NationStates Jolt Archive

With respect to the great Thomas Sowell, this piece is a bit outdated only because it's from 2007 and addressing the amnesty bill, but it's arguements and information still totally apply:

Thomas Sowell:
Every aspect of the current immigration bill, and of the arguments made for it, has “fraud” written all over it.

http://www.crainium.net/jdjArchives/FreeToChoose.jpg

The first, and perhaps biggest, fraud is the argument that illegal aliens are “doing jobs Americans won’t do.” There are no such jobs.

Even in the sector of the economy in which illegal immigrants have the highest representation — agriculture — they are just 24 percent of the workers. Where did the other 76 percent come from, if these are jobs that Americans won’t do?

The argument that illegal agricultural workers are “making a contribution to the economy” is likewise misleading.

For well over half a century, this country has had chronic agricultural surpluses which have cost the taxpayers billions of dollars a year to buy, store, and try to get rid of on the world market at money-losing prices.

If there were fewer agricultural workers and smaller agricultural surpluses, the taxpayers would save money.

What about illegal immigrants working outside of agriculture? They are a great bargain for their employers, because they are usually hard-working people who accept low pay and don’t cause any trouble on the job.

But they are no bargain for the taxpayers who cover their medical bills, the education of their children, and the costs of imprisoning those who commit a disproportionate share of crime.

Analogies with immigrants who came to this country in the 19th century and early 20th century are hollow, and those who make such analogies must know how different the situation is today.

People who crossed an ocean to get here, many generations ago, usually came here to become Americans. There were organized efforts within their communities, as well as in the larger society around them, to help them assimilate.

Today, there are activists working in just the opposite direction, to keep foreigners foreign, to demand that society adjust to them by making everything accessible to them in their own language, minimizing their need to learn English.

As activists are working hard to keep alive a foreign subculture in so-called “bilingual” and other programs, they are also feeding the young especially with a steady diet of historic grievances about things that happened before the immigrants got here — and before they were born.

These Balkanization efforts are joined by other Americans as part of the “multicultural” ideology that pervades the education system, the media, and politics.

The ease with which people can move back and forth between the United States and Mexico — as contrasted with those who made a one-way trip across the Atlantic in earlier times — reduces still further the likelihood that these new immigrants will assimilate and become an integral part of the American society as readily as many earlier immigrants did.

Claims that the new immigration bill will have “tough” requirements, including learning English, have little credibility in view of the way existing laws are not being enforced.

What does “learning English” mean? I can say arrivederci and buongiorno but does that mean that I speak Italian?

Does anyone expect a serious effort to require a real knowledge of English from a government that captures people trying to enter the country illegally and then turns them loose inside the United States with instructions to report back to court — which of course they are not about to do?

Another fraudulent argument for the new immigration bill is that it would facilitate the “unification of families.” People can unify their families by going back home to them. Otherwise every illegal immigrant accepted can mean a dozen relatives to follow.

“What can we do with the 12 million people already here illegally?” is the question asked by amnesty supporters. We can stop them from becoming 40 million or 50 million, the way 3 million illegals became 12 million after the previous amnesty.

The most fundamental question of all has not been asked: Who should decide how many people, with what qualifications and prospects, are to be admitted into this country? Is that decision supposed to be made by anyone in Mexico who wants to come here?
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmQwZGU0Njc2MDlkNzM3MmJjZGYxOTM3NTk1ZjM5ZmU=#more

Well I certainly couldn't agree more. I especially like his comment about the difference in society during the time of mass immigration from Europe. Sowell noted how society demanded assimilation, integration and Americanization of immigrants, where as compared to today, social trends are just the opposite.

What do you think of this article and the way it applies to the great immigraiton/assimilation/multiculturalism debate?

A little background on Thomas Sowell:

Thomas Sowell was born in North Carolina, where, as recounted in his autobiography, A Personal Odyssey, his encounters with white people were so limited that he didn't believe that "yellow" was a possible color for human hair. He and his siblings moved to Harlem, New York City with his mother's sister (whom he believed was his mother; his father died before he was born). He dropped out of high school and moved out on his own at age 17 because of financial difficulties and a deteriorating home environment.[1] These hard-scrabble years are detailed in his autobiography. He later served in the US Marine Corps.

After his service, Sowell passed a GED and enrolled at Howard University. His high grades enabled him to transfer and complete a Bachelor of Arts in Economics from Harvard College, where he graduated magna cum laude. He went on to receive a Master of Arts in Economics from Columbia University, and a Doctor of Philosophy in Economics from the University of Chicago. He initially chose Columbia University he has said, because he wanted to study under George Stigler. After arriving at Columbia and hearing that Stigler had moved on to Chicago, Sowell followed him there.[2]

Sowell has taught at prominent American universities including Howard University, Cornell University, Brandeis University, and UCLA. Since 1980 he has been a Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, where he holds the fellowship named after Rose and Milton Friedman.[3]

What do you think of this article and the way it applies to the great immigraiton/assimilation/multiculturalism debate?
I think it's the same tired old collectivist tripe, this time with an appeal to authority fallacy added for good measure.

Who should decide how many people, with what qualifications and prospects, are to be admitted into this country? Is that decision supposed to be made by anyone in Mexico who wants to come here?
Yes. Them, and the people they live with, who employ them and who house them.

Nobody else.

I think it's the same tired old collectivist tripe, this time with an appeal to authority fallacy added for good measure.


Yes. Them, and the people they live with, who employ them and who house them.

Nobody else.

While it's not new argument, I don't see the appeal to authority.

I also entirely disagree with you, Neu. Nations have the absolute right to disallow immigration, and multiculturalism is a stupid and damaging policy that doesn't work.

While it's not new argument, I don't see the appeal to authority.
All the writing about the guy's academic qualifications. It's not there because it lends any substance to the argument, it's there to try and make it appear more correct because of who happened to have written it.

I also entirely disagree with you, Neu. Nations have the absolute right to disallow immigration, and multiculturalism is a stupid and damaging policy that doesn't work.
And I've never seen where such a right should come from or how a concept like a nation can actually have rights at all, seperately from the humans it is made up of.

As for multiculturalism, I don't really think it's any of my business what the person next door likes to eat, pray to, watch on TV, listen to or otherwise do with themselves. All I ask is that they don't infringe on my ability to do these things, and any situation in which this isn't the case is already covered fairly reliably by existing law.

All the writing about the guy's academic qualifications. It's not there because it lends any substance to the argument, it's there to try and make it appear more correct because of who happened to have written it.
.

And his picture and bio are included, to pre-empt accusations of racism.

And his picture and bio are included, to pre-empt accusations of racism.
Did we suddenly move to a world where non-Whites are incapable of racism then? :confused:

Did we suddenly move to a world where non-Whites are incapable of racism then? :confused:

Only in TAI's world, where "darkies" are inferior and only to be referred to in positive light when spouting stuff he agrees to.

I notice how it gives a quick halfhearted effort to blame the real villains in illegal immigration(business) and goes on to demonize the pawn. Incidentally, it's exactly this redirection of blame that helps such unethical businesses maintain a carefully regulated supply of desperate people willing to work in unsafe conditions for low pay and no benefits.

Ah, another "libertarian" down.

Edit: Surprising that an economist would be so clueless, but the mere fact that some Americans are willing to do such jobs tells us little about the elasticity of the labor supply when it comes to getting that other 24%.

Not that it matters. The more basic truth here is that borders are artificial creations of force, and that human beings do not come in castes. We have a very questionable right at best to restrict immigration.

Wow, how many arguments by assertion can one article have?

Well, an educated guy who made his own way in life said it, it must be true!

As for multiculturalism, I don't really think it's any of my business what the person next door likes to eat, pray to, watch on TV, listen to or otherwise do with themselves. All I ask is that they don't infringe on my ability to do these things, and any situation in which this isn't the case is already covered fairly reliably by existing law.
This.

the costs of imprisoning those who commit a disproportionate share of crime.

i see that sowell still doesn't believe in evidence, what with this being exactly the opposite of what is actually the case and all. sorta like what he has to say on global warming, now that i think about it...

Ah, another "libertarian" down.

amazing how frequently and regularly that happens, no?

amazing how frequently and regularly that happens, no?

Well, TAI and his ilk eat it up, so it must be profitable to rave around with groundless assertions and lies.

I also entirely disagree with you, Neu. Nations have the absolute right to disallow immigration, and multiculturalism is a stupid and damaging policy that doesn't work.
False. Multiculturalism is fine and enriches the entire culture. Wiping out cultures has led to all sorts of issues. The actual problem is there is no push for acclimation or integration by foreign immigrants, especially 'illegal' immigrants. Sure, their children eventually merge into the main culture if we are lucky, but there is no guarantee. And the parents never acclimate.

Did we suddenly move to a world where non-Whites are incapable of racism then? :confused:
Hi, welcome to America. Would you like a complimentary firearm?

Wow, how many arguments by assertion can one article have?
It's directly proportional to the number and self-importance of the economists writing it.

The actual problem is there is no push for acclimation or integration by foreign immigrants, especially 'illegal' immigrants. Sure, their children eventually merge into the main culture if we are lucky, but there is no guarantee. And the parents never acclimate.
So, in other words they are acting like every other immigrant group who has wandered into the US. The third generation rule seems to be alive and well.

Hi, welcome to America. Would you like a complimentary firearm?
You have no idea how many times I have had to explain to people here that, no, you don't HAVE to have a firearm in America and most Americans don't have one.

You have no idea how many times I have had to explain to people here that, no, you don't HAVE to have a firearm in America and most Americans don't have one.

What? You don't have a gun cabinet chock full of weapons to start a small war? Clearly you're no American. :p

False. Multiculturalism is fine and enriches the entire culture. Wiping out cultures has led to all sorts of issues. The actual problem is there is no push for acclimation or integration by foreign immigrants, especially 'illegal' immigrants. Sure, their children eventually merge into the main culture if we are lucky, but there is no guarantee. And the parents never acclimate.


You're mistaking "multiculturalism" with simple tolerance. I can tolerate other cultural concepts and ideals as well as anyone, and I certainly agree that by accepting and even enjoying diversity the entire culture is enriched.

But "multiculturalism" is exactly what you're unhappy about. It's a deliberate attempt to slow or even halt assimilation of ethnic groups.

In the "melting pot" theory, everyone eventually becomes part of one culture, assembled and constructed of the best parts of everyone's, and discarding those aspects that are disliked or which are simply intolerable to others. But in today's "multiculture", you're not even allowed to criticize cultural aspects that you find unpleasent, disagreeable or even disgusting. Only the most extreme aspects can be portrayed negatively (female genital mutilation, honor killings) or you risk being labeled "insensitive", "bigoted" or even "racist" (since people apparently cannot distinguish between race and culture).

So, insead of having "little Italy" change from an ethnic ghetto to a quaint restaurant dstrict, "little Sudan" (or "Germany" or "Serbia" or "Bhutan") stays a ghetto, doesn't interact with it's neighbours and speaks mostly Sudanese. After all, their culture "is just as good as anyone else's".

That latter is a lie that makes my blood boil. All peoples, clearly, have equal ability and capacity - but that is simply not true of all cultures, some of which uplift their members and serve to drive them on to greater heights, and some of which grind down the human spirit to the dust.

What? You don't have a gun cabinet chock full of weapons to start a small war? Clearly you're no American. :p
Nope, more like I don't want to get dragged away by the NPA who take a very dim view of foreigners owning illegal guns. :p

If it helps though, back at home I DO have a number of fishing rods, reels, and tackle boxes. Enough to at least feed the armies of said small war, assuming the fishing is good. Does that count?

You're mistaking "multiculturalism" with simple tolerance. I can tolerate other cultural concepts and ideals as well as anyone, and I certainly agree that by accepting and even enjoying diversity the entire culture is enriched.

But "multiculturalism" is exactly what you're unhappy about. It's a deliberate attempt to slow or even halt assimilation of ethnic groups.
Uh... right. Yup, that's what it is, yes. :rolleyes:

So, insead of having "little Italy" change from an ethnic ghetto to a quaint restaurant dstrict, "little Sudan" (or "Germany" or "Serbia" or "Bhutan") stays a ghetto, doesn't interact with it's neighbours and speaks mostly Sudanese. After all, their culture "is just as good as anyone else's".
The whole reason why the Little Italys of the past have become quaint restaurant districts now is because immigration from Italy stopped! It takes 3 generations for immigrants to fully assimilate into their new culture (assuming said culture allow them to, in the US, Blacks still haven't done so). Since we've gone beyond a period of intense immigration from Italy where you would have new immigrants arriving to replace those who had assimilated and moved out, you get the area changing. San Francisco's Chinatown is a great model of this as it STILL is the entry point for a number of immigrants from China and Taiwan. Parts of it are still as ethnic as it was back in the Gold Rush days and you'll find most fresh of the plane people speaking Chinese, and yes, not straying far from it either! Compare to Japantown, also in San Francisco, which is slowly dying and has become retail shops as immigration from Japan is down to a trickle.

That latter is a lie that makes my blood boil. All peoples, clearly, have equal ability and capacity - but that is simply not true of all cultures, some of which uplift their members and serve to drive them on to greater heights, and some of which grind down the human spirit to the dust.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Surprisingly, this is actually even worse than most of that Economist shite you reckon is the absolute truth.

The whole reason why the Little Italys of the past have become quaint restaurant districts now is because immigration from Italy stopped! It takes 3 generations for immigrants to fully assimilate into their new culture (assuming said culture allow them to, in the US, Blacks still haven't done so).
And multiculturalism is exactly about that - from its standpoint, it's a good thing that the Blacks haven't assimilated. Multiculturalism is about creating an environment where assimilation is not required. Such as letting each ethnoreligious group have its laws and courts, and basically live like a Native American Indian reservation.

And multiculturalism is exactly about that - from its standpoint, it's a good thing that the Blacks haven't assimilated. Multiculturalism is about creating an environment where assimilation is not required. Such as letting each ethnoreligious group have its laws and courts, and basically live like a Native American Indian reservation.
Hmm, your POV vs. "The term multiculturalism generally refers to a state of racial, cultural and ethnic/ diversity within the demographics of a specified place, usually at the scale of an organization such as a school, business, neighbourhood, city or nation.

Some countries have official, or de jure policies of multiculturalism aimed at recognizing, celebrating and maintaining the different cultures or cultural identities within that society to promote social cohesion. In this context, multiculturalism advocates a society that extends equitable status to distinct cultural and religious groups, with no one culture predominating."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism

Ya know, your POV just doesn't seem to be in there are all. Where might it be coming from?

