whole other can of worms about what constitutes terminal.

6. It seems that most of our condemned criminals are simply condemned to decades of appeals. I don't have a problem with the organs being harvested though.

I can't really answer the other two


When you're really trying to come across extra intelligent and infallibly logical your writing style changes. Also you usually end up looking like an idiot. The Civil War happened exactly because of government control and the desire of southern states to decide for themselves. If you can't find a time frame I'd like to introduce you to the word "current" in the question. The question did not ask if the current controls made a civil war impossible forever, just for now. In addition, it is not a certainty that there will be a civil war again, because it is not a certainty that there will be humans, or that there will be a U.S. (the basis of the question). Stop trying to be a douche.

Dvergar /
Quisling

Governments are people. Governments don't have "controls" in the sense a gun has safeties or a circuit has a fuse. The checks and balances of government work only as long as people are willing to play by the rules rather than going out and settling their problems with guns. This is why you can't just give third world nations constitutions and expect it to work out.

The Civil War happened not because "government controls" failed but because people just didn't believe in federalism as they do today. Fun fact: Before the Civil War, Americans said, "the United States are", today we say, "the United States is", even though the latter is grammatically incorrect.

Boredalt's question is loaded in that it can only be plausibly interpreted to refer to the quarrels between the two major parties. Realistically, no, those arguments aren't going to end in civil war anytime soon because people still choose to play by the rules, at least superficially. That has nothing to do with "controls" and everything to do with the attitudes of the citizenry.





When is "current"? Tomorrow? I don't think there will be a civil war tomorrow.
Or maybe the next presidential election in 2012? Again, nah.
The next 20 years? Distant chance.
Our lifetimes? Who the hell knows. A lot can happen in a hundred years. What was the world like in 1911?

Look at the Roman Republic. It endured for five hundred years. Most of that time it was far from smooth sailing. It took centuries to finally collapse into civil war and dictatorship even though it was completely obvious that the system wasn't working for generations beforehand. You could say the same about America. Our form of government could conceivably ensure with its "current controls" in the form of our political system and constitution for centuries to come as problems fester and fester. Then again it could collapse in a much shorter time frame than that.

Again the question about civil war is misleading. That's not the only way our system of government could collapse (short of foreign invasion, of course). The Roman Senate continued to meet for a thousand years after the Republic collapsed. It's more likely that - as with Rome - our system of government will continue, superficially, in its present form, for centuries to come, while its institutions become less and less relevant.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

1. The short answer is yes. The longer one is that I don't think government should have anything to do with marriage. All interaction between people and the government should be as individuals. Whether you claim some special bond with another person should be strictly personal.
2. Yes. I think society expects, even pushes, certain reactions upon us.
3. I wish I had worded this one differently. I should have chosen greed (ty Aestu), or even sex, instead of death.
4. I think it takes less than we might think to spark civil war. We can look at other examples where a military refused to fire upon countrymen to see that putting down an insurrection might not be as simple as sending in the troops, especially if the reasons for the insurrection are sufficiently supported and there are divisions within the military. A major terrorist attack could be a catalyst, as well. So, no. Our government could not stop it, imo.
5. I think assisted suicide should be legal, and available to anyone after proper counseling.
6. If you are already taking someone's life against their wishes, I certainly don't see giving their organs to save dying people as a huge leap in ethics. I say, do it.
7. I think nepotism plays an enormous role. As long as an empire is growing and taking resources from others, the resources are plentiful. But, as the empire ages and stops expanding, and those in control continue to have children who need positions and resources, finally there aren't enough resources among the conquered to sustain it. Then greed finds outlets within the empire itself, fostering corruption and an increasing culture of every man for himself. Implosion.
8. I do think Card suggests that generations create problems that they don't have the stomach or smarts to tackle, so they dump it on their children and their children. BTW, any of you who haven't read the Ender series should read it. It's an easy read, but worth it, imo.

Boredalt - 80 Dwarf Priest - Dissension

I've heard from military men themselves (in interviews about southerners who harbor fantasies of revolution etc) that they take an oath to the constitution, and their loyalty is to the country. I think what the soldier said was something along the lines of "You think you will put up a fight with your automatic weapons, but you haven't even imagined a tank rolling down your street, or drones flying overhead dropping smart bombs into your garage. You wouldn't last a day."



