NationStates Jolt Archive

One thing I've noticed in my time here (~3 years) that I never really saw elsewhere was the tendency for some to argue against "multiculturalism" as if it is a great and terrible evil.

So let's examine this. Are you for or against multiculturalism?

Let's define. Merriam-Webster says "multicultural" is

"of, relating to, reflecting, or adapted to diverse cultures."

Wikipedia has a longer article on it, of course. In short:

Multiculturalism is an policy aimed at preserving different cultures or cultural identities within a unified society, as a state or nation. Multiculturalism advocates a society that extends equitable status to distinct cultural and religious groups.

The term "multiculturalism" or multicultural is also used to describe demographic conditions of cultural and ethnic diversity where it occurs, whether or not it is officially supported by state policy. There is thus an important distinction to be made between official, or de jure multiculturalism and the de facto conditions of cultural diversity, tolerance and cosmopolitanism.

Advocates for the adoption (or maintenance) of official policies of multiculturalism often argue that cultural diversity is a positive force for a society’s nationhood or cultural identity. Official multiculturalism contrasts with forms of officially sanctioned monoculturalism (though such a term has only been used retrospectively). Monoculturalism implies a normative cultural unity or cultural homogeneity.

So it seems to me that multiculturalism is little more than some kind of tolerance of multiple cultures.

So what's the alternative then, I wonder? Only one culture? My problem is that the people who argue vehemently against multiculturalism don't often expound on their plan to go from multiple cultures... to just one. Really, there aren't many ways to do that. It boils down to - extermination of the other cultures (aka Final Solution), and/or keeping the other cultures out through harsh immigration policies (aka deporting Muslims for being Too Muslim).

What do you think? Am I the only one that experiences a sense of deep unease when people argue vehemently for ultranationalistic monocultures by means of discrimination, nationalist garrison-state and/or deportation?

How dare you insinuate that my racial superiority necessarily translates to racism.

...

On a more serious note, I have yet to see a argument for "border security" that doesn't reek of racism.

So what's the alternative then, I wonder? Only one culture? My problem is that the people who argue vehemently against multiculturalism don't often expound on their plan to go from multiple cultures... to just one. Really, there aren't many ways to do that. It boils down to - extermination of the other cultures (aka Final Solution), and/or keeping the other cultures out through harsh immigration policies (aka deporting Muslims for being Too Muslim).

That's not true. Immigration patterns change over time. Eventually the differences between the various groups fade and it becomes a new monoculture. It's typically what has happened in the past.

So I can see the complaint that some multicultural policies that have as their aim the 'preservation' of subgroups culture are unnatural and ultimately counter productive. Within reason, it's probably better to let society as a whole select what stays and what goes. (Also, if there are government sponsored programmes to 'recognize' certain cultures, you'll run into the problem that some groups will be so few in number there won't be enough of them to be a minority).

And of course some cultural norms are just do disgusting that they don't have any place in a decent society in the first place.

I just don't see how the issues of culture and immigration are necessarily connected. Culture doesn't say anything about ethnic groups, so really people who're afraid of multiculturalism should have bigger things to worry about than whether foreigners come in. Imagine a new fad becoming popular with the kids, and you end up with a whole new culture, new commonly held shared beliefs, rituals, language, artifacts and customs right in our midst! And worse, these new cultures are almost by necessity hostile to the establishment and lead to culture clashes within the community.

Of course, that is if "multiculturalism" wasn't just used as a code word to disguise something else entirely, not just to us but also to themselves.

I'm a big fan of multicultralism. I live in a diverse and exciting city and attend a school where around 25% of the students are not from NZ.

Lol, biased poll.

For.
But I come from an extremely diverse country so it's my reality... and it's both fascinating and beautiful.

Lol, biased poll.

Much?

Much?

Yes.

On a more serious note, I have yet to see a argument for "border security" that doesn't reek of racism.
I am getting tired of being called a racist because I might not support completely open immigration policy.

I am getting tired of being called a racist because I might not support completely open immigration policy.

Bwahah isn't that what makes a racist?

As to multiculturalism. Well I live in London, it's part and parcel of everyday life for me, and I love it, all of these people from all over with their weird ways.

I live in Leicester, the most multicultural city in the UK. To me the wide range of cultures in the city enrich the place enormously.

I am getting tired of being called a racist because I might not support completely open immigration policy.

I am not calling anyone a rascist; I am merely saying that the arguments that I have heard were. There may well be somethat are not.
I don't have the time nor mental composure at the moment for an actual debate, but people calling for a 20 story wall on the Mexican border for security purposes who conveniently ignore Canada and the ports fuel my cynicism.
I shall create a thread after I sleep.

It is rather strange how reaction against "multi-culturalism" tends to almost entirely arise when speaking about non-white, non-Europeans but not when discussing anglo-saxon/"American" ideas.......With regards to America,as mentioned earlier, if security was a genuine concern, its the border with canada that has "history", not the mexican one.

I said good, but it's not just good for the reasons stated, I find that it's generally interesting to learn about different cultures as well. Plus in more ethnically diverse cities, there's more varieties of ethnic cuisine. (I like food)

good, it's less boring to associate with people that aren't clones of yourself, you might learn something you know.

I live in the most multicultural street in Victoria. It sucks. Nobody talks to each other and every second house sells drugs.

Encouraging multi-cultural influences is fine -- in fact it's desirable in my opinion...All of society benefits.

But when the identity of an individual is lost because the multi-culturalists want to categorize by groups, well, that's wrong. The individual should always be the smallest unit of consideration, but when we start checking off which ethic and cultural group we belong to, we've lost that individuality.

...and every second house sells drugs.
That’s handy.

Having roots in Cajun Culture, and watching this culture after 250+ years of existence slowly dying, I affirm a multi-cultural stance... While I expect people who immigrate to learn the normal language of the country they are deciding to reside in, I encourage them to express their cultural/language roots... Afterall, here in the US, there is really no "US Culture"; it's an amalgamation of borrowed cultural elements from all over the world, and it will keep amalgamating thanks to multiculturalism.

I live in the most multicultural street in Victoria. It sucks. Nobody talks to each other and every second house sells drugs.

Welcome to the modern city.

Welcome to the modern city.

It's a suburb.

What I object to is the assertion that all cultures are of equivalent value.

They're not.

What I object to is the assertion that all cultures are of equivalent value.

They’re not.
I heartily agree.

Cultural relativism sucks.

What I object to is the assertion that all cultures are of equivalent value.

They're not.

Ohh a bite!

Why are they not?

I am not calling anyone a rascist; I am merely saying that the arguments that I have heard were. There may well be somethat are not.
I don't have the time nor mental composure at the moment for an actual debate, but people calling for a 20 story wall on the Mexican border for security purposes who conveniently ignore Canada and the ports fuel my cynicism.
I shall create a thread after I sleep.

*shrug* I'm all for "border security" as long as we're talking about better tracking of people IN the country who are not citizens as well, and aren't entertaining trite notions of building large walls to keep people out. What people on the "keep the Mexicans out" side of the argument seem to fail at realizing, is that illegal immigrants coming in from Mexico make up about, I believe, just under 20% of illegal immigrants in this country. The vast majority come from overseas with perfectly legal visas, and simply overstay their visas and drop off the system.

If you want to halt illegal immigration, you stop the problem there, by better keeping track of people who are here on visas. If you're not willing to follow through with that, then all your argmuent is little more than anti-Mexican xenophobia.

Ohh a bite!

Why are they not?
This should be apparently obvious.

Some cultures are ‘better’ than others. Modern-day Sweden is ‘better’ than Pol Pot’s Cambodia, for example. A tolerant, open society is much ‘better’ than a intolerant society where minorities are persecuted.

If you hold the idea that all cultures are equally valid, you’ll have to turn a blind eye to those cultures that allow certain reprehensible acts; the genocide of minorities, to take an obvious example.

I live in the most multicultural street in Victoria. It sucks. Nobody talks to each other and every second house sells drugs.

You have failed to show any connection between the multicultural aspect of your street and the problems (or what you consider problems) of your street.

Encouraging multi-cultural influences is fine -- in fact it's desirable in my opinion...All of society benefits.

But when the identity of an individual is lost because the multi-culturalists want to categorize by groups, well, that's wrong. The individual should always be the smallest unit of consideration, but when we start checking off which ethic and cultural group we belong to, we've lost that individuality.

Multicultural advocates do not necessarily categorise people by groups. We simply respect the cultural and ethnic identity of the individuals with whom we interact.

What I object to is the assertion that all cultures are of equivalent value.

They're not.

Since we use cultural paradigms to judge the value of things, any assertion about the relative and objective value of different cultures is meaningless. This is not to say that a person can't value one culture more than another, but they are doing so for reasons that are cultural in themselves.

Since we use cultural paradigms to judge the value of things, any assertion about the relative and objective value of different cultures is meaningless. This is not to say that a person can’t value one culture more than another, but they are doing so for reasons that are cultural in themselves.
Assuming culture has ultimate control over our morality, which seems rather off.

That’s why people inside cultures differ widely on issues of morality, value, etc. We can’t just attribute everything to culture.

not just good but essential to human survival.

any arbitrarily imposed absence of it is what is evil in this context.

morality cannot be derived from belief.

there is only one evil, and that is the causing of suffering (knowingly, willingly, unneccesarily, uncoercedly), and THAT includes the unseen, taken for granted, throw away values which create, by combining statisticly, the incentives for the policies which create the conditions which cause far more suffering then anyone deliberately setting out to, or acknowledging doing so.

muliticulturalism is the saviour. isolationist provincialism is the evil.

=^^=
.../\...

This should be apparently obvious.

Some cultures are ‘better’ than others. Modern-day Sweden is ‘better’ than Pol Pot’s Cambodia, for example. A tolerant, open society is much ‘better’ than a intolerant society where minorities are persecuted.

If you hold the idea that all cultures are equally valid, you’ll have to turn a blind eye to those cultures that allow certain reprehensible acts; the genocide of minorities, to take an obvious example.

I don't agree that if you hold the idea that all cultures are equally valid that you have to turn a blind eye to reprehensible acts. Why does this follow then?

I am English, so it is a part of my culture to drink heavily and fight a lot.

I can disagree with this, or see it as not good without abandoning my belief that my culture is as valid as the American culture.

Assuming culture has ultimate control over our morality, which seems rather off.

That’s why people inside cultures differ widely on issues of morality, value, etc. We can’t just attribute everything to culture.

That is true but it would be spurious to declare that there are no such things as cultural mores.

Assuming culture has ultimate control over our morality, which seems rather off.

That’s why people inside cultures differ widely on issues of morality, value, etc. We can’t just attribute everything to culture.

I wasn't discussing morality, though morality is also influenced by culture. I was talking about how we attach value to things.

In comparing different cultures so as to say which one is better, what criteria do we use? This selection of criteria is determined by our existing paradigm. This paradigm cannot help but include our culture.

We can objectively compare aspects of cultures. By measuring hate crimes against homosexuals, for example, we can quantitavely measure how two cultures compare in terms of social acceptance of altenative sexualities. But this does not make one culture better than another in some sort of objective manner.

I wasn't discussing morality, though morality is also influenced by culture. I was talking about how we attach value to things.

In comparing different cultures so as to say which one is better, what criteria do we use? This selection of criteria is determined by our existing paradigm. This paradigm cannot help but include our culture.

We can objectively compare aspects of cultures. By measuring hate crimes against homosexuals, for example, we can quantitavely measure how two cultures compare in terms of social acceptance of altenative sexualities. But this does not make one culture better than another in some sort of objective manner.

I agree that we can't judge a culture based on one aspect, but I would still argue that some aspects, like your example, are objectively bad.

I'd rather not preserve parts of cultures that demean women, gays, or whatever ethnic group that culture may be prejudiced against.

Example: where I went to high school, there were many Albanians. Most of them said that their parents wouldn't allow them to marry non-Albanian, and it was a big issue. Sounds kind of racist to me. And of course there were much more restrictions about the girls dating guys (what I mean is, they can't) than your average American teen has. I'd rather than preserve those parts of that culture in my society, but whatever.

Ohh a bite!

Why are they not?

It's so obvious: Not every culture has had "eminent Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand." ;)

Encouraging multi-cultural influences is fine -- in fact it's desirable in my opinion...All of society benefits.

But when the identity of an individual is lost because the multi-culturalists want to categorize by groups, well, that's wrong. The individual should always be the smallest unit of consideration, but when we start checking off which ethic and cultural group we belong to, we've lost that individuality.

Ha. You lose individuality when people are grouped by culture, race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, income, profession, nation and state. This is hardly something unique to multiculturalism and really, I find the idea of being forced to "assimilate" into what someone considers the One True Culture a lot more anti-individualistic than trying to recognize and tolerate everyone's culture.

Multiculturalism is fine until the other cultures (or others who aren't part of them) start to demand that you respect them, that you learn about them, when they moved to your country.

Ha. You lose individuality when people are grouped by culture, race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, income, profession, nation and state. This is hardly something unique to multiculturalism and really, I find the idea of being forced to "assimilate" into what someone considers the One True Culture a lot more anti-individualistic than trying to recognize and tolerate everyone's culture.

Or recognise and understand everyones culture?

Multiculturalism is fine until the other cultures (or others who aren't part of them) start to demand that you respect them, that you learn about them, when they moved to your country.

Sorry can you actually give just one example of when and where this has happened?

Multiculturalism is fine until the other cultures (or others who aren't part of them) start to demand that you respect them, that you learn about them, when they moved to your country.

I agree. Respect is such bullshit, as is learning. I should be allowed to fail high school and randomly punch foreigners in the face.

It happens here all the time in England. You have to respect Islam. You have to respect black carribeanic culture. Except many people in these cultures that move here; I won't say *all* as that is a vast generalisation, but many people do not respect British culture, but are fine to cry racism when they are disrespected themselves.

The question is whether you would rather have a nation of many cultures or a stagnation of one culture.

I agree that we can't judge a culture based on one aspect, but I would still argue that some aspects, like your example, are objectively bad.

I sort of agree. In my gut, I totally feel that beating up GLBTs is objectively bad. But in my head, I understand that this is a subjective opinion. Other cultures may feel they are doing their god given duty, and it would be a moral lapse not to. In my head, my culture is superior to their culture in that respect, but I recognise that this is a subjective opinion on my part.

"When in Rome, do as the Romans do" > "When in Rome, call the Romans racist if they want you to be a Roman."

It happens here all the time in England. You have to respect Islam. You have to respect black carribeanic culture. Except many people in these cultures that move here; I won't say *all* as that is a vast generalisation, but many people do not respect British culture, but are fine to cry racism when they are disrespected themselves.

Thats rubbish, I live in England and I have not had anybody tell me to respect Islam. So please who has told you this?

"When in Rome, do as the Romans do" > "When in Rome, call the Romans racist if they want you to be a Roman."

Actually, Romans were rather multiculturalist. They absorbed countries they conquered (note: not "immigrants" to their country), allowed them to practice their own religion and speak whatever barbarian tongue they wanted, dress like they dress and practice their own traditions.

They never wanted people to "be" Romans. It was about making them a part of their empire. Pay tribute, pay token courtesy to Roman gods, obey Roman law. In fact I think most Romans would find the idea of say, a Germanic tribesman "being" Roman insulting.

If a cannibal comes to my door and demands to confiscate my body, I blow his head off... if a multiculturalist comes to my country and demands me to accept his false morality, I blow his head off too!

If a cannibal comes to my door and demands to confiscate my body, I blow his head off... if a multiculturalist comes to my country and demands me to accept his false morality, I blow his head off too!

What a convincing argument. In the hypothetical situation that "multiculturalists" are going door-to-door and making demands, you would react with extreme violence. You'd shoot them, twice, and then play with their broken body parts while humming church hymns. I for one am impressed by your display of machismo and certainly reconsidering the falseness of my morality now. Thank you for posting your insights which I'm sure everyone else will find equally enlightening.

Thats rubbish, I live in England and I have not had anybody tell me to respect Islam. So please who has told you this?

About half the people I have talked to on the matter, plus I have seen it on television and internet.

Have you never heard the quote "When in Rome, do as the Romans do?" Its not a literal or direct reference to Rome. It means when you visit, or move to live in, a place foreign to you, you should adapt to that culture.

Thankfully we don't get that many extremists, though there are a select few.

The point is that British culture should be practiced in Britain; Pakistani culture practiced in Pakistan, and Jamaican in Jamaica. Why should people move here then not integrate with the society and culture they've moved to? Why should they come here and reap the economic benefits of living here without trying to integrate to society? If Muslims feel marginalised, its their fault. They moved here in the first place. We should make no effort to accomodate them. They should be the ones making the effort to accomodate into our country.

My original point is that multiculturalism is an inappropriate name. Its always possible or people to emigrate and retain their culture but keep it to themselves while trying to integrate. What is inappropriate is forcing us to make the effort to accomodate them.

What a convincing argument. In the hypothetical situation that "multiculturalists" are going door-to-door and making demands, you would react with extreme violence. You'd shoot them, twice, and then play with their broken body parts while humming church hymns. I for one am impressed by your display of machismo and certainly reconsidering the falseness of my morality now. Thank you for posting your insights which I'm sure everyone else will find equally enlightening.

I chuckled.

What a convincing argument. In the hypothetical situation that "multiculturalists" are going door-to-door and making demands, you would react with extreme violence. You'd shoot them, twice, and then play with their broken body parts while humming church hymns. I for one am impressed by your display of machismo and certainly reconsidering the falseness of my morality now. Thank you for posting your insights which I'm sure everyone else will find equally enlightening.
You're most welcome. Happy I could contribute positively. :)

That's not true. Immigration patterns change over time. Eventually the differences between the various groups fade and it becomes a new monoculture. It's typically what has happened in the past.

The Jews never really got the hang of that one though did they?* And nor have the Chinese emigrants in South-East Asia, the Russians in former countries of the USSR and the Russian Far East, the European settlers of the Americas (they haven't quite yet obliterated the Amerindians yet) etc.

While I'm all for not hating people and all that, the simple truth is that cultures die when they meet other cultures, new cultures may form, but they aren't the same as what was there before. It just irritates me the short-sightedness of people who like to say woooo for mulicultralism that they don't realise the implications of what they're saying (especially as these are the sorts of people who get all upset when they hear about obscure tribal languages dying out).