Where might it be coming from?
The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.

Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.

It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.


From the reality. I said roughly the same as what you quoted, just in examples of how it's implemented rather than the theory.

But "multiculturalism" is exactly what you're unhappy about. It's a deliberate attempt to slow or even halt assimilation of ethnic groups.
In Europe, Multiculturalism is understood to be slightly different. Here, it's an attempt to accelerate the assimilation of ethnic groups by taking on board the cultures that are introduced and adapting the national identity to feature the interesting and constructive aspects of that culture.

For instance, in the Sharia law question in the UK, it is widely perceived as a failing of multiculturalism, rather than an application of it, that Muslims might use their own courts to deal with disputes.

Some countries have official, or de jure policies of multiculturalism aimed at recognizing, celebrating and maintaining the different cultures or cultural identities within that society to promote social cohesion. In this context, multiculturalism advocates a society that extends equitable status to distinct cultural and religious groups, with no one culture predominating."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism

Ya know, your POV just doesn't seem to be in there are all. Where might it be coming from?
Erm well Great Britain has a fairly similar position. You can go to a religious court to get your problems solved, and unless people take it to a proper court, the decision basically sticks.

In Europe, Multiculturalism is understood to be slightly different. Here, it's an attempt to accelerate the assimilation of ethnic groups by taking on board the cultures that are introduced and adapting the national identity to feature the interesting and constructive aspects of that culture.
Quite.
For instance, in the Sharia law question in the UK, it is widely perceived as a failing of multiculturalism, rather than an application of it, that Muslims might use their own courts to deal with disputes.
Seeing as anyone who wants to take up any dispute with anyone outside of a court can do so with some authority if they get a 'neutral' referee-ish judge type person, I don't see why that's a problem with the Muslim community, especially since people can get these things overturned in a court.

Seeing as anyone who wants to take up any dispute with anyone outside of a court can do so with some authority if they get a 'neutral' referee-ish judge type person, I don't see why that's a problem with the Muslim community, especially since people can get these things overturned in a court.
I think what annoys people is that the arbitration judges are primarily Muslim, and that judges acting on common law rather than religious scripture would not be held to the same degree of authority by Islamic communities.

The same problem would exist with Christian courts if people suspected that they were driven by Biblical law rather than the law of the lands.

You have no idea how many times I have had to explain to people here that, no, you don't HAVE to have a firearm in America and most Americans don't have one.

Tell them from me they're squandering their privileges.

I'd have a massive collection......

I notice how it gives a quick halfhearted effort to blame the real villains in illegal immigration(business) and goes on to demonize the pawn. Incidentally, it's exactly this redirection of blame that helps such unethical businesses maintain a carefully regulated supply of desperate people willing to work in unsafe conditions for low pay and no benefits.
^^ This.

That immigration bill was indeed a corrupt pay-off to corporate campaign donors with strong lobbyists, but what was wrong with it was not what Sowell says. Sowell is just promoting a rightwing agenda with this, just like he always does. I don't comment on his books, but of his public comments, I have never heard one that is anything more than a list of rightwing talking points -- including the quote in the OP.

You're mistaking "multiculturalism" with simple tolerance. I can tolerate other cultural concepts and ideals as well as anyone, and I certainly agree that by accepting and even enjoying diversity the entire culture is enriched.

But "multiculturalism" is exactly what you're unhappy about. It's a deliberate attempt to slow or even halt assimilation of ethnic groups.

In the "melting pot" theory, everyone eventually becomes part of one culture, assembled and constructed of the best parts of everyone's, and discarding those aspects that are disliked or which are simply intolerable to others. But in today's "multiculture", you're not even allowed to criticize cultural aspects that you find unpleasent, disagreeable or even disgusting. Only the most extreme aspects can be portrayed negatively (female genital mutilation, honor killings) or you risk being labeled "insensitive", "bigoted" or even "racist" (since people apparently cannot distinguish between race and culture).

So, insead of having "little Italy" change from an ethnic ghetto to a quaint restaurant dstrict, "little Sudan" (or "Germany" or "Serbia" or "Bhutan") stays a ghetto, doesn't interact with it's neighbours and speaks mostly Sudanese. After all, their culture "is just as good as anyone else's".

That latter is a lie that makes my blood boil. All peoples, clearly, have equal ability and capacity - but that is simply not true of all cultures, some of which uplift their members and serve to drive them on to greater heights, and some of which grind down the human spirit to the dust.

What a load of rot, honestly where does it say that we are not allowed to criticise cultural aspects that you find unpleasent?

The modern western world has ben succsefuly undergoing 'multicururalism' for many many years now. Shit man, it's in our global history, I don't know where you are, but you would not be there if your far distant ancesters had not moved there, to follow the herd, or get away form the snow or whatever reason mad them move from their little patch of earth and join others in a diffeant place.

As the population grows the world in effect gets smaller, in time, when the only 'tribe' that we speak of is the tribe of Earth, petty, bigoted thoughts like yours will be looked at and civilised people will wonder if your kind was only a myth.

There is nowt you can do about, learn to live with it man.

You're mistaking "multiculturalism" with simple tolerance.

That's all 'multiculturalism' is. I know you, TAI and others like to concoct a grand conspiracy whose devious desires include the destruction of all you hold dear, but your delusions do not define the concept.

After all, their culture "is just as good as anyone else's".

That latter is a lie that makes my blood boil. All peoples, clearly, have equal ability and capacity - but that is simply not true of all cultures, some of which uplift their members and serve to drive them on to greater heights, and some of which grind down the human spirit to the dust.

So your opposition to 'multiculturalism' is rooted in the belief that some cultures are Superior, and other cultures are Inferior.

Namely of course, yours is the superior one, and the immigrant cultures the inferior.

Pathetic.

See HDI.

So your opposition to 'multiculturalism' is rooted in the belief that some cultures are Superior, and other cultures are Inferior.

Namely of course, yours is the superior one, and the immigrant cultures the inferior.

Pathetic.So a cultural that embraces, practices and promotes female genital mutilation is just as good as any other culture? A culture that teaches Jew are below dogs on the humanity scale and calls for the destruction of Israel is just as good as any other? A culture that calls for the beheading of people who do have a particular religious belief is just as good as any other?

Sorry, like it or not, cultures that express these and other bigoted/obscene/horrific ideals ARE inferior to ones that don't.

So a cultural that embraces, practices and promotes female genital mutilation is just as good as any other culture?

Oh, what "culture" is that?

A culture that teaches Jew are below dogs on the humanity scale and calls for the destruction of Israel is just as good as any other?

And what "culture" is this?

A culture that calls for the beheading of people who do have a particular religious belief is just as good as any other?

And this?

Sorry, like it or not, cultures that express these and other bigoted/obscene/horrific ideals ARE inferior to ones that don't.

"My culture is superior" IS a bigoted ideal.

So I guess you've just admitted, by your own non-logic, that your own culture is inferior to mine.

^^ This.

That immigration bill was indeed a corrupt pay-off to corporate campaign donors with strong lobbyists, but what was wrong with it was not what Sowell says. Sowell is just promoting a rightwing agenda with this, just like he always does. I don't comment on his books, but of his public comments, I have never heard one that is anything more than a list of rightwing talking points -- including the quote in the OP.

Mexicans-and I do mean Mexicans, not all Hispanics, though they tend to get lumped together with Mexicans in American politics--have always been an American scapegoat. There's a reason why people like Caesar Chavez had to pull an MLK.

So it's not surprising to see them still used in a racist manner even now, even with the hiding behind terms like illegal immigrants. We all know who they're talking about. They're not talking about that Russian that stows away on a boat headed for Boston.

So a cultural that embraces, practices and promotes female genital mutilation is just as good as any other culture? A culture that teaches Jew are below dogs on the humanity scale and calls for the destruction of Israel is just as good as any other? A culture that calls for the beheading of people who do have a particular religious belief is just as good as any other?

Sorry, like it or not, cultures that express these and other bigoted/obscene/horrific ideals ARE inferior to ones that don't.

No.

Certain cultural IDEALS are poorer in the sense of being barbaric, and barbaric only, not in the general elitist sense of "I'm automatically better than you because I'm a Jew/Russian/Englishman/Clown."

Not entire cultures. Even those that promote these disgusting things have a lot of value to them beyond these elements. These are fringe elements, not defining characteristics.

So a cultural that embraces, practices and promotes female genital mutilation is just as good as any other culture? A culture that teaches Jew are below dogs on the humanity scale and calls for the destruction of Israel is just as good as any other? A culture that calls for the beheading of people who do have a particular religious belief is just as good as any other?

Sorry, like it or not, cultures that express these and other bigoted/obscene/horrific ideals ARE inferior to ones that don't.

Bollox!

What you mean of course is that aspect of that culture is not nice. Or could I get away with saying a culture that kills it's felons by use of the death penalty is inferior to a culture that does not?

You're mistaking "multiculturalism" with simple tolerance. I can tolerate other cultural concepts and ideals as well as anyone, and I certainly agree that by accepting and even enjoying diversity the entire culture is enriched.

But "multiculturalism" is exactly what you're unhappy about. It's a deliberate attempt to slow or even halt assimilation of ethnic groups.

In the "melting pot" theory, everyone eventually becomes part of one culture, assembled and constructed of the best parts of everyone's, and discarding those aspects that are disliked or which are simply intolerable to others. But in today's "multiculture", you're not even allowed to criticize cultural aspects that you find unpleasent, disagreeable or even disgusting. Only the most extreme aspects can be portrayed negatively (female genital mutilation, honor killings) or you risk being labeled "insensitive", "bigoted" or even "racist" (since people apparently cannot distinguish between race and culture).

So, insead of having "little Italy" change from an ethnic ghetto to a quaint restaurant dstrict, "little Sudan" (or "Germany" or "Serbia" or "Bhutan") stays a ghetto, doesn't interact with it's neighbours and speaks mostly Sudanese. After all, their culture "is just as good as anyone else's".

That latter is a lie that makes my blood boil. All peoples, clearly, have equal ability and capacity - but that is simply not true of all cultures, some of which uplift their members and serve to drive them on to greater heights, and some of which grind down the human spirit to the dust.

You're being outright ridiculous. Multiculturalism is founded on the very BASIS of rejecting outrageous elements like gang violence, or female genital mutilation, or beheadings, or racism, etc etc etc etc and uniting the various elements that make cultures strong, and above all RICH in things like music, art, food, all that good stuff.

It's not about ignoring problems. That's just as incorrect a view of multiculturalism as the view that affirmative action is all about quotas.

So multiculturalism in your definition is about forming a culture that, ideally, unites all the good aspects of every culture, and rejects all their bad aspects?

That's hard to disagree with.


I don't see how "monoculturalism" is a worse term for it, though.

"My culture is superior" IS a bigoted ideal.

So I guess you've just admitted, by your own non-logic, that your own culture is inferior to mine.
Its not bigoted, its discriminatory, there is a difference, and discrimination, the ability to sort the bad from the good and a refusal to give into the idea that everything is equal, that there is no bad or good, only different is essential to rational thought. Some cultures ARE better than others. Sorry, if you think that is bigoted, I don't care. Not every thing IS equal, somethings are bad and some are good. Some things, including cultures are better than other things.

So multiculturalism in your definition is about forming a culture that, ideally, unites all the good aspects of every culture, and rejects all their bad aspects?

That's hard to disagree with.


I don't see how "monoculturalism" is a worse term for it, though.

Because it's not really truly one culture in that sense, though I suppose overtime it might end up becoming one if everyone joins it and no one ever splits off.

It's more about celebrating the good diversity while rejecting the bad, and uniting together in ways that are possible. The problems with the system aren't that it's inherently faulty; the problems come from people who decide on their own because of observations of certain elements of racism, or certain things like FGM, that it's impossible, and therefore refuse to work to make it work. It requires everyone, not just some of us.

So let's decide, is Sharia Law the good or the bad element?

So let's decide, is Sharia Law the good or the bad element?

It's not that simple. There are many elements which can be denounced that way almost universally, but others where it cannot.

Sharia law as the popularly believed example of some medieval barbaric "Cut their hands off, stone 'em, and boil 'em" sort of thing would be something to reject, but as research can show, Sharia law isn't just about that at all.

It's an example of cultural ideals that aren't so easy to pin down, and why multiculturalism is therefore extremely complicated.

Well, and the solution is, edit the bad elements out of the Sharia Law?

What a load of rot, honestly where does it say that we are not allowed to criticise cultural aspects that you find unpleasent?

The modern western world has ben succsefuly undergoing 'multicururalism' for many many years now. Shit man, it's in our global history, I don't know where you are, but you would not be there if your far distant ancesters had not moved there, to follow the herd, or get away form the snow or whatever reason mad them move from their little patch of earth and join others in a diffeant place.

As the population grows the world in effect gets smaller, in time, when the only 'tribe' that we speak of is the tribe of Earth, petty, bigoted thoughts like yours will be looked at and civilised people will wonder if your kind was only a myth.

There is nowt you can do about, learn to live with it man.

Wow, Peepelonia, I can't think of anything that would totally PROVE MY POINT better than your post.

I posit a point, that not all cultures are equal, and that assimilation is a better policy. You choose not to address this at all - but instead revile my "petty, bigoted thoughts".

Who says I can't criticise these cultures? Take a look in the mirror.

Wow, Peepelonia, I can't think of anything that would totally PROVE MY POINT better than your post.

I posit a point, that not all cultures are equal, and that assimilation is a better policy. You choose not to address this at all - but instead revile my "petty, bigoted thoughts".

Who says I can't criticise these cultures? Take a look in the mirror.

Then you and I must work on differant levels coz I see nowt in my post which proves any of your points, please do explain.

I posit a point, that not all cultures are equal, and that assimilation is a better policy.

How could you even begin to rank cultures as "better" or "worse" or "equal"? What standard of measurement could you possibly use to determine whether or not two culture are "equal"?

You choose not to address this at all

I can see why. It's a nonsensical proposition.

So your opposition to 'multiculturalism' is rooted in the belief that some cultures are Superior, and other cultures are Inferior.

Namely of course, yours is the superior one, and the immigrant cultures the inferior.

Pathetic.

And the all-time record for making silly assumptions goes to...

