= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheAncientGeek comments on Neo-reactionaries, why are you neo-reactionary? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (616)
If non traditional arrangements are unworkable then they die out,. Why be afraid of things you think are doomed to fail? Why oppose things that work?
Why? Because it's all imprinting? Heterosexuality is right because it is an inherent default, yet, so un-inherent that the rumour of an alternative will convert people?
There's a difference between teaching creationism and teaching only creationism.
The question is what they'll take out with them when they do fail.
Not all imprinting but there's certainly some of that.
No, heterosexuality (and monogamy) is right because it is an effective system for raising children.
It will convert some people and cause others to mess up their lives. Also what these "find out if you're gay" programs are doing is much more than "a rumour of an alternative".
Also note how you've shifted from "please allow these other systems to operate" to "let us expose all children to these other systems".
Well even the former causes progressives to totally freak out.
[Edit: fixed, thanks OtherDavid].
Indeed. So provide some evidence they'll take anything out.
There's no logical connection between "X is effective at Y" and "X is mandatory on everybody".
The existence of celibate priests , spinsters and other non breeders has not historically destroyed any societies.
Evidence...evidence...and evidence?
(And notice how anomalous your claims are. In every other case, everybody, including conservatives, can understand the difference between teaching-about and teaching-to. Nobody thinks telling kids about Henry VIII will turn them into wife murderers)
Nothing has changed.
Um actually we do, the issue is that progressives what to do the latter.
Depends on how it's taught. If the teachers emphasized Henry VIII's behavior as a positive example, they would turn some kids into wife murderers.
Frankly even teaching about will some kids into wife murderers, but the number of such kids is so small that its not worth worrying about (compared with the positive effect of giving the kids a more accurate map of reality.)
Evidence?
Evidence?
I think you meant "even the former."
That is, I think the way the argument you're making is supposed to go is that progressives are so inimical to traditional lifestyles and belief systems that we are not even willing to allow them even to be discussed, which is why we freak out when anyone even tries to discuss them.
Am I mistaken?
(To be clear: I am not interested in debating the merits of teaching creationism, teaching only creationism, encouraging heterosexuality, encouraging non-heterosexuality, etc. But if I've misunderstood you and you actually meant what you said in that last sentence, I'm intrigued.)
Yes, sorry typo fixed.
I assume you meant to put "creationism" for "traditional lifestyles" in that sentence.
I didn't, actually. But if the argument you're making applies only to creationism and not to traditional lifestyles more generally, I'll be interested to learn that as well.
In that I case have no idea what you're talking about in the grandparent.
Some examples:
I think the way the argument you're making is supposed to go is that progressives are so inimical to creationism that we are not even willing to allow it even to be discussed, which is why we freak out when anyone even tries to discuss them.
I think the way the argument you're making is supposed to go is that progressives are so inimical to treating one-man-one-woman families as a particularly valuable sort of family unit that we are not even willing to allow it even to be discussed, which is why we freak out when anyone even tries to discuss them.
I think the way the argument you're making is supposed to go is that progressives are so inimical to treating heterosexuality as intrinsically superior to homosexuality that we are not even willing to allow it even to be discussed, which is why we freak out when anyone even tries to discuss them.
I think the way the argument you're making is supposed to go is that progressives are so inimical to assigning social roles based on gender that we are not even willing to allow it even to be discussed, which is why we freak out when anyone even tries to discuss them.
And so forth.
If I'm still unintelligible, I apologize for my lack of clarity and am happy to tap out here.
This was the argument I was making in the relevant paragraph.
Understood.