*Yeah, I didn't say that entirely to be controversial...

About half the people I have talked to on the matter, plus I have seen it on television and internet.

Yeah that's convincing too. Some vague reference to word of mouth. Color me shocked by the amount of 'respect' 'demanded' by those impertinent darkies.

Have you never heard the quote "When in Rome, do as the Romans do?" Its not a literal or direct reference to Rome. It means when you visit, or move to live in, a place foreign to you, you should adapt to that culture.

Ever hear of the quote, "I don't give a flying fuck?" A pithy quote is nothing but a pithy quote. It doesn't have any kind of authority or weight nor does it convince me that anyone "should" do as you suggest.


The point is that British culture should be practiced in Britain; Pakistani culture practiced in Pakistan, and Jamaican in Jamaica.

Oh, I forgot you're one of those people who are completely unaware of what culture is and has an idealized, fap-fap-nationalistic view of one culture per nation.

I hope you go to synagogues and tell those Jews to practice their Jewish culture in Jew-land. Wouldn't want to contaminate your "British Culture" purity eh?

Why should people move here then not integrate with the society and culture they've moved to?

Why should I change my culture if I move?

I've moved lots of times. Never did I feel compelled to drop my fucking culture. You know it's funny, you whine so much about your own culture being attacked and endangered, yet you have no problem casually suggesting other people just abandon their entire culture in favor of some chimera. I guess you must think that while culture is important to you, it's just much less important to everyone else and can be casually dropped.

Of course I'm sure if you ever moved to America, you'd drop your own filthy foreigner culture and take up our One True Way. The One True Way that all 300 million of us follow. One religion, one tradition! Just like Britain, in Questers Fantasy Land!

Why should they come here and reap the economic benefits of living here without trying to integrate to society?

Integration =/= FOLLOW TEH ONE TRUE CULTURE

If Muslims feel marginalised, its their fault. They moved here in the first place.

Yeah, I'm sure similar things were said of German Jews. But wait, I also keep forgetting that it's evil and racist to discriminate against Jews, but benign, positive, and rational to discriminate against Muslims. Jew-hating is no longer cool, but thank God for the Muslims eh?

I sort of agree. In my gut, I totally feel that beating up GLBTs is objectively bad. But in my head, I understand that this is a subjective opinion. Other cultures may feel they are doing their god given duty, and it would be a moral lapse not to. In my head, my culture is superior to their culture in that respect, but I recognize that this is a subjective opinion on my part.

If morality is subjective, if our moral values are nothing more than what a culture instills in us, then they are worthless. If there is not something more to morality than that, we are all living in an illusion that anything is really right or wrong, and may as well commence with the baby eating.

one's culture is not a viable excuse for horrible behavior.

I chuckled.

Chuckled? I died laughing.

Chuckled? I died laughing.

Actually it was more of a chortle.
Alas, doing homework for > 24 hours has left me a broken shell of a sense of humor.
And now, I sleep.

About half the people I have talked to on the matter, plus I have seen it on television and internet.

Have you never heard the quote "When in Rome, do as the Romans do?" Its not a literal or direct reference to Rome. It means when you visit, or move to live in, a place foreign to you, you should adapt to that culture.

Thankfully we don't get that many extremists, though there are a select few.

The point is that British culture should be practiced in Britain; Pakistani culture practiced in Pakistan, and Jamaican in Jamaica. Why should people move here then not integrate with the society and culture they've moved to? Why should they come here and reap the economic benefits of living here without trying to integrate to society? If Muslims feel marginalised, its their fault. They moved here in the first place. We should make no effort to accomodate them. They should be the ones making the effort to accomodate into our country.

My original point is that multiculturalism is an inappropriate name. Its always possible or people to emigrate and retain their culture but keep it to themselves while trying to integrate. What is inappropriate is forcing us to make the effort to accomodate them.

Bwhahaha you are funny. So what you mean is you can't answer my question, other than with your general feelings on the matter?

Why shouldn't black people of Jamaican origin be free to practice aspects of their culture? Do you expect them to fully immerse them selves into Englishness never to taste again the food of their culture and only eat British stodge?

Would you when in a foreign country then shun such places as the English bar, or English cafe. Would you emerse your self in local food and not once complain about missing your 'full English' breakfast?

How many Muslims in this country do you know that do feel marginalised? How many Muslims do you actually know and would count as friends?

Who exactly is forcing us to make the effort to accommodate 'Johny Foreigner'?

Do you get governmental debate and discussion mixed up with orders vich must be obeyed?

Ask yourself would you not be prepeared to move yourself and your dependents to another country if you thought you could make a better life for yourself there? And should you be allowed to do so?

Yeah that's convincing too. Some vague reference to word of mouth. Color me shocked by the amount of 'respect' 'demanded' by those impertinent darkies.

o lol. ur funny

Ever hear of the quote, "I don't give a flying fuck?" A pithy quote is nothing but a pithy quote. It doesn't have any kind of authority or weight nor does it convince me that anyone "should" do as you suggest.

...And?

Oh, I forgot you're one of those people who are completely unaware of what culture is and has an idealized, fap-fap-nationalistic view of one culture per nation.

Oh, I forgot, you're one of those people who are completely unaware of what western civilisation is and has an idealised, fap-fap-internationalistic view of cultural equality.

I hope you go to synagogues and tell those Jews to practice their Jewish culture in Jew-land. Wouldn't want to contaminate your "British Culture" purity eh?

Sorry, but Jews don't march down the streets of London preaching for continued bombing of western countries for drawing cartoons, nor do they feed such propaganda into the mouths of children. In fact I have never ever been offended by a Jew or felt any hostility between myself and a Jewish person.

Why should I change my culture if I move?

Why should I tolerate your culture if you move to my town?

I've moved lots of times. Never did I feel compelled to drop my fucking culture.

I don't care.

You know it's funny, you whine so much about your own culture being attacked and endangered, yet you have no problem casually suggesting other people just abandon their entire culture in favor of some chimera.

They should abandon parts of their culture that may not be interchangeable with our own when they choose to live with us.

I guess you must think that while culture is important to you, it's just much less important to everyone else and can be casually dropped.

I guess you think that sewing up small girls vaginas because its "cultural" is a good thing for a country to hold important simply because it is someone's culture.

Of course I'm sure if you ever moved to America, you'd drop your own filthy foreigner culture and take up our One True Way. The One True Way that all 300 million of us follow. One religion, one tradition! Just like Britain, in Questers Fantasy Land!

If I moved to America I wouldn't start asking that Americans learn British history, eat British food, and respect British people. America is a country built on immigration. Americans see themselves as Americans. It is not the same in England. The last large wave of immigration was in 1066. Since then Anglo-Saxons have formed their culture through nine hundred years of history. I do not want to see it diluted.

Integration =/= FOLLOW TEH ONE TRUE CULTURE

Integration =! IM BRITISH I LOVE UR BENEFITS SYSTEM BUT I HATE UR FLAG PLS DONT FLY IT

Yeah, I'm sure similar things were said of German Jews. But wait, I also keep forgetting that it's evil and racist to discriminate against Jews, but benign, positive, and rational to discriminate against Muslims. Jew-hating is no longer cool, but thank God for the Muslims eh?

Actually I have never said that it is unracist to discriminate against Muslims. If you want to call me racist for having a qualm with Islam then you can do so and if that is the definition of racist I'm not going to shirk from it because it has bad connotations.

Pity you don't actually know anything about me. My parents do not hail from the same part of the world, nor do their parents, or themselves in fact, practice the same cultural traditions. Except, one of them has already been wiped out by Islamic cultural imperialism. This is cultural self defence. I don't care whether I offend any Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Sikhs, Blacks, whatever (unlikely: I have never heard a Jew or a Hindu or a Sikh complain about racism on the news.) by flying the national flag from my window.

If morality is subjective, if our moral values are nothing more than what a culture instills in us, then they are worthless. If there is not something more to morality than that, we are all living in an illusion that anything is really right or wrong, and may as well commence with the baby eating.

one's culture is not a viable excuse for horrible behavior.

Morality is not solely cultural. This is shown by the fact that most, if not all, cultures have a moral code that sanctions against raping and killing one's own mother. So there are aspects of morality that are either universal, or there are other factors that also influence morality. Culture does instill a moral code in us, but it is not the only thing. Other thing also affect our morality, like personal experiences.

I am not sure that there is an objective morality, though.

In comparing different cultures so as to say which one is better, what criteria do we use?

Objective moral fact, which is derived from the first principles of the Universe.

There is one objectively correct set of criteria which any culture must meet in order to be valid. This set is determined not from any particular cultural perspective, but from the first principles of the Universe--and therefore it is not itself culturally-relative.

Objective moral fact, which is derived from the first principles of the Universe.

There is one objectively correct set of criteria which any culture must meet in order to be valid. This set is determined not from any particular cultural perspective, but from the first principles of the Universe--and therefore it is not itself culturally-relative.

Being the subjective beings that we are, how in god's name are we supposed to know this "Objective Moral fact", even if it does exist?

Objective moral fact, which is derived from the first principles of the Universe.

There is one objectively correct set of criteria which any culture must meet in order to be valid. This set is determined not from any particular cultural perspective, but from the first principles of the Universe--and therefore it is not itself culturally-relative.

Okay. Tell me what this set of criteria is.

The Jews never really got the hang of that one though did they?* And nor have the Chinese emigrants in South-East Asia, the Russians in former countries of the USSR and the Russian Far East, the European settlers of the Americas (they haven't quite yet obliterated the Amerindians yet) etc.

While I'm all for not hating people and all that, the simple truth is that cultures die when they meet other cultures, new cultures may form, but they aren't the same as what was there before. It just irritates me the short-sightedness of people who like to say woooo for mulicultralism that they don't realise the implications of what they're saying (especially as these are the sorts of people who get all upset when they hear about obscure tribal languages dying out).

*Yeah, I didn't say that entirely to be controversial...

Well every generation brings a new culture more or less, even without immigration. So I don't think cultural change is anything to be worried about.

The problem is when multicultural policies serve as a disincentive to the normal process of assimilation. (Which is a two way process).

There will always be small groups of people who refuse to assimilate - usually for racist reasons. But typically history isn't kind to those folks. So you might as well ignore them.

Bwhahaha you are funny. So what you mean is you can't answer my question, other than with your general feelings on the matter?

...I'm really not sure how you dragged that out of my post. If I said to every Muslim in Britain, "I do not respect Islam. Do you think I should?" at least half would say yes.

Why shouldn't black people of Jamaican origin be free to practice aspects of their culture? Do you expect them to fully immerse them selves into Englishness never to taste again the food of their culture and only eat British stodge?

So I'm being accused of being culturally uneducated yet the first example you use is food? Food is one of the most easily interchangeable aspects of culture. Right. No, I dont' expect them to drop every single part of their culture. Certainly it wouldn't bother me if it did, but I don't mind if they don't. They are free to practice whatever culture they want in their own home but should respect that the majority of the population is white and (apparently) christian.

Would you when in a foreign country then shun such places as the English bar, or English cafe. Would you emerse your self in local food and not once complain about missing your 'full English' breakfast?

Tourism =! Immigration

Unless you mean if I moved to a different country. Firstly, if I emigrated, it would be to Australia or Canada. I find Australian and Canadian culture to be excellent and would make 100% effort to absorb into it. Yes, I would eat English food. I would eat at English bars or cafes occasionally. This does not make me imposing my culture on them. I don't have the urge to run around shouting HAY IM BRITISH LOOK AT ME in another country. I don't have the urge for people to respect my culture in another country.

How many Muslims in this country do you know that do feel marginalised?

How many Muslims do you actually know and would count as friends?

I have no Muslim friends, nor have I conversed in depth with any Muslims. Actions speak louder than words.

Who exactly is forcing us to make the effort to accommodate 'Johny Foreigner'?

Our current government and education system.

Do you get governmental debate and discussion mixed up with orders vich must be obeyed?

What?

Ask yourself would you not be prepeared to move yourself and your dependents to another country if you thought you could make a better life for yourself there? And should you be allowed to do so?

Maybe, maybe not. I will always see Britain as my mother country, no matter where I am on Earth. Perhaps in the future I may be forced to emigrate, who knows. I certainly wouldn't say to my new neighbours "Hey, you should drink Earl Grey. Its awesome. Wait, what? You don't want to? Why not? Because its British? YOU RACIST BASTARDS!"

I am not saying immigration shouldbe stopped and totally banned. There are large numbers of hard working immigrants who have succesfully integrated. In fact, I know some.

Now I have no problem with westernised Muslims whom have accepted Britain as their new home, embraced democracy and Liberal thought. Yet, I don't see too many of these around. They don't tend to make themselves known. There are only currently 320 Muslims serving in the British military.

The last large wave of immigration was in 1066. Since then Anglo-Saxons have formed their culture through nine hundred years of history. I do not want to see it diluted.

This is one of the reasons you will lose this debate, you can't get you facts right. What happend in the 50's?

Do you know any of the history of our Island? It is a mongral island, and has been since it's earliest history, if you call your self British, don't be shocked to learn that your DNA may contain, African, Irish, German, French, Indian, Nordic, Flemmish, Scotish, Pictish, perhaps even Egyptian as well as Anglo Saxon roots.

What is English culture?



I don't care whether I offend any Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Sikhs, Blacks, whatever (unlikely: I have never heard a Jew or a Hindu or a Sikh complain about racism on the news.) by flying the national flag from my window.

You clearly only watch that news that backs up your claims then. Did you not see the Sikh's rioting the the other year over nowt more than a play?(ohh I am a Sikh BTW - A white one)

There are only currently 320 Muslims serving in the British military.

I wonder why

Is the military an indicator of integration now?

I don't have the time nor mental composure at the moment for an actual debate, but people calling for a 20 story wall on the Mexican border for security purposes who conveniently ignore Canada and the ports fuel my cynicism.

If there were thousands of illegal Canadians crossing the border every day, you might have a point. But there aren't, so there's no real reason to worry too much about the Canadian border.

I wonder why

Because, unfortunately, the british government can't see fit to institute a national service program. (Which it should).

There should also be tax credits for cross cultural marriages.

Expedited integration is a better policy.

Okay. Tell me what this set of criteria is.

It must respect the sanctity of the individual and his property.
It must value selfishness and greed, and abhor altruism.
It must believe that the proper purpose of art is to depict man at his best, and that it should do so concretely and unambiguously.
It must encourage individuals to trust their own judgment within their competences, and to critically evaluate the judgments of others outside their competences.
It must value conducting oneself with pride and dignity, and abhor whining, pettiness, laziness, and only worrying about what one can get away with rather than what is right.
Kinky poontang.

...I'm really not sure how you dragged that out of my post. If I said to every Muslim in Britain, "I do not respect Islam. Do you think I should?" at least half would say yes.

please provide a source showing that you, or anyone, has been forced to respect Islam to the exclusion of other religions in the UK. Thank you.

So I'm being accused of being culturally uneducated yet the first example you use is food? Food is one of the most easily interchangeable aspects of culture. Right. No, I dont' expect them to drop every single part of their culture. Certainly it wouldn't bother me if it did, but I don't mind if they don't. They are free to practice whatever culture they want in their own home but should respect that the majority of the population is white and (apparently) christian.

So, you think people should have to wear English clothing when they go out of their home? Or just immigrants?

Tourism =! Immigration

Unless you mean if I moved to a different country. Firstly, if I emigrated, it would be to Australia or Canada. I find Australian and Canadian culture to be excellent and would make 100% effort to absorb into it. Yes, I would eat English food. I would eat at English bars or cafes occasionally. This does not make me imposing my culture on them. I don't have the urge to run around shouting HAY IM BRITISH LOOK AT ME in another country. I don't have the urge for people to respect my culture in another country.

As a Canadian, I regret to inform you that we don't have a culture. We have a mosaic of many cultures. We will respect your UKness even if you don't urge us to.

I have no Muslim friends, nor have I conversed in depth with any Muslims. Actions speak louder than words.

Ypur actions seem to speak for themselves in this case. They seem to be saying that you are unwilling to engage in dialogue with those you wish to exclude.

Maybe, maybe not. I will always see Britain as my mother country, no matter where I am on Earth. Perhaps in the future I may be forced to emigrate, who knows. I certainly wouldn't say to my new neighbours "Hey, you should drink Earl Grey. Its awesome. Wait, what? You don't want to? Why not? Because its British? YOU RACIST BASTARDS!"

I am not saying immigration shouldbe stopped and totally banned. There are large numbers of hard working immigrants who have succesfully integrated. In fact, I know some.

What, exactly, do you mean by integrate?

It is a mongral island

Not for many hundreds of years. Full scale ethnic immigration here stopped a fairly long time ago. Since then it has somewhat consolidated itself.

and has been since it's earliest history, if you call your self British, don't be shocked to learn that your DNA may contain, African, Irish, German, French, Indian, Nordic, Flemmish, Scotish, Pictish, perhaps even Egyptian as well as Anglo Saxon roots.

I already know the roots of my DNA, thanks. Its not just Anglo-Saxonic, there's some Irish, some form of French, some Austronesian name that you have likely never heard of before, some Chinese... hell, we're all a mix. Well, mostly, anyway.

You clearly only watch that news that backs up your claims then. Did you not see the Sikh's rioting the the other year over nowt more than a play?(ohh I am a Sikh BTW - A white one)

Heard about it, forgot about it. Any other examples of Sikhs getting pissed off, or is this just the one you pulled up as opposed to the many many many examples of Muslims being angry about their treatment in a foreign country they chose to move to?

I don’t agree that if you hold the idea that all cultures are equally valid that you have to turn a blind eye to reprehensible acts. Why does this follow then?
Because if all cultures are equally valid, then a culture in which, for example, slavery was acceptable would be as valid a culture, or as ‘good’ a culture, as one in which slavery was unacceptable.

We can’t maintain that all cultures are equal and then denounce cultural practices that seem distasteful to us; it’s hypocritical. Of course, we can say that all cultures are equal, or say that all morality is based on culture (which I’ll talk about below), but we can’t then criticise other cultures; and I think we have to lay criticism at other cultures, honestly and accurately, when they are acting in a way that is morally wrong.