For your information, not that I think you'll bother to take it aboard, I consider my native culture one of the weakest and least effective of the western world. We could learn a lot from others.

But if you honestly want to say that a culture based around semi-nomadic agriculture (as some are) is the equal of one based on five thousand years of civilized development (say, that of Tibet), I will laugh in your face.

Then you and I must work on differant levels coz I see nowt in my post which proves any of your points, please do explain.

Simply, my point that one is not permitted to criticize other cultures.

Because someone like you will then jump about ponjting a finger and yelling "bigot, bigot"!

Simply, my point that one is not permitted to criticize other cultures.

Because someone like you will then jump about ponjting a finger and yelling "bigot, bigot"!
A good way to head that off at the pass is not to say bigoted crap like this:
But if you honestly want to say that a culture based around semi-nomadic agriculture (as some are) is the equal of one based on five thousand years of civilized development (say, that of Tibet), I will laugh in your face.

Next time, try basing your criticisms on something other than your personal preferences (hint: also known as biases).

How could you even begin to rank cultures as "better" or "worse" or "equal"? What standard of measurement could you possibly use to determine whether or not two culture are "equal"?



I can see why. It's a nonsensical proposition.

I disagree. As to ranking cultures, I imagine that everyone would have their own criteria. For me, those cultures that treat all citizens fairly equally regardless of gender or social standing would clearly be superior to those which do not. Further, I would point to traits such as a love of truth and a valuing of education as being superior to discounting such - because they enhance the freedoms and options of the individuals within those societies.

I disagree. As to ranking cultures, I imagine that everyone would have their own criteria. For me, those cultures that treat all citizens fairly equally regardless of gender or social standing would clearly be superior to those which do not. Further, I would point to traits such as a love of truth and a valuing of education as being superior to discounting such - because they enhance the freedoms and options of the individuals within those societies.
Which cultures meet those criteria? I'd like to move there.

How could you even begin to rank cultures as "better" or "worse" or "equal"? What standard of measurement could you possibly use to determine whether or not two culture are "equal"?
Human Development Index?

A good way to head that off at the pass is not to say bigoted crap like this:


Next time, try basing your criticisms on something other than your personal preferences (hint: also known as biases).

Oh, I know full well that I have biases. And I've done enough work in historical fields and criticisms therof to have a pretty good idea of what they are.

This isn't one of them. This is a reasoned, intellectual position: some cultures are superior to others, because some cultures uplift human being and some degrade them.

And that message will, I have no doubt, be utterly drowned out by the shouts of "BIGOTRY!" before much longer.

And the all-time record for making silly assumptions goes to...

For your information, not that I think you'll bother to take it aboard, I consider my native culture one of the weakest and least effective of the western world. We could learn a lot from others.

But if you honestly want to say that a culture based around semi-nomadic agriculture (as some are) is the equal of one based on five thousand years of civilized development (say, that of Tibet), I will laugh in your face.

You mean the Tibetan culture that was based around feudal serfdom and a strict caste system? Versus a semi-nomadic agriculturally-based culture like Turks or Magyars? Pick better examples.

Which cultures meet those criteria? I'd like to move there.

From my point of view, Sweden and the other Scandinavian countries seem to be on top, with the rest of western Europe not far behind, likewise China (which has become quite delightfully progressive culturally, even if it's government is lagging behind). Behind those would be the USA and Australia, primarily due to the extreme conservatism of the one and the endemic racism of the other. Japan would be in the same area, and for the same reasons.

You mean the Tibetan culture that was based around feudal serfdom and a strict caste system? Versus a semi-nomadic agriculturally-based culture like Turks or Magyars? Pick better examples.

Fair point. How about Bedouin versus Korean?

Oh, I know full well that I have biases. And I've done enough work in historical fields and criticisms therof to have a pretty good idea of what they are.

This isn't one of them. This is a reasoned, intellectual position: some cultures are superior to others, because some cultures uplift human being and some degrade them.

And that message will, I have no doubt, be utterly drowned out by the shouts of "BIGOTRY!" before much longer.

Terms as "uplift human spirit", and "degrade human spirit", tend to have more than a slight moral ink to them. "Human Spirit" is hardly a reasoned proposal. Please prove I'm wrong, and show me an example different than those based in morals to prove me than some cultures actually "uplift the spirit" while others "degrade them". For the rest, so far what I am hearing is just another Chávez speech about how capitalism is a culture that degrade human spirit while socialism improves and uplift it. As you are from a significant divergent political and ideological view, please elaborate.

Fair point. How about Bedouin versus Korean?

As long as you ignore the last 60 years of Korean culture, sure.

From my point of view, Sweden and the other Scandinavian countries seem to be on top, with the rest of western Europe not far behind, likewise China (which has become quite delightfully progressive culturally, even if it's government is lagging behind). Behind those would be the USA and Australia, primarily due to the extreme conservatism of the one and the endemic racism of the other. Japan would be in the same area, and for the same reasons.

From my point of view, it seems that economic success raises or "uplift" the human spirit, meanwhile economic inability to progress in measures of GDP "degrades" it?

From my point of view, it seems that economic success raises or "uplift" the human spirit, meanwhile economic inability to progress in measures of GDP "degrades" it?

Not necessarily. There does seem to be a correlation between high-freedom, positive societies and economic success, but I'm not convinced that isn't a historical coincidence.

Certainly, there have been positive, advantageous cultures n the past that did not coincide with material wealth.

Human Development Index?
How do you figure that one?

Not necessarily. There does seem to be a correlation between high-freedom, positive societies and economic success, but I'm not convinced that isn't a historical coincidence.

Certainly, there have been positive, advantageous cultures n the past that did not coincide with material wealth.
Well, an open society with a high degree of academic freedom would likely have a knowedege base, but there is going to be far more than one factor at work, including how abundant natural resources are.

I disagree. As to ranking cultures, I imagine that everyone would have their own criteria. For me, those cultures that treat all citizens fairly equally regardless of gender or social standing would clearly be superior to those which do not. Further, I would point to traits such as a love of truth and a valuing of education as being superior to discounting such - because they enhance the freedoms and options of the individuals within those societies.

So you judge cultures by values that you hold, based on your culture. You can’t see how totally subjective that is? You rank cultures based on things you deem important, based on the emphasis your culture places on them. You consider them important because your culture says they’re important.

But someone from a radically different culture, with radically different values, would see your own culture as far inferior, based on values they hold to be superior.

It’s all subjectivist nonsense people use to make themselves feel better about themselves for living in the “better” culture, and when called on it, resort to over emotive bullshit like “oh, so it’s ok when people get their heads cut off, huh? Huh??”

I disagree. As to ranking cultures, I imagine that everyone would have their own criteria. For me, those cultures that treat all citizens fairly equally regardless of gender or social standing would clearly be superior to those which do not. Further, I would point to traits such as a love of truth and a valuing of education as being superior to discounting such - because they enhance the freedoms and options of the individuals within those societies.

Do you realize that such notions as "treating all citizens fairly equally regardless of gender or social standing" are fairly new in human history? And even then, there are issues at hand?

Terms as "uplift human spirit", and "degrade human spirit", tend to have more than a slight moral ink to them. "Human Spirit" is hardly a reasoned proposal. Please prove I'm wrong, and show me an example different than those based in morals to prove me than some cultures actually "uplift the spirit" while others "degrade them". For the rest, so far what I am hearing is just another Chávez speech about how capitalism is a culture that degrade human spirit while socialism improves and uplift it. As you are from a significant divergent political and ideological view, please elaborate.

Certainly. And I entirely agree that this is probably subjective at least in part.

For one thing, I feel capitalism is generally superior to socialism, because it allows greater economic mobility (both up and down, of course). The Scandinavian countries combined their socialist turn with a deliberate push to eliminate the aspects of their culture that they considered backwards or undesirable. They haven't been entirely successful, but they have done a good job of suppressing religious and racial bigotry - they have developed a much more open society than many others.

The US economic policies promote openness and entrepreneurship, which are positives. The US falls down due to high levels of religious and racial intolerance, which restrict freedom and discourage minority participation in many areas.

In most cases, the social trumps the economic.

Well, and the solution is, edit the bad elements out of the Sharia Law?
*Bites the bullet*

Since what may be previously understood as "Good and Bad" and the ideas of "Good and Bad" that Sharia law adopt are occasionally different, it doesn't quite gel as easily as that. It's more a case of negotiating publically what contributions are worth carrying over to the general culture, what is necessary to adopt or discard to fit in with the wider society and what should be left for the incoming culture to keep for itself.

For instance, classical Sharia's influence is already pretty strong in much of the Anglo-American political structure. The introduction of an inexpensive court of arbitration to circumvent the need for full civil trials might be a really useful move (if somewhat damaging to civil trial lawyers). But there's no doubt that stoning homosexuals and apostates is so far gone as to be ridiculous to even consider (to use the extreme example). Everything in between is a matter for public debate.

Certainly. And I entirely agree that this is probably subjective at least in part.

For one thing, I feel capitalism is generally superior to socialism, because it allows greater economic mobility (both up and down, of course). The Scandinavian countries combined their socialist turn with a deliberate push to eliminate the aspects of their culture that they considered backwards or undesirable. They haven't been entirely successful, but they have done a good job of suppressing religious and racial bigotry - they have developed a much more open society than many others.

The US economic policies promote openness and entrepreneurship, which are positives. The US falls down due to high levels of religious and racial intolerance, which restrict freedom and discourage minority participation in many areas.

In most cases, the social trumps the economic.

Then the religious intolerance you speak about...Wouldn't include cultural intolerance and desire for assimilation?

I'm not one advocating to perpetuate things like genital mutilation, but there are a lot of customs around some cultures that can be labeled as positive.

Do you realize that such notions as "treating all citizens fairly equally regardless of gender or social standing" are fairly new in human history? And even then, there are issues at hand?

Not as new as you might think. Republican Rome sought to treat all freemen equally (and failed), and the concept of treating everyone equally "before the law" is at least 500 years old.

This isn't the same as treating all citizens fairly equally regardless of gender or social standing, but it's indicative of a drive in that direction. There have always been those societies that encouraged the rise of the individual, and those cultures that sought to ensure conformity regardless of the consequences.

Not as new as you might think. Republican Rome sought to treat all freemen equally (and failed), and the concept of treating everyone equally "before the law" is at least 500 years old.

This isn't the same as treating all citizens fairly equally regardless of gender or social standing, but it's indicative of a drive in that direction. There have always been those societies that encouraged the rise of the individual, and those cultures that sought to ensure conformity regardless of the consequences.

Well, slaves. The concept of treating "us" equally while treating "the rest" like crap is fairly old. A culture that practices slavery do not even qualifies by a long mile. That is a caste system, as fair as the one applied in India.

Oh, I know full well that I have biases. And I've done enough work in historical fields and criticisms therof to have a pretty good idea of what they are.

This isn't one of them. This is a reasoned, intellectual position: some cultures are superior to others, because some cultures uplift human being and some degrade them.

And that message will, I have no doubt, be utterly drowned out by the shouts of "BIGOTRY!" before much longer.
To say that a nomadic culture is inherently inferior to an agricultural culture is so subjective a remark that I challenge to show any intellectual reasoning behind it. If I may make a prediction, even if you attempt to do so, all you will give us will be a cherrypicked list of specific failings of some examples of the one kind of culture and specific benefits of the other kind, carefully arranged to appear to support your position but, in fact, full of gaping holes.

So you judge cultures by values that you hold, based on your culture. You can’t see how totally subjective that is? You rank cultures based on things you deem important, based on the emphasis your culture places on them. You consider them important because your culture says they’re important.

But someone from a radically different culture, with radically different values, would see your own culture as far inferior, based on values they hold to be superior.

It’s all subjectivist nonsense people use to make themselves feel better about themselves for living in the “better” culture, and when called on it, resort to over emotive bullshit like “oh, so it’s ok when people get their heads cut off, huh? Huh??”

Of course there's a subjective aspect here. It would be stupid to say otherwise.

But there is also an OBJECTIVE aspect here. Some cultures encourage the individual to try to make something more of himself. Some encourage one group but not others, based perhaps on gender, race, social standing or wealth. Some value "harmony" above freedom and prefer that NO ONE attempt to improve themselves.

This is not a value neutral situation, but I don't believe that makes my point invalid.

From my point of view, Sweden and the other Scandinavian countries seem to be on top, with the rest of western Europe not far behind, likewise China (which has become quite delightfully progressive culturally, even if it's government is lagging behind). Behind those would be the USA and Australia, primarily due to the extreme conservatism of the one and the endemic racism of the other. Japan would be in the same area, and for the same reasons.
In your point of view. Your personal point of view?

Because from what I've heard, there are plenty of people in those countries and out of them who have a different take on them. Your remark about China is just laughable. I challenge you to show me examples of the delightful progressiveness of Chinese society. Also, in re Australia, how does endemic racism fit into your criterion of a culture that treats people equally.

It must be easy to compile illustrative examples, when your examples don't actually have to be illustrative of your points.

Then the religious intolerance you speak about...Wouldn't include cultural intolerance and desire for assimilation?

I'm not one advocating to perpetuate things like genital mutilation, but there are a lot of customs around some cultures that can be labeled as positive.

Sure. And in a melting-pot situation, those good traits, present in every culture, would hopefully be preserved.

But those aspects of the culture that are negative would be cast aside. Wheras in "multicultural" situations we're keeping both good and bad.

Not as new as you might think. Republican Rome sought to treat all freemen equally (and failed), and the concept of treating everyone equally "before the law" is at least 500 years old.

This isn't the same as treating all citizens fairly equally regardless of gender or social standing, but it's indicative of a drive in that direction. There have always been those societies that encouraged the rise of the individual, and those cultures that sought to ensure conformity regardless of the consequences.
Another illustrative example that does not actually illustrate your point.

The fact that they only advocated equality for "freemen" indicates that they were not proposing to treat all people equally. The fact that they failed even to treat freemen equally speaks for itself.

And you still have not justified your assumption of the inherent superiority of the cultural traits you like versus the inherent inferiority of the ones you don't like. It's all well and good for you to have your likes and dislikes, but why should anyone other than you buy into them?

In your point of view. Your personal point of view?

Because from what I've heard, there are plenty of people in those countries and out of them who have a different take on them. Your remark about China is just laughable. I challenge you to show me examples of the delightful progressiveness of Chinese society. Also, in re Australia, how does endemic racism fit into your criterion of a culture that treats people equally.

