NationStates Jolt Archive

I am interested in seeing the perspective of the other side, so I would like to know what precisely the advantages of multi-culturalism are?
What are the advantages of the mingling of different races (or, if you prefer, people from completely different regions of the world)?

And please, wait with the flames until I get a chance to make a suitably stereotyped fascist answer.

It's not so much that there are advantages, rather that there are no disadvantages. A large proportion of my friends are asian.

It's not so much that there are advantages, rather that there are no disadvantages. A large proportion of my friends are asian.

Ahh, masterfully done! Truly, this board is a haven for the elite of the trolls. Well, let us see whether anyone else has something to contribute before I have to recite the principles of my 'Weltanschauung' once again, eh?

It makes food fairs much more interesting. :)

1) When most people find themselves to be in love with a member of another race, they usually stop associating them with that. Instead, just looking at them as a person they love. Thus, multi-culutralism in those circumstances could seem unimportant or the only option they're willing to accept.

2) There are many diseases that are exclusive to races and these heterozygous mates may be providing the best conditions for passing on recessive forms of genes that are linked to many diseases. It's a theory out there, not a fact.

3) Many people whose parents are of different races, cultures, nationalities can be more attractive to other people. Examples: half German, half American girl I went to school with. My mulatto friend who is tan, is as blond as me, hasblue eyes and a fro of curls.

4) Providing a sense of heritage, culture, and uniqueness to their children.

1) When most people find themselves to be in love with a member of another race, they usually stop associating them with that. Instead, just looking at them as a person they love. Thus, multi-culutralism in those circumstances could seem unimportant or the only option they're willing to accept.

2) There are many diseases that are exclusive to races and these heterozygous mates may be providing the best conditions for passing on recessive forms of genes that are linked to many diseases. It's a theory out there, not a fact.

3) Many people whose parents are of different races, cultures, nationalities can be more attractive to other people. Examples: half German, half American girl I went to school with. My mulatto friend who is tan, is as blond as me, hasblue eyes and a fro of curls.

4) Providing a sense of heritage, culture, and uniqueness to their children.

1) Well, granted, but love is a subjective thing, and seldom unbreakable.

2) Uh, I do not think I followed you there? How is that an advantage?

3) Purely subjective, apart from matters of racial hygiene, but let us not go there yet.

4) If they want their child to retain all the aspects of life in their old 'home', why leave it in the first place?

It's not so much that there are advantages, rather that there are no disadvantages. A large proportion of my friends are asian.

Yes, because the color of skin dictates your culture. :rolleyes:

Personally, I think it's nicer in a way if everyone doesn't mix so much - it's interesting to go to a different country and see different cultures and traditions and meet different types of people, if everyone mixed together we'd lose that.

Having said that, I'm currently dating a guy from a different culture to my own, so mixing cultures is good sometimes!

It's more that there's no good reason not to. I've met several nice people of other races or from other regions of the world. Why shut them down?

Yes, because the color of skin dictates your culture. :rolleyes:

Hmm?

In this case, it does. I have Hindu and Buddhist friends. You would argue that their culture is distinct from my own.

Ive tried Chinese food turns out dog imitating pork is rather nice! :p

I like Indian food too!

1) Well, granted, but love is a subjective thing, and seldom unbreakable.

2) Uh, I do not think I followed you there? How is that an advantage?

3) Purely subjective, apart from matters of racial hygiene, but let us not go there yet.

4) If they want their child to retain all the aspects of life in their old 'home', why leave it in the first place?

1) My point exactly.

2) Yes, I'd agree with you on racial hygiene but who do you think people are referring to when they call a person "exotic-looking". Note, my examples were of people who were at least half white. So, there's not too much "racial hyigene" issues there.

3) That means they may be less likely to get a disease then counterparts of that particular race.

4) First off, culture is not retainable. It changes from the time you give birth to a child to the time they make their own life. I can understand how this applies to Native Americans, black Africans, Aborigines, etc. In my case, this doesn't even apply to me because I am an American. According to the rest of the world, I have no "culture". Culture is subjective.

I'm familiar with Weltanschauung and it is not suitable to people who lack knowledge and want it. Weltanschauung, to me, sounds quite similar to some of the religious nonsense my grandma has told me. I cannot feel comfortable accepting something on the basis that I want the world to make some meaningful image. Sorry, that's just me.

I am interested in seeing the perspective of the other side, so I would like to know what precisely the advantages of multi-culturalism are?
What are the advantages of the mingling of different races (or, if you prefer, people from completely different regions of the world)?

And please, wait with the flames until I get a chance to make a suitably stereotyped fascist answer.


1) A multi cultural society enables its members to have a broader view of the diversity of ways of living and opinions of the entire world, therefore enriching the members of that very society

2) A multi cultural society, being constructed from various groups, all different, as no choice but to garantee maximum individual freedom, since everyone is different, and no one easily accepts the curtailment of one freedom to favor one specified group.

3) Multi Cultural societies provide a greater variety of genetic resources. A society that has members of every race, will also have the qualities of those races at its disposal. Granted, every race has its flaws, but if the qualities didnt surpassed the flaws, Darwinism would have worked on them.

Multi culturalism is great because the pigmentally challenged devils of lighter skin color are evil.

It's a proven fact that inbreeding causes increased occurance of genetic disease. Ask any dog breeder in the world or the royal families of Europe for that matter. "I love you cousin!" :eek:
It is also fairly well accepted that lack of progress will lead to decline. If you do not have new ideas coming in, your society will stagnate. You may not accept them all, but they do inspire further thought which is the only way to improve your civilization and maintain the status quo.
Anyone that says that just because someone is from another country, or another continent you shouldn't be able to be together is silly. And since most of these people that say that have some sort of religious excuse, don't you dare pull your Bible out or I will beat you with it, I promise.

:eek: :mp5: :fluffle: :sniper:

I am interested in seeing the perspective of the other side, so I would like to know what precisely the advantages of multi-culturalism are?
What are the advantages of the mingling of different races (or, if you prefer, people from completely different regions of the world)?

And please, wait with the flames until I get a chance to make a suitably stereotyped fascist answer.

Do you like to be able to choose what you want? Does it seem good to you that when you enter a restaurant you are presented with a menu, from which you select the meal that you want, rather than just be presented with a plate containing whatever is being cooked that day. How about your newspaper/TV news. Is there an option for you as to what particular angle or perspective the news is presented from?

Now I guess that you have answered all of these quesrtions positively, if not then you are one of those exceptional people (by this I mean rare, not better) that has no attachment to themself as an individual.

Now imagine that everyone where you live has exactly the same opinions, they make the same choices in everything. Each time they go to the restaurant they eat the same meal, they all wear the same colour and style shirts, they all buy the same newspaper. What happens? The restaraunt stops offering a choice, it just gives everyone the same meal. The shirt manufacturer only makes shirts in that colour and style, the other news purveyors go out of business. No choice is left.

Multi culturalism is only a name for the fact that people have different preferences. Eliminate it, and you eliminate choice.

I am interested in seeing the perspective of the other side, so I would like to know what precisely the advantages of multi-culturalism are?
What are the advantages of the mingling of different races (or, if you prefer, people from completely different regions of the world)?

And please, wait with the flames until I get a chance to make a suitably stereotyped fascist answer.
given that i really don't see any net loss in allowing "multiculturalism," and given that it would take significant effort to prevent multiculturalism from arising in a well-industrialized nation at this point, i think taking the time and energy to exert that effort would be a disadvantage for my nation. thus, our advantage is primarily that we aren't wasting our time trying to block a neutral phenomenon.

there are also benefits to free exchange of different ideas, as well as the influx of strong minds from other locations. as a scientist, i find international collaborations to be amazingly useful and productive in most cases, and such collaborations often produce work that would not have been accomplished otherwise.

Diversity is the greatest advantage in my opinion, both culturaly and geneticaly.

Most importantly, if multi-culturalism is encouraged, in a few centuries we wont have "black" or "white" or "asian" or "arab", but just...human.

It's not so much that there are advantages, rather that there are no disadvantages. A large proportion of my friends are asian.
I would certainly disagree with that. I'm about to say that different cultures shouldn't mix, but there are always varying levels of disruption when cultures clash.

Diversity is the greatest advantage in my opinion, both culturaly and geneticaly.

Most importantly, if multi-culturalism is encouraged, in a few centuries we wont have "black" or "white" or "asian" or "arab", but just...human.

To some people, unfortunately, that is pretty much their worst nightmare.

(Our first poster may be one of those...).

To some people, unfortunately, that is pretty much their worst nightmare.

(Our first poster may be one of those...).
hey, belated gratz on your 5K post!

I would certainly disagree with that. I'm about to say that different cultures shouldn't mix, but there are always varying levels of disruption when cultures clash.
I've never had any problems or felt that I any more different to them than any of my "WASP" friends.

hey, belated gratz on your 5K post!

Yowza! Didn't even notice!! Thanks. :)

Diversity is the greatest advantage in my opinion, both culturaly and geneticaly.
Explain why diversity is an advantage. I find that it is often assumed that diversity in of itself is something that should be desired. Well explain why.

Explain why diversity is an advantage. I find that it is often assumed that diversity in of itself is something that should be desired. Well explain why.

Okay - Idiot Guide version.

Imagine for a second that, in our curiously combatative world, somebody decides to construct a genetically targetted weapon.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that they manage to key this weapon to a visible trait... for example... blue eyes.

Further - let us assume this is not terrorism, but an actual attack, and the weapon has BEEN deployed.

Where, on this world, will that weapon have LEAST effect, and where will it have most?

Diversity is covering your bases.

Explain why diversity is an advantage. I find that it is often assumed that diversity in of itself is something that should be desired. Well explain why.

Read my post at the top of this page (#16)

Explain why diversity is an advantage. I find that it is often assumed that diversity in of itself is something that should be desired. Well explain why.
hope you don't mind if i answer this...

i am most interested in promoting the free exchange of ideas. as a scientist, i know firsthand how vital such exchange really is, and how much faster progress can be acheived with it than without it. having an ethnically diverse group of people will not necessarily equate to having diverse ideas, but arbitrarily excluding certain minds from a collaboration just because those minds reside in the bodies of "different" people will most certainly result in a reduced amount of information flow.

also, i find that i tend to have more strong difference of opinion with people of my own culture than i do with people of other cultures. perhaps that's because i am American, and we're all pains in the butt, but it certainly makes me feeling like the risk of conflict is not a serious reason to prevent multiculturalism.