I am English, so it is a part of my culture to drink heavily and fight a lot.
This brings up another problem:

Why say that drinking heavily or fighting is part of your culture? I don’t deny that many people drink and fight in England, but a large amount don’t. Moreover, I think it’s accurate to say that as much heavy drinking goes on in Wales and Scotland as it does in England. So then we say that’s it’s A British culture norm. But then we can say that heavy drinking occurs in most of Europe; so it’s a European cultural norm. And so on.

Go back to those who don’t drink heavily. Are they now suddenly not part of English culture? What about sub-cultures?

Soon it becomes apparent that pinpointing cultural norms is not as easy as it’s claimed. I’m not in any way denying that specific areas have specific practices localised to said areas, but vague activities like ‘heavy drinking’ can’t, I believe, be attributed to just a specific geographic area’s ‘culture.’

And this is one of the many reasons I find the idea of ‘defending’ a culture from outsiders, or paranoia that culture will be somehow ‘diluted’ by immigrants or new practices, as Questers is spouting, absurd. I’ve never been shown, exactly, what the British culture is, never mind why I should vote for the BNP to defend it.

I can disagree with this, or see it as not good without abandoning my belief that my culture is as valid as the American culture.
But take this to the extreme:

Take two cultures, culture A and culture B. In culture A, slavery is acceptable; those who don’t have red hair and green eyes are kept in perpetual servitude in poor conditions, while their red-headed overlords live in splendour. Anyone caught in a homosexual relationship is executed. These and other irrational positions are culturally acceptable. You get the picture; it’s not a nice place.

Culture B, on the other hand, is perfectly lovely. Everyone lives well, there is no irrational inequality. Slavery is seen as unacceptable, as is other forms of irrational inequality. It’s a nice place to be.

Unless one thinks that morality is completely subjective, relative to either oneself or one’s culture, then it’s not hard to see which culture is better than the other. Nor is it hard to condemn the practices in culture A. If we argue that both cultures are equally valid, then we can’t start to criticise culture A.

That is true but it would be spurious to declare that there are no such things as cultural mores.
And I don’t claim such a thing; I just don’t believe cultural mores ultimately define our morality.



I wasn’t discussing morality, though morality is also influenced by culture. I was talking about how we attach value to things.
I see.

I was meaning which culture could be said to be morally ‘better’ than another. When you talk of ‘value’, what do you mean? I find it hard to talk about which culture is more ‘valued’ or ‘better’ without going back to the question of which culture is more morally ‘valuable’ or morally better.

In comparing different cultures so as to say which one is better, what criteria do we use? This selection of criteria is determined by our existing paradigm. This paradigm cannot help but include our culture.

We can objectively compare aspects of cultures. By measuring hate crimes against homosexuals, for example, we can quantitavely measure how two cultures compare in terms of social acceptance of altenative sexualities. But this does not make one culture better than another in some sort of objective manner.
I would disagree.

I think we should be able to make these value judgements about cultures, should be able to say this or that culture’s practices are morally wrong. This ties in with my vague and not yet fully formed idea that there exists an objective morality, or at least a framework of base objective morality that has evolved over the millennia to deal with our lives as a social animal.

Just as we aren’t born tabula rasa, that we have certain ‘frameworks’ for language and other processes, so too, I believe, we have a ‘framework’ of morality that cultural norms, environmental and parental factors, peer pressure, religious or political beliefs, etc., lie on top of; resulting in the relative-looking morality that humanity exhibits.

That’s slightly off-topic, and I apologise for the woolyness of the thesis (I’m not, I’m afraid, going to be able to back myself up very far, as it’s an idea I’ve only seriously been toying with for the last wee while. However, I would recommend to anyone interested in the view to read The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker and Beast and Man by Mary Midgely.) but if it’s in any way accurate, then we can view certain behaviour, beliefs and actions as morally wrong, rather than merely... quantifiable.

please provide a source showing that you, or anyone, has been forced to respect Islam to the exclusion of other religions in the UK. Thank you.

To the exclusion of? Where did I mention that? Why should I have to respect it at all?

So, you think people should have to wear English clothing when they go out of their home? Or just immigrants?

lol. You like to take things literally, huh?

As a Canadian, I regret to inform you that we don't have a culture. We have a mosaic of many cultures. We will respect your UKness even if you don't urge us to.

Thanks, I guess.

Ypur actions seem to speak for themselves in this case. They seem to be saying that you are unwilling to engage in dialogue with those you wish to exclude.

No, there are simply no Muslims in this area. York is a 99% white city last time I checked. Yet we are still forced to learn and respect Islam even though the presence of Islam here is minute.

What, exactly, do you mean by integrate?

As in people who, without an accent, I would assume are from this country.

I wonder why

Is the military an indicator of integration now?

Yes, service to a country that has taken you in is an indicator.

Not for many hundreds of years. Full scale ethnic immigration here stopped a fairly long time ago. Since then it has somewhat consolidated itself.

How many generations does it take for a mongrel to become a new breed?

Yes, service to a country that has taken you in is an indicator.

What about those who serve as doctors, nurses, teachers, etc

What about those who serve as doctors, nurses, teachers, etc

Sure. There are Iraqi doctors who fled here and have put their skills to use in a country that has accepted them in their flight from tyranny. I do believe we should bring in educated intellectuals such as doctors and scientists who would be persecuted in their own countries.

There was a Muslim woman who refused to remove her veil while teaching, even though the children said they found it hard to understand her. If you are willing to get past your cultural convictions to better help the people you are being paid to help then that is a prime example of integration.

How many generations does it take for a mongrel to become a new breed?

Hold on; this is a debate about culture, not race. How was race slipped into this?

Heard about it, forgot about it. Any other examples of Sikhs getting pissed off, or is this just the one you pulled up as opposed to the many many many examples of Muslims being angry about their treatment in a foreign country they chose to move to?

When you look at Sikh, Hindu, Chinese, Thai etc. immigrants in the US, they sort of fall into what people consider to be "model" immigrants. They work hard, they value education, they have strong families etc. Are they Judeo-Christian WASPS? Of course not. But they don't demand that the host country do much to accomodate them. They seem happy to be in a country where they are free to live their lives as they see fit, so long as they don't bother anyone.

Muslim immigrants, on the other hand, seem to have an endless stream of demands for accomodation. Muslim taxi-drivers in Minnesota have demanded the right to refuse to pick up people carrying alcohol. In Milwaukee (I think) Muslim students have demanded foot-washing stations in a college dorm. Muslim students here in DC have been trying to intimidate other students from using a non-denominational meditation room at George Washington University. Muslim cab drivers in New York have tried to refuse (unsuccessfully) to pick up passengers with seeing eye-dogs. A Muslim woman in Florida tried to argue that she could have her license photo taken with her face covered. CAIR has threatened to sue airline passengers who report suspicious activitied by Muslims on flights. And on and on.

Immigrants like that should, frankly, go back where they came from. Their desire to turn a Western country into something akin to one of the hellhole Muslim states is not compatible with our culture.

How many generations does it take for a mongrel to become a new breed?

Well, the English aren't particularly mongrel. Most of it comes from pre-indo-european speaking fisherman from the Bay of Biscay. Not actually any of the races you metioned ealier. How dare you insult my purity like that :p

When you look at Sikh, Hindu, Chinese, Thai etc. immigrants in the US, they sort of fall into what people consider to be "model" immigrants. They work hard, they value education, they have strong families etc. Are they Judeo-Christian WASPS? Of course not. But they don't demand that the host country do much to accomodate them. They seem happy to be in a country where they are free to live their lives as they see fit, so long as they don't bother anyone.

Muslim immigrants, on the other hand, seem to have an endless stream of demands for accomodation. Muslim taxi-drivers in Minnesota have demanded the right to refuse to pick up people carrying alcohol. In Milwaukee (I think) Muslim students have demanded foot-washing stations in a college dorm. Muslim students here in DC have been trying to intimidate other students from using a non-denominational meditation room at George Washington University. Muslim cab drivers in New York have tried to refuse (unsuccessfully) to pick up passengers with seeing eye-dogs. A Muslim woman in Florida tried to argue that she could have her license photo taken with her face covered. CAIR has threatened to sue airline passengers who report suspicious activitied by Muslims on flights. And on and on.

Immigrants like that should, frankly, go back where they came from. Their desire to turn a Western country into something akin to one of the hellhole Muslim states is not compatible with our culture.

Exactly.

Hold on; this is a debate about culture, not race. How was race slipped into this?

Race has nothing to do with it; if you have a problem with the terms, I only used them by analogy to dog breeding.

Peepelonia said "It is a mongrel island", to which you replied, in essence, "No, because most of the large-scale immigration of ethnic groups ended a long time ago, and since then it's been pretty stable."

In other words, you are implying that the mongrel has, by virtue of time, ceased to be a mongrel and become a purebred.

It must respect the sanctity of the individual and his property.
It must value selfishness and greed, and abhor altruism.
It must believe that the proper purpose of art is to depict man at his best, and that it should do so concretely and unambiguously.
It must encourage individuals to trust their own judgment within their competences, and to critically evaluate the judgments of others outside their competences.
It must value conducting oneself with pride and dignity, and abhor whining, pettiness, laziness, and only worrying about what one can get away with rather than what is right.
Kinky poontang.

You haven't answered my question. Anyone in the world can come up with something and call them "Objective moral principles," but that doesn't make it true.

What is you epistemology? How do you know what you know? Why are these "objective principles," particularly when humans, as subjective beings, are the ones who have created them? And where does their claim to universality come from? The dictates of an invisible man? Categorical imperative? Where? Until you can answer these questions, then these are not universal objective moral principles.

o lol. ur funny


Fine, don't support your statements. I don't really care.

...And?

So, repeating "When in Rome" is not a valid argument nor even really a comparison.

Oh, I forgot, you're one of those people who are completely unaware of what western civilisation is and has an idealised, fap-fap-internationalistic view of cultural equality.


I think you "forgot" that because it's simply untrue. Good reveal though - you don't believe in cultural equality. Gee, another shocker.


Sorry, but Jews don't march down the streets of London preaching for continued bombing of western countries for drawing cartoons, nor do they feed such propaganda into the mouths of children. In fact I have never ever been offended by a Jew or felt any hostility between myself and a Jewish person.

Oh, so you feel offended by Muslims. That explains a lot. So it's not really about protecting anything... other than your own delicate sensibilities.

Certainly not about protecting free speech or freedom of assembly. I guess those only apply to "true" Britons - the ones who say things that don't offend you. Wah.

Why should I tolerate your culture if you move to my town?

Why shouldn't you? You see, most people - most civilized people - need a reason to act intolerantly. Not a reason to NOT act intolerantly.

I don't care.

Yeah, I guess if it doesn't fit with your fascist worldview, it's not worth caring about. If it contradicts your arguments, you don't care. Well... alright then. Ignorance may be bliss.

They should abandon parts of their culture that may not be interchangeable with our own when they choose to live with us.

Now you're hedging. Now they should only abandon "parts" of their culture. Why? What happened to one nation, one culture? You can't argue for purity and then turn around and say miscegenation is OK, what kind of racist are you?

Sorry, I didn't mean racist. I meant cultural supremacist, where "culture" just has a strong correlation with race by coincidence. My bad.

I guess you think that sewing up small girls vaginas because its "cultural" is a good thing for a country to hold important simply because it is someone's culture.

I guess you think that stupid strawmen arguments will work in lieu of actual thinking.

If I moved to America I wouldn't start asking that Americans learn British history, eat British food, and respect British people.

So you wouldn't mind then if you moved to America and got your ass handed to you on a platter every day? I mean after all, you moved here, anything that happens as a result is clearly your fault for invading.

I love this continuing strawman you've got going about how Muslims are demanding British people eat Muslim food. You're one step removed from Imperial Brazil here, with your paranoid conspiracy theories about "multiculturalists" coming to your door.

America is a country built on immigration. Americans see themselves as Americans. It is not the same in England. The last large wave of immigration was in 1066. Since then Anglo-Saxons have formed their culture through nine hundred years of history. I do not want to see it diluted.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - if fascists like you and The_blessed_chris are representative of British culture, then I don't care if your culture will be "diluted." So what if it's less "pure?" So what if it there are *gasp* minority cultures? What the fuck does it matter?

Integration =! IM BRITISH I LOVE UR BENEFITS SYSTEM BUT I HATE UR FLAG PLS DONT FLY IT

Funny... that's exactly what you are saying. You like your "Britishness" but can't stand the sight of people expressing freedom of speech or assembly. You really are asking "PLS DONT FLY IT" with regards to any symbol not "British" enough for you.

I guess you've yet to integrate with your own culture.

Actually I have never said that it is unracist to discriminate against Muslims. If you want to call me racist for having a qualm with Islam then you can do so and if that is the definition of racist I'm not going to shirk from it because it has bad connotations.

Good, as long as you don't mind admitting that your views are bigoted trash then I'm glad we're in agreement.

Pity you don't actually know anything about me. My parents do not hail from the same part of the world, nor do their parents, or themselves in fact, practice the same cultural traditions. Except, one of them has already been wiped out by Islamic cultural imperialism. This is cultural self defence. I don't care whether I offend any Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Sikhs, Blacks, whatever (unlikely: I have never heard a Jew or a Hindu or a Sikh complain about racism on the news.) by flying the national flag from my window.

No, I'm rather glad that I don't know you any more than I already do. People like you make me sick to my stomach. "Cultural self defense." My fat ass. It's Race War you're talking about, and fapping to.

It must respect the sanctity of the individual and his property.
It must value selfishness and greed, and abhor altruism.
It must believe that the proper purpose of art is to depict man at his best, and that it should do so concretely and unambiguously.
It must encourage individuals to trust their own judgment within their competences, and to critically evaluate the judgments of others outside their competences.
It must value conducting oneself with pride and dignity, and abhor whining, pettiness, laziness, and only worrying about what one can get away with rather than what is right.
Kinky poontang.

'Property' is an idea that only exists when the concept of onwership is applied. Since there is no objective existence to the idea of ownership, (i.e. ownership only exists in human minds) property itself can not be considered objective. If property is not objective, then any principle claiming to be objective cannot include property.

Wow. You failed on the first sentence.

You haven't answered my question.
Of course the post you quoted didn't, because it wasn't posted in answer to your question; it was made in answer to Gift-of-God's inquiry.

But I have indeed answered your question, several times, when you have asked it in other threads in other contexts. I am not going to waste any more time on you. I am tired of answering the same question for you time and time again. Whether it is due to either laziness, faulty memory, or lack of cognitive facility, the failure here is yours. I am done with you.


Until you can answer these questions, then these are not universal objective moral principles.

Actually, even if I personally cannot answer them (which I can, and have, several times), they still would be universal and objective--after all, that's what the phrase "universal objective" means. Their truth is independent of the acceptance, understanding, or elucidation by myself or anyone else of them. What you should say is, "Until you can answer these questions, then you cannot claim that these are universal objective moral principles."

'Property' is an idea that only exists when the concept of onwership is applied.
Wrong.
Since there is no objective existence to the idea of ownership, (i.e. ownership only exists in human minds) property itself can not be considered objective.
Wrong.
If property is not objective, then any principle claiming to be objective cannot include property.

A structurally valid syllogism, since your conclusion follows from your premises, but since your premises are false, the syllogism is false as well.

When you look at Sikh, Hindu, Chinese, Thai etc. immigrants in the US, they sort of fall into what people consider to be "model" immigrants. They work hard, they value education, they have strong families etc. Are they Judeo-Christian WASPS? Of course not. But they don't demand that the host country do much to accomodate them. They seem happy to be in a country where they are free to live their lives as they see fit, so long as they don't bother anyone.

Mm. So it's model immigration as long as you don't "bother" (read: offend poor widdo Questers) people. And as long as you don't happen to be a Muslim (read: terrorist radical extremist fundamentalist).

Muslim immigrants, on the other hand, seem to have an endless stream of demands for accomodation. Muslim taxi-drivers in Minnesota have demanded the right to refuse to pick up people carrying alcohol. In Milwaukee (I think) Muslim students have demanded foot-washing stations in a college dorm. Muslim students here in DC have been trying to intimidate other students from using a non-denominational meditation room at George Washington University. Muslim cab drivers in New York have tried to refuse (unsuccessfully) to pick up passengers with seeing eye-dogs. A Muslim woman in Florida tried to argue that she could have her license photo taken with her face covered. CAIR has threatened to sue airline passengers who report suspicious activitied by Muslims on flights. And on and on.

Oh, NO! And that's terrible, because in the US it is frowned upon for anyone of any profession to make demands about their profession... for students to protest or be politically active... or asking questions of the DMV... or make lawsuits.

Nope, that's un-American activitiy there. And clearly your series of charming anecdotes about the ebil Muslims is statistical fact and is in no way biased by your own bigotry.

Immigrants like that should, frankly, go back where they came from. Their desire to turn a Western country into something akin to one of the hellhole Muslim states is not compatible with our culture.

You don't know the first thing about a Western country. See, in the West, there's this little concept you may have heard of.... Democracy. Ring a bell? Ok, guess not. How about freedom of speech? No?

YOU want to change these aspects of our society. YOU want to deport people for being Muslim. For having a political goal that you disagree with. For "bothering" you. YOU want to turn the country into a fascist, politically oppressive, anti-democratic hell-hole, the sort that our grandparents bombed to shit in WWII.

And yet I don't think you should leave the country, despicable, hateful, bigoted, anti-democratic and frankly, stupid though your views are. Why? Because I'm better than you.

Oh, so you feel offended by Muslims. That explains a lot. So it's not really about protecting anything... other than your own delicate sensibilities.

No, from what I've seen of his posts, he's annoyed that Muslims have a desire to change England into a Muslim society, rather than adapting themselves to English society (like the Sikh, Hindu, Chinese etc. immigrants have done).

I love this continuing strawman you've got going about how Muslims are demanding British people eat Muslim food.

We're not talking about superficial things like opening up kebab restaurants. We're talking about an attempt to replace English culture with a foreign one, which is the clearly-stated goal of at least a portion of Muslims living in England.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - if fascists like you and The_blessed_chris are representative of British culture, then I don't care if your culture will be "diluted." So what if it's less "pure?" So what if it there are *gasp* minority cultures? What the fuck does it matter?

