Tradition Vs Progression

[Sabre]

I hate tradition. It's dumb, it holds us back, and it falls under the ubrella of 'sacred'. If we all did as our pairents did we would still be in a cave hitting each other with rocks.

Progression is key. It leads to cures, comforts and happiness.

Tradition, whatever name it goes by, be it conservative, family values, moral gaurdians, is bad. Slavery is traditional, should we go back to that? What about homophobia? Sexism? Racism? These are all as traditional as any tradition you can think off. Not only that, but they were new at one point. So do they not count?

As for 'Ancient Wisdom' or 'Alturnitive Medicine', there's a funny thing. As Dara O'Brean put it (paraphrase)

"We tested it. The stuff that worked became 'medicine' and the stuff that didn't became 'woo'."

[fox1235]

I hate tradition. It's dumb, it holds us back, and it falls under the ubrella of 'sacred'. If we all did as our pairents did we would still be in a cave hitting each other with rocks.

Progression is key. It leads to cures, comforts and happiness.

Tradition, whatever name it goes by, be it conservative, family values, moral gaurdians, is bad. Slavery is traditional, should we go back to that? What about homophobia? Sexism? Racism? These are all as traditional as any tradition you can think off. Not only that, but they were new at one point. So do they not count?

As for 'Ancient Wisdom' or 'Alturnitive Medicine', there's a funny thing. As Dara O'Brean put it (paraphrase)

"We tested it. The stuff that worked became 'medicine' and the stuff that didn't became 'woo'."

I agree with you.

[ThePointingMan]

I agree with you.

and I agree with you. I've been getting annoyed by tradition quite a bit lately. Things where people make you do stuff, but wont tell you why because its some tradition thing.

[Guest DRL]

I am a moderate liberal on the issue.

Some things need to be maintained.

Others, not as much.

By itself, for example... Progressivists can find themselves

in exact opposites.

I.e: Iran, to aboloshis polygamy.

In Malasia, to legalize it.

["User"]

I am a moderate liberal on the issue.

Some things need to be maintained.

Others, not as much.

I agree with this stance as well, even though I'm more conservative and traditional myself.

A balance should be struck here somewhere in the middle and any extreme view on either side isn't the best way to go about things.

[Milkyway64]

I love the implications this topic has of having both not being an option.

Maybe you forgot, Sabre, that if we didn't do things our parents did we'd also be hitting eachother with rocks in a cave. A compromise is balanced and the human race moves forward on new discoveries while keeping old, good ones.

[Guest DRL]

I agree with this stance as well, even though I'm more conservative and traditional myself.

A balance should be struck here somewhere in the middle and any extreme view on either side isn't the best way to go about things.

Indeed. If there is something that does not work,

are extremes (in most of the cases, if not all).

I love the implications this topic has of having both not being an option.

Maybe you forgot, Sabre, that if we didn't do things our parents did we'd also be hitting eachother with rocks in a cave. A compromise is balanced and the human race moves forward on new discoveries while keeping old, good ones.

Exactly. If we outright eliminate tradition, then we would be 'flushing'

things such as basic human rights. We may or may not like them,

but at least thanks to it we live in a world free of slavery (at least free of legal

slavery).

[Xortberg]

I hate tradition. It's dumb, it holds us back, and it falls under the ubrella of 'sacred'. If we all did as our pairents did we would still be in a cave hitting each other with rocks.

Some tradition, I agree with. Some, though, is good.

Progression is key. It leads to cures, comforts and happiness.

Yes, it does. But tradition leads to stability, security, and tranquility.

Tradition, whatever name it goes by, be it conservative, family values, moral gaurdians, is bad. Slavery is traditional, should we go back to that? What about homophobia? Sexism? Racism? These are all as traditional as any tradition you can think off. Not only that, but they were new at one point. So do they not count?

No. What about the tradition of having a man and a woman stay together forever once they get married/have a child? Are you saying that guys should start ditching their partners once they have a kid, since staying with them is traditional? What about abstinence? Just because traditionally people would wait until marriage to have sex means that all these 'progressive' teens going out banging every night is good, simply because it defies tradition? There's more to your argument than all the things you listed. For every bad tradition, there's probably a good tradition waiting to say hello to you.

[Sabre]

Indeed. If there is something that does not work,

are extremes (in most of the cases, if not all).Exactly. If we outright eliminate tradition, then we would be 'flushing'

things such as basic human rights. We may or may not like them,

but at least thanks to it we live in a world free of slavery (at least free of legal

slavery).

Not really. As I said with medicine, what's good, and what works, we keep and occationally review. As long as it works, and there isnt a better option, it's kept. Basic Human Rights are one example. I've said before, when America made it's constitution about freedom, they still had slaves. They were considered things, not people. Reviewing something does not mean you throw it out for the hell of it.

