we pass that morality by maintaining traditions and when people start to decide "meh i can do better , what's the purpose lol" this leads to the loss of the fundamental morality and the degradation of society I described above we see in the modern west. Morality is something you work on with every choice you make, not something you just have and take for granted.

if you continuously disregard the oaths and duties of society, it begins to collapse and degrade.

I agree that we pass on a lot of our behaviour, both actively and passively. Personally, I think the majority of it happens passively—just by observing our actions, the next generations learn and copy them if they see them as good behaviour. This generation has certainly had the chance to witness the marriages of aunts, grandparents, and parents, and those experiences haven’t always been positive. In some cases, being able to choose a different partner after a few years seems to reflect higher morals than staying tied to an unsatisfying marriage.
Morals have always evolved, just as much as the world around us continues to change.
For a state to function well, it needs citizens who are hard-working, fertile, and law-abiding. If the traditional family model no longer inspires people to live by these values, we should find new ways to achieve them instead of forcing outdated traditions onto society. It’s not as if anyone is being stopped from living according to traditional roles.


It baffles me that people take Western society as an example of moral decline, when in fact it gives people the freedom to express their intrinsic qualities. Where is the higher morality in having to hide your real feelings? And where can I find the countries that truly live by a higher moral standard? I can't see them.

This post was edited by BaHgerAUT on Aug 14 2025 06:01am

I fundamentally disagree with your moral relativism and that "morals evolve" stances. Morality is objective, not something society determines at whim.

what ought you do isn't what makes the state "function well", otherwise you can have a strong argument we should re-institute slavery as it helps the economy of the state. what we ought do is behave morally good, and that cannot be some moral relativist position as arbitrarily tomorrow society could decide murder is good.

I am comparing the west now to the west before as it's the most logically consistent comparison, comparing the west now to the east before or to Iran now or Iran before or whatever is just a fundamentally dishonest comparison as it's comparing apples to oranges.

This post was edited by majorblood on Aug 14 2025 06:11am

Slavery would kill productivity; slaves only do what they are told. Besides, the West needs qualified people—slave labor like a hundred years ago can now be done by machines much more cheaply. You need to be able to improve your quality of life by working hard and being creative.
Morals are anything but objective. In fact, it’s easier than ever to change what people perceive as morally good. To be able to make a moral judgment, we need information, and we get a large part of it from social media.
Murder is bad—but convince someone that Person X is a threat to the lives of ten others, and they might perceive murdering Person X as morally good. Starting a war is bad. Starting a war to defend someone from an obvious threat might be seen as good if people are convinced.
Saving a drowning person is morally good. Saving a drowning refugee is also morally good. But report twenty incidents of crimes committed by refugees, and suddenly saving a drowning refugee might be perceived as morally bad.

Morals are not objective.



I can only share my personal perception; I have no quantifiable data for it.
Improved: minority rights, women’s rights, handling of violence, the way we raise our children
Worsened: we’ve become more selfish, children are perceived as a burden, wealth has brought arrogance and some kind of apathy

This post was edited by BaHgerAUT on Aug 14 2025 06:31am

Well if America becomes a religiously fundamental state sure.
I have no problems with people's sexual preferences as long as they do it behind closed doors.

The problem I have is when they do their so called Pride parade and the deck their selves out in a full inventory of 3/20/20 waving 2 x Griefs in full godly gear BDSM, flaming Gay Style strutting around kissing little kids
Or Man in Hello kitty mini skirts full of facial and body hair wearing a T Bag showing their balls reading story books to kids saying it is ok to be trans.

Thats the problem I have.

im never gonna take my kids to a pride parade, but if i ever drove by one and my kids saw a level 9000 non binary waving their ding dong around and asked what the deal was i'd be glad i got the opportunity to explain what mental illness is. i have plenty of gay friends and coworkers, and they're all as annoyed by these people as most evangelicals. they're not doing it because they're gay, they're doing it because their unwell, and likely miss their dad.

'pride fatigue

Your framing of this issue is backwards. Marriage is a set of legal protections for two people. You don’t need to be married to have kids. What business does the government have in denying people legal protections and benefits simply because someone else thinks those two people might be icky.

It’s just selective discrimination for the sole purpose of selectively discriminating.

Thats fine because youre purposefully coming up with bullshit that doesnt exist and confusing marriage with having sex. Is it medication time?

It is you who has it completely backwards.

What do you mean "government is denying people legal protections and benefits"? There are no legal protections and benefits that mother nature would be giving you at birth, that the government could deny.

Government extends extra protection to families because it wants to encourage people having children. Otherwise there will be fewer wage slaves to pay the taxes in the next generation.

It's reality, not some fairy tale you've been taught at school. Nobody cares about you and your wellbeing. Or about mine, for that matter. And especially not the government.

Also, above all things, why would others' people taxes go to supporting gay couples having sex? Government doesn't have it's own money.

And kids who don't have both parents are not doing as well as the ones who do. So why on Earth would the government be supporting this kind of procreation as well?