Since you're not British, where do you get off telling them they can't decide what their nation's culture will be?

To the exclusion of? Where did I mention that? Why should I have to respect it at all?

You have repeatedly claimed that you are forced to respect Islam. Prove it.

lol. You like to take things literally, huh?

I am attempting to clarify your position. You said that they should be able to practice their culture in their home. What do you mean by that?

Thanks, I guess.

Don't mention it. And please don't make the assumption that Canada is monocultural again.

No, there are simply no Muslims in this area. York is a 99% white city last time I checked. Yet we are still forced to learn and respect Islam even though the presence of Islam here is minute.

Fine. I would like to point out that you still have not proven that you have been forced to respect Islam.

As in people who, without an accent, I would assume are from this country.

So you are saying that integration occurs when someone talks, dresses and looks like a native. In other words, black people can never fully integrate into English culture.

A structurally valid syllogism, since your conclusion follows from your premises, but since your premises are false, the syllogism is false as well.
But you haven’t demonstrated that the premises are false; you’ve only stated they are.

I think the intuition lies with GoG; the concepts of property and ownership certainly don’t appear to be universal. They're both very anthropocentric terms.

Fine, don't support your statements. I don't really care.

Good. Neither do I. I don't feel the need to validate myself to such left-Liberals.

So, repeating "When in Rome" is not a valid argument nor even really a comparison.

I didn't repeat it. I only said it once.

Good reveal though - you don't believe in cultural equality. Gee, another shocker.

Wow! You caught on quick! I mean, my sig wouldn't give ANYTHING away.

Oh, so you feel offended by Muslims. That explains a lot. So it's not really about protecting anything... other than your own delicate sensibilities.

Yes, Islam is an offensive religion. To me, at least.

Certainly not about protecting free speech or freedom of assembly. I guess those only apply to "true" Britons - the ones who say things that don't offend you. Wah.

I never said they don't have freedom of assembly or freedom of speech. They can say whatever they like, as long as I can too. I am a strong fan of unregulated freedom of speech.

Why shouldn't you? You see, most people - most civilized people - need a reason to act intolerantly. Not a reason to NOT act intolerantly.

It was theoretical, though admittedly I didn't phrase it as such. I do not need a reason to be tolerant towards people who are moving into my country. I am generally tolerant towards a large percentage of them, but I need not be by any moral code.

Yeah, I guess if it doesn't fit with your fascist worldview, it's not worth caring about. If it contradicts your arguments, you don't care. Well... alright then. Ignorance may be bliss.

Cool! I'm a fascist! Except I don't believe in any of the core principles of fascism.

Now you're hedging. Now they should only abandon "parts" of their culture. Why? What happened to one nation, one culture? You can't argue for purity and then turn around and say miscegenation is OK, what kind of racist are you?

They should abandon the parts that are a threat to our culture.

Sorry, I didn't mean racist. I meant cultural supremacist, where "culture" just has a strong correlation with race by coincidence. My bad.

np.

I guess you think that stupid strawmen arguments will work in lieu of actual thinking.

[QUOTE=Greater Trostia;13143032]So you wouldn't mind then if you moved to America and got your ass handed to you on a platter every day? I mean after all, you moved here, anything that happens as a result is clearly your fault for invading.

Precisely correct. I've been told by many Americans I would be welcome in their country by them. I would not move to somewhere where I would be universally hated. That's completely illogical.

I love this continuing strawman you've got going about how Muslims are demanding British people eat Muslim food.

What? No, I never said that.

You're one step removed from Imperial Brazil here, with your paranoid conspiracy theories about "multiculturalists" coming to your door.

OK Mr.Moore.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - if fascists like you and The_blessed_chris are representative of British culture, then I don't care if your culture will be "diluted." So what if it's less "pure?" So what if it there are *gasp* minority cultures? What the fuck does it matter?


Political persuasion isn't representative of culture, and it takes more than just nationalism to make a fascist kthx.

Funny... that's exactly what you are saying. You like your "Britishness" but can't stand the sight of people expressing freedom of speech or assembly. You really are asking "PLS DONT FLY IT" with regards to any symbol not "British" enough for you.

Point me to where I said Muslims can't say their opinions, meet in private, or fly a flag of their choosing.

Good, as long as you don't mind admitting that your views are bigoted trash then I'm glad we're in agreement.

As long as you don't mind admitting yours are commie trash then I'm glad we're in agreement.

No, I'm rather glad that I don't know you any more than I already do. People like you make me sick to my stomach. "Cultural self defense." My fat ass. It's Race War you're talking about, and fapping to.

Yeah! Wipe out all Muslims! Even though I never said or implied that!

But you haven’t demonstrated that the premises are false; you’ve only stated they are.
Why should I, when Gift-of-God only asserted them himself?

I think the intuition lies with GoG; the concepts of property and ownership certainly don’t appear to be universal.

Then you're wrong.

And remember that something need not be universally accepted for it to be universally true: the word we use to describe those who reject what is universally true is wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.


A structurally valid syllogism, since your conclusion follows from your premises, but since your premises are false, the syllogism is false as well.

Prove my premises are false.

After that, show how these things can be objectively determined:


sanctity
property
selfishness
greed
altruism.
art
judgment
pride
dignity
pettiness
laziness

You have repeatedly claimed that you are forced to respect Islam. Prove it.

Constant drilling of cultural respect in school. You can't really prove that on the internet.

I am attempting to clarify your position. You said that they should be able to practice their culture in their home. What do you mean by that?

I mean it should be kept private.


Don't mention it. And please don't make the assumption that Canada is monocultural again.

Funny though, I've been told by Canadians it is, but meh. I will take your word for it in this instance.

Fine. I would like to point out that you still have not proven that you have been forced to respect Islam.

This is the most easily accessible regulation on freedom of speech the British Government has imposed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act_2006)

So you are saying that integration occurs when someone talks, dresses and looks like a native. In other words, black people can never fully integrate into English culture.

Alright, take skin colour and accent out of the equation. Any other superficial things I forgot? Its what people are on the inside, not the outside.

Why should I, when Gift-of-God only asserted them himself?
Because your position is weakened and you appear to be unable to defend it.

Then you’re wrong.
See what I was saying above?

Why am I wrong? Please demonstrate how the concepts of property and ownership are universal objective facts; in existence and true even if humanity had never come to pass.

And remember that something need not be universally accepted for it to be universally true: the word we use to describe those who reject what is universally true is wrong.
For something to be universally true, it must be true no matter where you are in the universe, and from what viewpoint you take. If humans didn’t exist, where would the concepts of property and ownership lie?

Mm. So it's model immigration as long as you don't "bother" (read: offend poor widdo Questers) people. And as long as you don't happen to be a Muslim (read: terrorist radical extremist fundamentalist).

Your second sentence is correct- Western countries should cut off all immigration from Muslim countries (other than for Christians, Zoroastrians or other persecuted minorities) and deport Muslim immigrants.

As to your first sentence above, I would say that model immigrants don't demand that the host country change to accomodate them. Instead, the immigrants adapt to the host country.

Oh, NO! And that's terrible, because in the US it is frowned upon for anyone of any profession to make demands about their profession... for students to protest or be politically active... or asking questions of the DMV... or make lawsuits.

The difference here is that these demands are an attempt to force Americans to adapt to the immigrants' preferences. Are you saying that you have no problems with all of the things being demanded? You'd agree that a Muslim cab driver should be able to kick a blind man out of a cab because of his seeing-eye dog?

Nope, that's un-American activitiy there. And clearly your series of charming anecdotes about the ebil Muslims is statistical fact and is in no way biased by your own bigotry.

These are just examples. You want to wave them away, but if you think they don't sour Americans to Muslim immigration, you're naive.

You don't know the first thing about a Western country. See, in the West, there's this little concept you may have heard of.... Democracy. Ring a bell? Ok, guess not. How about freedom of speech? No?

To quote the Supreme Court "Our Constitution is not a suicide pact." I have no sympathy for people who want to use our rights against us.

YOU want to change these aspects of our society. YOU want to deport people for being Muslim. For having a political goal that you disagree with.

Sure. I would have wanted to deport non-citizen Germans who supported the Nazis during WWII. Or non-citizen Russians who were trying to advance the Soviet agenda during the Cold War. Immigrants do not have the right to come to a host country and try to import a hostile culture or ideology.

For "bothering" you. YOU want to turn the country into a fascist, politically oppressive, anti-democratic hell-hole, the sort that our grandparents bombed to shit in WWII.

So, if we do not allow Muslim immigrants, we are as bad as the Nazis? Making a decision, through the democratic process, to exclude certain immigrants from our country makes us the equivalent of Imperial Japan?

Hyperbole, much?

And yet I don't think you should leave the country, despicable, hateful, bigoted, anti-democratic and frankly, stupid though your views are. Why? Because I'm better than you.

Yawn. I can almost see the spittle flying out of your mouth as you type this. Come back when you can make an argument other than an ad hominem.

Prove my premises are false.
A is A.

It is impossible for both P and ~P to be true at the same time and in the same sense.

After that, show how these things can be objectively determined:
<snip>

I just did.

To quote the Supreme Court "Our Constitution is not a suicide pact." I have no sympathy for people who want to use our rights against us.

Don't be stupid. Osama just wants to integrate, you're being mean and racist. Hey, watch out Mr Bin Laden, you're going to hit something if you fly that plane too low!

Constant drilling of cultural respect in school. You can't really prove that on the internet.

So you can't prove it. I see.

I mean it should be kept private.

Then you are saying that they should dress like English people when they walk out the door? Sorry, but your statement is not clear at all.

This is the most easily accessible regulation on freedom of speech the British Government has imposed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act_2006)

That doesn't say you have to respect Islam. It says you have to refrain from publicly inciting hatred against people because of their religion.

Alright, take skin colour and accent out of the equation. Any other superficial things I forgot? Its what people are on the inside, not the outside.

Then explain to me how 'what is on the inside' is related to 'integration'

Why am I wrong? Please demonstrate how the concepts of property and ownership are universal objective facts; in existence and true even if humanity had never come to pass.
Again, why should I bother if you can't be bothered to back up your own assertions?

Naturally, since you're wrong any attempt you make at backing up your point will necessarily be fraught with holes. But if you want me to bother posting my proof then you should post yours, lest you become a hypocrite.

I'm not a hypocrite myself, since I'm not asking to see your argument; I don't care what it is. I'm just pointing out that if you want to see mine, you should give yours.

For something to be universally true, it must be true no matter where you are in the universe,
Precisely.

and from what viewpoint you take.
Not quite--again, it need not be universally accepted to be universally true; those who do not accept it are simply wrong.

If humans didn’t exist, where would the concepts of property and ownership lie?

As logical conclusions of the fundamental nature of the Universe.

Certainly, no one would be around to derive those conclusions--but since logic, too, is an inherent part of the Universe, they would still be there as the logical conclusion of the Universe.

Of course the post you quoted didn't, because it wasn't posted in answer to your question; it was made in answer to Gift-of-God's inquiry.

But I have indeed answered your question, several times, when you have asked it in other threads in other contexts. I am not going to waste any more time on you. I am tired of answering the same question for you time and time again. Whether it is due to either laziness, faulty memory, or lack of cognitive facility, the failure here is yours. I am done with you.

Funny, my memory is perfect, and I have never once asked you these questions before. Answer them now or go back to the Ivory Tower from which you came.



Actually, even if I personally cannot answer them (which I can, and have, several times), they still would be universal and objective--after all, that's what the phrase "universal objective" means. Their truth is independent of the acceptance, understanding, or elucidation by myself or anyone else of them. What you should say is, "Until you can answer these questions, then you cannot claim that these are universal objective moral principles."

I refer you now to Bertrand Russels' Teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russel%27s_teapot), and this discussion is closed. You fail.

You can claim something is universal and objective all you want. But if you can't prove it, then it doesn't mean diddly squat. We're not in the realm of faith here, we're in Philosophy land, and that means you need proof.

EDIT: One last thing. Let me amend Russel's discussion on his celestial teapot so that it applies to the situation at hand.

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in Ayn Rand's books, taught as the objective truth everywhere, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Don't be stupid. Its undemocratic to deport people who want to destroy democracy.

LOL. Nicely put.

Following the logic of some of these posters, we shouldn't do anything about immigrants who are plotting to overthrow our governments because defending democracy is undemocratic.

And it's typical that they immediately start screaming "racist" even though I have made it abundantly clear that I have no problems with many non-white immigrant groups (and never mind the fact that most Muslims are white)

A is A.

It is impossible for both P and ~P to be true at the same time and in the same sense.

I just did.

That has nothing to do with the subjective nature of any of those things I have listed. I will ask you a specific question:

Can you show me that the concept of art is true in all places and at all times?

The Internet is a fine example of multiculturalism.

Cyber Culture (http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=2007-04-07) :rolleyes:

PS: Not that multiculturalism per se is bad, but this specific Cyber culture mentioned on those comics is just something that seems to hold the worse any culture has to offer instead of the best. I hope this open space for discussion about a very potential source of multiculturalism: The Internet.

Good. Neither do I. I don't feel the need to validate myself to such left-Liberals.

Nor to anyone else who might be reading, I guess. You know, if we're all just so unworthy of your attention - in such a way that you'll be happy to type out responses, but just not support your arguments in any meaningful way (convenient kind of standoffishness, that) - maybe you should save us all a lot of time and take your glorious presence elsewhere.

I didn't repeat it. I only said it once.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13142813&postcount=45
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13142862&postcount=50

I guess the reason for your inability to apply basic arithmetic is that you don't feel the need to justify yourself to such left-liberals. Counting is a skill you reserve for dire circumstances!


Wow! You caught on quick! I mean, my sig wouldn't give ANYTHING away.


So, "Anglo" culture is superior, Muslims culture is inferior. How about everything else? I'm curious as to the hierarchy you've made up about which "culture" (wink) is better than which other "cultures" (wink wink).

Yes, Islam is an offensive religion. To me, at least.

Boo-hoo.

I never said they don't have freedom of assembly or freedom of speech. They can say whatever they like, as long as I can too. I am a strong fan of unregulated freedom of speech.

Yeah? So I guess you just complain about Muslims marching down the streets because they, unlike you, have the right to freedom of assembly? Is that it?


It was theoretical, though admittedly I didn't phrase it as such. I do not need a reason to be tolerant towards people who are moving into my country. I am generally tolerant towards a large percentage of them, but I need not be by any moral code.

I think you've shown you don't need a reason to be intolerant. You clearly believe in cultural supremacy, in religious and ethnic based discrimination, and you're all too quick to make bigoted generalizations. For you, intolerance is second-nature.

Cool! I'm a fascist! Except I don't believe in any of the core principles of fascism.

"I don't care."

And really, I don't. Unlike you I'm not saying it as part of a half-assed excuse for an inability to back up an argument.

They should abandon the parts that are a threat to our culture.

And those would be... what, again? The parts that offend you? Wah.


Precisely correct. I've been told by many Americans I would be welcome in their country by them. I would not move to somewhere where I would be universally hated. That's completely illogical.

That doesn't answer the question. Perhaps it does. I don't really care. Perhaps you're consistent with your own foolishness, but more likely you're just pulling shit out of your ass because you know you will never have to move somewhere and be a minority and to abandon "parts" of your culture that may "offend" people there.


What? No, I never said that.

You said,

"If I moved to America I wouldn't start asking that Americans learn British history, eat British food, and respect British people."

This implies of course, that Muslims have moved to the UK and are asking that British people eat Muslim food.

Political persuasion isn't representative of culture, and it takes more than just nationalism to make a fascist kthx.


Didn't answer the question, didn't even apparently read the bit you quoted. Oh well.

Point me to where I said Muslims can't say their opinions, meet in private, or fly a flag of their choosing.

Point me to where I said you said Muslims can't meet in private.


As long as you don't mind admitting yours are commie trash then I'm glad we're in agreement.

LOL. Yes that's me... a communist. And clearly my communist views are relevant as they have been the topic of discussion for many posts now.

Grow the fuck up.

Yeah! Wipe out all Muslims! Even though I never said or implied that!

Oh sure. You just believe in "culturally self-defending" against them. Defending against them until they are all back to "where they came from." Nice Orwell. I see you've learned a bit from America... call the military "defense" and people might not realize you're being an offensive douche.

I knew this thread was nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to falsely cry "muslim oppression".

This is the most easily accessible regulation on freedom of speech the British Government has imposed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act_2006)
From the article you linked to:

“The House of Lords passed amendments (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds05/text/51025-21.htm#st_188) to the Bill on October 25, 2005 which have the effect of limiting the legislation to ”A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening... if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred“. This removed the abusive and insulting concept, and required the intention–and not just the possibility–of stirring up religious hatred.

The Government attempted to overturn these changes, but lost the House of Commons votes on 31st January 2006.”

So, if you wish, you may poke fun, criticise, satirise, debate or dismiss any religious belief. However, if you attempt to threaten initiate violence, or prompt people to threaten or cause violence towards people simply because of their religious beliefs, then you will be prosecuted.

As many of the recent Muslim protesters who called for the ‘beheading of infidels’ were.

The bill certainly isn’t perfect, but it by no means ‘forces’ you to respect Islam or any other religion; on the contrary, the House of Lords and the many different pressure groups who opposed the bill managed to rewrite the bill to allow satirical jibes, etc.

So you can't prove it. I see.

No, not really. Can you prove Canada isn't monocultural?

Then you are saying that they should dress like English people when they walk out the door? Sorry, but your statement is not clear at all.

No, I mean that they shouldn't try to impose their cultures on other people. Generally, it seems to me, that Sikhs, Hindus, Jews, and Asians are good at this (there is always the odd few disturbances). Muslims and Carribean blacks on the other hand or not. Funnily enough, blacks fleeing from poverty in Africa seem to be much more interested in integrated and much more thankful.

That doesn't say you have to respect Islam. It says you have to refrain from publicly inciting hatred against people because of their religion.

It says it is illegal to disrespect Islam. Its not the same thing of course, but it is similar.

Then explain to me how 'what is on the inside' is related to 'integration'

Immigrant A feels a commitment to his country. He sends his son to school every day and makes him study hard. He doesn't have the best job or the best education, but he wants to give something back to the country that took him in. He has black skin and a Somalian accent. He is, on the inside, integrated, even if we want to make superficial remarks, I would respect this person.

