Tradition

[Ed]

With the discussion of gay marriage an argument against is that "traditionally" a marriage is between a man and a woman. Proponents say something to the effect of "so what".

My question is what traditions, since seemingly tradition ipso facto is invalid for doing anything, should be trashcanned?

There has been a tradition of privacy between the sexes. Are mens and womans rooms (toilets, cans, bathrooms, pissoirs) simply an anacronistic "tradition"? Locker rooms? What about "privacy"? What earthly practicle value is there to your net worth being generally known? Or your medical history for that matter. What about incest? Should mom's and dad's be "honored" above anyone else? Why?

Just curious.

 

[Tmy]

Topless women in public is a crime but for men it is not. How does that pass equal protection rights?

 

[Ed]

Topless women in public is a crime but for men it is not. How does that pass equal protection rights?

Tradition

 

[patnray]

Perhaps "Argument From Tradition" should be listed among the logical fallacies. It is equivalent to "Because that's the way it has always been..." One is free to argue in favor of retaining traditions, but it is not a logical argument.

 

[Suddenly]

Keep in mind that debate was in the context of tradition justifying governmental polices that treat people differently.

We trashcan policies that:

1) Are based in tradition only with no other valid reason for their existance

and

2) Cause any measure of harm to anyone.

Just because "tradition" is not in and of itself a valid reason for a particular policy doesn't mean that anything possibly considered traditional is automatically invalid. What is important is not that something is or is not a tradition, but why and how that policy became a tradition. The basis of a tradition needs to be always re-examined to determine it's validity. Homosexuals being shunned rises at least for the most part from the concern for continuation of the species, as gays can not naturally have offspring. Now that overpopulation is a bigger problem than underpopulation, that basis has gone bye-bye.

Something like privacy is important for reasons other than tradition. Especially something like financial or medical privacy. Others having that information could lead me open to all manner of crime and fraud.

 

[Zero]

I think we should redefine tradition.

 

[a_unique_person]

Tradition

The way men's weight is growing, it may become obscene very soon.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Argument from tradition is one of idiocy. Just because something was always done, doesn't mean it is ok or correct. It used to be tradition to have slaves, after all. Traditionally, women were to be silent and speak only when spoken to. Simply being a tradition is not justification for or against an action.

 

[Darat]

With the discussion of gay marriage an argument against is that "traditionally" a marriage is between a man and a woman. Proponents say something to the effect of "so what".

My question is what traditions, since seemingly tradition ipso facto is invalid for doing anything, should be trashcanned?

There has been a tradition of privacy between the sexes. Are mens and womans rooms (toilets, cans, bathrooms, pissoirs) simply an anacronistic "tradition"? Locker rooms? What about "privacy"? What earthly practicle value is there to your net worth being generally known? Or your medical history for that matter. What about incest? Should mom's and dad's be "honored" above anyone else? Why?

Just curious.

Separate toilets for the genders* - no rational reason for it, simply a traditional hangover. (Toilet privacy seems to be a really modern tradition e.g. Victorians started it.)

Nudity - no rational reason why nudity is outlawed, again some weird tradition.

"Dress Codes" - Tuxedos, ties & jackets etc. – tradition.

Privacy - not tradition, comes from when a society creates its "rights".

Constitution of the United States of America - any adherence to it just because it is the "constitution" is traditional dogma, it has no intrinsic value. (Couldn't help it - this thread wasn't opinionated enough for P&CE )

(*Ed - here is one that will please you, I was told the other day it is not correct to say "sexes" any longer because of the "associations" that the word sex has!).

 

[Lothian]

What about incest?

Traditionally it has always been kept within the family. Same problem with nepotism. In these more enlightned times we should be expanding both to become more inclusive.

 

[Zero]

I remember enlisting in the Marines ten years ago this week...*does a little dance*...anyhoo, we had to sit through classes about the Marine traditions. We were pummelled with all the things that the Marines had done before anyone else. They taught us about the military innovations thought up by Marines in the past, gave us speeches about how the best jarheads of days past would "improvise, adapt, and overcome". Then when the class was over, and for the next four years, we were told never to change anything, don't try to be innovative, and to do things the way they had always been done, because that was "tradition".

I disagree, of course. The tradition of the Marines, for instance, isn't contained solely in the behaviors which we were forced to ape. It also lies in the attitude that things can always be done better, that new ideas and perspectives can lead to improved ways to do things.

In the same way, America's true tradition is to steadily add to the recognized rights and freedoms of its citizens. You can track the trend as a rising line on a graph, and it is that trend that is our tradition, not the individual points along the line.

 

[iain]

My question is what traditions, since seemingly tradition ipso facto is invalid for doing anything, should be trashcanned?

I would be cautious about scrapping things which are around just based on tradition.

Firstly, most traditions became traditions for a reason - something was tried and it worked. Just because it isn't immediately obvious why something is a tradition doesn't mean that it still has no value.

Secondly, changing rules like a ban on public nudity or having separate toilets for men and women should not be done just because there's no rational reason to keep them. Society is built on conventions and rules which work reasonably well through familiarity and so on.

Do you really think that permitting public nudity tomorrow would improve things? Don't you think that the main people to take advantage of the rules might be flashers?

Surely if there's one thing we should have figured out from the last couple of hundred years it's that you can't manage a society as if it was a game of chess with easily understandable rules and consequences for actions. Unintended consequences, people.