Tradition on the other hand is held on for no reason at all. It's just people going "Dur. Well other people did it." Tradition is the reason gays are still seen as evil in America for example. When your only defence is to shout "Blasphamy!" and those who question your ideas something is clearly wrong somewhere.

[ThePointingMan]

Yes. I like this. :yes:

[Matrilwood]

Tradition can be bad, Progressive can be bad, it really depends on what the new or old idea is.

Racism is bad, Multiculturalism is bad. The difference is one is supported because it is progressive, the other is rejected because it is an old idea. Were as in reality the only difference is the so called intention.

People have to look at new and old ideas and see them for what they really are, not base the ideas on how old they are. In Australia, the idea of mate-ship (Looking after your fellow Australians) is a traditional idea. However it is being rejected because it is traditional, transitioning into the less desirable American ideology of Dog-eat-Dog society. I was even told by the police over the news, NOT to help someone if you see them being attacked.

To Australians dog-eat-dog is progressive because it's new. To Americans dog-eat-dog is traditional because it has always been like that. By using the logic that Traditional is bad, then a dog-eat-dog mentality is good in Australia, but bad in America.

PS: Of course if you have an issue with me disliking the Dog-eat-Dog mentality, then you should send me a PM about it, I'm saying this here because people here don't seem to understand the "take-it-outside" concept.

[ThePointingMan]

See Sabre's post above mine.

[Robert Monroe]

Today's conservatives were yesterday's liberals. Tradition puts emphasis on foundations, holding strong to standards, and such forth. Its weaknesses are becoming stagnant, outdated, and unapplicable in due time.

Progression is emphasis on change, new ideas, and making new standards that may or may not stick. Its weaknesses are undermining of foundations, fragility, and lack of foresight.

Both of these are bad if you perform too much of either. Too much progression in the Industrial Revolution led to some serious environmental fuckups. Too much traditionalism led to race riots and blacklisting of people. Nothing is ever 100% good or bad, its about utilization and moderation. This is the only proven truth about these things.

[Sabre]

Tradition can be bad, Progressive can be bad, it really depends on what the new or old idea is.

Racism is bad, Multiculturalism is bad. The difference is one is supported because it is progressive, the other is rejected because it is an old idea. Were as in reality the only difference is the so called intention.

People have to look at new and old ideas and see them for what they really are, not base the ideas on how old they are. In Australia, the idea of mate-ship (Looking after your fellow Australians) is a traditional idea. However it is being rejected because it is traditional, transitioning into the less desirable American ideology of Dog-eat-Dog society. I was even told by the police over the news, NOT to help someone if you see them being attacked.

To Australians dog-eat-dog is progressive because it's new. To Americans dog-eat-dog is traditional because it has always been like that. By using the logic that Traditional is bad, then a dog-eat-dog mentality is good in Australia, but bad in America.

PS: Of course if you have an issue with me disliking the Dog-eat-Dog mentality, then you should send me a PM about it, I'm saying this here because people here don't seem to understand the "take-it-outside" concept.

Again, you are confusing progression with Tzeench. Change for the sake of change. Progression, by it's very nature, will keep ideas as long as they are good. Freedom of Speech for example, or medicine. These have been around a while because they work.

[Matrilwood]

Freedom of speech is slowly being phased out. Your not allowed to refer to anything as black, regardless of whether you mean it racially or non-racially, without being considered racist.

Also medicine is VERY tradition based. Or more of the point, western doctors are like 13th century priests. The only difference is western doctors don't kill people who don't agree with them (And one works on physical health and the other works on spiritual health, but I could go on and on with that so I won't).

Some traditions that, in a progressive society are considered bad are actually there for a reason.

The example I'll use is women in the work place. In a traditional society women should not be going to work, instead they should stay home and look after the kids. In a progressive society that believes in unconditional equality women should be allowed to go to work. Now that seems perfectly fine doesn't it? Why should women have to stay home while the men go out and work? Well look at the fertility figures since these traditions have been dropped. There has been an extreme reduction in births, because more and more women are sacrificing mother-hood to start a career. In Australia the figures are 1.4 children born for every mother (And choose your words very carefully before you say "How could someone have 1.4 children?! o_0"). When you consider that you need 2 parents to conceive a child, that's a 30% drop in the population over a single generation.

Yes the human race is severely over-populated, and if we were looking at another species we would be culling long before they reached the same population level as ourselves. But in the days when mortality rates were extremely high, you can see why women didn't work. If you assumed a mortality rate of 2/3 infant deaths, that would be a 76% drop in population per generation.

[Sabre]

Freedom of speech is slowly being phased out. Your not allowed to refer to anything as black, regardless of whether you mean it racially or non-racially, without being considered racist.