Okay - Idiot Guide version.

Imagine for a second that, in our curiously combatative world, somebody decides to construct a genetically targetted weapon.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that they manage to key this weapon to a visible trait... for example... blue eyes.

Further - let us assume this is not terrorism, but an actual attack, and the weapon has BEEN deployed.

Where, on this world, will that weapon have LEAST effect, and where will it have most?

Diversity is covering your bases.

Yes, Diversity is covering your bases from a genetic weapon based on Eye Color. :rolleyes:

If that is the "idiot" version the "intelligent" version should be even funnier.

Yes, Diversity is covering your bases from a genetic weapon based on Eye Color. :rolleyes:
do we need to review the concept of "a hypothetical or metaphorical example"?


If that is the "idiot" version the "intelligent" version should be even funnier.
you better slow down there, hon. if you can't seem to grasp the "idiot" version, best not push yourself too much harder. ;)

Do you like to be able to choose what you want? Does it seem good to you that when you enter a restaurant you are presented with a menu, from which you select the meal that you want, rather than just be presented with a plate containing whatever is being cooked that day. How about your newspaper/TV news. Is there an option for you as to what particular angle or perspective the news is presented from?

Now I guess that you have answered all of these quesrtions positively, if not then you are one of those exceptional people (by this I mean rare, not better) that has no attachment to themself as an individual.

Now imagine that everyone where you live has exactly the same opinions, they make the same choices in everything. Each time they go to the restaurant they eat the same meal, they all wear the same colour and style shirts, they all buy the same newspaper. What happens? The restaraunt stops offering a choice, it just gives everyone the same meal. The shirt manufacturer only makes shirts in that colour and style, the other news purveyors go out of business. No choice is left.

Multi culturalism is only a name for the fact that people have different preferences. Eliminate it, and you eliminate choice.

You imagine a society that has never, and probably can never, exist. Choice has always existed, differences have always existed.

Yes, Diversity is covering your bases from a genetic weapon based on Eye Color. :rolleyes:

If that is the "idiot" version the "intelligent" version should be even funnier.

I find it unfortunate that that is all you could manage to dig out of it.

I hadn't realised how 'low' the common denominator was going to be.

Try applying concepts like 'disease', 'parallel' and 'metaphor' to my Idiot Giude.

On second thoughts... maybe don't.

hope you don't mind if i answer this...

i am most interested in promoting the free exchange of ideas. as a scientist, i know firsthand how vital such exchange really is, and how much faster progress can be acheived with it than without it. having an ethnically diverse group of people will not necessarily equate to having diverse ideas, but arbitrarily excluding certain minds from a collaboration just because those minds reside in the bodies of "different" people will most certainly result in a reduced amount of information flow.

Ethnic diversity = no diversity. Ideological Diversity = Diversity. Ethical Diversity = Diversity. People who push "Diversity" push Race and Ethnicity far to much.

also, i find that i tend to have more strong difference of opinion with people of my own culture than i do with people of other cultures. perhaps that's because i am American, and we're all pains in the butt, but it certainly makes me feeling like the risk of conflict is not a serious reason to prevent multiculturalism.

I would suppose you actually draw your lines on who makes up what culture in a skewed manner. How can someone you vehemently disagree with be part of your same culture?

do we need to review the concept of "a hypothetical or metaphorical example"?

Metaphors have a point and allude to reality. The discussion of a weapon that attacks eye color has no realistic or worthwhile point to make concerning reality.

do we need to review the concept of "a hypothetical or metaphorical example"?


you better slow down there, hon. if you can't seem to grasp the "idiot" version, best not push yourself too much harder. ;)

You ever get that feeling that: try though you might, you still posted way over someone's head?

Not that I have had that feeling....

Ethnic diversity = no diversity. Ideological Diversity = Diversity. Ethical Diversity = Diversity. People who push "Diversity" push Race and Ethnicity far to much.

i'm not sure what you are trying to claim here. you seem to be saying that ethnic diversity isn't diversity...that's simply untrue. ethnic diversity is ethnic DIVERSITY. it might not equate to CULTURAL diversity, but it's still diversity.


I would suppose you actually draw your lines on who makes up what culture in a skewed manner. How can someone you vehemently disagree with be part of your same culture?
are you kidding me? i vehemently disagree with my own PARENTS, and they share more culture with me than anybody in the world. just because you share a culture with somebody doesn't mean you share all of your ideas, principles, or political positions with them. America is a great example of this...liberals and conservatives alike partake in American culture, but there are huge conflicts between them none the less.

I am interested in seeing the perspective of the other side, so I would like to know what precisely the advantages of multi-culturalism are?
What are the advantages of the mingling of different races (or, if you prefer, people from completely different regions of the world)?

And please, wait with the flames until I get a chance to make a suitably stereotyped fascist answer.
It makes for a richer shared culture. The US is multicultural, this helped us create blues, rock music, rap, jazz, etc. Those styles of music were created by blending African, European, and in some cases Latino musical influences. A nation without the cultural influences that we have wouldn't have come up with such a rich variety of music.

Diversity is the greatest advantage in my opinion, both culturaly and geneticaly.

Most importantly, if multi-culturalism is encouraged, in a few centuries we wont have "black" or "white" or "asian" or "arab", but just...human.
Of course that means no more natural blondes and redheads. We will be worse off in some ways.

i'm not sure what you are trying to claim here. you seem to be saying that ethnic diversity isn't diversity...that's simply untrue. ethnic diversity is ethnic DIVERSITY. it might not equate to CULTURAL diversity, but it's still diversity.

It is Diversity that doesn't matter. If someone is Black and I am White and we have the same views on all things, there is no diversity.

are you kidding me? i vehemently disagree with my own PARENTS, and they share more culture with me than anybody in the world. just because you share a culture with somebody doesn't mean you share all of your ideas, principles, or political positions with them. America is a great example of this...liberals and conservatives alike partake in American culture, but there are huge conflicts between them none the less.

You can draw culture at many levels. You can draw a Republican Culture. a Libertarian Culture. a Neo-Con culture. A Ernst and Young Culture. A JP Morgan Culture. A Santa Barbarian Culture. a Hope Ranch Culture. A Hollywood Culture. Are you incapable of drawing a difference between yourself and your parents?

You ever get that feeling that: try though you might, you still posted way over someone's head?

Not that I have had that feeling....

:rolleyes:

It is Diversity that doesn't matter. If someone is Black and I am White and we have the same views on all things, there is no diversity.

again, there is diversity, because you are different individuals. you may not feel there is MUCH diversity, and there may be no significant CULTURAL diversity, but there is diversity. just be more precisein your terms.


You can draw culture at many levels. You can draw a Republican Culture. a Libertarian Culture. a Neo-Con culture. A Ernst and Young Culture. A JP Morgan Culture. A Santa Barbarian Culture. a Hope Ranch Culture. A Hollywood Culture. Are you incapable of drawing a difference between yourself and your parents?
by your logic, each human being exists in their own unique culture. of course i can differentiate between me and my parents, that was what i originally said (that i disagree with them strongly, remember?), but that doesn't mean we belong to different cultures. you do not have to agree on every single issue to be a member of the same culture as another person.

indeed, this reasoning on your part seems to contradict your first point; if one must agree on all topics to be a member of the same culture as another person, then pretty much every individual will be their own culture. in that case, your above example of you and a black person WOULD be an example of cultural diversity, since they are bound to differ with you on at least one issue (even if it is so minor as favorite food).

Of course that means no more natural blondes and redheads. We will be worse off in some ways.

I don't know... seems a little superficial, to me. Not that I think one-colour-hair-world is just around the corner, or anything...

It is Diversity that doesn't matter. If someone is Black and I am White and we have the same views on all things, there is no diversity.



You can draw culture at many levels. You can draw a Republican Culture. a Libertarian Culture. a Neo-Con culture. A Ernst and Young Culture. A JP Morgan Culture. A Santa Barbarian Culture. a Hope Ranch Culture. A Hollywood Culture. Are you incapable of drawing a difference between yourself and your parents?

So - you think a society would be 'better' with a lack of these multiple 'cultures'?

No 'Neos', No 'Libertarians', No 'Republicans', etc?

again, there is diversity, because you are different individuals.

I'd just like to take a moment and quote Bottle to refute Bottle.

by your logic, each human being exists in their own unique culture.

Thank you.

you may not feel there is MUCH diversity, and there may be no significant CULTURAL diversity, but there is diversity. just be more precisein your terms.

If the argument is that Multiculturalism proposes and advocates superficial diversity that is not significant than what is the advantage?

by your logic, each human being exists in their own unique culture. of course i can differentiate between me and my parents, that was what i originally said (that i disagree with them strongly, remember?), but that doesn't mean we belong to different cultures.

Really? Your parents are of what Political party? Call that a Culture. You are of what Political Party, call that a Culture. You're part of different cultures. You can be part of many cultures and you can share some of them and not others.

This still hasn't addressed why it would be desirable to push for "multiculturalism" or "diversity" nor has anyone even attempted to define what either of those terms mean and on what level they exist.

So - you think a society would be 'better' with a lack of these multiple 'cultures'?

No 'Neos', No 'Libertarians', No 'Republicans', etc?

I've asked you tell me what the benefit is for pushing for multiculturalism. Not what the results would be of a culture totally absence of different cultures.

I've asked you tell me what the benefit is for pushing for multiculturalism. Not what the results would be of a culture totally absence of different cultures.

Curious... you seem to be arguing against multiculture societies, but within a multicultural society.

Do you not perceive your current soceity to be multicultural?

Or is your current soceity too multicultural for you, and you'd like to see less 'variety'?

Curious... you seem to be arguing against multiculture societies, but within a multicultural society.

Do you not perceive your current soceity to be multicultural?

Or is your current soceity too multicultural for you, and you'd like to see less 'variety'?

I've made no arguements for or against. I've asked for someone to actually attempt to explain what the benefits would be of a further push for "Diversity".

And what that "Diversity" actually is and how far it would go.

I'd just like to take a moment and quote Bottle to refute Bottle.


Of course, your 'refutation' only works, if you confuse the terms 'individual', 'culture' and 'diversity'.