Immigrant B moves to Britain, sees the lifestyle many people live in, and turns to crime because he is not keen on working. He deals drugs, holds up stores, and shoots a police officer. He has white skin and an English accent, though he moved from another country. These are the people who are un-integrated.

Funny, my memory is perfect, and I have never once asked you these questions before. Answer them now or go back to the Ivory Tower from which you came.
Either you're in error about your memory or you're lying about it.

So you're either a fool or a scumbag. Which is it?



I refer you now to Bertrand Russels' Teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russel%27s_teapot), and this discussion is closed. You fail.
I'm quite familiar with it. See my response to your next statement for why it's irrelevant here.

You can claim something is universal and objective all you want. But if you can't prove it, then it doesn't mean diddly squat.
It means I can't reasonably expect you to agree with it, certainly.

But if something is universally, objectively true, then it is so regardless of my ability to prove its truth. If I can't prove its truth, then it's irrational for me to claim it is so, or to expect to be able to convince others--but if it's true, it's true, whether or not I can rationally know it is true.

We're not in the realm of faith here, we're in Philosophy land, and that means you need proof.
Which I have provided on multiple occasions.

That has nothing to do with the subjective nature of any of those things I have listed. I will ask you a specific question:

Can you show me that the concept of art is true in all places and at all times?

I just did, in the earlier post.

Or are you unfamiliar with the concept of "logical conclusion"?

The bill certainly isn’t perfect, but it by no means ‘forces’ you to respect Islam or any other religion; on the contrary, the House of Lords and the many different pressure groups who opposed the bill managed to rewrite the bill to allow satirical jibes, etc.

I actually did not know this (I am an infamously bad skipreader) and it just proves that our House of Lords, though undemocratic is still an excellent system. Nevertheless, I'll provide another example:

A catholic at an airport who put up a picture of Jesus was forced to take it down for fear of offending Muslims.

Here's a prime example: link (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=445979&in_page_id=1770)

Yes, I know, the source is somewhat biased, but a source nevertheless: We are not taught about an integral part of what our grandfather's fought and died against because it may offend (read: disrespect) some Muslims.

Yes, I know, the source is somewhat biased, but a source nevertheless

This is a very strange sentence

Your second sentence is correct- Western countries should cut off all immigration from Muslim countries (other than for Christians, Zoroastrians or other persecuted minorities) and deport Muslim immigrants.

Bigoted trash.

As to your first sentence above, I would say that model immigrants don't demand that the host country change to accomodate them. Instead, the immigrants adapt to the host country.

A kind of survival of the fittest scheme, eh? If they come here, and they can survive the oppression, bigotry, intolerance you give them, they get to stay because they have "adapted" to your shit. And if they don't, then they get deported and/or simply die and that's OK too.

Charming.


The difference here is that these demands are an attempt to force Americans to adapt to the immigrants' preferences. Are you saying that you have no problems with all of the things being demanded?

I have no problem with people making "demands."

I have problems with lots of things lots of people demand. Doesn't mean that is a good reason to deport them, their family, anyone from their country and anyone who worships the same god. ;)

You'd agree that a Muslim cab driver should be able to kick a blind man out of a cab because of his seeing-eye dog?


I would agree that's a stupid strawman fallacy. If you want to argue with yourself and the voices in your head, leave my name out of it.

These are just examples. You want to wave them away, but if you think they don't sour Americans to Muslim immigration, you're naive.


Of course they "sour" Americans. Just like they "bother" you and "offend" some others. Wah, wah, wah. Cry me a fucking river.

To quote the Supreme Court "Our Constitution is not a suicide pact." I have no sympathy for people who want to use our rights against us.


So the supreme law of the land is to be thrown aside whenever your Stormfront buddies spin yarns about how Muslims will kill us all.


Sure. I would have wanted to deport non-citizen Germans who supported the Nazis during WWII. Or non-citizen Russians who were trying to advance the Soviet agenda during the Cold War. Immigrants do not have the right to come to a host country and try to import a hostile culture or ideology.

Why yes, they do have that right. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech. So sorry, your argument all sunk.


So, if we do not allow Muslim immigrants, we are as bad as the Nazis?

Yes. Deporting and discriminating against Jews is no different than deporting and discriminating against Muslims.

Making a decision, through the democratic process, to exclude certain immigrants from our country makes us the equivalent of Imperial Japan?

Strawman, through the democratic process, makes a good argument?

Yawn. I can almost see the spittle flying out of your mouth as you type this. Come back when you can make an argument other than an ad hominem.

Yes, I'm sure it's so very boring for you, getting called out for what you are. Must be tiresome too. Why you can't even suggest a Final Solution without people making a nazi comparison. What is the world coming to? How dull!

This is a very strange sentence

A source is a source, no matter how biased it is. In this case you don't need to draw out the newspaper's personal opinion, you can just look at the facts presented.

I knew this thread was nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to falsely cry "muslim oppression".

Yes, you've discovered me: my secret plan was all along to force Questers and like-minded individuals to falsely cry out about how Muslims are a "hostile" force out to kill everyone, destroy democracy and dilute True British Culture with their Islamic impurities.

I just can't keep anything a secret, not even my omnipotent powers.

Again, why should I bother if you can’t be bothered to back up your own assertions?
You stated that property and ownership were universal concepts, or “logical conclusions of the fundamental nature of the Universe”. I stated that that doesn’t seem to be intuitively correct, and asked if you could show how it was so.

You seem to be unable to do so.

Naturally, since you’re wrong any attempt you make at backing up your point will necessarily be fraught with holes. But if you want me to bother posting my proof then you should post yours, lest you become a hypocrite.
I fail to see how I am wrong about my own intuitions, or how I can post proof that I hold the intuition that property and ownership are “logical conclusions of the fundamental nature of the Universe”, other than to say this:

I have the intuition that property and ownership aren’t universal concepts.

I’m not a hypocrite myself, since I’m not asking to see your argument; I don’t care what it is. I’m just pointing out that if you want to see mine, you should give yours.
Again, why do you need an argument to prove I have an intuition?

It’s an intuition. If I am wrong, I’d like to know how and why. I am genuinely interested in your position, but you seem incapable of showing how you have arrived at such a position.

Not quite—again, it need not be universally accepted to be universally true; those who do not accept it are simply wrong.
I meant ‘viewpoint’ as in ‘location within the universe’, not as in ‘belief structure’. Apologies if the language was confusing.


As logical conclusions of the fundamental nature of the Universe.

Certainly, no one would be around to derive those conclusions—but since logic, too, is an inherent part of the Universe, they would still be there as the logical conclusion of the Universe.
First, how is logic anything more than a human construct?

Second, what is this “fundamental nature of the Universe”?

Here's a prime example: link (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=445979&in_page_id=1770)

Or these:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2818809.stm

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_headline=let-s-use-the-loaf-in-ramadan-row&method=full&objectid=19649552&siteid=66633-name_page.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/10/04/britain.redcross/

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article102182.ece

Bigoted trash.

Commie trash.

I would agree that's a stupid strawman fallacy. If you want to argue with yourself and the voices in your head, leave my name out of it.

Nice question dodging. Typical black panther tactic.

Of course they "sour" Americans. Just like they "bother" you and "offend" some others. Wah, wah, wah. Cry me a fucking river.

Funny how youl also have consistently, throughout this "debate", whined and bitched about other people's views. You're about as tolerant as an Iranian Mullah.

Yes, I'm sure it's so very boring for you, getting called out for what you are. Must be tiresome too. Why you can't even suggest a Final Solution without people making a nazi comparison. What is the world coming to? How dull!

Can you ask Osama for our buses back when you go round his house for goat shit pie tonight? Those buses are quite expensive. It was awfully rude of him to bomb them.

It means I can't reasonably expect you to agree with it, certainly.

But if something is universally, objectively true, then it is so regardless of my ability to prove its truth. If I can't prove its truth, then it's irrational for me to claim it is so, or to expect to be able to convince others--but if it's true, it's true, whether or not I can rationally know it is true.


Which I have provided on multiple occasions.

Fnord is the catnip of the radioactive-zombie-cat-inna-box?

No, not really. Can you prove Canada isn't monocultural?

Yes. I can.

http://www.canadianheritage.gc.ca/progs/ai-ia/rir-iro/global/divers/index_e.cfm

In order to encourage the creation and sharing of Canadian stories, both at home and abroad, which reflect Canada's cultural mosaic, Canadian Heritage is pursuing a number of strategic objectives. Chief among these is recognition of the importance of cultural diversity.

No, I mean that they shouldn't try to impose their cultures on other people. Generally, it seems to me, that Sikhs, Hindus, Jews, and Asians are good at this (there is always the odd few disturbances). Muslims and Carribean blacks on the other hand or not. Funnily enough, blacks fleeing from poverty in Africa seem to be much more interested in integrated and much more thankful.

If that's what you meant, then you should have said that. I don't think having visible indications of another culture in public really equate to cultural imposition. Please provide sources for your claims that the majority of immigrants who are Muslims and Carribean blacks are trying to impose their culture on you or any other UK citizen.

It says it is illegal to disrespect Islam. Its not the same thing of course, but it is similar.

It does not say it is illegal to disrespect Islam. Read the text.

Immigrant A feels a commitment to his country. He sends his son to school every day and makes him study hard. He doesn't have the best job or the best education, but he wants to give something back to the country that took him in. He has black skin and a Somalian accent. He is, on the inside, integrated, even if we want to make superficial remarks, I would respect this person.

Immigrant B moves to Britain, sees the lifestyle many people live in, and turns to crime because he is not keen on working. He deals drugs, holds up stores, and shoots a police officer. He has white skin and an English accent, though he moved from another country. These are the people who are un-integrated.

That has nothing to do with multiculturalism or immigration, though. Look:

Person A feels a commitment to his community. He sends his son to school every day and makes him study hard. He doesn't have the best job or the best education, but he wants to give something back to the community that he grew up in. He has black skin and an accent. He is, on the inside, integrated.

Person B was born in the same community,sees the lifestyle many people live in, and turns to crime because he is not keen on working. He deals drugs, holds up stores, and shoots a police officer. He has black skin and an accent. These are the people who are un-integrated.

I just did, in the earlier post.

Or are you unfamiliar with the concept of "logical conclusion"?

Let's pretend I am really stupid, okay?

Show me, in simple terms, how any of the terms I listed has an objective value outside human society.

Here’s a prime example: link (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=445979&in_page_id=1770)

Ah yes they’ve ‘banned’ the Holocaust.

Turns out though it’s a load of bollocks (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6563429.stm), teaching of the Holocaust is compulsory in schools at Key Stage 3 (ages 11-14).

A kind of survival of the fittest scheme, eh? If they come here, and they can survive the oppression, bigotry, intolerance you give them, they get to stay because they have "adapted" to your shit. And if they don't, then they get deported and/or simply die and that's OK too.

No. More like, if immigrants do not like American society, they are free to go back to their home country. But they should not expect us to change for them.

Of course they "sour" Americans. Just like they "bother" you and "offend" some others. Wah, wah, wah. Cry me a fucking river.

You can ignore it all you want. But if Muslim immigrants piss off enough Americans (and they are in the process of doing so), the immigration laws will change very quickly. One more major terrorist attack, and wouldn't be surprised to see mass deportations of Muslims. And, to quote you, "wah, wah, wah" they can cry me a fucking river.


So the supreme law of the land is to be thrown aside whenever your Stormfront buddies spin yarns about how Muslims will kill us all.

There is simply no Constitutional right for immigrants to remain in the US if the American people decide to change the law to kick them out. You can wail and gnash your teeth all you want.

Yes. Deporting and discriminating against Jews is no different than deporting and discriminating against Muslims.

Strawman. I'm saying we should cancel the visas of Muslims living in the US and cut off immigration from Muslim countries.

Now, can you see how this is different from rounding up citizens of your own country and putting them in camps? Do you need me to use smaller words?


Yes, I'm sure it's so very boring for you, getting called out for what you are. Must be tiresome too. Why you can't even suggest a Final Solution without people making a nazi comparison. What is the world coming to? How dull!

I invoke Godwin's Law. Thanks for playing.

Yes. I can.

Thanks.

If that's what you meant, then you should have said that. I don't think having visible indications of another culture in public really equate to cultural imposition.

That's what I meant.

Please provide sources for your claims that the majority of immigrants who are Muslims and Carribean blacks are trying to impose their culture on you or any other UK citizen.

Well here's four that Potomac posted earlier:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2818809.stm

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm...name_page.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/eu...tain.redcross/

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...icle102182.ece

Eh. These are just some examples; it is a general trend I have personally noticed that carribean blacks are much less inclined to adapt than african blacks, but this may not be the case. My real 'beef' lies with Muslims anyway.

It does not say it is illegal to disrespect Islam. Read the text.

We already went over this.

That has nothing to do with multiculturalism or immigration, though. Look:

Person A feels a commitment to his community. He sends his son to school every day and makes him study hard. He doesn't have the best job or the best education, but he wants to give something back to the community that he grew up in. He has black skin and an accent. He is, on the inside, integrated.

Person B was born in the same community,sees the lifestyle many people live in, and turns to crime because he is not keen on working. He deals drugs, holds up stores, and shoots a police officer. He has black skin and an accent. These are the people who are un-integrated.

But they're both black and thus, quite possibly immigrants. The point is that one immigrant, despite his colour, has integrated. The other, whatever his colour, has not. That was a very quick and basic comparison of an integrated or un-integrated person.

Ah yes they’ve ‘banned’ the Holocaust.

Turns out though it’s a load of bollocks (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6563429.stm), teaching of the Holocaust is compulsory in schools at Key Stage 3 (ages 11-14).

Compulsory. Funny. We did about two lessons of it in school, then spent the rest of the term learning about Muslims.

Yes, you've discovered me: my secret plan was all along to force Questers and like-minded individuals to falsely cry out about how Muslims are a "hostile" force out to kill everyone, destroy democracy and dilute True British Culture with their Islamic impurities.

I just can't keep anything a secret, not even my omnipotent powers.

Which has nothing to do with multiculturalism really. It's quite possible to have a multicultural society that doesn't like islam.

Nor do you really seem to care about groups in the west that suffer from far more structural or societal discrimination.

So it's all a bit strawmany isn't it.

That's what I meant.

So then people should be free to express their culture in the UK. Good. You have now embraced multiculturalism.

Well here's four that Potomac posted earlier:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2818809.stm

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm...name_page.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/eu...tain.redcross/

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...icle102182.ece

Eh. These are just some examples; it is a general trend I have personally noticed that carribean blacks are much less inclined to adapt than african blacks, but this may not be the case. My real 'beef' lies with Muslims anyway.

First link: A school with a 60% Muslim population has removed stories containing pigs from the curriculum of several, but not all, classrooms. The books are still available for any student in the libraray, and are still part of the curriculum in most of the school. There is no indication that any Muslim group is behind this, which makes me wonder how you think Muslims are trying to impose anything on anybody here.

Second link: 404

Third link: 404

Fourth link: 404.

Try again. It appears that your impression of Muslim imposition is all in your head.

We already went over this.

Yes. Your claim that you are being forced to respect Islam has been repeatedly disproven.

But they're both black and thus, quite possibly immigrants. The point is that one immigrant, despite his colour, has integrated. The other, whatever his colour, has not. That was a very quick and basic comparison of an integrated or un-integrated person.

My point was this: In your example, integration has to do with societal behaviour, not cultural heritage or immigration status. Consequently, your definition of integration is not about these things either. I am beginning to get the impression that you haven't really thought out your monocultural stance.

How dare you insinuate that my racial superiority necessarily translates to racism.

...

On a more serious note, I have yet to see a argument for "border security" that doesn't reek of racism.

how about MS-13 killing and beheading border agents and minuteman? That's a pretty damn strong reason.

Compulsory. Funny. We did about two lessons of it in school, then spent the rest of the term learning about Muslims.
So, you did learn about the Holocaust, and it isn’t banned.

And what class did you spend nearly a whole term learning about Muslims in? In primary school, this is impossible, as one teacher teaches the class numeracy, literacy, etc., so you couldn’t have spent nearly the whole term learning about Muslims.

If you’re talking about secondary school, then what class teaches solely about the Holocaust and Muslims?

First link: A school with a 60% Muslim population has removed stories containing pigs from the curriculum of several, but not all, classrooms. The books are still available for any student in the libraray, and are still part of the curriculum in most of the school. There is no indication that any Muslim group is behind this, which makes me wonder how you think Muslims are trying to impose anything on anybody here.

:rolleyes: I'm sure Baptists or Hindus were behind the removal.

Sorry about the bad links. Try these:


http://www.parapundit.com/archives/004491.html

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article102182.ece

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/10/04/britain.redcross/

Diversity of culture is a good thing. It allows individuals to live as they please (within boundaries, of course) and provides a much more interesting world for all of us. Changing one's religion or habits to match those of the majority should never be a requirement of living in a given country, so long as they are not harming others.

I don't, however, think that active measures to preserve a culture as separate from others often need to be taken. Individuals can and should choose those portions of culture that they wish to be a part of and those that they do not. Because individuals will choose different things, various aspects of culture will be preserved by those choices, while other aspects may not.

:rolleyes: I’m sure Baptists or Hindus were behind the removal.
Looks like the school was behind the removal.

Surprise, surprise.

As to the other links, hyper-sensitivity to religious practice by two Scottish NHS trusts and one department in one council in England hardly amounts to an imposition of Islam on the UK.

Or as the delightful blog you linked to called it: “internal enemies” serving as “useful tools for Western leftist multiculturalist intellectuals who like nothing better than to screw over Western peoples”.

No hyperbolic paranoia there...

On the topic of St. George's Cross, it’s been associated with extremist racist groups for a couple of decades now in Britain, especially the National Front (a precursor to the BNP), so attributing the ban to Muslim sensibilities is, again, totally misreading the situation.

The st georges cross aka 'The butchers apron"......

Diversity is good provided it it not forced by the government. Equal treatment not special treatment for the races.

Diversity of culture is a good thing. It allows individuals to live as they please (within boundaries, of course) and provides a much more interesting world for all of us. Changing one's religion or habits to match those of the majority should never be a requirement of living in a given country, so long as they are not harming others.