That's political correctness, not progression.

Also medicine is VERY tradition based. Or more of the point, western doctors are like 13th century priests. The only difference is western doctors don't kill people who don't agree with them (And one works on physical health and the other works on spiritual health, but I could go on and on with that so I won't).

I'd love to see your argument for that. Modern medicine is a good example of progressivness so I have no idea what you are talking about there.

Some traditions that, in a progressive society are considered bad are actually there for a reason.

The example I'll use is women in the work place. In a traditional society women should not be going to work, instead they should stay home and look after the kids. In a progressive society that believes in unconditional equality women should be allowed to go to work. Now that seems perfectly fine doesn't it? Why should women have to stay home while the men go out and work? Well look at the fertility figures since these traditions have been dropped. There has been an extreme reduction in births, because more and more women are sacrificing mother-hood to start a career. In Australia the figures are 1.4 children born for every mother (And choose your words very carefully before you say "How could someone have 1.4 children?! o_0"). When you consider that you need 2 parents to conceive a child, that's a 30% drop in the population over a single generation.

Or education, or increased access to birth control, or anything else. Corrilation does not mean causation. Also, that is not a drop in population but a drop in population growth. Even if that was the case it's a bit of stretch to imply austrialia is going to be wiped out because women are working.

Yes the human race is severely over-populated, and if we were looking at another species we would be culling long before they reached the same population level as ourselves.

No, not really. Resources, maybe. Popution, yes. However, assuming we are all living like they do in Tokyo then we can fit the worlds population in texes, and that's before we explore the idea of underground cities. Plus every doom sayer on the matter has been proven wrong by advances in technolagy and birth control.

[The Shaper]

I'm leaning towards progress more, but some tradition can be a good thing provided it doesn't change the way we look at things entirely. Progress gives us new inventions, cures for diseases, new energy sources, and other contributions to society while tradition has given us information on history, ways to build structures and some of the inventions we have today, and legal systems that are still used today in some countries.

[Guest DRL]

Not really. As I said with medicine, what's good, and what works, we keep and occationally review. As long as it works, and there isnt a better option, it's kept. Basic Human Rights are one example. I've said before, when America made it's constitution about freedom, they still had slaves. They were considered things, not people. Reviewing something does not mean you throw it out for the hell of it.

But the Constitution itself is tradition. It is something all generations,

even those who come after the ones know, will enjoy.

There is some limited progress here - revisionism. But the basics of the constitution

still stand. Those count as tradition, for are left unchanged for looong time.

Tradition on the other hand is held on for no reason at all. It's just people going "Dur. Well other people did it." Tradition is the reason gays are still seen as evil in America for example. When your only defence is to shout "Blasphamy!" and those who question your ideas something is clearly wrong somewhere.

In really, it is not like how it works. Tradition does involve keeping a method

that works, for example. It becomes useless when a new method - that is superior -

appears.

Yet, were it not for doctors keeping basic practices for long times, we would today

have loads and loads of that useless 'alternative medice' thingies.

In essense... As a progressive idea has been applied, and is keept unchanged,

it becomes tradition.

Just like Revolutions. A new brand of goverment, or whatever, but for the first

leader only. After that, it continues on a tradition. (This is why some communist

regimes fell, for example. Progress was only accepted at a too-late time).

Similary, changing regime to regime too shortly is a waste of resources...

and nothing says it is useful.

[Sabre]

In really, it is not like how it works. Tradition does involve keeping a method

that works, for example. It becomes useless when a new method - that is superior -

appears.

Yet, were it not for doctors keeping basic practices for long times, we would today

have loads and loads of that useless 'alternative medice' thingies.

What are you talking about? That is the opposate of tradition. Alt med is all tradition. It's based on achient wisdom, nature cures, prayer, ect. All tradition. Those basic practices you mention are always changing, always revised. Never are they held for the sake of tradition. Keeping a method until it's usless or a better one exsists IS progression.

What you are basicly saying is that thing isn't a car because it has 4 wheels and an engine. You are describing progression, and claiming it is tradition.

In essense... As a progressive idea has been applied, and is keept unchanged,

it becomes tradition.

No. Not at all. Tradition is keeping an idea around simply for being old. Progression allows old ideas to remain as long as they work.

[Robert Monroe]

Sabre, once again you are going off your own biased definitions.

Tradition is simply the passing down of a custom from one generation to another. Its not keeping an idea "just" because its old.

[Vulvokunvrii]

id say Progression is better, becasue it gets us what we need to saty healthy and alive. if you only use "tradition" , you wont advance technologically, medically etc. and you dont learn new things. But thats just me.