I've made no arguements for or against. I've asked for someone to actually attempt to explain what the benefits would be of a further push for "Diversity".

And what that "Diversity" actually is and how far it would go.

On the contrary, I'd say you've quibbled semantics.

But hey - maybe that's just my interpretation of your 'point'.

If you have one.

Of course, your 'refutation' only works, if you confuse the terms 'individual', 'culture' and 'diversity'.

And you think you went over my head?

Lets take a moment and look at the two sentences within their context.

"again, there is diversity, because you are different individuals."

Black man, white man, totally same minus skin color. Diversity is claimed to exist. The term Indavidual has the same meaning as "each human being" when used in the context that exists for the two statements.

"by your logic, each human being exists in their own unique culture."

or

"by your logic, each indavidual exists in their own unique culture"

Which is to say that each indavidual creates diversity. Even if the only difference is the color of their skin.

Yeah, Bottle nicely refuted Bottle

On the contrary, I'd say you've quibbled semantics.

But hey - maybe that's just my interpretation of your 'point'.

If you have one.

I've asked a question, not made a point. Though you seem very unwilling to answer the question.

I'd just like to take a moment and quote Bottle to refute Bottle.

Thank you.

um, that doesn't refute me at all. what i said was, "By your logic, X is true." i also said i think your logic is incorrect. therefore, there is no contradiction in my position; i presented reality on the one hand, and then showed how your logic conflicts with reality. try reading more carefully in the future, to avoid such embarassments for yourself.


If the argument is that Multiculturalism proposes and advocates superficial diversity that is not significant than what is the advantage?

i don't believe i claimed that superficial diversity was necessarily an advantage. indeed, i'm pretty sure i made myself clear on the fact that superficial diversity does not equate to ideological or mental diversity. however, you seem to be trying to claim that superficial diversity isn't diversity...it is, it just might not be the kind that is most important.

as for potential advantages, genetic diversity is evolutionarily valuable. isolated populations are far more at risk for cataclysmic plagues or environmental killers, because they share the same suscepabilities.


Really? Your parents are of what Political party? Call that a Culture. You are of what Political Party, call that a Culture. You're part of different cultures. You can be part of many cultures and you can share some of them and not others.

you seem to mostly just be arguing that ideology = culture. i don't believe that being a Republican American makes one a member of a different culture than a Democrat American. you say that is the case. it's simple semantics.


This still hasn't addressed why it would be desirable to push for "multiculturalism" or "diversity"

actually, that question has been amply addressed several times. if you are having trouble understanding something please let us know, i'm sure we can find a way to help you catch on.


nor has anyone even attempted to define what either of those terms mean and on what level they exist.
nor have you. you seem to simply claim that culture = ideology on a particular subject, even though that is not the accepted definition of the word. if you intend to stand by that position you should probably provide supports for why anybody should pay attention to it.

And you think you went over my head?

Lets take a moment and look at the two sentences within their context.

"again, there is diversity, because you are different individuals."

Black man, white man, totally same minus skin color. Diversity is claimed to exist. The term Indavidual has the same meaning as "each human being" when used in the context that exists for the two statements.

"by your logic, each human being exists in their own unique culture."

or

"by your logic, each indavidual exists in their own unique culture"

Which is to say that each indavidual creates diversity. Even if the only difference is the color of their skin.

Yeah, Bottle nicely refuted Bottle

Except that Bottle doesn't refute the one point with the other.

She has acknowledged that each individual is 'diverse' from each other individual - and has questioned whether that is sufficient to constitute a 'culture'.

Personally - I see no real justification for the concept of a 'culture of one', so I am inclined to second her question.

Congratulations if you see that as a refutation of something.

I guess that either makes you easy to please... or might tempt you to make a point.

Except that Bottle doesn't refute the one point with the other.

She has acknowledged that each individual is 'diverse' from each other individual - and has questioned whether that is sufficient to constitute a 'culture'.

Personally - I see no real justification for the concept of a 'culture of one', so I am inclined to second her question.

exactly. there is "intracultural" and "intercultural" diversity. individuals within a given culture can be diverse, just as different cultures can be diverse. that's the beautiful thing about humanity :).


Congratulations if you see that as a refutation of something.

i almost feel bad for bursting his bubble...he did seem so very pleased with himself.


I guess that either makes you easy to please... or might tempt you to make a point.
i'm not going to hold my breath.

I've asked a question, not made a point. Though you seem very unwilling to answer the question.

If a question remains unanswered to your ears... is that the flaw in the question? The fault in the questioned? Are are you just not capable of hearing the answers?

um, that doesn't refute me at all. what i said was, "By your logic, X is true." i also said i think your logic is incorrect. therefore, there is no contradiction in my position; i presented reality on the one hand, and then showed how your logic conflicts with reality. try reading more carefully in the future, to avoid such embarassments for yourself.

You argued that two individuals having different skin colors but nothing else creates diversity. And then acted as if cultures can not exist at the individual level. You contradicted yourself. Feel free to worm about the issue but you argued for individual culture definition and then argued that individual culture definition is wrong.

i don't believe i claimed that superficial diversity was necessarily an advantage. indeed, i'm pretty sure i made myself clear on the fact that superficial diversity does not equate to ideological or mental diversity. however, you seem to be trying to claim that superficial diversity isn't diversity...it is, it just might not be the kind that is most important.

The Game Black and White came in two distinct packages. One black, one white. The game contained inside was the exact same game. Would you argue that the "diversity" of the box design matters or should even be noted?

as for potential advantages, genetic diversity is evolutionarily valuable. isolated populations are far more at risk for cataclysmic plagues or environmental killers, because they share the same suscepabilities.

You're going to have a hard time arguing that a WASP in New York and a WASP in California are "isolated populations" and are far more at risk of cataclysmic plaques.

you seem to mostly just be arguing that ideology = culture. i don't believe that being a Republican American makes one a member of a different culture than a Democrat American. you say that is the case. it's simple semantics.

I'm continuing to ask for a definition of culture that you, or Grave or XYZ is using. You seem to want to draw it a national identity. At which point I would argue that it is worthless because of the very distinct differences on many issues that exist at the level of a national identity (death penalty, abortion, morals, religion etc...)

actually, that question has been amply addressed several times. if you are having trouble understanding something please let us know, i'm sure we can find a way to help you catch on.

Oh please find a quote where anyone has actually argued for a benefit of Multiculturalism and defined the term itself?

nor have you. you seem to simply claim that culture = ideology on a particular subject, even though that is not the accepted definition of the word. if you intend to stand by that position you should probably provide supports for why anybody should pay attention to it.[/QUOTE]

exactly. there is "intracultural" and "intercultural" diversity. individuals within a given culture can be diverse, just as different cultures can be diverse. that's the beautiful thing about humanity :).


i almost feel bad for bursting his bubble...he did seem so very pleased with himself.


i'm not going to hold my breath.

I get the feeling that he/she really feels he/she has a good point to make...

I just wish we could find out what it was, rather than being wrapped in his/her cobwebs of self-mystification...

You argued that two individuals having different skin colors but nothing else creates diversity. And then acted as if cultures can not exist at the individual level. You contradicted yourself. Feel free to worm about the issue but you argued for individual culture definition and then argued that individual culture definition is wrong.



The Game Black and White came in two distinct packages. One black, one white. The game contained inside was the exact same game. Would you argue that the "diversity" of the box design matters or should even be noted?



You're going to have a hard time arguing that a WASP in New York and a WASP in California are "isolated populations" and are far more at risk of cataclysmic plaques.



I'm continuing to ask for a definition of culture that you, or Grave or XYZ is using. You seem to want to draw it a national identity. At which point I would argue that it is worthless because of the very distinct differences on many issues that exist at the level of a national identity (death penalty, abortion, morals, religion etc...)



Oh please find a quote where anyone has actually argued for a benefit of Multiculturalism and defined the term itself?

nor have you. you seem to simply claim that culture = ideology on a particular subject, even though that is not the accepted definition of the word. if you intend to stand by that position you should probably provide supports for why anybody should pay attention to it.[/QUOTE]

See - I can almost pick the seeds of a point out of here... among the flailing... You might be better served trying to make your point, rather than somehow score points?

You argued that two individuals having different skin colors but nothing else creates diversity. And then acted as if cultures can not exist at the individual level. You contradicted yourself. Feel free to worm about the issue but you argued for individual culture definition and then argued that individual culture definition is wrong.

two individuals, regardless of skin color, constitute diversity. they have different minds, different genetics, different phenotypes. "diversity" does not refer exclusively to cultural diversity.

i wasn't aware this was such a difficult concept.


The Game Black and White came in two distinct packages. One black, one white. The game contained inside was the exact same game. Would you argue that the "diversity" of the box design matters or should even be noted?

whether or not it "matters" is subjective. the fact is that it does represent diversity of the packaging. you may not care, and it may not be terribly important, but it is there. diversity does not have to be Earth-shattering to exist.


You're going to have a hard time arguing that a WASP in New York and a WASP in California are "isolated populations" and are far more at risk of cataclysmic plaques.

WASPishness is not a genetic trait. indeed, a great deal of genetic diversity occurs within "races." remember: cultural diversity does not equal genetic diversity does not equal "diversity" as a whole concept.


I'm continuing to ask for a definition of culture that you, or Grave or XYZ is using. You seem to want to draw it a national identity. At which point I would argue that it is worthless because of the very distinct differences on many issues that exist at the level of a national identity (death penalty, abortion, morals, religion etc...)

i'm not saying that national identity defines culture, necessarily. what i am saying is that opinion on a specific issue (like abortion etc) does not constitute being a member of a total separate culture. people may share a culture but still disagree on many important issues.


Oh please find a quote where anyone has actually argued for a benefit of Multiculturalism and defined the term itself?

you are as able to read the thread as i am. feel free to do so any time.

Except that Bottle doesn't refute the one point with the other.

She has acknowledged that each individual is 'diverse' from each other individual - and has questioned whether that is sufficient to constitute a 'culture'.

Personally - I see no real justification for the concept of a 'culture of one', so I am inclined to second her question.

Congratulations if you see that as a refutation of something.

I guess that either makes you easy to please... or might tempt you to make a point.

I don't currently have a point, I have questions. And despite many statements to the contrary; answers that attempt to incorporate genetic weapons or brief discussions of possible cultures don't answer the questions.