I don't, however, think that active measures to preserve a culture as separate from others often need to be taken. Individuals can and should choose those portions of culture that they wish to be a part of and those that they do not. Because individuals will choose different things, various aspects of culture will be preserved by those choices, while other aspects may not.

Exactly. Integration shouldn't have to do with culture. Integration really is just:

Being able to communicate effectively with the community(REGARDLESS OF THE METHOD)

Understanding and following the laws, regulations, and so on of the new nation.

Holding a job or otherwise contributing to the community.

Beyond that it's up to the person to decide how they live their life. I'm an atheist in a predominately Christian country in a predominately Christian area. Should I leave because I refuse to become a Christian?

I actually did not know this (I am an infamously bad skipreader) and it just proves that our House of Lords, though undemocratic is still an excellent system. Nevertheless, I'll provide another example:

A catholic at an airport who put up a picture of Jesus was forced to take it down for fear of offending Muslims.
Here's a prime example: link (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=445979&in_page_id=1770)

Yes, I know, the source is somewhat biased, but a source nevertheless: We are not taught about an integral part of what our grandfather's fought and died against because it may offend (read: disrespect) some Muslims.

Bull shit, Jesus is a prophet of Islam and is not offensive to Muslims. You do know there were Muslims protesting the release of the Da Vinci code right?

Let's pretend I am really stupid, okay?
Pretend? :D


So you're either a fool or a scumbag. Which is it?
What is the reward for the correct answer?

I am not calling anyone a rascist; I am merely saying that the arguments that I have heard were. There may well be somethat are not.
I don't have the time nor mental composure at the moment for an actual debate, but people calling for a 20 story wall on the Mexican border for security purposes who conveniently ignore Canada and the ports fuel my cynicism.
I shall create a thread after I sleep.

:eek:

Damn, if only we could stop the massive swarm of illegal Canadian immigrants flowing over our precious border!!!

:eek:

Damn, if only we could stop the massive swarm of illegal Canadian immigrants flowing over our precious border!!!

Yeah, Canada isn't really an issue immigration-wise. Mexico is.

Multiculturalism is both good and bad.

In theory, it enriches all of us and leads to a diverse and interesting population.

However, in reality, while it often does do this, it has imperfections. I don't like being made to feel like the big bad guy just because people with European backgrounds did terrible things to non-Europeans. I also don't like being told, or more often through implication, that I have no culture because I am "white."

What do you think? Am I the only one that experiences a sense of deep unease when people argue vehemently for ultranationalistic monocultures by means of discrimination, nationalist garrison-state and/or deportation?
That is certainly something to have great concern about.

I believe there was a European country way back in the late 1930's early 1940's that was going that route. From my understanding, the final result was not very pretty.

However, in reality, while it often does do this, it has imperfections. I don't like being made to feel like the big bad guy just because people with European backgrounds did terrible things to non-Europeans. I also don't like being told, or more often through implication, that I have no culture because I am "white."
I think the problem has to do with speaking: when people refer to someone's culture, more often than not, they mean minority cultures. This is wrong two-fold: first, it is slightly degrading to these cultures. ("How sweet, they have their own culture! Guess they don't need voting rights, then.") Second, it makes it seem like mainstream culture isn't culture at all, it's just what's "normal."

Multiculturalism is both good and bad.

In theory, it enriches all of us and leads to a diverse and interesting population.

However, in reality, while it often does do this, it has imperfections. I don't like being made to feel like the big bad guy just because people with European backgrounds did terrible things to non-Europeans. I also don't like being told, or more often through implication, that I have no culture because I am "white."

I've never understood the importance in putting pride in culture anyway like it's some kind of holy grail. I'm American, but I have Irish, Italian, Polish, French, and god knows what else heritage. And I frankly don't give a damn. I don't know shit about my Italian "heritage," same with Irish and the others.

When people ask what I am, I just say American. And even then I couldn't care for certain aspects of our...culture. I'm looking at you, reality television.

I've never understood the importance in putting pride in culture anyway like it's some kind of holy grail. I'm American, but I have Irish, Italian, Polish, French, and god knows what else heritage. And I frankly don't give a damn. I don't know shit about my Italian "heritage," same with Irish and the others.

When people ask what I am, I just say American. And even then I couldn't care for certain aspects of our...culture. I'm looking at you, reality television.

So you don't care about your heritage at all? You don't care about your family history? That's nice.


I do care about my family heritage. I don't see anything wrong with multiculturalism. I do like to learn about other people's history and culture, but I never want to forget my own. Therein lies the danger. Respect other's culture, but do not forget your own. Be proud of who you are.

I don't think multiculturalism is good or bad in itself, it is a choice that a country can make in accordance with the wishes of its people.

In the US for instance, the people have erected the constitution, which more or less guarantees multiculturalism as it is now amended.

In other countries, the people may choose to impose different requirements and restrictions on foreigners who wish to have the privilege of living in their home.

So you don't care about your heritage at all? You don't care about your family history? That's nice.


I do care about my family heritage. I don't see anything wrong with multiculturalism. I do like to learn about other people's history and culture, but I never want to forget my own. Therein lies the danger. Respect other's culture, but do not forget your own. Be proud of who you are.

I am an individual first and I'd rather take pride in individualism than nationalism or what have you.

It bothers me when people put culture first above the individual, that's all.

Well it depends, imho in order to maintain social coherency, an all-encompassing ideology must exist, society should be about harmony and not competition, about selflessness, so if this culture was about selfishness then of course they shouldn't be aloud into the community, never. Diversity is alright is minor areas like religion etc, but if it stops the individual contributing to society equally to everyone, then it is unacceptable.

:eek:

Damn, if only we could stop the massive swarm of illegal Canadian immigrants flowing over our precious border!!!

He specified "security reasons". Its a fact that theres much hype made of the terror threat via mexico, regardless of the fact that none exists....

Not for many hundreds of years. Full scale ethnic immigration here stopped a fairly long time ago. Since then it has somewhat consolidated itself.

I notice that you just forgot to answer my other question. tell me have you never heard of the word Windrush?



I already know the roots of my DNA, thanks. Its not just Anglo-Saxonic, there's some Irish, some form of French, some Austronesian name that you have likely never heard of before, some Chinese... hell, we're all a mix. Well, mostly, anyway.

Which just makes your stated stance even more untenable.



Heard about it, forgot about it. Any other examples of Sikhs getting pissed off, or is this just the one you pulled up as opposed to the many many many examples of Muslims being angry about their treatment in a foreign country they chose to move to?


Plenty, use google. That isn't the point though is it. How do you think you can equate the actions of a few with the thoughts of the majority anyway? By your own admission you don't know any Muslims, you do not talk to any Muslims, so you are in no position to decide what the thoughts and feelings of the Muslim community are. Go buy a decent paper, don't believe the Sun.

Because if all cultures are equally valid, then a culture in which, for example, slavery was acceptable would be as valid a culture, or as ‘good’ a culture, as one in which slavery was unacceptable.

We can’t maintain that all cultures are equal and then denounce cultural practices that seem distasteful to us; it’s hypocritical. Of course, we can say that all cultures are equal, or say that all morality is based on culture (which I’ll talk about below), but we can’t then criticise other cultures; and I think we have to lay criticism at other cultures, honestly and accurately, when they are acting in a way that is morally wrong.


This brings up another problem:

Why say that drinking heavily or fighting is part of your culture? I don’t deny that many people drink and fight in England, but a large amount don’t. Moreover, I think it’s accurate to say that as much heavy drinking goes on in Wales and Scotland as it does in England. So then we say that’s it’s A British culture norm. But then we can say that heavy drinking occurs in most of Europe; so it’s a European cultural norm. And so on.

Go back to those who don’t drink heavily. Are they now suddenly not part of English culture? What about sub-cultures?

Soon it becomes apparent that pinpointing cultural norms is not as easy as it’s claimed. I’m not in any way denying that specific areas have specific practices localised to said areas, but vague activities like ‘heavy drinking’ can’t, I believe, be attributed to just a specific geographic area’s ‘culture.’

All of which shows what I mean. On the one hand you say that not all cultures are valid, and use an example of bad practice to highlight what? A Bad culture?

Then right underneath you go on about how one bad practice does not make a bad culture.

What of those within the culture that work to undermine the practice of slavery? Are you saying that the bad bits of a culture is equal to that whole culture, and that all members of this culture are equally as good or bad as each other?

Drinking and fighting HAS been a part of English culture for hundreds of years, of course I can say that this is a bad bit of our culture without feeling that this one aspect of our culture in someway invalidates it.

There are good points and bad points in all cultures, and in all people. Is Spanish culture not as valid as English culture because of their liking of the bullring?

Picking a bad bit of cultural heritage and declaring that because of it, it is a bad culture does not seem, well snobbish, if not racist to you?

No, there are simply no Muslims in this area. York is a 99% white city last time I checked. Yet we are still forced to learn and respect Islam even though the presence of Islam here is minute.

Ahhh a Yorkshire man, that explains it. Go to Leeds mate, plenty of Muslims there.

They should abandon the parts that are a threat to our culture.

What does that even mean. I'll ask you again then, what is English culture?

Constant drilling of cultural respect in school. You can't really prove that on the internet.

Rubbish on both counts. You can of course dig out any such documents that allude to this 'constant drilling of cultural respect' in our schools, and as a farther of two school age children I have received no letters, I have seen no home work, nor school work that suggest such a thing is taking place in our schools.



I mean it should be kept private.

What like you are? So free speech don't apply to Muslims?



Funny though, I've been told by Canadians it is, but meh. I will take your word for it in this instance.


Alright, take skin colour and accent out of the equation. Any other superficial things I forgot? Its what people are on the inside, not the outside.

First bit of sense from you.

A source is a source, no matter how biased it is. In this case you don't need to draw out the newspaper's personal opinion, you can just look at the facts presented.

Bwhahaha and you don't see the inherent contradiction here?

A biased source can of course choose not to revel data that runs counter to it's bias, or even *gasp* blatantly lie.

A source is only as good as it's contemparies. What is fact must be backed up by more than one source otherwise it is only hearsay. Would you (for example) trust a BNP pamphlet to give you the truth on the Muslim faith?

Yes, you've discovered me: my secret plan was all along to force Questers and like-minded individuals to falsely cry out about how Muslims are a "hostile" force out to kill everyone, destroy democracy and dilute True British Culture with their Islamic impurities.

I just can't keep anything a secret, not even my omnipotent powers.

What is the True British Culture?

:rolleyes: I'm sure Baptists or Hindus were behind the removal.

Damn me are all racists unthinking? Could it not have been overly zealous teachers or headmaster? Not that I'm saying that this is the case, but see how easy it is not to go down the 'evil Muslims did it' road?

So you don't care about your heritage at all? You don't care about your family history? That's nice.


I do care about my family heritage. I don't see anything wrong with multiculturalism. I do like to learn about other people's history and culture, but I never want to forget my own. Therein lies the danger. Respect other's culture, but do not forget your own. Be proud of who you are.


I guess it's nice to be aware of your personal history, but to hold to some ideal about ones own culture, I too fail to see what is advantageous about it.

Can anybody explain to me, why I should feel pride about a place that I really had no choice in being born in? What value is there in it?

Well it depends, imho in order to maintain social coherency, an all-encompassing ideology must exist, society should be about harmony and not competition, about selflessness, so if this culture was about selfishness then of course they shouldn't be aloud into the community, never. Diversity is alright is minor areas like religion etc, but if it stops the individual contributing to society equally to everyone, then it is unacceptable.
The only element necessary is unswerving loyalty to the Lord. The rest you mentioned is redundant.

The only element necessary is unswerving loyalty to the Lord. The rest you mentioned is redundant.

Heh which Lord?

Heh which Lord?
You should know the answer by now. ;)

Exactly. Integration shouldn't have to do with culture. Integration really is just:

Being able to communicate effectively with the community(REGARDLESS OF THE METHOD)

Understanding and following the laws, regulations, and so on of the new nation.

Holding a job or otherwise contributing to the community.

Beyond that it's up to the person to decide how they live their life. I'm an atheist in a predominately Christian country in a predominately Christian area. Should I leave because I refuse to become a Christian?

I like the word integration. It suggests movement from both "sides". It suggests that a new immigrant becomes a working part of the society they have joined - not by becoming just like the other parts, but by being incorporated into it as a new part.

What many people really mean when they say "integration" is "assimilation". They think the new part should become just like the old parts and that nothing should change at all, except that there's an extra little drone in the system.

Heh which Lord?

Lord God, in this case Lord Deus Malum :D

:rolleyes: I'm sure Baptists or Hindus were behind the removal.

Sorry about the bad links. Try these:


http://www.parapundit.com/archives/004491.html

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article102182.ece

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/10/04/britain.redcross/

I addition to what Chumblywumbly has already said, I would like to point out that in none of these articles do we see any Muslim groups imposing anything on anyone else. What we see, at the most, is individual Muslims asking for certain concessions and certain governement officials acquiescing.

Sorry, but you still have not shown a single act of a Muslim community imposing its will on anyone else.

I guess it's nice to be aware of your personal history, but to hold to some ideal about ones own culture, I too fail to see what is advantageous about it.

Can anybody explain to me, why I should feel pride about a place that I really had no choice in being born in? What value is there in it?

There is no reason to feel such pride. There is only as much value as you put into it. But others may disagree. In a multicultural society, people have the space to be proud of their own culture and birthplace.

I addition to what Chumblywumbly has already said, I would like to point out that in none of these articles do we see any Muslim groups imposing anything on anyone else. What we see, at the most, is individual Muslims asking for certain concessions and certain governement officials acquiescing.

Sorry, but you still have not shown a single act of a Muslim community imposing its will on anyone else.

That's because, contrary to what some people force themselves to believe, the Muslim community, like the Hindu community, and the Christian, brown-people-fearing community are not amorphous hiveminds driven by an urge to force their will on others. Individuals in each of those communities can and DO try to force their will on others, but this isn't a reflection on the communities themselves, but on the assholes in particular who are doing this.

And the reason there's no clamour for change from the Hindu community is because, I can assure you, our methods are considerably more subtle. Just look at the growing numbers of Indians in portions of New Jersey, and the fact that many of these Indians are often crowding out the previous (white) communities.

Twenty years ago, my family was the only Indian family in my home town. Nowadays, we make up about 25% of the township, and that number is CONSTANTLY growing. We're not assimilating, and we're not integrating, we're just pushing you whiteys the hell out, and inserting our own cultural norms.

...which regrettably includes the inability to cross at crosswalks...grrr....

Lord God, in this case Lord Deus Malum :D

What you are God? Hold on, umm God in everything, yeah yeah okay I can live with that.!:D

I addition to what Chumblywumbly has already said, I would like to point out that in none of these articles do we see any Muslim groups imposing anything on anyone else. What we see, at the most, is individual Muslims asking for certain concessions and certain governement officials acquiescing.

Sorry, but you still have not shown a single act of a Muslim community imposing its will on anyone else.

I work in the same dept in the same office a s two muslim chaps, and of course we have just finished ramadam, and they have stopped fasting and enjoyed the eid celebrations.

While they where fasting I took great delight(coz I'm like that) in eat to my hearts content right there in front of them, and laughing while I done. What did they do about it? Well nothing, enjoyed my happines at their discomfort, and got on with their religious obligations.


There is no reason to feel such pride. There is only as much value as you put into it. But others may disagree. In a multicultural society, people have the space to be proud of their own culture and birthplace.

Yes exactly.

That's because, contrary to what some people force themselves to believe, the Muslim community, like the Hindu community, and the Christian, brown-people-fearing community are not amorphous hiveminds driven by an urge to force their will on others. Individuals in each of those communities can and DO try to force their will on others, but this isn't a reflection on the communities themselves, but on the assholes in particular who are doing this....snip...which regrettably includes the inability to cross at crosswalks...grrr....

I have a vision of a brown invason/population explosion spreading outwards from New Jersey. Another (slightly lighter?) brown wave flowing up from the Rio Grande, and a yellowish brown one pouring east from the Pacific. They meet in the midwest, quickly forming some of the best restaurants in the world (curried tofu burritos, anyone?). Traffic laws are doomed.

What does that even mean. I'll ask you again then, what is English culture?

Outsiders looking in to the UK have a certain picture of what is "British" (yes, yes, I know, British, English etc. aren't always interchangeable). We think of a people who spread the Westminster parliamentary system around the world, a people with ties to the sea, a love of beer (and whiskey among the Scots, of course), a certain uptightedness, a love of cricket etc.

It is very difficult to fit Muslims (as an example) into this image. Especially in light of the fact that various Muslim groups have called for the overthrow of the British government, the conversion of the Brits to Islam, and the establishment of Sharia law across the entire island.

I have a vision of a brown invason/population explosion spreading outwards from New Jersey. Another (slightly lighter?) brown wave flowing up from the Rio Grande, and a yellowish brown one pouring east from the Pacific. They meet in the midwest, quickly forming some of the best restaurants in the world (curried tofu burritos, anyone?). Traffic laws are doomed.

It's only a matter of time before someone opens a Mexican-Indian-Asian fusion restaurant.

It'll signal the End Times for sure...

Outsiders looking in to the UK have a certain picture of what is "British" (yes, yes, I know, British, English etc. aren't always interchangeable). We think of a people who spread the Westminster parliamentary system around the world, a people with ties to the sea, a love of beer (and whiskey among the Scots, of course), a certain uptightedness, a love of cricket etc.

It is very difficult to fit Muslims (as an example) into this image. Especially in light of the fact that various Muslim groups have called for the overthrow of the British government, the conversion of the Brits to Islam, and the establishment of Sharia law across the entire island.

Newsflash: About fifty years ago, Indians were clamouring for the same thing, because we wanted you arseholes out of our country.

Outsiders looking in to the UK have a certain picture of what is "British" (yes, yes, I know, British, English etc. aren't always interchangeable). We think of a people who spread the Westminster parliamentary system around the world, a people with ties to the sea, a love of beer (and whiskey among the Scots, of course), a certain uptightedness, a love of cricket etc.

It is very difficult to fit Muslims (as an example) into this image. Especially in light of the fact that various Muslim groups have called for the overthrow of the British government, the conversion of the Brits to Islam, and the establishment of Sharia law across the entire island.

