I ask this question because I was looking at a debate on the religion form and the one guy was inferring that the one guy that he was arguing with or disagreeing with was inferior to him because he stayed in the place he was born throughout his life whereas the guy against him travel to many places outside of his birth.
I find it takes a fairly strong soul not to be corrupted by travel.
My deux soux.
1 Like
But I don’t know the debate. Maybe person A was making claims that a traveller would, by definition, be better informed of.
The person for the position was saying that it makes you a better person because it makes you more cultured when you travel.
It detatches you from reality. Most travellers are floating debris, with nothing to define them, nothing to say. One long “story over a beer.” That’s it. No depth. It’s roots that give depth. Therefore it takes a strong spirit, so that it keeps hold of its roots.
Travelling does not give wisdom. What it does, if the soul does not become corrupted, is fill it with sights. These sights are like food. They do not give wisdom. They simply satisfy the soul, like music.
1 Like
If it were up to me, I would have never wandered far from the place of my birth, and maybe some of the surrounding places of my ancestors.
Alas, we do not always get to choose.
1 Like
That’s a very good point living in the same place gives you roots I like that.
When you see something like that in a debate, it’s a desperation move. It’s a distraction and an attempt to change the frame of the debate. It’s a pressure valve.
If someone really has never left where they were born and were able to, I’d call that a superior person. That person is happy and content and doesn’t need any more. He’s rich.
2 Likes
No. It’s a snob thing. The kind of people who look down their noses and say ‘Oh, have you ‘travelled’?’ to every new person they meet. Actually people who don’t travel are superior. They aren’t stuffing up the planet and ruining places like Paris with their annoying, overcrowding presence. Residents in tourist hotspots have had a gutsful of these ‘bucket listers’ who are only there to get selfies for social media. They put up rents and make renting difficult for locals because of the ‘Air BnB’ thing.
1 Like
Is someone who never leaves the place they were born inferior compared to someone who has traveled many places?
They might be and the other might be. But there’s no rule based on moving around vs. staying one place. And it sounds like an ad hom in that debate. If staying in one place made that person inferior, then either that shows up in his or her arguements - and that’s what you focus on: what they wrote - or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, then what are they on about?
How about if you travel a little, grow roots in a few places, and return to your origin?
If you live in places like the U.S. (prolly almost everywhere these days) you get exposure to many cultures unless you’re a hermit. If you welcome it…it is better to have that experience than lack it. It’s good to see how different cultures and subcultures think, behave, value differently. Inferior thinking this, just in case it was an unclassy move: worth (of an argument or interlocutor) depends on your financial luxury/necessity to travel.
Could be anything from great to horrible depending on all sorts of things?
I tend to agree. I think in general it’s positive if you come in contact with a variety of ways to live: all the parts of life.
But for me there’s no rule. Oh, he just stayed in the area where he was born? Then we can dismiss him. – that I can’t go along with.
Agree. Pros & cons to both. Good to get as many perspectives as possible.