Here is an easy format for you.

Q: Define Culture
A:

Q: Define Diversity
A:

Q: Define Significant Diversity
A:

Q: Explain the benefits of Diversity that exceeds modern societies Diversity.
A:

Q: Explain what multiculturalism pushes for beyond modern society
A:

Q: Explain the benefits of what it pushes for.
A:


They are all separate questions and should be addressed individually. Not as a whole.

advantages: The united states of america.

See - I can almost pick the seeds of a point out of here... among the flailing... You might be better served trying to make your point, rather than somehow score points?

Perhaps I need to repeat it for you again. I don't have a point. I have questions. The world does not revolve merely around point/counter-point.

advantages: The united states of america.
of course, one could also point to America as an example of "disadvantages," so let's not go down that awful flame-y path...

Perhaps I need to repeat it for you again. I don't have a point. I have questions. The world does not revolve merely around point/counter-point.
i have clearly stated why i feel it is valuable to make it possible for individuals from different cultures to feel comfortable working and living alongside one another. regardless of how you choose to define "culture," my answer to that question remains the same.

i know y'all have spun off into a meaningless debate on definitions but


what does the original poster MEAN by multiculturalism?

is it "italiafest" in the city park in the summertime?

is it allowing immigrants from other countries?

is it eating chinese food (if you arent chinese)

is it marrying outside your ethnicity?

is it having children with someone of another race?

wihtout having a CLUE as to what he meant, how can the question be answered?

some things are utterly benign. some are an actual benefit to society (chinese food)

i have clearly stated why i feel it is valuable to make it possible for individuals from different cultures to feel comfortable working and living alongside one another. regardless of how you choose to define "culture," my answer to that question remains the same.

Individuals from different cultures currently feel comfortable working and living alongside one another. Which does not address what the push is for multiculturalism beyond what we have today.

questions. And despite many statements to the contrary answers that attempt to incorporate genetic weapons or brief discussions of possible cultures doesn't answer the questions.

Here is an easy format for you.

Q: Define Culture
A:

Q: Define Diversity
A:

Q: Define Significant Diversity
A:

Q: Explain the benefits of Diversity that exceeds modern societies Diversity.
A:

Q: Explain what multiculturalism pushes for beyond modern society
A:

Q: Explain the benefits of what it pushes for.
A:


They are all separate questions and should be addressed individually. Not as a whole.

Too full of a sense of your own importance, friend?

Why? Why are 'these' questions worthy of being separated out, and answered individually?

Not that I necessarily disagree... maybe they SHOULD be answered individually... but WHY would that be more important than the 'whole' question?

And - why just those questions? Define Significant Diversity? Significant for what? You are demanding definitions for parts of the term that are as arbitrary as you argue the entire term is?

Individuals from different cultures currently feel comfortable working and living alongside one another.

depends on where you live. in America, there is still tension in many places and many situations, and there are many different cultures or peoples who still feel unwelcome to varying degrees. while this does not necessarily stop collaborations across cultures, it can be a factor that negatively influences some minds from joining cross-cultural work.


Which does not address what the push is for multiculturalism beyond what we have today.
if you believe we have reached a true state of openness across cultural or ideological boundaries, then i would love to know where you live...it's sounds wonderful. unfortunately, in most of the world there is not that sort of equality and openmindedness across cultures, so our efforts to avoid stagnation through cultural isolation are not quite finished. we have come a long way, to be sure, but we're not done by any stretch of the imagination.

Too full of a sense of your own importance, friend?

Why? Why are 'these' questions worthy of being separated out, and answered individually?

If they are not answered individually the meaning and views of the individual answering them are hidden. Unless they are all addressed there are holes left in the person's view.

Not that I necessarily disagree... maybe they SHOULD be answered individually... but WHY would that be more important than the 'whole' question?

They are separate questions, there is no "whole" question. You made a very foolish and frankly idiotic attempt to "answer" the "whole question" by ranting about genetic weapons. Arguing basically that a more diverse society becomes a stronger society. Which ignores the long history of very non-diverse cultures going out and kicking the ass of other cultures. Indeed I want an answer to the questions, not an argument for a point of view.

And - why just those questions? Define Significant Diversity? Significant for what? You are demanding definitions for parts of the term that are as arbitrary as you argue the entire term is?

Significant for what matters. As I and Bottle have both noted Diversity can exist at all levels. What then creates a level of Diversity that is significant.

if you believe we have reached a true state of openness across cultural or ideological boundaries, then i would love to know where you live...it's sounds wonderful. unfortunately, in most of the world there is not that sort of equality and openmindedness across cultures, so our efforts to avoid stagnation through cultural isolation are not quite finished. we have come a long way, to be sure, but we're not done by any stretch of the imagination.

In which case you should be in the Middle East fighting for it and not the Western World.

Anyway I'm going to be gone for the next 4 or more hours. Hopefully by the time I've gotten back someone will actually have answered the questions rather than engage in pointless and fairly trivial push and prod.

One advantage of multi-culturism: no more Nazis, no more klu-klutz clan. i think the more the different ethnic groups blend and the less groups there are to discriminate against, the better.

If they are not answered individually the meaning and views of the individual answering them are hidden. Unless they are all addressed there are holes left in the person's view.



They are separate questions, there is no "whole" question. You made a very foolish and frankly idiotic attempt to "answer" the "whole question" by ranting about genetic weapons. Arguing basically that a more diverse society becomes a stronger society. Which ignores the long history of very non-diverse cultures going out and kicking the ass of other cultures. Indeed I want an answer to the questions, not an argument for a point of view.



Significant for what matters. As I and Bottle have both noted Diversity can exist at all levels. What then creates a level of Diversity that is significant.

"Foolish" and "frankly idiotic"? Dangerously close to flaming, my friend.

Might want to stop and rethink your 'strategy', such as it is.

My argument wasn't about 'genetic weapons', and if you'd read it and 'got it', you'd see that.

Regarding your point about "non-diverse cultures going out and kicking the ass of other cultures"... I wonder which cultures you are referring to there?

In which case you should be in the Middle East fighting for it and not the Western World.
why? the Western world still has a ways to go, and (as a female) i am far more able to effect positive change in the Western world than i would be in the Middle East. i also have not dedicated my life to encouraging multiculturalism, so i don't see why i would choose my location based on that particular struggle.

Anyway I'm going to be gone for the next 4 or more hours. Hopefully by the time I've gotten back someone will actually have answered the questions rather than engage in pointless and fairly trivial push and prod.

I have yet to see a reason as to why your 'questions', which I see as a half-hearted set of questions anyway... deserve any special attention?

You haven't made a point, except for a couple of weak, indefensible assertions about 'non-diverse' cultures 'kicking ass'.

And you have quibbled a lot, over semantics.

Maybe when you come back, you'll have less inflated opinions about your own importance... be less likely to flame, and actually have some points to make?

Regarding your point about "non-diverse cultures going out and kicking the ass of other cultures"... I wonder which cultures you are referring to there?

Americans(several immigrant cultures) vs Native Americans(1 culture)- nope
Prussians and British (2 cultures)vs napoleon(1 culture)- nope
More modern: Taskfore of several nations vs Iraq- nope

I've made no arguements for or against. I've asked for someone to actually attempt to explain what the benefits would be of a further push for "Diversity".

And what that "Diversity" actually is and how far it would go.

How about this, given your definition of "culture" without diversity, you couldn't ask that question because everyone would give the same answer you would and it would just be intellectual masturbation. You defined multicultural in such a way that multiculturalism can't help but exist in every society and then you question the advantages of it. Well, in order to all be of just one culture we would all have to share the exact same ideas according to your definition. Given this, I would say to be able to debate ideas is the most obvious advantage of multiculturalism. Now to suggest you can debate ideas in a single culture, you're going to have to redefine your terms.

Americans(several immigrant cultures) vs Native Americans(1 culture)- nope
Prussians and British (2 cultures)vs napoleon(1 culture)- nope
More modern: Taskfore of several nations vs Iraq- nope

Well... I'm confused...

I am interested in seeing the perspective of the other side, so I would like to know what precisely the advantages of multi-culturalism are?
What are the advantages of the mingling of different races (or, if you prefer, people from completely different regions of the world)?

And please, wait with the flames until I get a chance to make a suitably stereotyped fascist answer.
LOL! There are many advantages to so-called "multi-culturalism."

For openers, different languages structure thought differently. Sharing the differences often leads to new ideas, new ways of viewing reality, new ways of thinking that didn't exist before. It tends to be synergistic.

Different customs and folkways add variety to daily life that wasn't there before. Imagine what it would be like if the only culinary style available was based on the English style. There would be no Italian, Japanese, Thai, Mexican, etc. foods. Borrrringgg! :)

I could go on, but I think you can see what I mean.

The purpose of the multiculturalist movement is to recognize and accept the differences of various cultures living in the same environment. A lot people see the arrival, growth or mere existence of other cultures as a threat, either because of fear, ignorance or misguided sense of superiority.

The advantages of multiculturalism are somewhat long term. Diverse societies are much more resilient and adaptable to changes. In an era of quick global changes that's a plus. Also, multiple points of view can approach problems from different angles and find better solutions more efficiently.

Multiculturalism must also work both ways. Both the people receiving a new culture must accept their difference, and the people from the new culture must accept their hosts and integrate the best way possible.

The purpose of the multiculturalist movement is to recognize and accept the differences of various cultures living in the same environment. A lot people see the arrival, growth or mere existence of other cultures as a threat, either because of fear, ignorance or misguided sense of superiority.

The advantages of multiculturalism are somewhat long term. Diverse societies are much more resilient and adaptable to changes. In an era of quick global changes that's a plus. Also, multiple points of view can approach problems from different angles and find better solutions more efficiently.

Multiculturalism must also work both ways. Both the people receiving a new culture must accept their difference, and the people from the new culture must accept their hosts and integrate the best way possible.
so whats the problem?
are we arguing for/against multiculturalism in the united state where we really dont have one set culture that it would be a shame to "mess up"?

or are we talking about a european country where the large influx of "guest workers" from turkey brings about a clash of cultures that has to be dealt with in some way?

"Foolish" and "frankly idiotic"? Dangerously close to flaming, my friend.

"Kettle? Hi, this is Pot. You're black."