Bwahahah so you wish Muslims that enter our country to dig cricket, drink beer(or wiskey or indeed whiskey)be uptight and have ties to the sea in order to 'integrate' with our society?

Bwahahah so you wish Muslims that enter our country to dig cricket, drink beer(or wiskey or indeed whiskey)be uptight and have ties to the sea in order to 'integrate' with our society?

No, he wishes that all Muslims were dead, and their countries wiped off the map!

Outsiders looking in to the UK have a certain picture of what is "British" (yes, yes, I know, British, English etc. aren't always interchangeable). We think of a people who spread the Westminster parliamentary system around the world, a people with ties to the sea, a love of beer (and whiskey among the Scots, of course), a certain uptightedness, a love of cricket etc.

It is very difficult to fit Muslims (as an example) into this image. Especially in light of the fact that various Muslim groups have called for the overthrow of the British government, the conversion of the Brits to Islam, and the establishment of Sharia law across the entire island.
I'm having trouble trying to put most Brits into that image. Clearly, the British do not integrate into British culture. Brits: Assimilate now!

No. More like, if immigrants do not like American society, they are free to go back to their home country.

Wow they are free to *emigrate?* You are so very generous. Will you allow immigrants to be referred to also as humans?

But they should not expect us to change for them.

Nor you they...

You can ignore it all you want. But if Muslim immigrants piss off enough Americans (and they are in the process of doing so), the immigration laws will change very quickly.

Big deal. This is not an argument, merely a statement that a lot of Americans are as bigoted and ignorant as - well, as you now.

One more major terrorist attack, and wouldn't be surprised to see mass deportations of Muslims. And, to quote you, "wah, wah, wah" they can cry me a fucking river.

And this makes you happy, sexually?

There is simply no Constitutional right for immigrants to remain in the US if the American people decide to change the law to kick them out. You can wail and gnash your teeth all you want.

Since the American people haven't changed it, and haven't agreed with your fap-fap fascism yet, this is irrelevant. I suppose you can just continue to wail and gnash your teeth in the meantime. Perhaps you could rant about those sand-****** camel jockey cab drivers who want to rape the women and impose Muslim Theocracy on White People.


Strawman. I'm saying we should cancel the visas of Muslims living in the US and cut off immigration from Muslim countries.

This isn't a strawman, it's an answer to your question. Try reading next time.

Now, can you see how this is different from rounding up citizens of your own country and putting them in camps? Do you need me to use smaller words?

Ooh ooh ooh! I love the condescension - it's perfect coming from someone without a base for it. Whatever you say - you're arguing for nazism and are apparently just too chickenshit to admit it.


I invoke Godwin's Law. Thanks for playing.

GODWIN GODWIN I WIN THE THREAD!

Oh wait, reality doesn't work like that. I know that "Godwin" has "win" in it, but that doesn't make it a winning argument. Or an argument at all. In fact, comparison to nazism is a very valid one particularly when some people are arguing for nazi-like discrimination based on religion and ethnicity.

So sorry to tell you, your "argument" all sunk.

Which has nothing to do with multiculturalism really

Oh, of course. Because apparently there is no issue at all with "Muslim culture." Despite what people in this thread are arguing...


. It's quite possible to have a multicultural society that doesn't like islam.

And that rounds up Muslims and puts them in concentration camps too. So?

Nor do you really seem to care about groups in the west that suffer from far more structural or societal discrimination.

Right, because I discuss issue X, I must not "care" about issue Y or Z. I *must* discuss issues A-Z at every moment!

But not anyone else! No, New Potomac and the rest are free to concentrate, I however must not or else Lacadaemon will call me out!

Is this sarcasm getting through to you or am I giving you more credit than you deserve?


So it's all a bit strawmany isn't it.

Nope.

Newsflash: About fifty years ago, Indians were clamouring for the same thing, because we wanted you arseholes out of our country.

I really cannot figure out what you are talking about here. The Brits weren't really immigrants to India, they were the colonial masters.

But, if you think that Muslim immigration to the UK equals Brit colonialism in India, then you must also agree that the Brits should kick Muslim immigrants out of the UK.

Commie trash.

You just don't get it. See, when you type bigoted shit (as you are), that IS bigoted trash. I can certainly make an argument for it.

However, nothing I am saying betrays a "commie" ideology at all and you have no argument to make for such - nor would it really be relevant, since communism has nothing to do with this thread topic.

By all means, go ahead and demonstrate why you think I'm a communist. Or is it your McCarthy-esque powers of paranoid telepathy?


Nice question dodging.

Calling your argument a strawman is not dodging a thing. It's pointing out Reality.

Typical black panther tactic.

Yes, those black panthers - sorry, I meant WE black panthers - oops, I mean we black panther communists! - are so famous for labeling internet arguments as strawman fallacies. I mean that's exactly what comes to mind when the topic of black panther commies comes up. That exact behavior.

You are so very astute and wise for knowing that not only am I a communist but I am a black panther.


Funny how youl also have consistently, throughout this "debate", whined and bitched about other people's views. You're about as tolerant as an Iranian Mullah.

I'm tolerant in that even though I shit all over your stupid views, and ass-rape your so-called arguments and force-feed the remains to you on a plate, I don't advocate eliminating your culture or ethnicity from the country.

Nice try though. Apparently you think tolerance means "agrees passively with every internet argument."


Can you ask Osama for our buses back when you go round his house for goat shit pie tonight? Those buses are quite expensive. It was awfully rude of him to bomb them.

Oh no, I'm a BLACK PANTHER COMMUNIST TERRORIST!

Oh no, I'm a BLACK PANTHER COMMUNIST TERRORIST!




I knew it!

Wow they are free to *emigrate?* You are so very generous. Will you allow immigrants to be referred to also as humans?

Go back and find a post I've made where I referred to anyone as unhuman or subhuman. You are very good at putting words in peoples' mouths.

And this makes you happy, sexually?

Yawn. Get back to me when you can make an argument that is more sophisticated than "you're a Nazi" or "you're a sexual pervert." Then maybe you'll be taken seriously by adults.

Perhaps you could rant about those sand-****** camel jockey cab drivers who want to rape the women and impose Muslim Theocracy on White People.

Go ahead and quote me saying that. I know you can't. You're very good at arguing against things I never said.

Ooh ooh ooh! I love the condescension - it's perfect coming from someone without a base for it. Whatever you say - you're arguing for nazism and are apparently just too chickenshit to admit it.

Show me any of my posts where I have proposed Nazi policies. Do you honestly think a society deciding to have a limited immigration policy is engaging in Nazism? The Japanese allow basically zero immigration- are they Nazis, too?

In fact, comparison to nazism is a very valid one particularly when some people are arguing for nazi-like discrimination based on religion and ethnicity.

Where do you get the idea that setting immigration policy can be equated with Nazi-like discrimination?

Despite your overheated rhetoric, the Nazi version of discrimination involved shoving people into train cars to death camps and using "lesser" races for slave labor.

You trying to compare that to a democratic society limiting immigration is, frankly, offensive to the 16 million or so people who died in death camps and makes you look like a historically ignorant drama queen.

I knew it!

Apparently Questers and New Potomac *both* do as well!

Obviously my cover is blown.

Quick, my comrade brothers! To the black-cave!

Go back and find a post I've made where I referred to anyone as unhuman or subhuman.

I merely asked a question. I noticed you didn't actually answer it.

You are very good at putting words in peoples' mouths.

It's really more like an ability to read between the lines and see what people like you would say, if you weren't scared of being completely dismissed as ignorant racist trash.

Yawn. Get back to me when you can make an argument that is more sophisticated than "you're a Nazi" or "you're a sexual pervert." Then maybe you'll be taken seriously by adults.

Hmm, is "you're a commie" more, or less sophisticated?

Good reference to "adults" too. That really put me in my place. Clearly I'm just a child humbled before your vast intellectual capacity. A black panther communist child.


Go ahead and quote me saying that. I know you can't. You're very good at arguing against things I never said.

I didn't say you DID say that. You're very good at demanding that I prove you said things I didn't say you said. ;)

Show me any of my posts where I have proposed Nazi policies. Do you honestly think a society deciding to have a limited immigration policy is engaging in Nazism?

When those "limits" are nothing more than ethnic and religious discrimination, yes.

Despite your overheated rhetoric, the Nazi version of discrimination involved shoving people into train cars to death camps and using "lesser" races for slave labor.

Shoving which people? Religious and ethnic minorities, yes? Gosh, but that can't be relevant could it.

You trying to compare that to a democratic society limiting immigration

I am comparing that with what you are arguing for. Hate to break it to you, but what you advocate is not the same as what is.

is, frankly, offensive to the 16 million or so people who died in death camps and makes you look like a historically ignorant drama queen.

You mean a historically ignorant black panther communist drama queen, no?

Actually, as a Jew, not a small number in my family were killed by the Soviets and the Nazis both. Both because they weren't "German" or "Russian" enough, because the religion was perceived as wrong, and because it was thought OK to discriminate against anyone who was a member.

So I am not offended that I am comparing this with your shit about people not being "American" or "British" enough, about Islam being so wrong, and how it's OK to discriminate against Muslims.

I am however, offended by said shit. It's also intellectually insulting to try and dismiss the comparison with "GODWINZ! LOL!" and other masturbatory non-arguments. It is a valid comparison. Don't like it? Gee. Where's my violin.

Where do you get the idea that setting immigration policy can be equated with Nazi-like discrimination?

Despite your overheated rhetoric, the Nazi version of discrimination involved shoving people into train cars to death camps and using "lesser" races for slave labor.

You trying to compare that to a democratic society limiting immigration is, frankly, offensive to the 16 million or so people who died in death camps and makes you look like a historically ignorant drama queen.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
dis·crim·i·na·tion /dɪˌskrɪməˈneɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. an act or instance of discriminating.
2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

Banning Muslims from immigrating or remaining in the country because they're Muslims is discrimination no matter how you want to spin it.

Show me any of my posts where I have proposed Nazi policies. Do you honestly think a society deciding to have a limited immigration policy is engaging in Nazism? The Japanese allow basically zero immigration- are they Nazis, too?
A general limited immigration policy is different to an immigration policy which limits specific religions...

I merely asked a question. I noticed you didn't actually answer it.

Why should I? I've never called Muslims "subhuman?" Why should I have to defend myself against something I never said?

It's really more like an ability to read between the lines and see what people like you would say, if you weren't scared of being completely dismissed as ignorant racist trash.

I'm really not going to defend myself against your unsubstantiated speculations.


Hmm, is "you're a commie" more, or less sophisticated?

Good reference to "adults" too. That really put me in my place. Clearly I'm just a child humbled before your vast intellectual capacity. A black panther communist child.


Try to keep track. I never called you a communist or a Black Panther.

Shoving which people? Religious and ethnic minorities, yes? Gosh, but that can't be relevant could it.

Seeing as no one is proposing shoving anyone into rail cars to death camps, no, it's not relevant.

I get the impression that you're trying to argue against what you want me to say, rather than what I've actually said.

Where do you get the idea that setting immigration policy can be equated with Nazi-like discrimination?

Despite your overheated rhetoric, the Nazi version of discrimination involved shoving people into train cars to death camps and using "lesser" races for slave labor.

You trying to compare that to a democratic society limiting immigration is, frankly, offensive to the 16 million or so people who died in death camps and makes you look like a historically ignorant drama queen.
Murder is really really bad. So If I just want to rape and rob people, how can that be seen as bad?

Murder is really really bad. So If I just want to rape and rob people, how can that be seen as bad?

Okay, so then a country cannot set rules as to where immigrants can come from without acting in a Nazi-like manner?

If the United States wants to limit immigration to places with compatible cultures and religions (such as Europe, Latin America and the Carribean) that is somehow bad? The upshot of that view is that a country can only set the total number of immigrants, but can't decide where they come from.

If there were thousands of illegal Canadians crossing the border every day, you might have a point. But there aren't, so there's no real reason to worry too much about the Canadian border.

The internet is full of information. Useful for dispelling ignorance:

Here's a fact you don't hear much about: Between a third and a half of the nation's illegal immigrants — at least 3.8 million people — entered the USA legally. That's right. They didn't slip across the border in the dead of night. They came from all over the world, stayed longer than their visas or entry documents allowed, and melted into society. There's little to stop them, despite millions spent on a post-9/11 program supposedly aimed at those who "overstay."

Apparently, the Mexican border isn't that big a deal either. Link. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-05-01-our-view_x.htm)

Muslim immigrants, on the other hand, seem to have an endless stream of demands for accomodation. Muslim taxi-drivers in Minnesota have demanded the right to refuse to pick up people carrying alcohol. In Milwaukee (I think) Muslim students have demanded foot-washing stations in a college dorm. Muslim students here in DC have been trying to intimidate other students from using a non-denominational meditation room at George Washington University. Muslim cab drivers in New York have tried to refuse (unsuccessfully) to pick up passengers with seeing eye-dogs. A Muslim woman in Florida tried to argue that she could have her license photo taken with her face covered. CAIR has threatened to sue airline passengers who report suspicious activitied by Muslims on flights. And on and on.

Do you have reputable sources for any of these claims?

We're not talking about superficial things like opening up kebab restaurants. We're talking about an attempt to replace English culture with a foreign one, which is the clearly-stated goal of at least a portion of Muslims living in England.

Or this one?

Okay, so then a country cannot set rules as to where immigrants can come from without acting in a Nazi-like manner?

Not if it is based on religion or ethnicity, no. "ZOMG THEY DON'T LOOK AND ACT JUST LIKE THE MAJORITY OF US SO WE DON'T WANT THEM HERE!!!!!" is not sound immigration policy.

If the United States wants to limit immigration to places with compatible cultures and religions (such as Europe, Latin America and the Carribean) that is somehow bad?

Those places are no more compatible with the United States than any other area of the world. There is no reason at all that Asian, African, Middle Eastern, etc. immigrants can't be "compatible". Limiting it based on people who are "just like us" is xenophobic, plain and simple. It's ridiculous and it marginalizes not only those people, but also those within the nation who are living by minority religious/cultural/etc. traditions.

The upshot of that view is that a country can only set the total number of immigrants, but can't decide where they come from.

Well, they might limit it to a certain number from certain countries, in the interest of making the policies fair (so that you don't end up with all your immigrants coming from one place and everyone else on a waiting list). Or they might limit it, as some have, to those who can provide something in particular to the country (ie. requiring work experience/college degree/etc.). And they certainly might give preference to those who already have family in the country or a job lined up.

There are all sorts of ways in which a nation might limit immigration. But, "ZOMG, YOU'RE A MINORITY RELIGION, WE HATE JOO!" is ridiculous.

Bwahah isn't that what makes a racist?
must be. Canada is racist too then, because I had to fill out paperwork and such before I can come there. Ireland also racist. Damn racists.

must be. Canada is racist too then, because I had to fill out paperwork and such before I can come there. Ireland also racist. Damn racists.

Apparently Peepelonia is confusing immigration policy with multiculturalism. Or something. Whatever.

You do bring up a valid point that criticism of open immigration policy need not be based on xenophobia and racism, or even a dislike of multiculturalism. I am sure there are many critics of such a policy whose criticisms focus on border security or other concerns. If I recall correctly, Smunkee, your criticisms of open immigration policies are founded in the related problems of an overburdened social security net and infrastructure.

Right, because I discuss issue X, I must not "care" about issue Y or Z. I *must* discuss issues A-Z at every moment!


You haven't really discussed multiculturalism. All you've done, pretty much, is throw around vague and unfounded accusations about 'final solutions' and 'concentration camps'.

The best argument I've heard against multiculturalism so far, is basically the same as the argument that gay parents shouldn't raise kids, because their kids will be mocked by homophobes, and instead of dealing with kiddy-bashing homophobes, it's better to just ban parents from raising children.

It's just not a very compelling argument.

Apparently Peepelonia is confusing immigration policy with multiculturalism. Or something. Whatever.

You do bring up a valid point that criticism of open immigration policy need not be based on xenophobia and racism, or even a dislike of multiculturalism. I am sure there are many critics of such a policy whose criticisms focus on border security or other concerns. If I recall correctly, Smunkee, your criticisms of open immigration policies are founded in the related problems of an overburdened social security net and infrastructure.
yes.

as far as multiculturalism, I like to learn about different cultures and I hope that people can keep their traditions going.

I think of America as less of a melting pot where everything ends up uniform, but more of a stew where we all blend but keep our form. I am third generation here, and my family still does a lot of "Irish things" even though half the time I don't realize they are "Irish things" and I think we just have weird traditions. I have no problem with say the schools doing multicultural fairs or having groups for each culture so that they can cultivate interest and people can learn about other people's customs. I don't know why anyone would.

When someone dies in my family we have a wake, a friend from a Japanese family had a death in the family recently and they have their own traditions, it's neat to learn about it, although sad that he had to lose a family member.

You haven't really discussed multiculturalism.

Yeah, actually I have. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=540998)

All you've done, pretty much, is throw around vague and unfounded accusations about 'final solutions' and 'concentration camps'.

If you can't be bothered to read anything, I think you needn't bother responding either.

Well, I don't know the exact definition, but 'multiculturalism' implies multiple separate cultures - which means that the people themselves are separated themselves. There are groups, with barriers between them, which creates animosity.

I don't think there's immigrants should simply discard their original culture, but rather there should be a merging - the immigrant takes in culture from the nation they migrate to, and the nation gets a little of their culture in return. Ideally, the nation would, over time, get all the good bits of the cultures encountered through immigrations.

Well, I don't know the exact definition, but 'multiculturalism' implies multiple separate cultures - which means that the people themselves are separated themselves. There are groups, with barriers between them, which creates animosity.

Does it? One need not be separated to have one's own separate culture. Take, for instance, my recent wedding. There were people of all sorts of religious and cultural backgrounds there. For one, it was the first wedding she had ever been to that wasn't in India, and asked a lot of questions about the traditions she didn't recognize. There were Christians of all stripes, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and would have been some Sikhs if their kid hadn't been sick. There were people of different ethnicities, nationalities, religions, None were trying to remain truly separate from the others - we're all friends and we can all share in each other's celebrations, even when we don't recognize or fully understand the traditions.

