Today consensus, tomorrows prejudice.

Dwarf.Shortage · 27-05-2015 06:48PM

ScumLord wrote: »

Drug use. I think people will look back on the twentieth century as a cautionary tale on how not to deal with drugs. It will be seen as a bizarre blip where people created a problem much worse than the one they were trying to solve all based on propaganda and false moral outrage.. They'll wonder why it took us nearly 100 years to see that prohibition was a terrible idea.

This x 1,000,000

Kiwi in IE · 27-05-2015 06:50PM

wakka12 wrote: »

Honestly I think in 20 years(actually probably a little longer) anybody in the western world who is strongly religious will be seen as crazy. But I actually can't even think of one irish person in my friend group (aged 18-21) who even strongly believes theres an after life or god

I'm a psychiatric nurse and it often strikes me as bizarre when I talk to clients who have fixed delusional beliefs, that they are given a medical diagnosis and put on anti psychotic medication, when their beliefs are no more crazy than religious beliefs, which sometimes the psychiatrist treating them holds (look at Patricia Casey! How is anyone expected to take her advice about delusion).

The definition of a delusion is a fixed, false belief. The American Psychiatric Association adds a get put clause for religion, stating that it must also be outside the norms of ones culture. But otherwise the definition fits perfectly and I fail to see why a mass delusion is any less delusional than an individual one. Religious beliefs are delusional. And I agree that one day they will be considered as such.

Edit; I'll just add to the above that I am not saying that I think in anyway that religious people should be diagnosed with a psychiatric illness or medicated, but their beliefs need to be kept to their churches, homes and privates lives and religious influence and reference to religious ideas should be removed from all state institutions.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 27-05-2015 06:51PM

I don't know, it's a good question. There are a few issues on which I think the consensus and legislation will hugely change in the next couple of decades - transgender issues, euthanasia, and abortion most obviously. But they're hardly unthinkable.

Bear in mind that the world is very different than it was in the 90s. Even if things are one way here, people have much more and much easier access to information on how it is in other parts of the world thanks to the internet, that makes things easier to conceptualise.

PopePalpatine · 27-05-2015 06:51PM

stefanovich wrote: »

Transgender kids and hormone blocker to prevent puberty are all the rage in other more socially liberal countries. That is not somewhere we want to go. If an adult wants to get extreme surgery like that then let them but by no means should the tax payer foot the bill.

Transgendered people are usually extremely troubled people with very high post operation suicide rates. I'm not sure it is healthy mentally.

I'd imagine that the abuse transgender people put up with does no favours to their mental health.

_Brian · 27-05-2015 06:57PM

Many people throw up stuff about the schools/hospitals. The real reason this religious co management remains is primarily because the property is owned by the religious orders. The state can only force their will so far on this as they are incapable of funding replacement infrastructure as in government owned schools or hospitals. As a result we end up with this hodge podge system we have. Many new schools are put onto church owned lands and so it continues.

Personally I think the farcical system we have of dealing (or not dealing) with asylum seekers will soon be looked on as near inhuman. We have a responsibility to deal with these people, grant or deny asylum and be done, but instead we create what are like work houses or concentration camps, allow these poor souls to "exist" rather than have a life. Prostitution and child abuse is rife in these places and our society chooses to ignore it because in reality we just don't want to dirty our social hands making the big decisions. It's an embarrassment to our nation.

jobbridge4life · 27-05-2015 06:58PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

Catholics

You mean the endless supplication and baseless reverence? You are probably right.

frostyjacks · 27-05-2015 07:07PM

Regarding asylum seekers, if we're treating them so badly then why are so many them coming here? I'd love to be fed and watered and live rent free.

PopePalpatine · 27-05-2015 07:09PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

Regarding asylum seekers, if we're treating them so badly then why are so many them coming here? I'd love to be fed and watered and live rent free.

I doubt the average refugee knows about direct provision. I'd assume that northern/western Europe would be orders of magnitude more preferable than having Boko Haram/Al-Shabab/ISIS breathing down their neck.

Adamantium · 27-05-2015 07:09PM

Religious people may be considered crazy in 20 years time, but is that a good thing? Do we need the though police coming around even if it remains a private affair, to me personally the bigger questions are already way beyond private and we're afraid to hear little more than what we already know

It can be tough enough to broke chats about anything more than the superficial these days, it's actually being like this for years.