Granted you were more subtle and I happen to agree with your points here.

"Kettle? Hi, this is Pot. You're black."

Granted you were more subtle and I happen to agree with your points here.

Me?

How did I flame?

so whats the problem?

I don't know what the problem is. I arrived late. I'm just trying to answer the original post question. :)

are we arguing for/against multiculturalism in the united state where we really dont have one set culture that it would be a shame to "mess up"?

Although people in the US like to believe there is not a "set culture" there actually is, if not a set one, a dominant culture, based mostly on Western European principles and that has been formed in the last 100 years. Most people in the US are very ready and even like to deal with exposure to new cultures, but many also have problems when this culture is not European, like with Africans, South Asians and Middle Easterners.

or are we talking about a european country where the large influx of "guest workers" from turkey brings about a clash of cultures that has to be dealt with in some way?
Why not too? I don't see why the discussion has to center around one or the other.

I assume you're able to use a dictionary, but I'll save you some time.

Q: Define Culture
A:These patterns, traits, and products considered as the expression of a particular period, class, community, or population

Q: Define Diversity
A: Variety or multiformity

Q: Define Significant Diversity
A: Everyone here is going to define this differently based on their experiences, level of education, and, hmmm, maybe even their culture. But I'd say ideological and genetic diversity can be both significant and insignificant. Skin color, insignificant. The predominance of sickle cell in black people, significant. Your preference for redefinining terms that are in the dictionary v. my preference for using dictionary definitions since we all understand them to be the same, significant, our favorite color, insignificant.

Q: Explain the benefits of Diversity that exceeds modern societies Diversity.
A: A continued effort to mix people of varying ideologies, genetics, histories, traditions, etc. only continues to strengthen the human population. Also, I think we can accept that there are many modern societies and they have varying levels of diversity. The diversity in Germany is much different than the diversity in Canada or the US.

Q: Explain what multiculturalism pushes for beyond modern society
A: We simply seek to increasingly bring together diverse peoples so as to continue on the path that we have already started down in most western nations.

Q: Explain the benefits of what it pushes for.
A: The answer is almost identical to the question above as the question is nearly identical. You just limited this diversity to cultural diversity v. overall diversity.

Happy?

Me?

How did I flame?

Like I said, you were more subtle, but you did say he couldn't understand your "idoit's" guide. I think yours was forgivable as we both know that his responses aren't actually caused by a lack of understanding but moreso an attempt to be difficult.

Like I said, you were more subtle, but you did say he couldn't understand your "idoit's" guide. I think yours was forgivable as we both know that his responses aren't actually caused by a lack of understanding but moreso an attempt to be difficult.

Aha - see, I didn't even flame there... I only called it an 'idiot guide' because I was attempting to trivialise the whole issue down to one simple allegorical example - I guess... diseases, environmental pressures, etc ALL identified as one over-simplified 'weapon' concept.

I did say I hadn't realised how low my denominator was going to be... but I don't really think that was flaming... more that I found it hard to believe my over-simplification was being taken as a literal issue... or that it was really causing confusion.

For one, bigotry is just stupid. Sorry, but I have no truck with neonazis. For another, your "racial science" is decades out of date.

...multiculturalism? *Sigh* I hate stupid terms like that. What the hell would "culturalism" be? The.... existence of cultures? So multiculturalism, the existence of multiple cultures? I wish people wouldn't invent words like that just because they're not schizophrenic enough to invent words like FARKMAGOGGLE.

Anyway, I'm against culture, so I guess I'm against multicultures too.

I'm not a multiculturalist, so much as I *am* somebody who advocates non-coercive association between people - and it just doesn't matter much to me what race/skin color they are.

Oh, and I hate Affirmative Action

Given that at one point in the relatively recent past (only about 100,000 years ago) it is thought that the total human population on the planet fell to about 10,000 individuals (source (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/cavemen/chronology/contentpage6.shtml) ) race seems to be a fairly superficial distinction

and to think that the creator of this thread would not answer my thread for White Nationalists. :rolleyes:

Given that at one point in the relatively recent past (only about 100,000 years ago) it is thought that the total human population on the planet fell to about 10,000 individuals (source (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/cavemen/chronology/contentpage6.shtml) ) race seems to be a fairly superficial distinction
Race exists as an artifical cultural barrier rather than an actual biological one (sorry I was unclear what I meant by race in my previous post)

Race exists as an artifical cultural barrier rather than an actual biological one (sorry I was unclear what I meant by race in my previous post)

Exactly.

Race is a socio-political concept with no biological or genetic basis.

As a former resident of Hawaii, which is arguably the most culturally integrated area of the United States, I can say that there are definitely advantages to having a multi-cultural society.

I learned at an early age to judge people by the content of their character rather than by color of their skin. Hating someone because of their race tends to be a moot point when you have mixed race neighbors. Do you hate only half of them? A quarter? An eighth?

I also learned that when it comes down to it, discrimination happens even in such a setting, but because of economic status rather than culture. And yes, even in such a society, discrimination due to race still occurs. I had a female friend who had a Japanese father and a Chinese mother, something that would be unthinkable by most people living in Japan or China, given the animosity between those cultures. Despite this, her parents were adamantly against her dating anyone black. How's that for irony?

I learned that isolationist beliefs lead to unnecessary paranoia and hostility toward other cultures, mainly due to ignorance. As a caucasian, I was also exposed first-hand to reverse discrimination. I got a taste of what it was like to be the group that was despised and ostracized. I still remember how it felt to be turned down by a girl because the idea of dating a white guy was disgusting to her.

Most importantly, I learned that we're all one race. We're human. We can recognize this fact despite differences in philosophical and religious beliefs, differences in shape and color, and we can live together in relative peace and harmony without the trappings of xenophobia and racial/cultural distrust.

and to think that the creator of this thread would not answer my thread for White Nationalists. :rolleyes:
*clears throat.*

*clears throat.*

A giant eyeball clearing it's throat...I'd like to know what that sounds like.

A giant eyeball clearing it's throat...I'd like to know what that sounds like.
hahhahhahahhhaaha. thats not only funny, but strangely accurate. and creepy. whenever i need an icon or avatar- i use a close up of my eyes.

What are the advantages of a diverse society?

(as has been said) good food
(as has been said) good music
(as has been said) different ideas
(as has been said) more interesting day to day lives
(as has been said) greater understanding of each other
(as has been said) less small mindedness
(possibly) less disease
(and if we accept diversity) less war and hatred

you keep asking us to answer your question and we have - are you incapable of putting it all together?
there is so much that different cultures/races/individuals/nationalities offer and contribute to society that I find it incomprehensible that you don't see it. I have not listed all the benefits here as it would take all day.

Now your question has been answered may I ask this:
What are the disadvantages of a diverse society?

I am interested in seeing the perspective of the other side, so I would like to know what precisely the advantages of multi-culturalism are?
What are the advantages of the mingling of different races (or, if you prefer, people from completely different regions of the world)?

And please, wait with the flames until I get a chance to make a suitably stereotyped fascist answer.
It makes life more interesting.

I'm going to stay out of the whole other argument that sprang up for now, and focus on the original post.

This all depends on what you mean by "multiculturalism".
"Mutlicultural" just means "of, relating to, reflecting, or adapted to diverse cultures." If by "multiculturalism" you mean accepting other cultures rather than forcing them to conform to your own cultural standard, it would seem that one benefit is allowing ideas that spring up from seperate cultures to be combined and modified by others. It really all depends on exactly what we are using "multiculturalism" to mean, though, as the term in and of itself carries little meaning as related to this situation. There are so many way people use it, like using it to mean "respecting other cultures as existing and getting along with members of said culture", or "a policy of inclusion of all ethnicities", or "the doctrine that several different cultures can peacefully coexist".

If you want a good analogy about advantages and disadvantages of multiculturism- use computer operating systems. (NOT a flame fest for what's better, just a look at why uniformity is sometimes good and sometimes not good)
Pretty much there is 3 major operating system, Windows, Mac and Linux. Think of each as a culture.
Right now, Windows is the most dominate, used the most and also hacked the most. Its uniformity is extremely benefitial in many ways:
Sharing files, information transfer, quality, many trained for programing, lots of compatable software. These tend to be things that save buisness $$. Can't blame them for liking that.
But, the downside is the vunerablity. Hackers and random propogating errors are like diseases to the DNA- the more uniform, the more likely the widest number will suffer.
Also- the monopolistic effects. There are creative genuis' writing wonderful software that works great (or great fun games) but get bought up by Microsoft, who promptly retools it. Doing this supresses the creativety that might have gotten put in. Mainly I find Microsoft loads a great program with useless crap so when I get the "new and improved" it runs like a fat dog. This is taking a diverse, but related, set of software and trying to mash into one. The 'diversity' of each gets lost.
If you draw the analogy farther, I think you will find the monopolistic choices and company culture will have great similarities to paths taken by societies to a fascist culture. History does not favor the longevity of fascism.
So what about the other operating systems?
Well, you debate... I'm supposed to be working. . .

"Foolish" and "frankly idiotic"? Dangerously close to flaming, my friend.

:shrug: Your post was as close to flaming as mine. Using the same words.

Might want to stop and rethink your 'strategy', such as it is.

My argument wasn't about 'genetic weapons', and if you'd read it and 'got it', you'd see that.

How nice of you to not actually read what you quote.

:shrug: Looks like my attempt was pretty much pointless. So I'll repeat what I was trying to do one more time. Get you, any of you, to actually explain your views. Instead you've insisted on assuming I'm combative. :shrug:

The sole attempt to answer the questions was pretty much a bullshit attempt pretending that a dictionary provides an accurate or adequate answer to any of those questions. And indeed Jocabia refused to recognize a difference between explaining what the benefits are and explaining how and why those benefits work and exist. A mechanical pencil has the benefit of being better than a non-mechanical pencil. It has this benefit because it never decreases in overall length, it will always remains sharp, the eraser can be easily replaced and it is a sturdier instrument.

Perhaps Jocabia can figure out how the last two questions were different now.

Anyway then I’ll go ahead and be the combative person that you decided to assume I was.

The modern "movement" of Multiculturalism pushes for highlighting of the differences between groups. Overall it creates wedges between groups and not bridges. It creates a weaker society, Not a stronger one. Especially when we can get comments as foolish as "it gets rid of X,Y and Z groups that I don't like." There is nothing more bigoted than pushing for the celebration of differences so you can eliminate a group that disagrees with you.

