How does this not make you mad?
- Thread starter ColdBlooded
- Start date
Good point.
This whole debate has got me thinking about the connotations (culturally) associated with particular words.
It is interesting that certain words seems to carry an almost inherent negativity associated to them.
Jew and woman come to mind in particular.
If I call someone simply a Jew or Woman, I think almost everyone would assume that I was making a derogatory statement towards them
Because the question obviously didn't consider the fact that elder respect is not exclusive to a specific culture but can be witnessed in most, if not all, cultures. In addition, the question fails to consider other aspects of the post. Such an example is how I said I was speaking from my perspective and offering what I think. Moreover, it fails to consider the fact that I said," how you look at it depends on your beliefs, opinions, bias etc". So in other words, you read the post, but you didn't read for context or clarity.
Now here are a couple of questions for you: Are societies (or cultures) with a strong understanding for elder respect more stable/functional? If so is it a matter of correlation or causation? If not, can you explain why age doesn't matter and if ageism is prevalent in such socieities?
Now here are a couple of questions for you: Are societies (or cultures) with a strong understanding for elder respect more stable/functional? If so is it a matter of correlation or causation? If not, can you explain why age doesn't matter and if ageism is prevalent in such socieities?
Why do you assume the question did not consider the cultural inclusivity of respect for elders? I would argue that respect for elders is a innate human characteristic as much as altruism or fight or flight is.
No, the question did in fact take all those aspects of the post into consideration and I choose to specifically address you because of those very aspects.
I asked you because I wanted to know your personal perspective on why we should respect our elders; not why evolutionary or biological success dictates that we should.
Even if I concede that cultures with more respect for their elders are more stable/functional, that still doesn't answer the question of why we should inherently respect our elders because the definition of cultural success is dynamic, even more so in the context of this discussion.
IMO yes
IMO more causation than correlation
No, the question did in fact take all those aspects of the post into consideration and I choose to specifically address you because of those very aspects.
I asked you because I wanted to know your personal perspective on why we should respect our elders; not why evolutionary or biological success dictates that we should.
Even if I concede that cultures with more respect for their elders are more stable/functional, that still doesn't answer the question of why we should inherently respect our elders because the definition of cultural success is dynamic, even more so in the context of this discussion.
IMO yes
IMO more causation than correlation
Ok we need to look at this again.
If you would argue that respect for elders is an innate human chracteristic, why then would you ask me "Why do you think respect should be necessarily dependent on a variable as random and out of our control as age?" On one hand you're implying it may be biological but your question speaks of depending on random variables that are out of our control. So is your question rooted in biology or morality/philosophical rhetoric, because as it stands right now, you're all over the place.
Read your question again and read what you just said in your most recent reply to me.
See above.
Again, you aren't reading for context. Here is something to get you started "and he should have thought about his own mother before he did that." In other words, you treat people how you want to be treated or how you would want them to treat your people if they were in a similar position. Do you get it now? He should have thought about his own mother (or any person he has respect for) before he did what he did. This covers the morality/philosophical aspect of the topic and the biological aspect has already been provided by yourself when you stated it is an innate human characterisitic (it can also be observed in other animals as well.)
But you already said it was innate, so if it is innate, and it leads to "success", is it logical to not do it?
So why are we discussing this? You make me want to smoke weed again...
If you would argue that respect for elders is an innate human chracteristic, why then would you ask me "Why do you think respect should be necessarily dependent on a variable as random and out of our control as age?" On one hand you're implying it may be biological but your question speaks of depending on random variables that are out of our control. So is your question rooted in biology or morality/philosophical rhetoric, because as it stands right now, you're all over the place.
Read your question again and read what you just said in your most recent reply to me.
See above.
Again, you aren't reading for context. Here is something to get you started "and he should have thought about his own mother before he did that." In other words, you treat people how you want to be treated or how you would want them to treat your people if they were in a similar position. Do you get it now? He should have thought about his own mother (or any person he has respect for) before he did what he did. This covers the morality/philosophical aspect of the topic and the biological aspect has already been provided by yourself when you stated it is an innate human characterisitic (it can also be observed in other animals as well.)
But you already said it was innate, so if it is innate, and it leads to "success", is it logical to not do it?
So why are we discussing this? You make me want to smoke weed again...
All I was hoping for was that you had answer other than it is innate to the biology of our species and/or it can be a contributing factor the stability of a society. Not for arguments sake but because I wrestle with similar questions and I was curious about the logic behind your position.
Fear of heights may something that is innate to the majority of our species, it may make our lives more successful, however that does not mean we need to be bound by it all times. Respecting our elders may be innate to our species, it may make us more successful, but that does not mean we must be bound by it at all times.
The question therefore is rooted in both biology and philosophy because as conscious beings we still maintain some control over our innate characteristics. We cannot control age, but we can control whether or not we subscribe to our natural impulse to respect it, just like we cannot control dying from a high fall, but we can control our fear of it.
Sometimes it is advantageous to control our fear of heights.
My question to you which was lost in the discussion was simply why do you personally think we should accept that trait rather than question it.
Hopefully that clears up the confusion.
Let add this;
My perspective is that we have a social equation with two variables in which the primary variable influences the secondary variable (mathematically speaking positive correlation as X increases so does Y)
In other words as age increases so does respect
However my issues is not with the variables as much as it is with the acceptance of the equation.
What if we changed the variables so the question read;
As skin shade increases towards white so does respect
Would we not be encouraged to question that relationship? Just because data shows a relationship increases social stability should not be enough to dismiss questions of our acceptance of it.
I think data would show as respect for a wide variety of variables increases so does social stability not because of the variable itself but because of the effect of the respect on the social environment itself.
Therefore, just because we see causation between respect for white people increasing and increased social stability, we shouldn't be any quicker to challenge that than when skin color is replaced with age in the equation.
My perspective is that we have a social equation with two variables in which the primary variable influences the secondary variable (mathematically speaking positive correlation as X increases so does Y)
In other words as age increases so does respect
However my issues is not with the variables as much as it is with the acceptance of the equation.
What if we changed the variables so the question read;
As skin shade increases towards white so does respect
Would we not be encouraged to question that relationship? Just because data shows a relationship increases social stability should not be enough to dismiss questions of our acceptance of it.
I think data would show as respect for a wide variety of variables increases so does social stability not because of the variable itself but because of the effect of the respect on the social environment itself.
Therefore, just because we see causation between respect for white people increasing and increased social stability, we shouldn't be any quicker to challenge that than when skin color is replaced with age in the equation.