It must be easy to compile illustrative examples, when your examples don't actually have to be illustrative of your points.

Ah, I think you missed my point slightly. Chinese culture is becoming more open and tolerant; over the past couple of decades, they've gone from a society openly conteptuous of "gweilo" to one that is actively accepting and even welcoming outside influences.

As to Australia, I see the endemic racism as dragging the entire culture DOWN, to a less valuable one than I'm seeing in Europe. It's a negative, not a positive trait.

Sure. And in a melting-pot situation, those good traits, present in every culture, would hopefully be preserved.

But those aspects of the culture that are negative would be cast aside. Wheras in "multicultural" situations we're keeping both good and bad.
What you are describing is not a melting pot but a refinery. And of course, it would only produce such results if everyone in the culture agreed with your definition of "good traits" and "bad traits." What makes you think the process wouldn't produce a culture that would be your worst nightmare?

Ah, I think you missed my point slightly. Chinese culture is becoming more open and tolerant; over the past couple of decades, they've gone from a society openly conteptuous of "gweilo" to one that is actively accepting and even welcoming outside influences.
So you say. Examples, please?

As to Australia, I see the endemic racism as dragging the entire culture DOWN, to a less valuable one than I'm seeing in Europe. It's a negative, not a positive trait.
And yet you keep it on the list. Why? If the racism is endemic then it doesn't fit your criteria. Why is it on your list of superior cultures?

EDIT: For that matter, if China is only just starting to become more like what you'd like it to be, why is it on your list of superior cultures? Have you just decided to ignore all the centuries of cultural tradition that existed before the current conditions (which are not even fully formed yet)?

[QUOTE=Dododecapod;14013097]Not as new as you might think. Republican Rome sought to treat all freemen equally (and failed), and the concept of treating everyone equally "before the law" is at least 500 years old.


Another illustrative example that does not actually illustrate your point.

The fact that they only advocated equality for "freemen" indicates that they were not proposing to treat all people equally. The fact that they failed even to treat freemen equally speaks for itself.

Yes, it does. It says they failed to do what they were trying to do.

Intent does count. To try to do something great and fail is still to aspire to greatness.

And you still have not justified your assumption of the inherent superiority of the cultural traits you like versus the inherent inferiority of the ones you don't like. It's all well and good for you to have your likes and dislikes, but why should anyone other than you buy into them?

Because it's not just my "likes and dislikes", but those values that promote the individual. Basically, I ask myself, where would be the best place to live, if I was the most reviled and disliked of all minorities? Those cultures where I could still live a full and rewarding life - they are not merely superior to me.

From the reality. I said roughly the same as what you quoted, just in examples of how it's implemented rather than the theory.
You claim that sharia courts are independent of UK law, but this is not the case. These courts, ruling on civil matters, must abide by UK law, which includes statutes such as the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights, and (like any court in the UK) participants can take their complaint further if they feel their case has not been heard fairly by the court.

Some people, and you seem to be in danger of heading towards this position, would have you believe that extremist Imams are in the UK sentencing women to stoning or some such other nonsense. This is simply not the case.

One would also recommend a bit of research on what 'sharia' entails.


So multiculturalism in your definition is about forming a culture that, ideally, unites all the good aspects of every culture, and rejects all their bad aspects?
Yes, having multiple aspects of multiple cultures feeding in to make the UK (or any other nation) a multicultural society. Thus, I can go outside my flat and experience, on the same street, Bangladeshi, Indian, Pakistani, Thai, Afro-Caribbean, Spanish, Italian, Chinese routed elements in what is now considered 'Scottish culture'.

Rather than demand that all these wonderful peoples abandon their traditions when they or their forebears move to Scotland, or demand that they hide these traditions away from 'mainstream culture' in their own homes, I can celebrate Chinese New Year or Diwali, take part in a massive street festival dancing to bhangra or watching dragon dancers, go down to the local cafés and smoke a shisha, get food and clothes from Jamaica to Beijing, and all while under the grey driech skies of Glasgow.

Moreover, the above is modern Scottish culture, there is no getting away from it. Rather than having discussions about 'peoples' whose 'values' aren't 'compatible' with 'our culture', we should be discussing what values we all (as part of one culture) share and must uphold.


So let's decide, is Sharia Law the good or the bad element?
What aspects of which interpretations of sharia are you talking about?

Labelling all the Islamic bogeymen with the title of 'Sharia', at best, confuses matters.

Yes, it does. It says they failed to do what they were trying to do.
Which was not to establish social equality, so on that score they have no place on your list of superior cultures.

Intent does count. To try to do something great and fail is still to aspire to greatness.
Hehe, yeah. The Romans did several "great" things. Striving for an egalitarian society was not one of them.

Because it's not just my "likes and dislikes", but those values that promote the individual. Basically, I ask myself, where would be the best place to live, if I was the most reviled and disliked of all minorities? Those cultures where I could still live a full and rewarding life - they are not merely superior to me.
You're really amusing. First you say that it's not just your "likes and dislikes" and then you explain how you judge a society according to what you would like or dislike. :D

What you are describing is not a melting pot but a refinery. And of course, it would only produce such results if everyone in the culture agreed with your definition of "good traits" and "bad traits." What makes you think the process wouldn't produce a culture that would be your worst nightmare?

Experience. Melting-pot cultures, such as the USA in the 19th century, or the Silk Road cultures, have invariably created thriving and usually very free socities.

USA in the 19th century...Didn't they fought a war over slavery back then?

Experience. Melting-pot cultures, such as the USA in the 19th century, or the Silk Road cultures, have invariably created thriving and usually very free socities.
Personal experience. Anecdotal evidence. Your own definitions of "good" and "bad." Your likes and dislikes. Your subjective views of what is desirable or undesirable.

And yet you claim your argument is not entirely subjective, but a reasoned and intellectual foundation for declaring "superiority" and "inferiority" of cultures. :D

EDIT: Oh, and do you really have experience of the 19th century USA or the Silk Road cultures, to tell us just how "free" they were, and for whom?

So you say. Examples, please?


And yet you keep it on the list. Why? If the racism is endemic then it doesn't fit your criteria. Why is it on your list of superior cultures?

I made no "list of superior cultures". I was asked to rank the top countries, and that's all.

The fact that Australia rates as high as it does with such an anvil around it's proverbial neck should tell you something about the other, more positive aspects of it's culture.



EDIT: For that matter, if China is only just starting to become more like what you'd like it to be, why is it on your list of superior cultures? Have you just decided to ignore all the centuries of cultural tradition that existed before the current conditions (which are not even fully formed yet)?

Yes. I'm rating things as I see them now, not how they were or how I think they will be.

Hey, disagree with my list if you like. Make your own, choose your own criteria, as I said, this is at least partially subjective. But will you honestly say that all cultures are equally good? Equally wise? Equally free?

Oh boy Sowell buddy, you've done it again. You've managed to completely discredit whatever school you attended to learn economics.

I think that its time that we put Tommy Sowell's name on the Top 10 Enemies of the People list.

USA in the 19th century...Didn't they fought a war over slavery back then?

Yup. They also denied women the vote and in some cases, inheritance rights.

Are you looking for perfection? Then you're doomed to disappointment. I'll settle for the best I can get and try to improve things.

USA in the 19th century...Didn't they fought a war over slavery back then?
Yes, they did. They also segregated the races, denied work and rights to live in certain areas to the Irish, Chinese, and Jews, prosecuted a war of genocidal ethnic cleansing against the native peoples, periodically experienced outbreaks of ethnic violence in various cities, violently attacked labor organizations in violation of the right of free assembly, denied women the right to vote, divorce, and keep custody of their children in the event of divorce, and made it a crime to be gay in many areas.

Clearly that fits into D's criteria for a superior cultures, and he knows because he has experience of it.

I made no "list of superior cultures". I was asked to rank the top countries, and that's all.

The fact that Australia rates as high as it does with such an anvil around it's proverbial neck should tell you something about the other, more positive aspects of it's culture.
Do you want me to quote your past posts? You listed your criteria for superior cultures, and when I asked you to name some that fit that criteria, you gave a me a list.

Yes. I'm rating things as I see them now, not how they were or how I think they will be.
In other words, cherrypicking.

Hey, disagree with my list if you like. Make your own, choose your own criteria, as I said, this is at least partially subjective.
Would that be the list you just said you didn't make?

But will you honestly say that all cultures are equally good? Equally wise? Equally free?
You know what I won't do? I won't pretend that I have some objective measure by which to judge the relative superiority or inferiority of cultures, especially other people's cultures. I won't do that because I am honest.

Sure there are aspects of just about every culture that I, personally, would not like, and some that I would advocate against. But I'm not going to pretend that the culture that has that aspect is inferior to mine. I would do it only to serve my own, personal principles, and my negative judgement would be against that aspect of the culture and nothing else. I'd take that stance also because I am honest.

You claim that sharia courts are independent of UK law, but this is not the case. These courts, ruling on civil matters, must abide by UK law, which includes statutes such as the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights, and (like any court in the UK) participants can take their complaint further if they feel their case has not been heard fairly by the court.
It's just the beginning. As the article shows, their power is expanding.


Yes, having multiple aspects of multiple cultures feeding in to make the UK (or any other nation) a multicultural society. Thus, I can go outside my flat and experience, on the same street, Bangladeshi, Indian, Pakistani, Thai, Afro-Caribbean, Spanish, Italian, Chinese routed elements in what is now considered 'Scottish culture'.
If they integrate, it's one culture.


I can celebrate Chinese New Year or Diwali, take part in a massive street festival dancing to bhangra or watching dragon dancers, go down to the local cafés and smoke a shisha, get food and clothes from Jamaica to Beijing, and all while under the grey driech skies of Glasgow.
This is all the fun and bright side, but there's also the dark one: women abuse in the Muslim quarters, intolerance in Denmark, street riots in France.


What aspects of which interpretations of sharia are you talking about?
You mean they don't agree on what Sharia Law is themselves?

Personal experience. Anecdotal evidence. Your own definitions of "good" and "bad." Your likes and dislikes. Your subjective views of what is desirable or undesirable.

And yet you claim your argument is not entirely subjective, but a reasoned and intellectual foundation for declaring "superiority" and "inferiority" of cultures. :D

EDIT: Oh, and do you really have experience of the 19th century USA or the Silk Road cultures, to tell us just how "free" they were, and for whom?

I know a few things about history, yeah. And if you're implying that 19thC USA wasn't a hotbed of what we'd call modern liberal thought - well, by and large you'd be right.

But it was a freer country than almost any other in 1800. And that was also true in 1900. In between? A century is a long time, with many ups and downs - low points and high.

Likewise, the silk road cultures existed within their time. Slavery existed; nobles had privileges. That doesn't change the fact that they were freer and more eglitarian than almost any other places in central asia, and that matters.

If you want to describe my preference for freedom of the individual as mere likes and dislikes, you can. You are free to do so.

I know a few things about history, yeah. And if you're implying that 19thC USA wasn't a hotbed of what we'd call modern liberal thought - well, by and large you'd be right.

But it was a freer country than almost any other in 1800. And that was also true in 1900. In between? A century is a long time, with many ups and downs - low points and high.

Likewise, the silk road cultures existed within their time. Slavery existed; nobles had privileges. That doesn't change the fact that they were freer and more eglitarian than almost any other places in central asia, and that matters.

If you want to describe my preference for freedom of the individual as mere likes and dislikes, you can. You are free to do so.
Examples would go a tremendous way towards making me think you're not completely full of crap. Just suggesting.

Examples would go a tremendous way towards making me think you're not completely full of crap. Just suggesting.

Funny, I thought my saying "19thC USA and the Silk Road Cultures" WAS presenting you with a couple of examples. Given they are apprently not good enough, I doubt I could come up with anything that would match your extremely exacting criteria.

It's just the beginning. As the article shows, their power is expanding.
The article shows nothing of the sort.

Listen to yourself man; how exactly will arbitration tribunals gain whole new powers? Are you suggesting the 5 or 6 courts possibly stepping over their remit are going to go for a coup d'etat?

Seriously, what do you think can possibly happen?

If they integrate, it's one culture.
Yes, one culture made up from multiple sources.

Not hard to grasp, is it?

This is all the fun and bright side, but there's also the dark one: women abuse in the Muslim quarters, intolerance in Denmark, street riots in France.
Sexual, physical and mental abuse of women, intolerance against others and civil unrest are by no means confined to Muslim peoples.

I don't see why we should force people to assimilate to a culture that even I, as a white Scot, don't feel incredibly close too, simply because there are undesirable things in all cultures.

Should I force people moving from the West coast of Scotland to the east coast to stop their traditional (and sometimes widely different) practices because there's a terrible number of teen pregnancies in South-West Scotland?

You mean they don't agree on what Sharia Law is themselves?
As they're not some giant hive-mind who think and feel in exactly the same way, no.

Just like, ohhhh, every other religion that has ever existed, its believers disagree on what the religion entails.

Really, educate yourself before you start railing against something you obviously don't know much about.

Its not bigoted, its discriminatory, there is a difference, and discrimination, the ability to sort the bad from the good and a refusal to give into the idea that everything is equal, that there is no bad or good, only different is essential to rational thought. Some cultures ARE better than others.

If that's the case, then it follows that some genders are better than others, some races, some religions, some sexual preferences.

Agree y/n?


For your information, not that I think you'll bother to take it aboard, I consider my native culture one of the weakest and least effective of the western world. We could learn a lot from others.

Oh, so it's an inferiority complex thing.

But if you honestly want to say that a culture based around semi-nomadic agriculture (as some are) is the equal of one based on five thousand years of civilized development (say, that of Tibet), I will laugh in your face.

Your silly biases and your silly yuk-yuk do not a rational argument make. In fact they really only prove my point, owing to the complete lack of rationality demonstrated. Laugh it up.

Simply, my point that one is not permitted to criticize other cultures.

Because someone like you will then jump about ponjting a finger and yelling "bigot, bigot"!

Are you really going to do the whole "You're trying to oppress me with your politically correct liberalism!" and "Help! I'm being censored by the multicultural police!" self-martyrdom routine?

Are you really going to do the whole "You're trying to oppress me with your politically correct liberalism!" and "Help! I'm being censored by the multicultural police!" self-martyrdom routine?

Well, I hadn't intended to, but when you act out the role, I find it hard not to play along.

*snip*

Absolutely loves this man. Yet another dead-on take on current events.