Basically I find the entire “movement” very self-righteous and hypocritical in its actions, desires and thoughts.

Note: This doesn’t mean I disagree with many of the benefits that exist for "multiculturalism". I simply do not believe that maintaining many distinct cultures actually allows those benefits to exist. Incorporating those cultures into your own culture creates those benefits. I enjoy sushi, but being able to enjoy sushi is not dependent on having a distinct and separate Japanese culture residing within in America that holds different and dissenting views from the over-arching culture of America. A certain amount of dissent and conflict needs to exist, but there is no reason to seek to continue to create more and more and more. If anything America used to be an example of this thought process. America took in many immigrants from many different cultures and combined them into “one” culture. Today we hear pleas to take in many immigrants from many different cultures and do everything we can to ensure they don’t combine.

Aha - see, I didn't even flame there... I only called it an 'idiot guide' because I was attempting to trivialise the whole issue down to one simple allegorical example - I guess... diseases, environmental pressures, etc ALL identified as one over-simplified 'weapon' concept.

I did say I hadn't realised how low my denominator was going to be... but I don't really think that was flaming... more that I found it hard to believe my over-simplification was being taken as a literal issue... or that it was really causing confusion.

Actually, I don't think you were flaming, but I don't think he was either. I think the point of being careful of those types of posts is to create a culture that breeds free exchange of ideas. However, with too strict of a definition of flaming our ability to be witty is limited and the posts are less interesting. It's a delicate balance. I think the fact that you comment in the way you do makes your posts much more interesting. I thoroughly enjoy reading them, even when I disagree with you.

:shrug: Looks like my attempt was pretty much pointless. So I'll repeat what I was trying to do one more time. Get you, any of you, to actually explain your views. Instead you've insisted on assuming I'm combative. :shrug:

The sole attempt to answer the questions was pretty much a bullshit attempt pretending that a dictionary provides an accurate or adequate answer to any of those questions. And indeed Jocabia refused to recognize a difference between explaining what the benefits are and explaining how and why those benefits work and exist. A mechanical pencil has the benefit of being better than a non-mechanical pencil. It has this benefit because it never decreases in overall length, it will always remains sharp, the eraser can be easily replaced and it is a sturdier instrument.

Perhaps Jocabia can figure out how the last two questions were different now.

Anyway then I’ll go ahead and be the combative person that you decided to assume I was.

The modern "movement" of Multiculturalism pushes for highlighting of the differences between groups. Overall it creates wedges between groups and not bridges. It creates a weaker society, Not a stronger one. Especially when we can get comments as foolish as "it gets rid of X,Y and Z groups that I don't like." There is nothing more bigoted than pushing for the celebration of differences so you can eliminate a group that disagrees with you.

Basically I find the entire “movement” very self-righteous and hypocritical in its actions, desires and thoughts.

Note: This doesn’t mean I disagree with many of the benefits that exist for "multiculturalism". I simply do not believe that maintaining many distinct cultures actually allows those benefits to exist. Incorporating those cultures into your own culture creates those benefits. I enjoy sushi, but being able to enjoy sushi is not dependent on having a distinct and separate Japanese culture residing within in America that holds different and dissenting views from the over-arching culture of America. A certain amount of dissent and conflict needs to exist, but there is no reason to seek to continue to create more and more and more. If anything America used to be an example of this thought process. America took in many immigrants from many different cultures and combined them into “one” culture. Today we hear pleas to take in many immigrants from many different cultures and do everything we can to ensure they don’t combine.

First, you pretend that an apt metaphor doesn't make any sense. Then you request that we answer a bunch of questions seperately that are better answered in a single paragraph. Then you complain when those questions have both been answered seperately and in a single paragraph. It's clear you're trying to be difficult, but let's assume you aren't.

You asked for the advantages and not the disadvantages. There is always a disadvantage in highlighting the uniqueness of a person or persons in that it may also isolate them. Multiculturalism as it is generally used is more about bringing together multiple cultures and encouraging to exchange ideas and knowledge. If you see this as driving a wedge, I'm not sure what to say to that. I don't know of any type of multicultural exchange that pushes for highlighting the differences in people. My experience is that is more about showing what individual cultures have to offer to other cultures. I think you can see why and how this offers benefits, but I will point them out anyway. While most cultures are not homogenous, there are often ideas, recipes, genetic offerings, etc. that don't exist in a particular culture. Mulitculturalism exposes that culture to those ideas, recipes, genetic offerings, etc. This has been pointed out in multiple posts and there it is again. Is that clear enough or are you still unsure of what about half a dozen people here are trying to say?

EDIT: I was saying questions 4 and 6 were nearly exactly the same not 5 and 6. As you did not number them, it was difficult to be clear.

Second Edit: No reply, huh? Shocker.

It makes life more interesting.

Exactly.
This country (I'm American) would be soooo boring if it weren't for diversity. Homogeny is boring.

:shrug: Your post was as close to flaming as mine. Using the same words.


Sorry?

I called you 'foolish' or 'frankly idiotic'?

You even go so far as to attribute those particular words to me...

I am genuinely confused... when did I do that?

Actually, I don't think you were flaming, but I don't think he was either. I think the point of being careful of those types of posts is to create a culture that breeds free exchange of ideas. However, with too strict of a definition of flaming our ability to be witty is limited and the posts are less interesting. It's a delicate balance. I think the fact that you comment in the way you do makes your posts much more interesting. I thoroughly enjoy reading them, even when I disagree with you.

Thank you! :)

It's nice to know I can score points for 'Artistic Impression" when my "Technique" scores fail me. :)

Thank you! :)

It's nice to know I can score points for 'Artistic Impression" when my "Technique" scores fail me. :)

;-)

Genetically speaking, isolating a biological group weakens it.

Examples in humans:
hemophilia
Tay Sachs disease
sickle cell anemia
some forms of mental retardation

Example in purebred dogs
Hip displaysia


You need genetic diversity to keep a group healthy.

In a completely different way, having a mixture of different ethnicities in a neighborhood is wonderful. You can be exposed to different music, foods, philosophies, fashions... and you may actually enjoy adopting some aspects of these things into your dress, diet, and education.

First, you pretend that an apt metaphor doesn't make any sense.

If you’re referring to Grave’s over-simplified to the extreme “metaphor” and you’re simple-minded enough to believe that that metaphor can be an apt description of anything, more power to you. You must live in a very happy and very simple world.

Then you request that we answer a bunch of questions seperately that are better answered in a single paragraph. Then you complain when those questions have both been answered seperately and in a single paragraph. It's clear you're trying to be difficult, but let's assume you aren't.

If you would like to point to someone who actually answered the questions... which you didn't. Quoting one of many definitions of the term on "culture" has no relevance to any of the questions. Nor does spitting off a list of "benefits" explain those benefits. You made some half-assed "continues to strengthen humanity" crock of shit. Mixing a weaker culture with a stronger culture may result in the two cultures becoming stronger, but is just as likely, or even more likely, to result in a new culture weaker than the strong and stronger than the weak. Or it could even result in a new culture that contains almost none of the strengths of the strong and all of the weaknesses of both.

You asked for the advantages and not the disadvantages. There is always a disadvantage in highlighting the uniqueness of a person or persons in that it may also isolate them. Multiculturalism as it is generally used is more about bringing together multiple cultures and encouraging to exchange ideas and knowledge. If you see this as driving a wedge, I'm not sure what to say to that. I don't know of any type of multicultural exchange that pushes for highlighting the differences in people. My experience is that is more about showing what individual cultures have to offer to other cultures.

I would say that your experience is clouded. Those who express and desire "Multiculturalism" are happy to push for anything left in nature, and only left. The idea of concept of embracing any culture that would dare be on the American right is heresy. Happy to push and expose and fit everyone into their world of "multiculturalism" so long as that culture fits into their happy little world. More attention is paid to your race and your ethnic background rather than to you. You are "black" you are not a middle class guy who grew up in a suburb in a 650k house. No you're black. So therefor you came from the ghetto and like rap and hip-hop, not Early Baroque and Metal.

Multiculturalism fits people in groups and then runs around happy about "combining" and "sharing" between groups and not between people.

This thread has given me an idea to make a Swedish Meatball Salsa.

If you’re referring to Grave’s over-simplified to the extreme “metaphor” and you’re simple-minded enough to believe that that metaphor can be an apt description of anything, more power to you. You must live in a very happy and very simple world.



If you would like to point to someone who actually answered the questions... which you didn't. Quoting one of many definitions of the term on "culture" has no relevance to any of the questions. Nor does spitting off a list of "benefits" explain those benefits. You made some half-assed "continues to strengthen humanity" crock of shit. Mixing a weaker culture with a stronger culture may result in the two cultures becoming stronger, but is just as likely, or even more likely, to result in a new culture weaker than the strong and stronger than the weak. Or it could even result in a new culture that contains almost none of the strengths of the strong and all of the weaknesses of both.



I would say that your experience is clouded. Those who express and desire "Multiculturalism" are happy to push for anything left in nature, and only left. The idea of concept of embracing any culture that would dare be on the American right is heresy. Happy to push and expose and fit everyone into their world of "multiculturalism" so long as that culture fits into their happy little world. More attention is paid to your race and your ethnic background rather than to you. You are "black" you are not a middle class guy who grew up in a suburb in a 650k house. No you're black. So therefor you came from the ghetto and like rap and hip-hop, not Early Baroque and Metal.

Multiculturalism fits people in groups and then runs around happy about "combining" and "sharing" between groups and not between people.

Ha, I just got called left-wing. Awesome. I can't wait to tell my friends. You make a ton of assumptions that are not present in my post at all. You just assume that multiculturalism is left-wing. I love how you pretend not to have an opinion on multiculturalism ("I don't have a point") and then you clearly and obviously make up what it is and what it represents. I happen to think that people of similar class have more in common that people of the same race, but we weren't talking about that, were we?