I don't think there's immigrants should simply discard their original culture, but rather there should be a merging - the immigrant takes in culture from the nation they migrate to, and the nation gets a little of their culture in return. Ideally, the nation would, over time, get all the good bits of the cultures encountered through immigrations.

I think a nation would be a rather boring place if everyone ended up with the same culture. I like having friends of widely varying backgrounds. I like it that they celebrate different holidays (more excuses to celebrate!) and celebrate in different ways (more fun things to do!). I like it that I can learn more about their culture, and them more about mine, all while keeping those parts of our own culture that we hold dear.

Well, I don't know the exact definition, but 'multiculturalism' implies multiple separate cultures - which means that the people themselves are separated themselves. There are groups, with barriers between them, which creates animosity.

I don't think there's immigrants should simply discard their original culture, but rather there should be a merging - the immigrant takes in culture from the nation they migrate to, and the nation gets a little of their culture in return. Ideally, the nation would, over time, get all the good bits of the cultures encountered through immigrations.Multiculturalism is the idea that the various cultures will recognise this, and thus not isolate themselves, but practice inclusivism, peaceful coexistence, and the exchange of ideas - which pretty much results in the distilled monoculture you'd like.

Of course, it requires that the governing body of the society in question recognises that the dominant culture(s) will have to make space for and accommodate new cultures. If that doesn't happen, multiculturalism backfires horribly. Northern Europe is home to some of the best examples of this. Arguably, it is one area where the US is fucking billions of lightyears ahead of us. Not that America is the ideal multicultural society, but comparably speaking, yeh?

Does it? One need not be separated to have one's own separate culture. Take, for instance, my recent wedding. There were people of all sorts of religious and cultural backgrounds there. For one, it was the first wedding she had ever been to that wasn't in India, and asked a lot of questions about the traditions she didn't recognize. There were Christians of all stripes, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and would have been some Sikhs if their kid hadn't been sick. There were people of different ethnicities, nationalities, religions, None were trying to remain truly separate from the others - we're all friends and we can all share in each other's celebrations, even when we don't recognize or fully understand the traditions.



I think a nation would be a rather boring place if everyone ended up with the same culture. I like having friends of widely varying backgrounds. I like it that they celebrate different holidays (more excuses to celebrate!) and celebrate in different ways (more fun things to do!). I like it that I can learn more about their culture, and them more about mine, all while keeping those parts of our own culture that we hold dear.

Same concept in my wedding. My wife's background in Polish through her Dad, while mine is Cajun through my Dad... Our wedding incorporated elements of our local region of Virginia, her Polish ancestry and my Cajun background... It's actually easy to express ones own culture through sharing its elements with others, without isolating yourself.

On the one hand you say that not all cultures are valid, and use an example of bad practice to highlight what? A Bad culture?
A culture with morally wrong practices, such as a culture where slavery is acceptable.

I'm not saying that there is one 'best' culture, or, conversely, one 'worst' culture, just that there have been, and there continue to be, some cultures where morally wrong practices are acceptable.

Now, this supposes a number of things, while there's a number of issues we need to clear up. Most importantly, the above argument assumes a form of objective morality exists.

It also is being very generalistic about the term 'culture'; simplifying a very complex social situation into some single thing, that acts and behaves as one. This is what I was talking about in regards to the English 'drinking culture'. On the one hand, it's accurate to say that England, and a number of countries, have a drinking culture, but on the other, that's a gross simplification which doesn't fit with reality.

You yourself bring up this point here:

What of those within the culture that work to undermine the practice of slavery? Are you saying that the bad bits of a culture is equal to that whole culture, and that all members of this culture are equally as good or bad as each other?
As you rightly say, we cannot just tar everyone in a society with the same brush; people within societies often don't conform with that society's culture, which brings into question the whole conception of the 'culture' of societies. Not everyone who lives in a society that culturally accepts slavery will support slavery, not everyone who lives in a society that culturally accepts heavy drinking will drink heavily, etc.

However, there remains the fact that some societies had or have culturally acceptable practices that are morally wrong; practices that are supported by a large amount of people within said society. We can criticise these practices, and these cultures, without criticising every single person within that culture, or every single practice of that culture. I don't think there has ever been, is, or will ever be, a culture where every cultural practice is morally wrong.

But, I think we can look at certain cultures (cultures in totalitarian societies which are particularly oppressive come to mind), which have a large amount of culturally acceptable practices that are morally wrong. I don't think it's incorrect to say that a society with a huge amount of morally wrong cultural practices is 'worse' than a culture which has a few morally wrong cultural practices.

That is, if we accept that there exists an objective morality. If we don't, then my argument becomes irrelevant.

Drinking and fighting HAS been a part of English culture for hundreds of years, of course I can say that this is a bad bit of our culture without feeling that this one aspect of our culture in someway invalidates it.
I never claimed that drinking somehow invalidates English culture, all I'm saying is that we can criticise it.

There are good points and bad points in all cultures, and in all people. Is Spanish culture not as valid as English culture because of their liking of the bullring?
Spanish culture is worse than English culture in its attitude to bull fighting. But, as I've said, this doesn't invalidate Spanish culture, just as heavy drinking doesn't invalidate English culture.

Picking a bad bit of cultural heritage and declaring that because of it, it is a bad culture does not seem, well snobbish, if not racist to you?
I'm not saying any culture is 'bad' in its whole, just that some cultures have bad practices.

I don't think it's snobbish or racist to point out morally wrong cultural practices. In fact, I think it's an important thing to do.

Multiculturalism is the idea that the various cultures will recognise this, and thus not isolate themselves, but practice inclusivism, peaceful coexistence, and the exchange of ideas - which pretty much results in the distilled monoculture you'd like.

Of course, it requires that the governing body of the society in question recognises that the dominant culture(s) will have to make space for and accommodate new cultures. If that doesn't happen, multiculturalism backfires horribly. Northern Europe is home to some of the best examples of this. Arguably, it is one area where the US is fucking billions of lightyears ahead of us. Not that America is the ideal multicultural society, but comparably speaking, yeh?

Not quite... The US is pretty guilty of the same thing. Cajun culture in southwest Louisiana has been on the decline for years because it is has been common for the school system to suppress it... And even through they have started teaching French in the school system again, they are teaching Parisian French, and not Francais Cadienne, and kids are still disciplined for using the Cadien dialects in the schools. There is some hope in some areas, even though qualified teachers for the local dialect are virtually non existent, there has been alot of work by LSU to restore it through studies, and attempting to reteach the basics of it by borrowing Canadian instructors (The Eastern provinces of Nova Scotia's and such dialect is the closest relative to the dialect)... And there is a heavy rebirthing movement to restore the culture at least among the populace, especially those of Cadien descent.

Does it? One need not be separated to have one's own separate culture. .... None were trying to remain truly separate from the others - we're all friends and we can all share in each other's celebrations, even when we don't recognize or fully understand the traditions.
I didn't mean to imply that it was a universal effect - just that it does happen.

I think a nation would be a rather boring place if everyone ended up with the same culture ... I like it that I can learn more about their culture, and them more about mine, all while keeping those parts of our own culture that we hold dear.
Well, if it's boring, they've failed at taking the good bits. Besides, different people would place emphasis on different aspects. But people wouldn't have expectations of behaviour - they could focus on the subset of culture that they liked, not what they were "supposed" to embody.

Multiculturalism is the idea that the various cultures will recognise this, and thus not isolate themselves, but practice inclusivism, peaceful coexistence, and the exchange of ideas - which pretty much results in the distilled monoculture you'd like.
Well, that's good. I wish the practice would live up to the theory.

I didn't mean to imply that it was a universal effect - just that it does happen.

But that isn't inherent in multiculturalism.

Well, if it's boring, they've failed at taking the good bits. Besides, different people would place emphasis on different aspects. But people wouldn't have expectations of behaviour - they could focus on the subset of culture that they liked, not what they were "supposed" to embody.

Then that isn't the monoculture you're talking about. It's multiculturallism. Individuals choose the aspects of the multiple cultures that they wish to live by.

Boredom would come in if that variety were not there.

Well, that's good. I wish the practice would live up to the theory.
In my experience, it quite often does.

Not quite...No, no, I said comparatively. I wasn't trying to hold up the US as the shining beacon of all things multicultural. The very idea of miltilingual institutions and whatnot, is virtually taboo in EU countries still.

Then that isn't the monoculture you're talking about. It's multiculturallism. Individuals choose the aspects of the multiple cultures that they wish to live by.
I suppose, but then we're talking along the lines of culture as in 'people who like football' being a culture, fans of musical genres being a culture, etc?

In my experience, it quite often does.
Well, mostly things do go OK, there are just some bad cases.

No, no, I said comparatively. I wasn't trying to hold up the US as the shining beacon of all things multicultural. The very idea of miltilingual institutions and whatnot, is virtually taboo in EU countries still.

I'd suppose it is due to the combination of long term variation and relative closeness of the nations... Something unfamiliar in the US given the size differential. Whereas we've had 200 years of cooperation between various states (our states being of relatively similar size as European countries); against the relative competition between European countries in that same time frame.

I suppose, but then we're talking along the lines of culture as in 'people who like football' being a culture, fans of musical genres being a culture, etc?
That's what culture is, isn't it?

You wear skater clothes, you like skating and punk music etc, you're a member of the skater culture.

You wear a hijab, listen to Aamir Zaki, get mad about Cricket and like the odd street protest (;))? You're probably a member of the Pakistani culture.

National cultures (in as much as they exist) are no different from any other culture. They're shared beliefs and values, expressed in language, behaviour and artifacts. If you're against members of Pakistani culture being in country X, the onus is on you to explain why and to explain why the same doesn't apply to old people listening to classical music and going to Bayreuth whenever they can afford it.

I suppose, but then we're talking along the lines of culture as in 'people who like football' being a culture, fans of musical genres being a culture, etc?

That's part of culture, but certainly not the sum total. People of different religions have different cultural practices/holidays/etc.. People of different nationalities may bring their customs/food/fashion/etc.. They can choose to keep those they and take on those that they wish to from those around them. Likewise, those within the more common cultural background can, if they choose, take on those parts of the new culture that they like and keep what they like from their own background.

The point is that this is done on an individual level, not a society-wide one. Thus, while one Muslim friend may have no problem going to a Christmas celebration with me, another might choose not to. I might go to a celebration of Eid with them, but my husband might not. St. Patty's Day - the day where everyone who participates says they're Irish - has become a huge celebration in some areas, but not in others - where it is virtually ignored. Some people may find that they really like music from other countries, whether they understand the words or not. And some people from other countries may get into pop music and not listen to the music from their home country. And so on...

It is rather strange how reaction against "multi-culturalism" tends to almost entirely arise when speaking about non-white, non-Europeans but not when discussing anglo-saxon/"American" ideas.......With regards to America,as mentioned earlier, if security was a genuine concern, its the border with canada that has "history", not the mexican one.

Are you an American? If so, you'd realize the stupidity of your statement. Yep. All us Americans are worried about those wicked, White Canadians. :rolleyes:

Let's get a couple things straight:

- opposition to so-called 'multiculturalism' and 'diversity' by the majority population is more in tune with human instinct than are 'multiculturalism' and 'diversity'

- 'Multiculturalism' and 'diversity' are ideas pulled from thin air, in terms of them being positive, and their track record is a bloody one that typically ends the 'diverse' society

- only White nations are expected to tolerate 'diversity' and 'multiculturalism'; in East Asia, it's unknown. Which is why I find it insulting and comedic when anyone talks about 'racism' in reference to White people. Whites are, without question, the most accepting, helpful, and tolerant people on this planet towards others.

God forbid should elements of foreign cultures enter the USA...[/sarcasm]

Of course, then there would BE no "Culture" in the US...

Are you an American? If so, you'd realize the stupidity of your statement. Yep. All us Americans are worried about those wicked, White Canadians. :rolleyes:

I don't think you quite got the point. Most Americans aren't worried about white Canadians. But you add a little pigment to someone's skin, have them speak a different language, or if they come from a less prosperous country, they've suddenly become a problem in the eyes of many.

I don't think you quite got the point. Most Americans aren't worried about white Canadians. But you add a little pigment to someone's skin, have them speak a different language, or if they come from a less prosperous country, they've suddenly become a problem in the eyes of many.

Yeah, it's amazing how certain immigrants get viewed as "invading" and "attacking" and on the verge of "destroying our culture" and of daring to step out of line by expressing themselves just like anyone else in this country is allowed to.

And who was it in this very thread who said that as long as immigrants didn't do this last - you know, make marches, have protests, have political views - they "should go back to where they came from?" I mean really, it seems some people think that immigrants should be second-class citizens who face deportation for the crime of being Not American (tm) Enough.

must be. Canada is racist too then, because I had to fill out paperwork and such before I can come there. Ireland also racist. Damn racists.

Yeah them Irish are dammed racist!

A culture with morally wrong practices, such as a culture where slavery is acceptable.

I'm not saying that there is one 'best' culture, or, conversely, one 'worst' culture, just that there have been, and there continue to be, some cultures where morally wrong practices are acceptable.

Now, this supposes a number of things, while there's a number of issues we need to clear up. Most importantly, the above argument assumes a form of objective morality exists.

It also is being very generalistic about the term 'culture'; simplifying a very complex social situation into some single thing, that acts and behaves as one. This is what I was talking about in regards to the English 'drinking culture'. On the one hand, it's accurate to say that England, and a number of countries, have a drinking culture, but on the other, that's a gross simplification which doesn't fit with reality.

You yourself bring up this point here:


As you rightly say, we cannot just tar everyone in a society with the same brush; people within societies often don't conform with that society's culture, which brings into question the whole conception of the 'culture' of societies. Not everyone who lives in a society that culturally accepts slavery will support slavery, not everyone who lives in a society that culturally accepts heavy drinking will drink heavily, etc.

However, there remains the fact that some societies had or have culturally acceptable practices that are morally wrong; practices that are supported by a large amount of people within said society. We can criticise these practices, and these cultures, without criticising every single person within that culture, or every single practice of that culture. I don't think there has ever been, is, or will ever be, a culture where every cultural practice is morally wrong.

But, I think we can look at certain cultures (cultures in totalitarian societies which are particularly oppressive come to mind), which have a large amount of culturally acceptable practices that are morally wrong. I don't think it's incorrect to say that a society with a huge amount of morally wrong cultural practices is 'worse' than a culture which has a few morally wrong cultural practices.

That is, if we accept that there exists an objective morality. If we don't, then my argument becomes irrelevant.


I never claimed that drinking somehow invalidates English culture, all I'm saying is that we can criticise it.


Spanish culture is worse than English culture in its attitude to bull fighting. But, as I've said, this doesn't invalidate Spanish culture, just as heavy drinking doesn't invalidate English culture.


I'm not saying any culture is 'bad' in its whole, just that some cultures have bad practices.

I don't think it's snobbish or racist to point out morally wrong cultural practices. In fact, I think it's an important thing to do.

Yes I agree with most of what you have said here, but now you leave me confused. I'm willing to bet that there is some sort of objective moral compass, but I'm more certain that a great chunk of morality comes from culture.

What is confusing me though is, if we cannot call a culture good or bad based on moral or amoral cultural practices(they are just good or bad practices), then what do you mean when you say that not all cultures are equally valid?

Let's get a couple things straight:

- opposition to so-called 'multiculturalism' and 'diversity' by the majority population is more in tune with human instinct than are 'multiculturalism' and 'diversity'

- 'Multiculturalism' and 'diversity' are ideas pulled from thin air, in terms of them being positive, and their track record is a bloody one that typically ends the 'diverse' society

- only White nations are expected to tolerate 'diversity' and 'multiculturalism'; in East Asia, it's unknown. Which is why I find it insulting and comedic when anyone talks about 'racism' in reference to White people. Whites are, without question, the most accepting, helpful, and tolerant people on this planet towards others.

It doesn't really matter if multiculturalism or monoculturalism is more in tune with human instinct. We live in a global society, and the rate of globalisation will continue to accelerate as technology progresses. As globalisation increases, so does multiculturalism. Human instincts may cry against it (which I find very doubtful (http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2005/08/interracial-marriage.php)), but it is more or less inevitable.

I disagree with your claim though, as recent studies show a link between human pheromones and disassortative mating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disassortative_sexual_selection).

In other words, olfactory cues may be able to reflect parts of an individual's genome, and body odor seems to influence female mate choice in order to find a partner who possesses fitting MHC-dependent immune system components. Simply put, ovulatory women seem to prefer the scent of genetic diversity.

Source: http://www.nel.edu/22_5/NEL220501R01_Review.htm

I guess your first claim has been directly contradicted by scientific evidence.

Multiculturalism and diversity are not ideas pulled from thin air. And the positive aspects of multiculturalism are real as well. Canada has been multicultural throughout all of its history. It doesn't seem to be ending in bloodshed.

I guess your second claim has been directly contradicted by historic evidence.

And no one is discussing how only white people are supposed to practice it. Except you.

Yeah them Irish are dammed racist!

We're not racist, we just hate anyone who has anything to do with the damned Brits.

We're not racist, we just hate anyone who has anything to do with the damned Brits.

Heh that's like me saying I aint racist but I hate French people!

Heh that's like me saying I aint racist but I hate French people!

That's not racist, it's just good sense!

=)

Yes I agree with most of what you have said here, but now you leave me confused. I’m willing to bet that there is some sort of objective moral compass, but I’m more certain that a great chunk of morality comes from culture.
I’d agree that culture, along with a great deal of other influences, shapes our morality. However, I’d argue that, deep down, there is a very basic moral framework that humans have; an objective core, so to speak.

What is confusing me though is, if we cannot call a culture good or bad based on moral or amoral cultural practices(they are just good or bad practices), then what do you mean when you say that not all cultures are equally valid?
I’m saying that it’d be pointless to ‘rank’ cultures, and try to find the ‘worst’ or ‘best’ culture; partly because it would achieve very little, partly because it would be meaningless for the reasons we have discussed.

On the other hand, I don’t think the above means that we need not criticise cultures at all, or be fooled into thinking that all cultures are completely morally equal. Some, either in the past or the present, are ‘worse off’ than others. Some cultures are less free than other cultures, more oppressive, etc. I think it’s foolish to ignore these differences, but foolish also to exaggerate them; to denounce cultures as ‘evil’ or ‘pure’ seems idiotic to me.