Consumerism, football, tech, movies all that is grand, but I'd hate a world where the wonderous and outthere elements are not at least entertained. People are afraid to talk about anything weird as it stands, it can only get worse.

Think of most workplace canteens. Dead aren't they? This is how I imagine the future realistically.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 27-05-2015 07:10PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

Regarding asylum seekers, if we're treating them so badly then why are so many them coming here? I'd love to be fed and watered and live rent free.

Everyone who goes on about them having it easy and poor little them has it so hard having to have a job wouldn't last a month in a DP centre without cracking up, let alone years.

stefanovich · 27-05-2015 07:21PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I doubt the average refugee knows about direct provision. I'd assume that northern/western Europe would be orders of magnitude more preferable than having Boko Haram/Al-Shabab/ISIS breathing down their neck.

Or being in France. You see, Ireland and the UK is a final destination for a lot of these after entering Europe.

PopePalpatine · 27-05-2015 07:23PM

Maybe it's because they're more likely to speak English than French?

MrWalsh · 27-05-2015 08:10PM

Abortion without a doubt.

Euthanasia.

Drugs, yes definitely.

Although all of the above will probably take longer than 20 years to change.

Another area that I think will change as we learn more about both the physical and mental processes of the brain (in neuroscience and in philosophy of mind), is that we will treat some criminals differently. An example is someone like Ted Bundy. I think we can all agree that there was something "wrong" with him. Well I think at some point we will figure out what that "wrong" is and instead of putting people like him in jail or executing them we will treat them. A simplistic analogy is that is a brain tumor caused someone to hallucinate and do something bad we wouldn't blame the person, we would blame the brain tumor (there are cases of this actually happening).

I don't believe that the above applies to all criminality btw, but certainly there are cases where we might find explanations.

And finally, our treatment of animals. Zoos, sea world, circuses, factory farms, meat eating, scientific experimentation, etc... But I think that this one is probably the furthest away from being recognised and condemned.

wakka12 · 27-05-2015 08:28PM

I think cosmetic surgery will also become very normalised too in future when it becomes cheaper and more advanced.

Merces · 27-05-2015 08:31PM

Transsexual rights. We're about thirty years behind the gays and lesbians.

jjC123 · 27-05-2015 08:31PM

wakka12 wrote: »

I think cosmetic surgery will also become very normalised too in future when it becomes cheaper and more advanced.

This, but I think we're already coming full circle to less invasive surgical procedures and more minimally invasive treatments.

PowerToWait · 27-05-2015 08:33PM

MouseTail wrote: »

our system of direct provision

Utterly abhorrent and oppressive.

wakka12 · 27-05-2015 08:39PM

Merces wrote: »

Transsexual rights. We're about thirty years behind the gays and lesbians.

This. Even more than 30 years tbh..most of the public aren't even aware of how badly transsexuals are treated even in the west due to them being quite a small minority. The murder rate of trans women of colour in the states is actually heart breaking, something like 1 in 4 are murdered before their 27th birthday

PowerToWait · 27-05-2015 08:41PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

Regarding asylum seekers, if we're treating them so badly then why are so many them coming here? I'd love to be fed and watered and live rent free.

You can get that in jail too. I personally know 5 people who have been in that system over 7 years.

Take yourself off to Mosney and live cheek by jowl with scores of others in the same boat, for say 5 years, with no end in sight, festering, 19 quid a week for a few bits.

These places are essentially concentration camps, in the strict sense of the phrase.

thee glitz · 27-05-2015 08:47PM

Aren't asylum seeker applications supposed to be processed in the first country they land in?
How do they get here, we shouldn't expect to have any.

Fleawuss · 27-05-2015 09:03PM

Assisted suicide. The idiot who called the marriage referendum a defeat for humanity represents the group who think "God" (their variety of course)should decide how much pain is enough for a suffering human being. Past time him and his fellow believers applied their outrageous nonsense to themselves and no one else. Freedom from the dead grip of "revealed" religions and all those who claim that "God" told them what should apply to humanity will be a supreme victory for humanity.

wakka12 · 27-05-2015 09:05PM

And sadly I don't know if transsexuals and other gender minorities human rights issues will ever progress as far as gay and lesbian rights have. A lot of the reason the gay rights movement ever took off is simply because gay people came out and relatives and friends fought for their gay friends rights alongside them, almost everyone knows at least one gay person who's close to them , and usually know a few others too. So gay and lesbians making up what, like 4-8% of the population worked hugely to their advantage, but seeing as gender minorities only make up about 0.1-3% of the population and most people don't even know of somebody who's transsexual, never mind be close to them. So thats a big disadvantage, power in numbers and all that...

stefanovich · 27-05-2015 09:08PM

Merces wrote: »

Transsexual rights. We're about thirty years behind the gays and lesbians.