Now, let's go back to the strengthening of the human race by providing a bigger variety of genetics. First, you showed your true colors in that you suggested that some cultures are weaker. Second, you obviously either don't understand or don't believe darwinism. Evolution shows that a larger variety of genes is an advantage as when selection occurs the stronger genes are more likely to occur. Now, do I need to show to you how genetics work and that all combinations of genes have a chance to occur. You won't just get weaker mixes, you will also get stronger mixes and the stronger mixes will be selected. Weakness is generally only propogated when a variety of genes is not available as in isolationism. If you don't understand this, I suggest you pick up a book on genetics and biology. Now, ideas, beliefs, etc. tend to go through a similar process often referred to as social darwinism.

This thread has given me an idea to make a Swedish Meatball Salsa.


Actually Swedish Meatballs go very well with a side of spicy salsa.

If you’re referring to Grave’s over-simplified to the extreme “metaphor” and you’re simple-minded enough to believe that that metaphor can be an apt description of anything, more power to you. You must live in a very happy and very simple world.



If you would like to point to someone who actually answered the questions... which you didn't. Quoting one of many definitions of the term on "culture" has no relevance to any of the questions. Nor does spitting off a list of "benefits" explain those benefits. You made some half-assed "continues to strengthen humanity" crock of shit. Mixing a weaker culture with a stronger culture may result in the two cultures becoming stronger, but is just as likely, or even more likely, to result in a new culture weaker than the strong and stronger than the weak. Or it could even result in a new culture that contains almost none of the strengths of the strong and all of the weaknesses of both.



I would say that your experience is clouded. Those who express and desire "Multiculturalism" are happy to push for anything left in nature, and only left. The idea of concept of embracing any culture that would dare be on the American right is heresy. Happy to push and expose and fit everyone into their world of "multiculturalism" so long as that culture fits into their happy little world. More attention is paid to your race and your ethnic background rather than to you. You are "black" you are not a middle class guy who grew up in a suburb in a 650k house. No you're black. So therefor you came from the ghetto and like rap and hip-hop, not Early Baroque and Metal.

Multiculturalism fits people in groups and then runs around happy about "combining" and "sharing" between groups and not between people.

How about this similar example - Let's say there is a group, let's make up a name for them, like Native Americans, and let's say that group is isolated in some way, let's pretend it's by water. Then let's say that they are exposed to a disease, let's make up a name for it to, like Small Pox. And let's say they get absolutely decimated with illness because of their lack of exposure to it in the past.

Is that over-simplified? Is it an apt description of anything? Hmmm... not much different than her example, is it? Why can't we think of a real-world example. Give us time, I'm sure we can find at least one example from history.

Ha, I just got called left-wing. Awesome. I can't wait to tell my friends. You make a ton of assumptions that are not present in my post at all.

I don't see in anything in my post talking about you outside of your half ass answers. But you have a nice level of "group think" seeing as when someone starts to talk about a group you assumed that they are talking about you.

You just assume that multiculturalism is left-wing.

You would wish to contend that it is not?

I love how you pretend not to have an opinion on multiculturalism ("I don't have a point")

There was not pretending. I was attempting to not make a point and didn't wish to get drawn into a drawn out discussion on the matter. I wished to ask some plain questions. Questions that no one wished to answer it seems. The answer to "explain the benefits" is not to repeat a list. It is to explain them, what they are, how they work and their drawbacks.

and then you clearly and obviously make up what it is and what it represents. I happen to think that people of similar class have more in common that people of the same race, but we weren't talking about that, were we?

Yeah we were. The pushed idea of multiculturalism focuses on Races and Skin Color. Not on different cultures.

Now, let's go back to the strengthening of the human race by providing a bigger variety of genetics. First, you showed your true colors in that you suggested that some cultures are weaker.

Oh yes, by god. I've shown my "true colors" by daring to suggest that is possible that one culture is better than another. Oh how horrible I am. No, we can not and must not judge anyone or anything. How dare I. The KKK and the Neo Nazi are perfectly good people who are as worthy as much respect as any fine upstanding moral citizen. :rolleyes:

Second, you obviously either don't understand or don't believe darwinism. Evolution shows that a larger variety of genes is an advantage as when selection occurs the stronger genes are more likely to occur. Now, do I need to show to you how genetics work and that all combinations of genes have a chance to occur. You won't just get weaker mixes, you will also get stronger mixes and the stronger mixes will be selected. Weakness is generally only propogated when a variety of genes is not available as in isolationism. If you don't understand this, I suggest you pick up a book on genetics and biology.

Yes thank you for the very dumb re-hash of a subject I took more than a year ago. Never mind that Evolution in the Darwinian sense doesn't occur anymore when it comes to the First World.

Now, ideas, beliefs, etc. tend to go through a similar process often referred to as social darwinism.

Ha. That’s a laugh.

How about this similar example - Let's say there is a group, let's make up a name for them, like Native Americans, and let's say that group is isolated in some way, let's pretend it's by water. Then let's say that they are exposed to a disease, let's make up a name for it to, like Small Pox. And let's say they get absolutely decimated with illness because of their lack of exposure to it in the past.

Is that over-simplified? Is it an apt description of anything? Hmmm... not much different than her example, is it? Why can't we think of a real-world example. Give us time, I'm sure we can find at least one example from history.

It is an apt description of a time period that no longer exists. It is an apt description of a very specific event that does not translate to cultures, but to localized racial groups without much ability to treat diseases.

Perhaps you weren't able to figure out the remark about it being simplified to the extreme? Weren't quite able to realize that an example dealing with a disease doesn't translate to ideas or to the combination of cultures?

I don't see in anything in my post talking about you outside of your half ass answers. But you have a nice level of "group think" seeing as when someone starts to talk about a group you assumed that they are talking about you.



You would wish to contend that it is not?



There was not pretending. I was attempting to not make a point and didn't wish to get drawn into a drawn out discussion on the matter. I wished to ask some plain questions. Questions that no one wished to answer it seems. The answer to "explain the benefits" is not to repeat a list. It is to explain them, what they are, how they work and their drawbacks.



Yeah we were. The pushed idea of multiculturalism focuses on Races and Skin Color. Not on different cultures.



Oh yes, by god. I've shown my "true colors" by daring to suggest that is possible that one culture is better than another. Oh how horrible I am. No, we can not and must not judge anyone or anything. How dare I. The KKK and the Neo Nazi are perfectly good people who are as worthy as much respect as any fine upstanding moral citizen. :rolleyes:



Yes thank you for the very dumb re-hash of a subject I took more than a year ago. Never mind that Evolution in the Darwinian sense doesn't occur anymore when it comes to the First World.



Ha. That’s a laugh.

Well, I believe in multiculturalism because I'm a scientist. Science supports the mixing of cultures. Now if you think multiculturalism is a leftist ideology, that says a lot about what you think of the right. Maybe the right is isolationist and supports the advancement of rich, white, Christian males. Oh, wait, that's both the left and right.

If you believe darwinism doesn't occur anymore, I don't know what to tell you. You took Darwinism and evolution a whole year ago? Wow, you must be very experienced with it.

Do you know what pheremones actually are? Women have a more advanced sense of smell during the time leading up to and around ovulation. Know why? Because it gives them the ability to smell the chemicals excreted by men. Why is that important? Because those chemicals tell women if their immune systems are complimentary. If they are the woman gets that funny feeling and there you go. You know what that is? Natural selection. Do we resist it? Sure. Does it continue to happen anyway? Sure. But I'm sure you knew all this already. Sorry for my very dumb rehash of a subject you didn't understand the first time.

Does the multiculturalism movement in Chicago focus on race? When it encourages the Polish community to interact with the Italian and Irish communities, is that about race and color? Maybe you want to make up a definition of race and color that makes what you said true?

You keep trying to make class part of culture. It's not generally considered so. It's class. Why? Because there's class movement.

While particular ideologies may be associated with a culture, having a particular ideologies does not make you part of a particular culture. Thus the KKK might be associated with a particular culture, white southerners, but it is not in itself a culture. Culture is an anthropological term and it involves race and ethnicity, though not only these two things. You are born into a culture. "The beliefs, traditions, habits, and values controlling the behavior of the majority of the people in a social-ethnic group." Did you take anthropology last year too? Sorry, if I wasted your time.

Do you know what the opposite of multiculturalism is? Isolationism? Do you support isolationism? Do you think a person who has never left their home town is going to be more or less capable of having reasoned discussions about the ideologies of the world? Do you think travel is a good idea for increasing your experiences and ability to have intelligent discussions? Because if you do, you support multiculturalism on some level. You must be a leftist.

You replied to my post saying that people who support multiculturalism support all things left and only left. I supported multiculturalism so I used inference. Do I need to define inference? Should I explain to you how your ridiculous and sweeping statements can be construed to mean something? Since you seem to be very young, you're probably still learning how to communicate effectively so I'll just chalk it up to that.

I don't see in anything in my post talking about you outside of your half ass answers. But you have a nice level of "group think" seeing as when someone starts to talk about a group you assumed that they are talking about you.



You would wish to contend that it is not?



There was not pretending. I was attempting to not make a point and didn't wish to get drawn into a drawn out discussion on the matter. I wished to ask some plain questions. Questions that no one wished to answer it seems. The answer to "explain the benefits" is not to repeat a list. It is to explain them, what they are, how they work and their drawbacks.



Yeah we were. The pushed idea of multiculturalism focuses on Races and Skin Color. Not on different cultures.



Oh yes, by god. I've shown my "true colors" by daring to suggest that is possible that one culture is better than another. Oh how horrible I am. No, we can not and must not judge anyone or anything. How dare I. The KKK and the Neo Nazi are perfectly good people who are as worthy as much respect as any fine upstanding moral citizen. :rolleyes:



Yes thank you for the very dumb re-hash of a subject I took more than a year ago. Never mind that Evolution in the Darwinian sense doesn't occur anymore when it comes to the First World.



Ha. That’s a laugh.

Oh, I apologize for the half-assed answers of myself and everyone else. We made the clearly unfair assumption that you had the education and experience to understand the basic concepts (concepts like the definition of culture) necessary for this post. We were wrong and I'm sorry. We also made the unfair assumption that if you didn't understand what culture means that you could use a dictionary for a brief explanation or the internet for a more encyclopedic definition. As my twelve-year-old nephew understands what culture is (I just asked him), I assumed you would too. I'm sorry for the invalid assumption. This is why our comments seem half-assed. This is also why we can each understand the concepts being put forward by each other and you cannot.