Funny, I thought my saying "19thC USA and the Silk Road Cultures" WAS presenting you with a couple of examples. Given they are apprently not good enough, I doubt I could come up with anything that would match your extremely exacting criteria.
You're startiing to slip from funny to sad.

"19thC USA" and "Silk Road Cultures" are not examples. They are labels.

Explain HOW 19thC USA fits into your criteria for superior cultures. Explain how and why the areas in which it misses those criteria don't matter.

Identify WHICH Silk Road Cultures you are talking about. There were many cities along the Silk Road, many ethnic groups, hundreds of distinct tribes, thousands of people traipsing along it every year, and it stretched all the way across one continent and into another. Name your cultures and then explain the same things as you should explain for 19thC USA.

As you should have noticed by now, if you just throw the labels out there, you prove nothing, because people like me and a couple of others will immediately focus on the aspects of those cultures that you admit are negative but try to dismiss as not counting.

So make a real argument that actually illustrates your points, or else admit that you cannot.

Absolutely loves this man. Yet another dead-on take on current events.
Agreed.

Well, I hadn't intended to, but when you act out the role, I find it hard not to play along.

You give me far too credit. You'd act out the role no matter what. Now that your silly arguments are trashed, playing the victim is all you've got left.

You're startiing to slip from funny to sad.

"19thC USA" and "Silk Road Cultures" are not examples. They are labels.

Explain HOW 19thC USA fits into your criteria for superior cultures. Explain how and why the areas in which it misses those criteria don't matter.

Identify WHICH Silk Road Cultures you are talking about. There were many cities along the Silk Road, many ethnic groups, hundreds of distinct tribes, thousands of people traipsing along it every year, and it stretched all the way across one continent and into another. Name your cultures and then explain the same things as you should explain for 19thC USA.

As you should have noticed by now, if you just throw the labels out there, you prove nothing, because people like me and a couple of others will immediately focus on the aspects of those cultures that you admit are negative but try to dismiss as not counting.

So make a real argument that actually illustrates your points, or else admit that you cannot.

In all honesty, M, I don't think there's a point.

You aren't arguing or debating. You're making no attempt to understand my arguments or provide any counter to them. You just keep demanding I give you strawmen for you to rail against.

Seriously, you clearly haven't even tried to understand what I'm saying. You're just trying to knock down what you assume is my position, and missing it entirely.

Case in point: there are NO negative aspects of cultures that "don't count". You just can't seem to get it through your head that "superior" and "inferior" are comparative.

What are my criteria? RELATIVE FREEDOM AND MAXIMUM EQUALITY. Is that so hard to understand?

But if you honestly want to say that a culture based around semi-nomadic agriculture (as some are) is the equal of one based on five thousand years of civilized development (say, that of Tibet), I will laugh in your face.
Uh, should I point out to you that Tibet has been based on semi-nomadic agriculture for all of those five thousand years?

You give me far too credit. You'd act out the role no matter what. Now that your silly arguments are trashed, playing the victim is all you've got left.

My arguments? You've never even addressed my arguments, let alonge damaged them!

You just have rather consistently managed to prove that my point about it being unacceptable to criticize other cultures is perfectly true.

Uh, should I point out to you that Tibet has been based on semi-nomadic agriculture for all of those five thousand years?

Yeah that was just off the top of my head. Not a great example.

And his picture and bio are included, to pre-empt accusations of racism.
Right because Black people can't be racist......:rolleyes:

Typical of you.

It couldn't be that I was posting his bio and picture to show who he is, his education and his qualifications. Not to mention his master understanding of economics.

Either there are superior cultures, in which case the only issue is by which criteria you judge a culture to determine its "ranking."

or

There is no such thing as a superior culture, they are all equal, just different, in which case, Nazi Germany is as good as 1940's USA and Theocratic Iran is as good as secular Britain today.

Sorry, but I subscribe to the first theory, that there are in fact better cultures. We can argue all day about the criteria used to judge them. But you will never convince me that a culture that did to the Jews what Nazi Germany's culture did is as good as any other culture of that time was, just "different." You'll never convince me that a theocratic government, be it Iran and Muslim or any other country/religious combination you care to envision is as good as a secular state.

Value judgments are required for rational thought. Without value judgments you begin to equate murder and rape to parking violations. You begin to equate Government supported and enforced genocide and eugenics programs with farm subsidies. It's foolish and seems obvious from my extreme examples, but the unwillingness to make value judgments and the instant cry of "bigot" or "racist" again anyone who does make such a judgment is irrational.

Don't you just hate it when someone makes a better case for your point than you do?:D

Well done, Wowmaui.

In all honesty, M, I don't think there's a point.

You aren't arguing or debating. You're making no attempt to understand my arguments or provide any counter to them. You just keep demanding I give you strawmen for you to rail against.
If you give them to me, they won't be strawmen. They'd only be strawmen if I set them up and attributed them to you.

Seriously, you clearly haven't even tried to understand what I'm saying. You're just trying to knock down what you assume is my position, and missing it entirely.
Well, you know, if a person is misunderstanding your point, a good way to remedy that is to explain your point, which is what I have been asking you to do. I have even explained precisely how you can explain it, and apparently that was the point at which you decided to give up. Hm...

Case in point: there are NO negative aspects of cultures that "don't count". You just can't seem to get it through your head that "superior" and "inferior" are comparative.
The part I can't get through my head is the part where you keep acting as if your comparisons have any meaning or value to anyone in the world despite their total subjectivity and uniqueness to you.

What are my criteria? RELATIVE FREEDOM AND MAXIMUM EQUALITY. Is that so hard to understand?
Relative to what?

All you have done in this entire thread is complain about being called a bigot -- which, by the way, no one in this thread was doing -- and then gone on to present arguments based on personal preference without any supporting evidence whatsoever.

The standard English definition of "bigot" is one who vehemently prefers his own group over all others regardless of any real differences between them. You have argued for an inherent superiority in cultures that are the culture type that you belong to -- in other words, your own group. Even cultures that are not your group you have praised by cherrypicking out specific aspects that are like yours and ignoring others. This is textbook "bigot," D. Sorry, but it is.

And to try to argue against that, you have made assertions of fact without support, refused to clarify your arguments, cherrypicked examples which you presented in the most shallow manner possible, tried to deny your own statements in this thread, made baseless appeals to authority, and accused your opponent of setting up strawmen just because she is asking you to back up your assertions. EDIT: Oh, and you also ignored examples that countered your assertions about the cultures you cited as "good" ones.

And now you abandon the argument altogether, and to be honest, that is probably the wisest move you've made all afternoon.

Only in TAI's world, where "darkies" are inferior and only to be referred to in positive light when spouting stuff he agrees to.

So according to your highly credible and well sourced information on me, in my world non-Whites can not be Racist?

How ridiculous of you. Perhaps next time shut your mouth before the bullshit leaks out of it onto my once clean thread.

If you give them to me, they won't be strawmen. They'd only be strawmen if I set them up and attributed them to you.


Well, you know, if a person is misunderstanding your point, a good way to remedy that is to explain your point, which is what I have been asking you to do. I have even explained precisely how you can explain it, and apparently that was the point at which you decided to give up. Hm...


The part I can't get through my head is the part where you keep acting as if your comparisons have any meaning or value to anyone in the world despite their total subjectivity and uniqueness to you.


Relative to what?

All you have done in this entire thread is complain about being called a bigot -- which, by the way, no one in this thread was doing -- and then gone on to present arguments based on personal preference without any supporting evidence whatsoever.

The standard English definition of "bigot" is one who vehemently prefers his own group over all others regardless of any real differences between them. You have argued for an inherent superiority in cultures that are the culture type that you belong to -- in other words, your own group. Even cultures that are not your group you have praised by cherrypicking out specific aspects that are like yours and ignoring others. This is textbook "bigot," D. Sorry, but it is.

And to try to argue against that, you have made assertions of fact without support, refused to clarify your arguments, cherrypicked examples which you presented in the most shallow manner possible, tried to deny your own statements in this thread, made baseless appeals to authority, and accused your opponent of setting up strawmen just because she is asking you to back up your assertions.

And now you abandon the argument altogether, and to be honest, that is probably the wisest move you've made all afternoon.

Make that morning, here. Just on 4AM.

You may be right, I might just not be explaining myself well (though I don't recall any appeals to authority, and yeah, other people in this thread definitely HAVE called me a bigot).

But I have to ask you one question: What is your actual argument AGAINST the concept of superior and inferior cultures?

Listen to yourself man; how exactly will arbitration tribunals gain whole new powers? Are you suggesting the 5 or 6 courts possibly stepping over their remit are going to go for a coup d'etat?
No, the "multiculturalists" might extend their powers.


Yes, one culture made up from multiple sources.
Not hard to grasp, is it?
Exactly. So one culture. Not multiple.


Sexual, physical and mental abuse of women, intolerance against others and civil unrest are by no means confined to Muslim peoples.

No, they aren't. But some cultures support women abuse (some Muslims, rural Pakistan), some don't (the West).


Should I force people moving from the West coast of Scotland to the east coast to stop their traditional (and sometimes widely different) practices because there's a terrible number of teen pregnancies in South-West Scotland?
If they believe the age of consent is 9, you may think twice about letting them in.


As they're not some giant hive-mind who think and feel in exactly the same way, no.
The Traditionalists have a pretty fixed system of laws.

Either there are superior cultures, in which case the only issue is by which criteria you judge a culture to determine its "ranking."

or

There is no such thing as a superior culture, they are all equal, just different, in which case, Nazi Germany is as good as 1940's USA and Theocratic Iran is as good as secular Britain today.
False dilemma.

You're assuming, in the first place, that cultures can be 'ranked'. Certain aspects of cultures can be ranked, GDP or literacy rates for example, but it'd be nigh on impossible to (using your examples) contrast and 'rank' between Iran and the UK.

Furthermore, cultures are not nation-specific, and certainly not all citizens of a nation share those values that are seen as culturally specific to that land-mass. This brings up the point that talking bout the 'culture' of one nation or another is bordering on talking complete nonsense. All you're doing is identifying those aspects of culture that certain dominant individuals or institutions want to promote. We may condemn, say, the treatment of homosexuals in Iran, but obviously homosexuals in Iran don't share the 'cultural values' that the Iranian governmental and religious leadership would promote.

Moreover, culture is such ambiguous thing. I might condemn aspects of one nation's 'culture', say civil rights abuses that I witness, yet applaud other aspects of the culture as desirable; say a better attitude towards the elderly.

Suffice to say, your either/or approach is flawed.



No, the "multiculturalists" might extend their powers.
Who on Earth are the "multiculturalists"?

Exactly. So one culture. Not multiple.
One culture drawing upon multiple cultures.

Multi...Cultural. Multiple cultures forming one culture.

This is basic stuff here; what's so hard to grasp?

No, they aren't. But some cultures support women abuse (some Muslims, rural Pakistan), some don't (the West).
I'd contend that's blatantly false. The West has a long and continuing history of abuse and inequality directed towards women.

If they believe the age of consent is 9, you may think twice about letting them in.
"Letting them in"... to the country they already inhabit?

What are you on about?

The Traditionalists have a pretty fixed system of laws.
No, no they don't.

Moreover, "the Traditionalists" are such an amorphous grouping. I mean, the whole Shia/Sunni schism is over who are "the Traditionalists".

Make that morning, here. Just on 4AM.
You should have gone to bed, instead of sitting up on NSG all night. Sleep deprivation leads to bad arguments.

You may be right, I might just not be explaining myself well (though I don't recall any appeals to authority, and yeah, other people in this thread definitely HAVE called me a bigot).
You appealed to your own authority with your "yeah I know something about history" remark, which you made in support of your unsupported claims about 19thC USA and the "Silk Road Cultures."

EDIT: And I sort of just now called you a bigot, but at least I waited for your arguments to build up enough for me to show why I would use that word.

But I have to ask you one question: What is your actual argument AGAINST the concept of superior and inferior cultures?
Very simply: Excessive subjectivity.

I think that its time that we put Tommy Sowell's name on the Top 10 Enemies of the People list.
Who are the other nine?;)

Yes, having multiple aspects of multiple cultures feeding in to make the UK (or any other nation) a multicultural society. Thus, I can go outside my flat and experience, on the same street, Bangladeshi, Indian, Pakistani, Thai, Afro-Caribbean, Spanish, Italian, Chinese routed elements in what is now considered 'Scottish culture'.

Rather than demand that all these wonderful peoples abandon their traditions when they or their forebears move to Scotland, or demand that they hide these traditions away from 'mainstream culture' in their own homes, I can celebrate Chinese New Year or Diwali, take part in a massive street festival dancing to bhangra or watching dragon dancers, go down to the local cafés and smoke a shisha, get food and clothes from Jamaica to Beijing, and all while under the grey driech skies of Glasgow.
And our country is more varied, more vibrant and more interesting for it. I live (at least, when I'm not at uni in Sheffield) in the archetypical WASP London commuter belt town and even there it is hard to imagine what it would be like without the influence of other cultures. (i.e. what would the Billericay and Wickford Gazette write about if some Muslims wanted a prayer room in Brentwood...:rolleyes:) I'm not just talking about the myriad of foreign food outlets we have (and without them, I have no idea what the whole town would do without them, have to learn to use an oven for themselves I expect) but the various festivals we have or visit in London, the links with other countries set up by the council and twinning association, huge school projects at my old infant's school, and in various other ways we take for granted today.

It's hard to imagine Britain without it and moreover how it would be better without it.

It's just the beginning. As the article shows, their power is expanding.
It's been 'beginning' since our legal system allowed for external arbitration about a zillion years ago for our Jewish community.

You should have gone to bed, instead of sitting up on NSG all night. Sleep deprivation leads to bad arguments.

Going shortly.


You appealed to your own authority with your "yeah I know something about history" remark, which you made in support of your unsupported claims about 19thC USA and the "Silk Road Cultures."

Thats - kind of amusing, actually. I didn't want to say "I have a bachelors in history", because there'd be no way for you to confirm it - which is why I said it the way I did.

Very simply: Excessive subjectivity.

Thank you.

You're assuming, in the first place, that cultures can be 'ranked'. Certain aspects of cultures can be ranked, GDP or literacy rates for example, but it'd be nigh on impossible to (using your examples) contrast and 'rank' between Iran and the UK.

Let's solve it quickly and objectively.