It's on my Kindle to be read at some point.

Akina: bitch I will stab you in the face

1. Legal marriage, straight or gay, is a terrible concept and is a lack of separation of church and state. Tax benefits for being married are a dumb idea as well. Would people take advantage of tax breaks? You bet your ass. I'd "marry" Meowth to pay less taxes.

2. Yes. Big time. Ever seen an Irish wake?

3. The color of snow changing from white to yellow is caused by my piss, not by certainty of death.

4. I don't forsee another civil war happening in the US. At least not in my lifetime. Even being the beasts we still are, Americans fight domestic wars with words. Is the system strong enough to prevent it? Probably not. Worst case I see though is separations from the union.

5. Probably. Idk why you'd need assistance aside from not being able to move. Or like on Lie to me where the one dude was Catholic and refused to commit suicide. I mean, you could probably find numerous ways of ending it softly on the internet.

6. Are they dying? If not, then what's the problem?

7. Can't say, I have almost zero study in how really any empires fell.

8. Don't remember most of it. Not even sure if I read it. Was that the one where they played some game in anti-gravity or someshit, and at one point the kid uses a wire to gain an advantage and it blows everyone's minds?

Cultural decay is an optical illusion from the nostalgia goggles you're wearing. We're getting smarter, science is advancing all over the world (the center is still the USA), technological advances emerge from all over the world and spreads everywhere. The biggest radio telescope is in Puerto Rico (USA), the biggest particle accelerator is in Geneva, the biggest optical telescope is in space, the biggest engineering endeavor humanity has ever done, the ISS, is orbiting the planet and it was built there by a worldwide partnership. And I could go on.

The overall zeitgeist of the world is improving, but some fundamentalists (particularly in the USA) have the ideology that "returning to our roots" is better than progressing towards a better future.

Another difference is that we have open worldwide instant communications in which the ignorants make themselves heard loudly. That didn't happen before the past century.

As for art and entertainment, you can't compare the masterpieces of the past to the mediocrities of today. The crap of the past is forgotten today, and the crap of today will be forgotten tomorrow. If you can't see that humanity still produces good art, then you're stuck in the past and the decay is just your personal perception and your lack of recognition that preference in art is subjective. That being said, TV has been stupid since broadcasts became widespread and popular, that's just the nature of television. Turn that shit off.

I'll just leave this here:

Baghdad was the intellectual center of the world from 800 to 1100, it was open to anyone of any faith, doubters, scientists, etc. When you're the best, you get naming rights. Arabic numerals. Algebra. Algorithm. Two thirds of the stars have arabic names. And then came an emperor who established that mathematics was the work of the devil, and fundamentalism took hold over time, fueled by superstition and a desire to "diverge from the heresy and go back to it's roots". It hasn't recovered since.

America has been the intellectual center of the world for a while. Look at the periodic table. Half of the united states is in there. Ever wonder why your address doesn't end in .us, yet everyone in the world has their country domain? Because America was the first to implement it, popularize it and was the best at engineering it. Today, the only place in the world where there is extensive creationism vs evolution debate. Advertising signs saying "Big Bang theory, you've got to be kidding -God".

It's a recurring pattern.

Superstition is taking hold. The question is, will they succeed at holding back progress or will they die off so that we can resume? Or are we going to destroy ourselves, possibly as a result of superstitions clashing and the world refusing to unite? Ah, the unknown.

In closing, I don't see any drawn borders in this picture:

Give a real-world example.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

There's a bigger world out there than current events. The question was asked about empires in general. Cultural wisdom and technical knowledge don't necessarily go hand-in-hand. The fact that so many empires owe their decline to human stupidity and making all the same mistakes whatever their level of technology is proof of this.

The gradual increase in IQ due to enriched environments is particularly misleading. This isn't new. Former empires saw similar developments, and this has a way of correlating with decadence and pusillanimity, which kill empires.

Also, although American technology is improving, the quality of the educational system is dropping, and our talent and cultural impetus is increasingly imported. This is not an unprecedented development, and empires that have to do this are either in decline or a downward spiral.



A "better future" is a more ambiguous and complex goal than a higher level of technical development.