Right to what may I ask? Right to have gender reassignment as a child? Or at the expense of the state?

wakka12 wrote: »

This. Even more than 30 years tbh..most of the public aren't even aware of how badly transsexuals are treated even in the west due to them being quite a small minority. The murder rate of trans women of colour in the states is actually heart breaking, something like 1 in 4 are murdered before their 27th birthday

Could have a lot to do with a large number of them being sex workers. How does it measure up to women in prostitution?

MrWalsh · 27-05-2015 09:10PM

Stefanovich, your posts are coming across as very transphobic and also as ignorant tbh.

Hopefully these attitudes will be eradicated in the next few decades.

eviltwin · 27-05-2015 09:11PM

stefanovich wrote: »

Right to what may I ask? Right to have gender reassignment as a child? Or at the expense of the state?

Could have a lot to do with a large number of them being sex workers. How does it measure up to women in prostitution?

Why shouldn't the state pay? Gender reassignment is not a vanity project. We take care of people who need medical treatment, this is no different.

stefanovich · 27-05-2015 09:15PM

eviltwin wrote: »

Why shouldn't the state pay? Gender reassignment is not a vanity project. We take care of people who need medical treatment, this is no different.

If you are an adult then fine. It is your body. Pay for it with medical insurance perhaps?

27-05-2015 09:16PM

Classism - maybe not in 20 years, but in 200 years I guess terms such as "working class", "middle class", "upper middle class"etc. will come to be thought of as as taboo as racist terms of the past are today. Implicit in the use of these terms is the assumption that it is more desirable to be, say, upper-middle-class instead of working class. To label a *child* as "working class" because of the perceived social class of their parents will come eventually to be seen as grossly unfair. I know life is not naturally fair or just but if people expended even a bit more mental effort in assessing somebody on their own merits instead of making a value judgement on them as a person based on traits/markers of "class" which they acquired as they grew up in one social environment or another, we could make the world a bit less depressing for those who happen to be born into those arbitrary social environments which are considered to make a person less valuable as a human being (and not in monetary terms).

SummerSummit · 27-05-2015 09:17PM

The Catholic grip on education and their influence on children.

Irish primary school children currently spend 11% of their time learning religion. Nearly 3 times as much as the rest of Europe and about the same amount of time they spend learning Maths. https://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Statistics/Education-at-a-Glance-OECD-Indicators-2013-Key-Facts.pdf

Transfer the schools into state ownership and get the priests off interview panels.

jjC123 · 27-05-2015 09:19PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Classism - maybe not in 20 years, but in 200 years I guess terms such as "working class", "middle class", "upper middle class"etc. will come to be thought of as as taboo as racist terms of the past are today. Implicit in the use of these terms is the assumption that it is more desirable to be, say, upper-middle-class instead of working class. To label a *child* as "working class" because of the perceived social class of their parents will come eventually to be seen as grossly unfair. I know life is not naturally fair or just but if people expended even a bit more mental effort in assessing somebody on their own merits instead of making a value judgement on them as a person based on traits/markers of "class" which they acquired as they grew up in one social environment or another, we could make the world a bit less depressing for those who happen to be born into those arbitrary social environments which are considered to make a person less valuable as a human being (and not in monetary terms).

I'd agree with abolishing 'class' as a word but 'low income background' still sounds less desirable than 'high income background'.

stefanovich · 27-05-2015 09:20PM

eviltwin wrote: »

Why shouldn't the state pay? Gender reassignment is not a vanity project. We take care of people who need medical treatment, this is no different.

Perhaps I think they are generally very troubled and confused people who need help but perhaps not surgical.

MrWalsh wrote: »

Stefanovich, your posts are coming across as very transphobic and also as ignorant tbh.

Hopefully these attitudes will be eradicated in the next few decades.

I think there is something very troubling about a person wanting to alter their gender. I doubt I am ignorant.

Today consensus, tomorrows prejudice.

Comments