One more concept for you - It is necessary for us to use definitions of words that can be found in encyclopedias and dictionaries because it's a necessary part of language. If the definition of words are not set then it is very difficult for people to communicate. For example, when I use the term half-assed about a reply I am trying to say that the reply used unclear assumptions, but you are clearly using half-assed to mean "over Salvondia's head". This leads to miscommunications. You would be better served to admit that your inexperienced and uneducated to the point that you are never going to understand the concepts we're trying to explain. This way we won't waste our collective time trying to explain them to you.

In the even you really were trying to say that we used unclear assumptions, the assumptions are explained above. I hope this helps.

Note: see what a waste of time it is when everyone is difficult.

If you’re referring to Grave’s over-simplified to the extreme “metaphor” and you’re simple-minded enough to believe that that metaphor can be an apt description of anything, more power to you. You must live in a very happy and very simple world.



If you would like to point to someone who actually answered the questions... which you didn't. Quoting one of many definitions of the term on "culture" has no relevance to any of the questions. Nor does spitting off a list of "benefits" explain those benefits. You made some half-assed "continues to strengthen humanity" crock of shit. Mixing a weaker culture with a stronger culture may result in the two cultures becoming stronger, but is just as likely, or even more likely, to result in a new culture weaker than the strong and stronger than the weak. Or it could even result in a new culture that contains almost none of the strengths of the strong and all of the weaknesses of both.



I would say that your experience is clouded. Those who express and desire "Multiculturalism" are happy to push for anything left in nature, and only left. The idea of concept of embracing any culture that would dare be on the American right is heresy. Happy to push and expose and fit everyone into their world of "multiculturalism" so long as that culture fits into their happy little world. More attention is paid to your race and your ethnic background rather than to you. You are "black" you are not a middle class guy who grew up in a suburb in a 650k house. No you're black. So therefor you came from the ghetto and like rap and hip-hop, not Early Baroque and Metal.

Multiculturalism fits people in groups and then runs around happy about "combining" and "sharing" between groups and not between people.

I find it incredible that you managed to turn one of my posts, into a platform for insulting other people.

Well done.

I am sorry that you thought my illustartion over-simplified - but it was supposed to be simplistic. We were looking for advantages to combinations of 'cultures', and one major advantage is that the loss of isolation increases the vitality of the genepool.

I don't see why you don't 'like that' point... unless it somehow conflicts with some agenda you already have?

Perhaps your point is that that is a 'racial' (erroneous term, I appreciate) form of interaction? Not entirely true - of course, since 'cultural' isolation can be based on any of a variety of factors... health, skin colour, preferred religion, even societal position.

Thus - even in the 'simplistic' case of genetic resistances or resilience, 'isolation' in pretty much ANY form is destructive, overall.

I wonder what the agenda (the one you claim not to be following, yet I later find you telling us what 'good people' the KKK are?) is, that you are trying to push?

Or do you not really have a 'point'?

It is an apt description of a time period that no longer exists. It is an apt description of a very specific event that does not translate to cultures, but to localized racial groups without much ability to treat diseases.

Perhaps you weren't able to figure out the remark about it being simplified to the extreme? Weren't quite able to realize that an example dealing with a disease doesn't translate to ideas or to the combination of cultures?

A time period that no longer exists?

So - are you arguing there are no more Native Americans?

Or, are you arguing there are no longer any isolated peoples?

Obviously - either would be ridiculous...

I find myself confused that you seem to be coming up with the concept of 'racial groups' that can't treat disease... perhaps you didn't realise that the American Natives were wiped out - not because of 'race', but because they had no immune defence to a non-native disease?

(Of course, their new 'friends' from the Old World soon wiped them out for their 'race' also...)

I find it incredible that you managed to turn one of my posts, into a platform for insulting other people.

Well done.

I am sorry that you thought my illustartion over-simplified - but it was supposed to be simplistic. We were looking for advantages to combinations of 'cultures', and one major advantage is that the loss of isolation increases the vitality of the genepool.

I don't see why you don't 'like that' point... unless it somehow conflicts with some agenda you already have?

Perhaps your point is that that is a 'racial' (erroneous term, I appreciate) form of interaction? Not entirely true - of course, since 'cultural' isolation can be based on any of a variety of factors... health, skin colour, preferred religion, even societal position.

Thus - even in the 'simplistic' case of genetic resistances or resilience, 'isolation' in pretty much ANY form is destructive, overall.

I wonder what the agenda (the one you claim not to be following, yet I later find you telling us what 'good people' the KKK are?) is, that you are trying to push?

Or do you not really have a 'point'?

Actually, Grave, he rolled his eyes after he made that point, meaning he was being sarcastic. I believe he was trying to make the point that some cultures are worse than others, only he chose an ideology and not a culture.

BTW, did you think my real-world example effectively paralleled your original example?

Actually, Grave, he rolled his eyes after he made that point, meaning he was being sarcastic. I believe he was trying to make the point that some cultures are worse than others, only he chose an ideology and not a culture.

BTW, did you think my real-world example effectively paralleled your original example?

I'm having problems keeping track of the switchbacks and backtracks of my opposition here... I have yet to see a coherent point put together by the 'opposition'... so, I'll admit, perhaps I am grasping at straws...

Indeed - the real world example of the Native Americans and their less-than-happy encounter with European disease vectors, is the perfect parallel for the little schematic I sketched.

The whole point of my original thumbnail, was that it was intended to be simplistic enough to be versatile.... perhaps actually a reference to genetic weaponry; perhaps as a reference to something more natural - a 'natural' genetic weapon... like a disease; but I was also hoping to paint in broad enough strokes to allow for other situations like changing political climates, and how they 'kill' out-dated political 'parties'.

Yes - the PRIME example was a disease/genetics reference... and the isolation of the Native American, followed by the sudden exposure to an entirely new pathogen, and cataclysmic reaction... is a perfect example.

:)

I'm having problems keeping track of the switchbacks and backtracks of my opposition here... I have yet to see a coherent point put together by the 'opposition'... so, I'll admit, perhaps I am grasping at straws...

Indeed - the real world example of the Native Americans and their less-than-happy encounter with European disease vectors, is the perfect parallel for the little schematic I sketched.

The whole point of my original thumbnail, was that it was intended to be simplistic enough to be versatile.... perhaps actually a reference to genetic weaponry; perhaps as a reference to something more natural - a 'natural' genetic weapon... like a disease; but I was also hoping to paint in broad enough strokes to allow for other situations like changing political climates, and how they 'kill' out-dated political 'parties'.

Yes - the PRIME example was a disease/genetics reference... and the isolation of the Native American, followed by the sudden exposure to an entirely new pathogen, and cataclysmic reaction... is a perfect example.

:)

I understood why you used the example you did. I said earlier that it was apt, but it was not accepted by our friend so I used one that's difficult to refute, though he still tried (poorly).

See we actually can agree on some things, Grave. Don't get used to it. ;-)

It really depends on what you mean by multiculturalism. If you mean a group of cultures living seperately but side by side, that's not really multicultural. If you mean a group of people from seperate cultures who come together to form some type of integrated culture, bingo. I'm in full support of the latter for many reasons, namely;

- Other cultures have interesting and new ideas which can benefit many.
- Other cultures have diverse artforms, which can be integrated with existing ones to form even more outlets for creativity.
- Combined with that, the languge of other cultures acn help form new ideas and new ways of thinking (Given that language is the basis for what we consider thought, and that different languages have very different nuances and so forth.). Consider a very simple example - we use the French 'per se' instead of having to create a new term or use a much longer phrase for the same thing. We say 'tomato', the same as the Nahuatl language used, rather than 'sphericalishredweirdtastingbutkindacoolthing'. Again, very simplified examples, but nonetheless useful.
- Tolerance and open-mindedness. This one should be fairly self-explanatory; if a third of the population of Iran was of European descent, I bet the nation's values would be very different.
- There are no rational, defensible downsides to integrated multiculturalism, although segregated multiculturalism is much more dicey.

I understood why you used the example you did. I said earlier that it was apt, but it was not accepted by our friend so I used one that's difficult to refute, though he still tried (poorly).

See we actually can agree on some things, Grave. Don't get used to it. ;-)

:) If we agree, we agree... and if we disagree, we disagree.

I try very hard to approach each individual thread, topic and post as though it were a new artifact - so I pretty much "take it as I get it". :)

Anyway - it's nice to have spots of agreement between the butting-together-of-heads, no?

:) If we agree, we agree... and if we disagree, we disagree.

I try very hard to approach each individual thread, topic and post as though it were a new artifact - so I pretty much "take it as I get it". :)

Anyway - it's nice to have spots of agreement between the butting-together-of-heads, no?

I mostly agree. It's hard to ignore the context of some people's replies, meaning all other replies posted by them in other threads. I was here for several months learning about the community before I started posting because it lets me know who I'm going to have a reasoned debate with and where I'm just banging my head against a brick wall. I generally try to avoid replying to the brick walls. I would rather disagree with you than agree with a good majority of people who post on this forum. Take that as a compliment.

I mostly agree. It's hard to ignore the context of some people's replies, meaning all other replies posted by them in other threads. I was here for several months learning about the community before I started posting because it lets me know who I'm going to have a reasoned debate with and where I'm just banging my head against a brick wall. I generally try to avoid replying to the brick walls. I would rather disagree with you than agree with a good majority of people who post on this forum. Take that as a compliment.

Thank you - I do take it as a compliment.

As I posted (today,actually), in another thread - I would rather have an opponent I respect, than an ally I can 'tolerate'.

Thank you - I do take it as a compliment.

As I posted (today,actually), in another thread - I would rather have an opponent I respect, than an ally I can 'tolerate'.

Well, yeah, plus I'd rather have the idiot hurting your argument than mine. Look how badly Al Queda damaged Islam. I rather have to debate against Einstein, Martin Luther King Jr. and John F. Kennedy with Al Queda siding with them than against some simply adequate opponent with Al Queda agreeing with me.

Well, yeah, plus I'd rather have the idiot hurting your argument than mine. Look how badly Al Queda damaged Islam. I rather have to debate against Einstein, Martin Luther King Jr. and John F. Kennedy with Al Queda siding with them than against some simply adequate opponent with Al Queda agreeing with me.

Indeed - sometimes, on this debate forum - it is hard enough to maintain a stable, reasoned response. So much harder if you are having to fight brushfires in your own ranks.