 

[Darat]

Re: Re: Tradition

I would be cautious about scrapping things which are around just based on tradition.

Firstly, most traditions became traditions for a reason - something was tried and it worked. Just because it isn't immediately obvious why something is a tradition doesn't mean that it still has no value.

Secondly, changing rules like a ban on public nudity or having separate toilets for men and women should not be done just because there's no rational reason to keep them. Society is built on conventions and rules which work reasonably well through familiarity and so on.

Toilets - No need to convert all current facilities, but when building a new shopping mall just build one big toilet facility that can be used by anyone. Gradual change to something that isn't patently silly.

(By the way I still think in the UK, that when building new toilets, planners legally have to ensure that both male and female loos have the same floor area, even though it is patently obvious that women need more area for the cubicles they need to have the same pass through rate as men do. And another "by the way" the reason for this was originally to ensure that women got any toilets built for them since it was considered quite "unseemly" that women may need to pee when they are out and about so planners didn't build them any.)

Do you really think that permitting public nudity tomorrow would improve things? Don't you think that the main people to take advantage of the rules might be flashers?

Public nudity & flashers - here is a prime example of tradition really, really screwing us up. Because we have this tradition of “nudity=wrong” we seem to automatically assume that "nudity=sexuality". Flashing is nothing to do with nudity, inappropriate sexual behaviour of any kind is nothing to do with nudity, yet because of our "traditions" we still in this rational ( ) day and age make these silly assumptions.

Surely if there's one thing we should have figured out from the last couple of hundred years it's that you can't manage a society as if it was a game of chess with easily understandable rules and consequences for actions. Unintended consequences, people.

Well I would contend we have never even tried to “rationalise” our society to any meaningful extent yet.

 

[iain]

Re: Re: Re: Tradition

Toilets - No need to convert all current facilities, but when building a new shopping mall just build one big toilet facility that can be used by anyone. Gradual change to something that isn't patently silly.

Agreed, gradual change is important; and there are many cases where the tradition is just wrong. With toilets, for example, who wants to change? Do most women want a shared toilet area? I have used one - Belgo's restaurant in Covent Garden has a shared toilet area (the attendant swore at me when I tipped him less than £1 for handing me a towel). Not sure where the driver for change would come from.

Public nudity & flashers - here is a prime example of tradition really, really screwing us up. Because we have this tradition of “nudity=wrong” we seem to automatically assume that "nudity=sexuality". Flashing is nothing to do with nudity, inappropriate sexual behaviour of any kind is nothing to do with nudity, yet because of our "traditions" we still in this rational ( ) day and age make these silly assumptions.

All I'm asking is what the realistic affect of such a change in the law would be. Would it be welcomed and, if so, by whom? My guess is that there are a very small number of people who would like to be able to be nude in public and a very large number who would like to know that there will not be nude people around when they go shopping. To make a change in the law which would be opposed by a large majority of people, there should be a good reason to make that change, not just an absence of reason not to.

 

[iain]

Re: Re: Re: Tradition

Well I would contend we have never even tried to “rationalise” our society to any meaningful extent yet.

I disagree. I think that many revolutionary changes from the French Revolution, heavily influenced by Rousseau's works, through to Communism and (to a lesser extent) National Socialism have been attempts to throw out the old traditions and give society a rational basis. The more extreme free market theories also do this : society should be based on a rational free market.

 

[Thanz]

Topless women in public is a crime but for men it is not. How does that pass equal protection rights?

It doesn't, at least not in Ontario. Yet another reason why Canada rocks: the women can go topless without fear of being arrested for indecent exposure. Not that many do, but they could if they wanted to.

 

[Luke T.]

Somehow I can't help thinking that in the wild, whacky imaginary world some people live in where they believe full-on nudity should be legal, that they would make it illegal for some guy to ogle, leer, drool, wolf-whistle, or otherwise go AH-OOO-GA! over a naked woman walking down the street.

Nudity: OKAY! Staring: Bailiff, whack his pee-pee!

 

[iain]

Somehow I can't help thinking that in the wild, whacky imaginary world some people live in where they believe full-on nudity should be legal, that they would make it illegal for some guy to ogle, leer, drool, wolf-whistle, or otherwise go AH-OOO-GA! over a naked woman walking down the street.

Nudity: OKAY! Staring: Bailiff, whack his pee-pee!

You just know that if nudity was legal, the only people walking around nude would be 60+ and overweight; then see how much support the new law would get

 

[roger]

What "imaginary" world? Nudity is legal in many places on the planet.

Go there. It's no big deal. No oggling, no inappropiate behavior, etc. Pretty much a yawn, actually.

Remember how civilisation was going to be ruined when women showed their ankles? It didn't happen.

 

[Luke T.]

What "imaginary" world? Nudity is legal in many places on the planet.

Go there. It's no big deal. No oggling, no inappropiate behavior, etc. Pretty much a yawn, actually.

Remember how civilisation was going to be ruined when women showed their ankles? It didn't happen.

"Many places?" Oh, you mean nude beaches. Not downtown.

No ogling? How do you explain the plethora of web sites dedicated to voyeuristic photos taken in these places?

I bet Genghis Pwn has 50 GB of young girls on his hard drive of such things.