Who's got 12 carriers? Ri-ight. US. So US culture is Superior to others. Cultures of US allies are Inferior to US itself, but Superior to the neutrals, and the enemies of US are Inferior to all. Case closed.

Either there are superior cultures, in which case the only issue is by which criteria you judge a culture to determine its "ranking."

or

There is no such thing as a superior culture, they are all equal, just different, in which case, Nazi Germany is as good as 1940's USA and Theocratic Iran is as good as secular Britain today.

LOL GODWIN LOL

It's funny that the only way you can (try to) make your point is by calling Nazi Germany a "culture."

And thus by implication I must be some weak-kneed Nazi collaborator of course. Hey, maybe that would explain how I am so cruelly trying to oppress and censor Dododecapod!

You'll never convince me that a theocratic government, be it Iran and Muslim or any other country/religious combination you care to envision is as good as a secular state.

And here you betray yourself more obviously: Now you're talking about government, not culture.

Value judgments are required for rational thought. Without value judgments you begin to equate murder and rape to parking violations. You begin to equate Government supported and enforced genocide and eugenics programs with farm subsidies.

...or government with culture, for example.

Hoist by your own petard. How embarrassing.

It's foolish and seems obvious from my extreme examples, but the unwillingness to make value judgments and the instant cry of "bigot" or "racist" again anyone who does make such a judgment is irrational.

The fact that I don't agree with your apparent desire to stereotype and judge the 'superiority' of cultures doesn't mean I am "unwilling to make value judgments." I'm quite clearly willing to make them - for example, I value your evasive, weaselly, irrational and self-contradicting arguments to be worth less than the value of a mostly-chunky shit I took this morning.


And I notice you didn't actually answer the one question I asked, I guess addressing and reading is another one of those oppressive liberal PC censorship things. Oh well.

And our country is more varied, more vibrant and more interesting for it... It's hard to imagine Britain without it and moreover how it would be better without it.
There wouldn't be Britain without it.

We are, and should be proud of, the fact we're a 'mongrel nation'.



Let's solve it quickly and objectively.
Humour prevails.

Oh boy Sowell buddy, you've done it again. You've managed to completely discredit whatever school you attended to learn economics.
Says some internet personality to a well respected economist/philosopher/intellectual.
think that its time that we put Tommy Sowell's name on the Top 10 Enemies of the People list.
"The People" wouldn't happen to be the same "People" who Communists and other Leftists always claim to be speaking for, would it?

Let's refer to a quote from none other than Sowell himself for this one:

"Most people who read The Communist Manifesto probably have no idea that it was written by a couple of young men who had never worked a day in their lives, and who nevertheless spoke boldly in the name of 'the workers'."

Says some internet personality to a well respected economist/philosopher/intellectual.
Being a well respected economist/philosopher/intellectual does not entail one is right.

You shouldn't need to troop out a fallacy of authority to win arguments, TAi.

http://www.mprugs.com/images/persian_rugs/square_tabriz_persian_rug1.JPG

Persian culture. ^

Says some internet personality to a well respected economist/philosopher/intellectual.


So if somebody digs up something from a well respected economist/philosopher/intellectual that contradicts you, will you then as an 'internet personality' be silent in the same manner you wish him to be?

There wouldn't be Britain without it.

We are, and should be proud of, the fact we're a 'mongrel nation'.
I'm afraid to say that around here there are plenty of people who, for petty politican reasons, put the Scots, Welsh and Irish in the same category as Muslims, Blacks and lung cancer, and then assume that England would be one culture by itself, ignoring the divisions between class, counties and cities, north and south, age or (historically) between genders. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the people that reject multiculturalism that I know also reject Britain as an entity, while ignoring the obvious divisions within England itself. I don't know whether the same happens in Scotland (I left before becoming even slightly aware of politics), but then I guess minority languages like Gaelic and Scots might make the idea of a single Scottish culture obviously less tenable.

Of course that means we're a mongrel nation, but I don't think that's any way exceptional compared to most other countries. Even France, which tries to live up to the archetypical nation state stereotype has substantial ethnic and religious minorities whether they be recent Arabs and Africans, or historicaly the Catalans, Basques, Occitans or Hugenots. And that's without the divisions like class, age and region that will exist in any country.

Perhaps what makes us different in that regard is that being a union of four constituent countries with their own cultural background means we have to be more mongrel-y than, say France, but again that's no different to, say, Russia, Canada or the USA.

False dilemma.

You're assuming, in the first place, that cultures can be 'ranked'. Certain aspects of cultures can be ranked, GDP or literacy rates for example, but it'd be nigh on impossible to (using your examples) contrast and 'rank' between Iran and the UK.Those aspects are the criteria by which a culture can be ranked. It can be argued that cultures that have a high GDP and literacy rate are in fact superior cultures. It can also be argued that it is the number of people who own property that determines superiority. Again, we can argue all day about what criterion are used to determine what is a superior culture. I can easily rank Iran vs. the U.K. by arguing a government that is controlled in policy by a religious sect is inferior to one that is not and bingo, the U.K. is superior to Iran. I take the position that a culture can in fact be ranked and the only issue is who is doing the ranking and the criteria they use. An Iranian Mullah would almost certainly disagree with my ranking because he would view a culture ruled by adherence to the dictates of Muslim theology to be superior to a culture that rejects such theology as the basis of policy.

Furthermore, cultures are not nation-specific, and certainly not all citizens of a nation share those values that are seen as culturally specific to that land-mass. This I will concede is correct. Not all Iranians are fundamentalist Muslims and not all U.S. citizens are free-market capitalists. However, my reply is "so what?" I can still argue that the culture of socialism is inferior to that of representative democracy and vice-versa depending on the criteria I use to evaluate which is better. I can still argue that Hispanic culture (yes I went there) is inferior to "American" culture. Again, the only issue is the criteria I am basing my value judgment on.

This brings up the point that talking bout the 'culture' of one nation or another is bordering on talking complete nonsense. All you're doing is identifying those aspects of culture that certain dominant individuals or institutions want to promote. We may condemn, say, the treatment of homosexuals in Iran, but obviously homosexuals in Iran don't share the 'cultural values' that the Iranian governmental and religious leadership would promote. I'm willing to agree that equating a culture to a geographically distinct land mass/nation is not always necessarily the proper way to do things as, as you note, a culture is not necessarily defined by a particular set of national boundaries, but again I say "so what?" That doesn't take away from my ability to argue that same cultures are inferior to others.

Moreover, culture is such ambiguous thing. I might condemn aspects of one nation's 'culture', say civil rights abuses that I witness, yet applaud other aspects of the culture as desirable; say a better attitude towards the elderly.

Suffice to say, your either/or approach is flawed.but now you are equating culture with a nation after just saying you really can't. Also, If you condemn a culture for civil rights abuses and commend them for treatment of the elderly, you have established a set of criteria by which we can judge one culture better than the other. Using your criteria, if I find another culture that has no civil rights abuses and has a great attitude towards the elderly, I can say that, that culture is superior to the one that has civil rights abuses.

The so called "aspect" of a culture that you reference are in fact the criteria by which a culture can be "ranked" The issue is how many aspects to you consider, what aspects do yo consider and how do you weigh them to come up with a judgment about the culture as a whole.

Being a well respected economist/philosopher/intellectual does not entail one is right.
Indeed. However, having a conflicting opinion does not demote you from well respected "economist/philosopher/intellectual" to "enemy of the People", unless you literally influence an idea that becomes the literal enemy of your people....
You shouldn't need to troop out a fallacy of authority to win arguments, TAi.
Agreed. That's my fault. Though in the beginning, it was more of an attempt to show people who he was and what his qualifications were so that it wasn't just dismissed as some redneck's blog and not debated upon, you know?So if somebody digs up something from a well respected economist/philosopher/intellectual that contradicts you, will you then as an 'internet personality' be silent in the same manner you wish him to be?
I don't wish him to be silent, fool, as I obviously posted this on here to spark debate.

And to answer your question, well I certainly wouldn't call someone "an enemy of the People" simply because they disagree with me.

And to answer your question, well I certainly wouldn't call someone "an enemy of the People" simply because they disagree with me.


No, you'll just call some fool, and try to intimidate others into silence via the appeal to authority route, going on what we've seen so far.

No, you'll just call some fool, and try to intimidate others into silence via the appeal to authority route, going on what we've seen so far.
You're quite quick to jump to assumptions about what I may or may not in the future do, but you're not quick to respond to me calling you on it:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14013382&postcount=106

LOL GODWIN LOL

It's funny that the only way you can (try to) make your point is by calling Nazi Germany a "culture." Oh, so there was no culture in Nazi Germany? It was just an amorphous group of people without any cohesive, identifying characteristics holding them together or a shared ideology?

And thus by implication I must be some weak-kneed Nazi collaborator of course. Hey, maybe that would explain how I am so cruelly trying to oppress and censor Dododecapod!I never thought of you or implied any such a thing and don't care if you are trying to censor Dododecapod or make love to him. I was expressing MY opinion based on multiple posts I have read in this thread and was not taking up for anyone. I was instead expressing MY personal opinion without regard to anyone else's.

And here you betray yourself more obviously: Now you're talking about government, not culture.In most cases a government is an expression of the culture in which the government was formed and will be dominated by a set of cultural ideals. While I will agree that a government is not necessarily a culture in and of itself, it is an expression of a culture.

...or government with culture, for example. see above. I can as easily argue that Islamic culture is superior to Christian Culture as I can argue the opposite depending upon the criteria I choose to use to evaluate what makes a superior culture without any reference to a nation. My point still stands, there are superior and inferior cultures, the issue is by what criteria do you judge them.

Hoist by your own petard. How embarrassing.I'm not embarrassed, your inability to see my point though - your desire to look at the trees instead of focusing on the forest might be causing you some however.

The fact that I don't agree with your apparent desire to stereotype and judge the 'superiority' of cultures doesn't mean I am "unwilling to make value judgments." I'm quite clearly willing to make them - for example, I value your evasive, weaselly, irrational and self-contradicting arguments to be worth less than the value of a mostly-chunky shit I took this morning. Your resort to Ad Hominen'sand your failure to explain why it is improper to place a value judgment on a culture or to find that one culture is superior to another betrays a lack of the ability to logically refute the claim that some cultures are superior to others and instead relies on the stand by claim of bigotry when such a claim is made. If you wish to argue about what criteria are used to evaluate or "rank" a culture, by all means do so. But if you wish to stand by a claim that all cultures are equal and that no culture is any better than any other culture without backing it up with more than just claims of bigotry against someone who disagrees with that position, then I'll just ignore you.

And I notice you didn't actually answer the one question I asked, I guess addressing and reading is another one of those oppressive liberal PC censorship things. Oh well.I wasn't trying to answer any question you asked. I did not post to address you directly. I posted to express my own opinion, not to reply to anyone in particular. And I'll state my opinion again so you're clear.

There is such a thing as superior and inferior cultures. The issue is by what criteria do we judge a culture in order to determine its ranking in the hierarchy from "The best" (or most superior) to "The Worst" (or most inferior).

Oh, so there was no culture in Nazi Germany? It was just an amorphous group of people without any cohesive, identifying characteristics holding them together or a shared ideology?
All cultures are good, by definition. Nazi Germany wasn't good, therefore it's some barbarism or whatever, but not culture.














(of course, had it won, we or whoever survived, would be looking at this another way.)

Oh boy Sowell buddy, you've done it again. You've managed to completely discredit whatever school you attended to learn economics.
That's a fallacy too. Guilt by association, in fact.

If I got the chance, I'd still go to Harvard or the CSE without hesitation. That occasionally an idiot manages to sneak in there doesn't matter - what matters is that the number of idiots is lower there than anywhere else. ;)

With respect to the great Thomas Sowell, this piece is a bit outdated only because it's from 2007 and addressing the amnesty bill, but it's arguements and information still totally apply:


Yet more of the same old crap.

You notice this 'doing jobs americans won't do' refutation... actually shows that americans Don't do those jobs? Or at least - not all of them?

You notice the argument about 'making a contribution' focuses on crop surpluses - and ignores the fact that, overall, immigrant labour actually very slightly boosts the economy?

You notice that the immigrant is attacked for disproportionate accountability for crimes... and yet they are often forbidden from legally working? They are claimed as taking a disproportionate amount of healthcare, and yet are barred from taking a productive part in the healthcare model? The whole thing blames a minority of people for the situation the rest of us put them in.


The whole argument that immigrants are somehow at fault for not 'speaking the language', is total shit. I live in a country where the vast majority of the people are immigrants, and barely a single one of the fuckers talks ANY of the languages that were here when their 'kind' got here. Me included.

I don't really understand how an influx of agricultural workers leads to agricultural surpluses. It's not as if the wily immigrants are growing secret gardens and flooding the markets, they are being hired by other people. If any one group can be blamed, it is the employers who continue hiring them.

Also, the claim immigrants don't pay taxes is not true. If you buy something in the US, chances are you pay tax. It is true that they do not pay income tax; however, unless an illegal manages to make it big without getting caught, I can't imagine how their income is higher than that of native-born poor Americans.

As for the old argument that multiculturalism weakens the country, it is based on the assumption the US has ever had a unified culture. That's simply false. The difference is in 1900, New Yorkers didn't directly encounter all of the Mexicans in Texas, and Texans didn't run into all of the Poles in New York. Now, though, a Virginian lad such as myself can see how Californians live in a way very different from what I have assumed to be "the American way."
That's not to say there aren't common American cultural threads: "rugged individualism," a belief in democratic government, etc., but no one is saying these are under attack, either.

All cultures are good, by definition.And this is where you and I have a fundamental, ideological difference of opinion. I contend that this is not the case. Some cultures are bad.

Nazi Germany wasn't good, therefore it's some barbarism or whatever, but not culture.Oh, so "bad" is not culture, just barbarism? Why isn't barbarism a culture? You refuse to concede that a culture could be bad and point to anything that is bad and state it is not a culture. Why are your afraid to say some cultures are bad? You'll get stuck with the bigot label? That is the typical reply to a claim that a culture is bad, I understand. But the refusal to discriminate and say a culture can be bad is, IMO, an irrational position to take.



(of course, had it won, we or whoever survived, would be looking at this another way.)Possibly, and possibly we'd still be engaged in a struggle to overthrow them because they were bad and we did not want to associate with that, even when forced to do so.

And this is where you and I have a fundamental, ideological difference of opinion. I contend that this is not the case.
What's with your sarcasm-o-meter?