You're getting closer to the truth. TV and other forms of medium are more crass than they used to be, and again, crassness is an excellent measure of cultural and imperial decline.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Aside from rome can you provide an example re: vulgarity as a measure of civilization waning? How do you reconcile the Middle East decline as they pushed for a more moral culture?

edit:

There's also the Greeks who were conquered at the height of their civilization, by the Spartans who were pretty barbaric correct?

That's true, but I'll just give one major example of technological advanced having MASSIVE influence on the morality "standards" of humanity:

The second world war was witnessed by the entire world. The world said "never again".

Loss of life is no longer seen as necessary or justifiable by most of the people in the world. The scale of wars are reducing dramatically.



Agreed, the pre-university education system is pitiful in the USA (and it's not that much better anywhere else either). A factor is that teachers teach kids to shut up and read instead of promoting curiosity and analysis/critical thinking.

Superstition is being considered to be thought in science classes in some states. Not once in history has a scientist knocked on the sunday church's door and said "you know, this may not actually be true". Religion and science has always co-existed.

In the words of Galileo: The bible teaches you how to go to the Heavens, not how the Heavens go.



A solution is to not legislate lifestyle. The legislated War on Drugs takes more lives than drugs themselves, and leads to people in the drug trade to take lives. When you outlaw drugs, only outlaws will manufacture and distribute. It's a war created by legislation. Countries that are more lax on drug laws have lower drug usage, and it barely affects the society, if at all. There will always be addicts, and you can't punish them, you can however help them overcome it.

According to legislature, I am a criminal and do not deserve my freedom. I can't even argue with how ridiculous that is.

As for vulgarity: for example, Quebec is well known for it's people who swear every third word, in every sentences. Drug usage and other "sins" are pretty much widely accepted as being a personal choice by society as a whole. No effect whatsoever on our crime rates, political climate, prosperity, technological and scientific advancement. Because our government doesn't crack down.

It all comes down to ordinary men who have perceived moral superiority and legislate theirs onto all others.

One of the well-documented effects of the plague in Athens and the brutality associated with the Peloponnesian War was cultural decay. The Greeks continued to be marginally relevant in world affairs for centuries to come, but they never again regained the "vibrant" and highly outward-looking mindset that made them a cultural force that made history.

Another example I'd give is the Crusades and its long-term effect on the Muslims, making them more brutal and inward-looking.

The Russians are a coarse and brutal people and that has held them back from greatness for centuries, and their brief strides forward under strong leaders inevitably relapse because their culture does not allow them to consolidate their progress. This is blatantly obvious when you look at the legacy of leaders like Khrushchev or Brezhnev or Yeltsin - leaders who try to govern by something other than brute force but are stymied by the realities of Russian culture with its brutality, cynicism, despotic and anti-democratic mindset.

There's also the obvious example of the Spanish empire. Endless galleons of gold pouring in from America didn't save them from the cultural turpitude that allowed smaller and less powerful nations to overtake them in development. Technology was only a secondary result; what ultimately drove their defeat was complacency and small-minded brutality.

There's piles of good books about the end of French monarchy - about the petty brutality and chauvinism of French aristocrats and how this led the nation into a long spiral of decay. By the time the Republic came around, it was too late, they'd already lost the initiative and control of the playing field. France was the completely dominant if deeply troubled power of the Middle Ages but fell behind newer and more dynamic powers like England and Germany because they didn't have their cultural dynamism, because of the decadence and corruption of the leaders and the grinding degeneration of the lower class.

The Native Americans in America or the blacks in Africa are other really good examples. They both enjoy a higher raw level of education and technological sophistication than their ancestors but their lack of self-respect and cultural reverence for laws and institutions means they can't get anything done. Why isn't Nigeria a world power? Why isn't South Africa a world power? It's not because black people are any stupider than humans as a whole or because those countries are materially poorer than countries like Brazil or Israel or Iran. It's because of culture, because of the lack of respect for law, because of the lack of self-restraint. If it were possible for God to whisper in the ear of every man in those countries and get them all on the same page, they'd be unstoppable.

Cultural legacies are significant because they do this, they define the mores by which a society operates, allowing people to achieve great things.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.