[Guest DRL]

What are you talking about? That is the opposate of tradition. Alt med is all tradition. It's based on achient wisdom, nature cures, prayer, ect. All tradition. Those basic practices you mention are always changing, always revised. Never are they held for the sake of tradition. Keeping a method until it's usless or a better one exsists IS progression.

Not necesarily. Alternative medicine is all that some people use to 'cure' themselves,

yet is not in the standards of medical practice.

Self-Medication is alternative medicine, for example.

No. Not at all. Tradition is keeping an idea around simply for being old. Progression allows old ideas to remain as long as they work.

Tradition is simply the passing down of a custom from one generation to another. Its not keeping an idea "just" because its old.

Exactly.

Let me point out a gain:

You start a new goverment system, well, it is 'progressive' only for

the time being. After that it becomes tradition... The old leaders are no

longer there, succeded by newer generations... Yet the system is still

the same. What 'progress' or 'new' is there? Not much.

Democracy itself, for example. I may not like it, but most people does.

Is it keep because 'it is old'? Oh no. It is keep because it gives people a

sense (of false) freedom. Now I am slipping in my own thoughts, but once

again, if a system is keept and works, it is not progress, because the base

is left unchanged.

The military hierarchy, for example, is kept not because it is of antique.

It is kept because it works. Same to the Alumni-Teacher relationship.

And yet, both of these are passed down from generation to generation.

Both of them are tradition.

[Matrilwood]

That's political correctness, not progression.

Political Correctness is a progressive thought, one that shares many similarities with the Spanish Inquisition actually (Research the origin of the Spanish Inquisition and you'll know what I'm talking about).

I'd love to see your argument for that. Modern medicine is a good example of progressivness so I have no idea what you are talking about there.

Western Medicine is based on knowledge handed down to them. If what they are told is proven false, then they are out of the job so they have to use the old methods regardless of whether they work or not because these methods keep the doe rolling. The other forms of medicine (Such as Chinese Medicine) are also handed down, but the practitioners of these methods are willing to accept new ideas because they don't run like a business. Of course if western medicine started taking up more effective practices, it would completely fall apart because western medicine is based on keeping the patient alive while ensuring that the issue that causes the patient to go to the Doctor remains in tact, which results in profit. Basically western doctors are capitalists.

Or a Frasier said, "You are not a patient, you are a customer."

That is not a drop in population but a drop in population growth.

1.4 children per female, not per person. Females only contribute to 50% of the population (Funny enough), so that's actually 0.7 children per person. (Although a further thought is that the reduction in growth may be contributed to reduction in Puritans, and any educated individual would know that those people are worse than RABBITS (Maybe they were culled, I don't know))

---

I don't think I've clearly stated my point of view yet. I dislike Tradition AND Progression. Because they are blind extremes.

[Sabre]

OMG something we agree upon, this is time to celebrate, bring out the gin.

Western Medicine is based on knowledge handed down to them. If what they are told is proven false, then they are out of the job so they have to use the old methods regardless of whether they work or not because these methods keep the doe rolling. The other forms of medicine (Such as Chinese Medicine) are also handed down, but the practitioners of these methods are willing to accept new ideas because they don't run like a business. Of course if western medicine started taking up more effective practices, it would completely fall apart because western medicine is based on keeping the patient alive while ensuring that the issue that causes the patient to go to the Doctor remains in tact, which results in profit. Basically western doctors are capitalists.

Or a Frasier said, "You are not a patient, you are a customer."

1.4 children per female, not per person. Females only contribute to 50% of the population (Funny enough), so that's actually 0.7 children per person. (Although a further thought is that the reduction in growth may be contributed to reduction in Puritans, and any educated individual would know that those people are worse than RABBITS (Maybe they were culled, I don't know))

??? What are you talking about. The NHS is payed for by the tax payer, so they have to be effecient. Alt Med you pay for. Also, alt med is more dependent on money then proper medicine. They are salesmen. They push there treatments on you, whereas real med doesn't. 3rd, real med has cured 'profitable' desiese outright. TB, Polio, these were big money makers, but they still cured them. Listen to this as it explains this point much better.

http://www.yrad.com/cs/index2007.htm#nov137

Finally. TRADITIONAL Chinese Medicine is not progressive, it's got traditional in the name and doesn't accept new ideas. Not only that but it doesn't work, if it did, it would be medicine. See first post.

1.4 children per female, not per person. Females only contribute to 50% of the population (Funny enough), so that's actually 0.7 children per person. (Although a further thought is that the reduction in growth may be contributed to reduction in Puritans, and any educated individual would know that those people are worse than RABBITS (Maybe they were culled, I don't know))

Again. It's a period of negative growth. This is not uncommon.

[Konchaski]

What if you have a tradition of progression?

Is tradition bad in this case?