I was rather picking at the idea that every culture is sacred so must be preserved and such.



Possibly, and possibly we'd still be engaged in a struggle to overthrow them because they were bad and we did not want to associate with that, even when forced to do so.
Ah, no. They didn't worry much about letting alternate cultures survive at all.

What's with your sarcasm-o-meter?

I was rather picking at the idea that every culture is sacred so must be preserved and such.Oh, sorry, the batteries must be dead. :wink:

Ah, no. They didn't worry much about letting alternate cultures survive at all.
True, they did make that a fundamental part of their plan.

Oh, so there was no culture in Nazi Germany? It was just an amorphous group of people without any cohesive, identifying characteristics holding them together or a shared ideology?

It appears we have a difficulty in communication. The difficulty is that you are, either deliberately or through ignorance, misconstruing what I say in order to tear your misconstruing down. This is also called burning the strawman.

"Nazi Germany is not a culture" =/= "There is no culture in Nazi Germany"

In most cases a government is an expression of the culture in which the government was formed and will be dominated by a set of cultural ideals. While I will agree that a government is not necessarily a culture in and of itself, it is an expression of a culture.

So which culture then is the United States Federal Government? 18th Century Colonial American?

see above. I can as easily argue that Islamic culture is superior to Christian Culture as I can argue the opposite depending upon the criteria I choose to use to evaluate what makes a superior culture without any reference to a nation. My point still stands, there are superior and inferior cultures, the issue is by what criteria do you judge them.

The fact that you can claim to have 'criteria' by which you judge their inferiority or superiority doesn't validate the judgment itself.

One might claim to have criteria to 'evaluate' which race, ethnicity, religion, gender or sexual preference is 'superior,' that doesn't actually mean that any race, etc is superior.

Your resort to Ad Hominen's

Oh? Please link to and cite the place where I declared you or your argument to be wrong based on my personal attack on your character.

and your failure to explain why it is improper to place a value judgment on a culture or to find that one culture is superior to another betrays a lack of the ability to logically refute the claim that some cultures are superior to others

Your continued tendency to ignore the question I asked betrays a lack of ability to give an honest answer without coming across as a bigoted douchebag.

Hey look I can read stuff into what you -don't- say as well!

I wasn't trying to answer any question you asked. I did not post to address you directly. I posted to express my own opinion, not to reply to anyone in particular.

So you just wanted to blurt out your bullshit, and you directed it at me, and quoted me in the post, but you weren't actually responding to me. And that's why you don't answer the question.

Right.

Or, could be that you don't WANT to answer the question.

And I'll state my opinion again so you're clear.

There is such a thing as superior and inferior cultures. The issue is by what criteria do we judge a culture in order to determine its ranking in the hierarchy from "The best" (or most superior) to "The Worst" (or most inferior).

That's nice that you have your opinion. When you want to actually discuss things, let me know, k?

While it's not new argument, I don't see the appeal to authority.

I also entirely disagree with you, Neu. Nations have the absolute right to disallow immigration, and multiculturalism is a stupid and damaging policy that doesn't work.

Ah. You'll have no trouble explaining what this 'absolute right' is based on then.

Ah. You'll have no trouble explaining what this 'absolute right' is based on then.
Absolute rights don't need justification. That's what makes them absolute rights.

*nods*

Absolute rights don't need justification. That's what makes them absolute rights.

*nods*

Bullshit.

Even if you subscribe to this ridiculous notion, you need to, at the very least, explain why something should be considered an absolute right in the first place.

Bullshit.

Even if you subscribe to this ridiculous notion, you need to, at the very least, explain why something should be considered an absolute right in the first place.
Sarcastic cat is very sarcastic -_-

/snip

So you just wanted to blurt out your bullshit, and you directed it at me, and quoted me in the post, but you weren't actually responding to me. And that's why you don't answer the question.

If you will please go back and read Post #107 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14013388&postcount=107) you will see with your own little eyes that I did NOT quote you once, not a single time, I never addressed you in any way shape or form, I stated MY opinion and MY opinion alone without regard to anything else. YOU then quoted, dissected and attacked my post in post #118 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14013452&postcount=118).

If you think I directed my original post at you, then you have paranoia issues. If you see a quote of you in post #107, I want some of what you're smoking.

And I stand by what I said in Post #107 - Some cultures ARE superior to others. You are welcome to disagree with my opinion in that regard, I really don't care.

With respect to the great Thomas Sowell, this piece is a bit outdated only because it's from 2007 and addressing the amnesty bill, but it's arguements and information still totally apply:


http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmQwZGU0Njc2MDlkNzM3MmJjZGYxOTM3NTk1ZjM5ZmU=#more

Well I certainly couldn't agree more. I especially like his comment about the difference in society during the time of mass immigration from Europe. Sowell noted how society demanded assimilation, integration and Americanization of immigrants, where as compared to today, social trends are just the opposite.

What do you think of this article and the way it applies to the great immigraiton/assimilation/multiculturalism debate?

A little background on Thomas Sowell:

Amazing, there is intelligent life in California.

It couldn't be that(...........)

No, it could not. As likely as Penguins hunting Polar bears, I'd say.

No, it could not. As likely as Penguins hunting Polar bears, I'd say.

Well (http://images.elfwood.com/art/e/n/enlund/penguin.jpg)....

Ah. You'll have no trouble explaining what this 'absolute right' is based on then.

Sure. It's based on the right of individuals to associate or to refuse to associate with others, scaled up to the national level.

As the people of a nation own that nation, they may choose who else may enter.

Simply, my point that one is not permitted to criticize other cultures.

Because someone like you will then jump about ponjting a finger and yelling "bigot, bigot"!

Bwahahah and how does my pointing and yelling bigot, bigot, mean that you cannot critisie other cultures? I mean you seem to be doing a fine job of it right here.

So you judge cultures by values that you hold, based on your culture. You can’t see how totally subjective that is? You rank cultures based on things you deem important, based on the emphasis your culture places on them. You consider them important because your culture says they’re important.

But someone from a radically different culture, with radically different values, would see your own culture as far inferior, based on values they hold to be superior.

It’s all subjectivist nonsense people use to make themselves feel better about themselves for living in the “better” culture, and when called on it, resort to over emotive bullshit like “oh, so it’s ok when people get their heads cut off, huh? Huh??”

Ahhhh the voice of reason. Just how does one 'judge' the worth of a culture? Yes, yes, we can all agree that things like FGM are not good, but does one bad cultural pactice = a bad culture?

There is no such thing as a superior culture, they are all equal, just different, in which case, Nazi Germany is as good as 1940's USA and Theocratic Iran is as good as secular Britain today.
So if Nazi Germany is a culture does that mean culture is so amorphous that it changes every 15-20 years or so? Or does it mean that Nazi Germany's culture is the same culture that existed prior to it and exists today?

Bwahahah and how does my pointing and yelling bigot, bigot, mean that you cannot critisie other cultures? I mean you seem to be doing a fine job of it right here.

Thank you.:D

Seriously, when people start using emotionally loaded words like "bigot", "racist" etc., they're usually trying to obfuscate the situation by attacking the arguer rather than the argument - this is usally because they have no answer to the argument. There are exceptions, of course - the world has no lack of actual bigots, racists etc.

Unfortunately, it often works, with the messenger vilified and the message left unread, regardless of it's merits or flaws.

Worse, any discussion of certain issues, this being one of them, tends to promote "knee-jerk" accusatons of just the kind you initially came out with - and which, if you see my original post, I entirely expected.

Those aspects are the criteria by which a culture can be ranked. It can be argued that cultures that have a high GDP and literacy rate are in fact superior cultures.
The reason I used such criteria was to point out the confusing mix-up we often get into between culture and nations; we're quite happy to talk about the GDP of a culture, but if we think about it, a 'culture' can't have a GDP; a nation can. Similarly with literacy rates, or many other measurable things.

I can easily rank Iran vs. the U.K. by arguing a government that is controlled in policy by a religious sect is inferior to one that is not and bingo, the U.K. is superior to Iran.
Once again, we're talking about nations here, not cultures. Both in Iran and the UK there are many, many different cultures, sub-cultures, sub-sub-cultures and so on.

Ranking the effectiveness of x government providing n service is a hell of a lot easier (more possible) than ranking cultures.

This I will concede is correct. Not all Iranians are fundamentalist Muslims and not all U.S. citizens are free-market capitalists. However, my reply is "so what?" I can still argue that the culture of socialism is inferior to that of representative democracy and vice-versa depending on the criteria I use to evaluate which is better. I can still argue that Hispanic culture (yes I went there) is inferior to "American" culture.
You can, but by doing so you're clearly generalising so much, you're talking about non-existent entities. And to do so is, in my view, frankly worthless.

I'm willing to agree that equating a culture to a geographically distinct land mass/nation is not always necessarily the proper way to do things as, as you note, a culture is not necessarily defined by a particular set of national boundaries, but again I say "so what?" That doesn't take away from my ability to argue that same cultures are inferior to others.
Only if you're willing to follow through on your admission that culture is not nation-specific (nor race-specific, religion-specific, skin-colour specific, etc.).

Admitting as such, then attempting to criticise generalised, nation-specific or religion-specific culture (i.e., talking about 'Muslim culture'; some culture that supposedly covers the entirety of up to 2 billion adherents) is obviously wrong.

but now you are equating culture with a nation after just saying you really can't.
Check out my use of scare quotes.

Also, If you condemn a culture for civil rights abuses and commend them for treatment of the elderly, you have established a set of criteria by which we can judge one culture better than the other.
Have I? I don't think so.

How can one compare, say, one culture which treats elderly people badly, yet young people well, with one that does exactly the opposite? I can't see how you could say which one is 'better' without betraying your prejudices.

It's not quantitative criteria that you can 'add up' to get a score of how 'good' a culture is.

The so called "aspect" of a culture that you reference are in fact the criteria by which a culture can be "ranked" The issue is how many aspects to you consider, what aspects do yo consider and how do you weigh them to come up with a judgment about the culture as a whole.
And that's the exact problem: we, firstly, can't "weigh them up" in total, and, secondly, can't contrast one aspect with another. As I say, they're not quantitative.

We can condemn and condone cultures and cultural aspects, as long as we are aware of the difficulties and complexities of culture mentioned above, but I find little prospect in ranking them.

Sure. It's based on the right of individuals to associate or to refuse to associate with others, scaled up to the national level.

As the people of a nation own that nation, they may choose who else may enter.

But even the right of association, and the refusal thereof, is mitigated in order to protect other rights. You cannot associate with others for the express purpose of planning a terrorist act or act of treason. On the other side, one cannot refuse to associate with black people in certain contexts as that would violate anti-racism laws.

Therefore the right of free association, or to refuse it, is not absolute. I'm not even discussing the fact that this is a right of individuals, not a government, which is another huge problem with your logic.

So how do a government manage to get an absolute right when it is based on a non-absolute right?

If you will please go back and read Post #107 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14013388&postcount=107) you will see with your own little eyes that I did NOT quote you once, not a single time, I never addressed you in any way shape or form

You did in post #34 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14012780&postcount=34), buddy.


If you think I directed my original post at you, then you have paranoia issues. If you see a quote of you in post #107, I want some of what you're smoking.

I know for a fact and have proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt that you did direct your post at me. That indicates discussion. But, your complete unwillingness to answer a simple question once again proves my point.

You can go ahead and pretend this wasn't a debate... if that's what you need to save face and feel better about having LOST it.

And I stand by what I said in Post #107 - Some cultures ARE superior to others. You are welcome to disagree with my opinion in that regard, I really don't care.

And how about I ask yet again, whether you believe that some religions, races, ethnicities, genders or sexual preferences are Superior to others?

Go ahead and don't answer... just say "I don't want to answer, Clomata!" But don't give me that "I wasn't really talking to you, you're just seeing things" bullshit because it doesn't fly.

And if as you say, you're just stating your opinion, you'll have no trouble stating your opinion in the form of an answer to a question.

But even the right of association, and the refusal thereof, is mitigated in order to protect other rights. You cannot associate with others for the express purpose of planning a terrorist act or act of treason. On the other side, one cannot refuse to associate with black people in certain contexts as that would violate anti-racism laws.

Therefore the right of free association, or to refuse it, is not absolute. I'm not even discussing the fact that this is a right of individuals, not a government, which is another huge problem with your logic.

So how do a government manage to get an absolute right when it is based on a non-absolute right?

Because a government, as a legal utilizer of force, is not restricted by having to respect others with equal rights. I can refuse to associate with a person because, say, I find his politics objectionable. I cannot, however, stop him from speaking his mind in a public forum - that would be to violate his rights, which quite correctly are every bit the equal of my own.

But within it's borders a national government has no equals (save in very unusual situations, such as the corporate equality granted to the various states in the USA). They have to respect the rights of their own citizens, but they do not have to respect any rights - or accept the existence of any - of non citizens. (Actually, they don't have to respect the rights of their own, either - but that's another argument).

A citizen's right in this case is non-absolute because of the respect for the rights of others. Government is not obliged to, and does not anywhere to my knowledge, abide by that restriction, as regards non-citizens.

Nice question, btw.

Because a government, as a legal utilizer of force, is not restricted by having to respect others with equal rights. I can refuse to associate with a person because, say, I find his politics objectionable. I cannot, however, stop him from speaking his mind in a public forum - that would be to violate his rights, which quite correctly are every bit the equal of my own.

But within it's borders a national government has no equals (save in very unusual situations, such as the corporate equality granted to the various states in the USA). They have to respect the rights of their own citizens, but they do not have to respect any rights - or accept the existence of any - of non citizens. (Actually, they don't have to respect the rights of their own, either - but that's another argument).

A citizen's right in this case is non-absolute because of the respect for the rights of others. Government is not obliged to, and does not anywhere to my knowledge, abide by that restriction, as regards non-citizens.

Nice question, btw.

But it would be equally illegal for the government to stop someone from having their say in a public forum, so the powers of government can be restricted. You will note that this restriction even applies despite the 'inequality' between the nation and the individual, so your inequality argument isn't universal. You have to show why it apllies in this particular situation and not in the other.

Now you can say that it has to do with the fact people are citizens or noncitizens. But now you're making things sort of backwards. You're explaining how a nation exercises that right. You are not explaining why they deserve that right.

A nation gets to treat non-citizens with no rights because it has taken the right to decide who is a citizen and who is not. Not the other way around.

