But I'm out for now

d.e.s.t.r.o.y.e.d

Being a traditionalist in general is bad. Imagine how bad Christian Traditionalism is.

I'm no Christian but I think that Traditions exist for a good reason

Especially when Christian Traditionalists encourage the return of the values of the first century AC.

yes

based

Traditions are fine, and it's good to have them, but Traditionalists don't really care about eating turkey on Thanksgiving. What they mostly care for, is the return of traditional/conservative values.

wow good job

you figured it all out

If you want to try and hurt my feelings, then cope harder. The channel is dedicated to debates regarding religion, and uncensorable insults, as well as ironies, shitposting, and generally being a jerk and therefore destroying the conversation/debate is not allowed. You can do so in <#587015719141507102>.

There is no conversation, you just described what traditionalism is, and acted like no one knew that before ya

but alright, i apologize for hurting your feelings

There was a conversation going on, I never acted the way you describe, you're the one who's actually salty for getting deported twice, but I will not give you attention no more. Consider yourself warned.

Not salty, i just gave an adequate response

lets just stop

@Koninos On very basic level, yes i agree, but then when you say you're a Christian traditionalist... Also imagine arguing for slavery. Slavery in antiquity and the classical period was pretty awful, so awful in fact that serfdom was a major upgrade for most of the population in Mediterranean

@moira serfdom is a step up from what we have now... we work more, we marry later, have less kids, spend much less time with family, it's horrible now.

Even in the American system slaves worked less than the free poor man.

Try and put yourself in perspective

The old law isn't binding any longer, but if you are trying to judge biblical slavery, our wage cage system is worse now

But if you think we are arguing pro slavery, you're not listening

https://twitter.com/NationalFile/status/1229505887305392135?s=19

Hope they suffer the worse

@Eoppa I mean, are you in the working world?

Because now is pretty much the best time to be a worker at any point in human history

We’ve had near record low unemployment, there’s new industries developing, there are more benefits than ever before

Also having kids later is generally a good sign

It means that those children are typically planned for and will typically have the support of parents with a more stable income and environment

Having kids at latter ages may be as a "good sign", but there is a large probability of negative biological and psycological consequences for couples bearing children at older ages. To quote a whole paragraph of M. Mills (2011):

"The detrimental individual consequences of involuntary childlessness are considerable, with individuals shown to have higher levels of clinical depression and relationship dissolution, lower levels of self-esteem, guilt and isolation (Meller et al., 2002). Older mothers also have considerably more problems during gestation and delivery, have a higher risk of birth defects and have more complications after delivery, all resulting in higher morbidity and health-care costs (Allen et al., 2006; Luke and Brown, 2007). Delay of childbearing also leads to more breast cancer. From age 20 to 25 onwards, the relative risk of breast cancer increases by 3% for every year a woman delays having her first child (Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer, 2001)."

The paper also talks about the positive effects of having kids at older ages like better family functioning, higher family stability, more autonomous adulthood for children and a more stable economic position of parents; but the difference between the negative and positive effects, is that the negative effects don't have any solutiom due to them been inherently biological. Even *In Vitro* fertilization does not fully compensate for age loss of fecundity during the 30's onward. Meanwhile, negative effects (mostly due to social and economicall issues) may have a higher posibility of being fixed with the accomodation of social beneficts for parents (for more references on the latter subject, there is RA Moffitt, 1998 and Ja Haaga, 1998 in NCBI).

Sorry for the large text btw.

<@&588707615643795456> Daily Question 🔖

**-** What is the relationship between parent and child? How should each treat the other?

Parents are there to guide their children and teach them right from wrong even if they have to be strict to do so; they're there to be your parents not your friend

Parents should be mom and dad, not policemen or teachers etc. for the child. Parents should love their children and take care of them, children should love their parents and respect their authority. Everyone should be raised in an athmosphere of love, respect and acceptance.

what kind of question even is this

@Draško a question

there should be mutual respect between parent and child. the parent shouldn't be able to not know what their child is doing, but being all helicopter and stalkerish isn't okay either

if the parent can have some sort of privacy, there should be privacy for children

Parent should take care of child and shape them to be good moral adults, children should respect their parents and follow their lead

parents are a justified hierarchy in relation to their kids 😊