But it would be equally illegal for the government to stop someone from having their say in a public forum, so the powers of government can be restricted. You will note that this restriction even applies despite the 'inequality' between the nation and the individual, so your inequality argument isn't universal. You have to show why it apllies in this particular situation and not in the other.

Now you can say that it has to do with the fact people are citizens or noncitizens. But now you're making things sort of backwards. You're explaining how a nation exercises that right. You are not explaining why they deserve that right.

A nation gets to treat non-citizens with no rights because it has taken the right to decide who is a citizen and who is not. Not the other way around.

Why does anyone deserve any rights? The ultimate answer is usually, simply, because they took them and are unwilling to give them up.

Does anyone "deserve" the rights they have? Has anyone "earned" them?

This can be explained, however, under the theory of the "social contract". Citizens of a state have "signed the contract", either implicitly by being born to the naton involved, or explicitly through a citizenship ceremony. Those within the contract have no obligation to allow others to do so - they may pick and choose who may or may not become part of the "contractual obligation". Likewise the government involved has only those who "signed the contract" to consider - the rights and needs of non-contractors are not important.

Why does anyone deserve any rights? The ultimate answer is usually, simply, because they took them and are unwilling to give them up.

Does anyone "deserve" the rights they have? Has anyone "earned" them?

This can be explained, however, under the theory of the "social contract". Citizens of a state have "signed the contract", either implicitly by being born to the naton involved, or explicitly through a citizenship ceremony. Those within the contract have no obligation to allow others to do so - they may pick and choose who may or may not become part of the "contractual obligation". Likewise the government involved has only those who "signed the contract" to consider - the rights and needs of non-contractors are not important.
Social contract theory is fanfuckingTASTIC for explaining things after the fact. It falls apart rather quickly when you apply it as an actual explanation for how certain things come to be in the first place.

Why does anyone deserve any rights? The ultimate answer is usually, simply, because they took them and are unwilling to give them up....

So, the right is based on force? Is there no legal or moral basis for governments having such an absolute right?

Social contract theory is fanfuckingTASTIC for explaining things after the fact. It falls apart rather quickly when you apply it as an actual explanation for how certain things come to be in the first place.

Most things, historically, happen because somebody with power thought "it was a good idea at the time".

Seriously. Some soldier gets lucky, finds himself in charge, founds a kingdom. Centuries later, a guy who just wanted a little civilized reform is suddenly asking "how did I get here?" as the first revolutionary parliament elects him Prime Minister.

I hate to burst your bubbles, guys, but most of this stuff doesn't come about by any plan or according to anybody's well-worked-out ideology. If it doesn't work, it gets dropped; if it does work, somebody writes it into their Manifesto - which was almost certainly written after the fact.

Most things, historically, happen because somebody with power thought "it was a good idea at the time".

Seriously. Some soldier gets lucky, finds himself in charge, founds a kingdom. Centuries later, a guy who just wanted a little civilized reform is suddenly asking "how did I get here?" as the first revolutionary parliament elects him Prime Minister.

I hate to burst your bubbles, guys, but most of this stuff doesn't come about by any plan or according to anybody's well-worked-out ideology. If it doesn't work, it gets dropped; if it does work, somebody writes it into their Manifesto - which was almost certainly written after the fact.

What I am asking you, is aside from the particular historical facts which have shaped Western attitudes towards immigration...what reasons can you provide that would justify maintaining a restricted policy towards immigration? Doing it a certain way because 'we always did it this way' is...well, a fucking shit argument, to be honest.

So. I first need to you to figure out what, in your mind, makes restricting immigration an 'absolute right'. I need some sort of justification that would convince me in any way that said restrictions are necessary or even desireable in the 21st century.

So, the right is based on force? Is there no legal or moral basis for governments having such an absolute right?

Don't be daft; of course there's a legal basis. It was done by a government acting within the bounds of it's constitution - that's as legal as it gets.

As for morality, since everyone has a different idea on just what that is and what it should be, it's a really crappy thing to try and base things on.

Most things, historically, happen because somebody with power thought "it was a good idea at the time".

Seriously. Some soldier gets lucky, finds himself in charge, founds a kingdom. Centuries later, a guy who just wanted a little civilized reform is suddenly asking "how did I get here?" as the first revolutionary parliament elects him Prime Minister.

I hate to burst your bubbles, guys, but most of this stuff doesn't come about by any plan or according to anybody's well-worked-out ideology. If it doesn't work, it gets dropped; if it does work, somebody writes it into their Manifesto - which was almost certainly written after the fact.

So, I take it that you are saying that the basis of this right is solely based on historical use of force and has no other basis.

So, my next question is, do you think governments should have that right?

What I am asking you, is aside from the particular historical facts which have shaped Western attitudes towards immigration...what reasons can you provide that would justify maintaining a restricted policy towards immigration? Doing it a certain way because 'we always did it this way' is...well, a fucking shit argument, to be honest.

So. I first need to you to figure out what, in your mind, makes restricting immigration an 'absolute right'. I need some sort of justification that would convince me in any way that said restrictions are necessary or even desireable in the 21st century.

The necessity is simple: The wealthy countries are only CAPABLE of absorbing so much immigration before they start to break down. There really IS only so much room. I can't blame massive numbers of people for wanting to immigrate to the wealthy countries - but I don't want to see them swamping our capacities, either.

And while it may be a shit argument, 'we always did it this way' comes with a corollary: "if it ain't broke don't fix it". What's your justification for doing away with it?

So, I take it that you are saying that the basis of this right is solely based on historical use of force and has no other basis.

So, my next question is, do you think governments should have that right?

Yes. Like capitalism, societies need regulation. And that regulation can only be done by someone who has the legal monopoly on force - which is to say, a government.

The necessity is simple: The wealthy countries are only CAPABLE of absorbing so much immigration before they start to break down. There really IS only so much room. I can't blame massive numbers of people for wanting to immigrate to the wealthy countries - but I don't want to see them swamping our capacities, either.

And while it may be a shit argument, 'we always did it this way' comes with a corollary: "if it ain't broke don't fix it". What's your justification for doing away with it?

First of all, you're dead wrong if you believe that 'we keep them out cuz we're rich and want to keep our wealth to ourselves' was in any way a historical argument. Immigration was encouraged to the US and Canada...lots and lots of immigration. Settlement was key to expanding control. So key that there were massive recruiting campaigns and incentives. For certain kinds of immigrants.

So if the historical argument doesn't align with the modern argument, there is discord in your 'continuity/don't fix it if it ain't broke' premise. Ultimately, immigration restrictions are still about 'keeping the wrong people from entering'. What constitutes the 'wrong people' has changed a lot over the years. I still need you to come up with a reason for there to be any sort of restriction at all, and explain what that 'absolute right' is premised upon.

Yes. Like capitalism, societies need regulation. And that regulation can only be done by someone who has the legal monopoly on force - which is to say, a government.

Do you beieve this is also true for issues such as drug use, trade, private sexual activities, guns, and other things? That government should exercise a monopoly on thses things by force?

If not, please explain why immigration is different from these other things.

First of all, you're dead wrong if you believe that 'we keep them out cuz we're rich and want to keep our wealth to ourselves' was in any way a historical argument. Immigration was encouraged to the US and Canada...lots and lots of immigration. Settlement was key to expanding control. So key that there were massive recruiting campaigns and incentives. For certain kinds of immigrants.

So if the historical argument doesn't align with the modern argument, there is discord in your 'continuity/don't fix it if it ain't broke' premise. Ultimately, immigration restrictions are still about 'keeping the wrong people from entering'. What constitutes the 'wrong people' has changed a lot over the years. I still need you to come up with a reason for there to be any sort of restriction at all, and how that 'absolute right' is premised upon.

It's not a historical reason, no. But it certainly is a valid reason to continue it now.

The reason that most such were originally put in was xenophobia. It's that simple. Whether it was the "White Australia Policy" or the simple fact that you can't become a full citizen of Germany without "german heritage", that's the ultimate reason.

Xenophobia isn't always wrong, and isn't always bad, but it's terribly non-pc these days, despite that simple fact that everyone has it to some degree. And as long as that's the case, a big chunk of your population is going to demand controls on immigration. Given we live in democracies, that means the government will listen, and those controls are here to stay.

Do you beieve this is also true for issues such as drug use, trade, private sexual activities, guns, and other things? That government should exercise a monopoly on thses things by force?

If not, please explain why immigration is different from these other things.

Because we say it is.

Glib, yes, but that's the ultimate truth of the matter. There is no difference. What, do you expect some overarching REASON for one thing to be government business and another thing isn't? There isn't one.

If a government claims absolute right over something, it has it. That's the nature of government.

Logging off - must get some sleep.

Good night, Neesika, G-o-G. Will continue later.

It's not a historical reason, no. But it certainly is a valid reason to continue it now.

The reason that most such were originally put in was xenophobia. It's that simple. Whether it was the "White Australia Policy" or the simple fact that you can't become a full citizen of Germany without "german heritage", that's the ultimate reason.

Xenophobia isn't always wrong, and isn't always bad, but it's terribly non-pc these days, despite that simple fact that everyone has it to some degree. And as long as that's the case, a big chunk of your population is going to demand controls on immigration. Given we live in democracies, that means the government will listen, and those controls are here to stay.

Because we say it is.

Glib, yes, but that's the ultimate truth of the matter. There is no difference. What, do you expect some overarching REASON for one thing to be government business and another thing isn't? There isn't one.

If a government claims absolute right over something, it has it. That's the nature of government.
The bolded comments render your entire argument laughable.

1) Taken as a whole, these two posts make it clear that you are finally giving up any pretense at being able to justify your views, or even explain them logically. "Why?" is a apparently a question that is beyond you.

Also, in the above posts:

1) You acknowledge that your claimed basis for the validity of your argument does not exist, yet you still claim it as a basis for validity. Cute.

2) You acknowledge that your arguments are based on nothing but bigotry and that you think that's just fine. Interesting. Your entire argument in this thread started out with a complaint about being called a "bigot" yet here you are defending bigotry as an OK viewpoint. Then why should you object to the label? Is it just that it upsets you that, once we figure out that your views are based only on bigotry, we are no longer interested in hearing them? If so then, well... tough. Just because you think your views are interesting and correct, that doesn't obligate anyone else to think so, too.

3) I also enjoy the way, having admitted your own bigotry, you still attempt to avoid being put outside the pale by claiming that everyone is a little bit of a xenophobe. This is, of course, BS, because you cannot know how other people think. All you are doing here is trying an end run around us saying, "Pfft, if that's all you've got, then your argument has no reason or logic behind it, so we reject it." But you fail because your claim that everyone is like you is as unfounded as every other argument you've made here.

4) And I laughed out loud at the "Because we say it is" comment. That was classic. And of course, the classic come back is, "What do you mean 'we,' white man?" Why don't you just admit that this "we" is just you and a few other nervous rich people?

5) And finally, you appeal to absolute government authority, as if such a thing exists. As if governments don't get their authority from the governed. As if laws don't change with the winds of social pressure. As if you can silence debate by pointing to some unassailable authority that is universally recognized and that no one will challenge. And especially as if you would say that about a government that claimed the right to do something you did not approve of -- such as, oh, say... open the country's borders without restrictions on immigration.

You did in post #34 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14012780&postcount=34), buddy. Yah, I replied to your post and that was it. Post 107 was NOT directed at you or intended to apply to you and no thought was given to you at all after I posted #34. More simply. I read your post and replied to it in #34. I then did NOT think about this thread, consider you, read anything you wrote or do anything of the sort until I posted #107 as a standalone post, without any regard or reference to anyone else in the thread. Sorry, but you and your opinion are really not so important to me that I MUST be responding to you when I post something.
I know for a fact and have proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt that you did direct your post at me. That indicates discussion. But, your complete unwillingness to answer a simple question once again proves my point. You have established that post #34 was a reply to you, you have not proven anything beyond that. You are welcome to believe whatever you wish however. I am not generally given to disabusing people of their belief in their own importance. As for your question, I don't know exactly what question it is you think I am refusing to respond to since I have responded to your posts since I made my 2nd post. My first post, #34, was a direct reply to you as well. So what question have I failed to reply to that you are laboring under the belief you have asked me?
You can go ahead and pretend this wasn't a debate... if that's what you need to save face and feel better about having LOST it.How can I lose a contest I'm unaware that I am in. You say I lose cause I won't answer you question, I don't know what question you think I need to answer.
And how about I ask yet again, whether you believe that some religions, races, ethnicities, genders or sexual preferences are Superior to others?Ahh, here is the question. Where did you ask that of me before hand - I'll go back and find it, I don't recall this being asked, I would have answered if I had realized this is what you were all bent out of shape about and why you felt I was refusing to answer you. I will note that this is changing the debate first off and is a compound question which is generally not favored in reasonable debate sends it lends itself to more than a single answer. I will attempt to answer though:

1. Religions - yes, I find some to be "superior" to others - for example, any religion that calls for human sacrifice or condones sexual activity with a child is an inferior religion.

2. Race - no race, by reason of their race alone, is inferior to any other race. A man is a man whether he is white, black, red, green or plaid.

3. Ethnicities - Ethnicity connotes shared cultural, linguistic, behavioural and/or religious traits, it is many things all at once all lumped together, a sort of "meta" grouping and does not lend it self to classification as inferior or superior. So I would say no, no ethnic group is inherently superior or inferior by reason of ethnic makeup alone when the factors that make up the group - heritage, reglion, culture, etc. are all taken into account.

4. Genders - No, males are not inherently superior to females and vice-versa in a broad sense. In narrow senses, yes. For example, when it comes to physical prowess, as a general rule the male is superior to the female. Same for abstract thought. On the other hand, in areas of empathic understanding of others, females tend to be superior. Same with linguistic capabilities.

5. Sexual Preferences - yes, homo, bi and hetro sexuality are all superior to pedophilia, necrophilia and Bestiality. For purposes of reproduction, heterosexuality is also superior to homo and bi sexuality. If you leave reproduction out of the mix, then I'd say that homo, bi and hetero sexuality are on an even footing.
Go ahead and don't answer... just say "I don't want to answer, Clomata!" But don't give me that "I wasn't really talking to you, you're just seeing things" bullshit because it doesn't fly.Oh, but you see, once I realized what was being asked, I didn't hesitate to answer. And sorry, but in post #107 I was NOT talking to you, despite your delusional opinion to the contrary.
And if as you say, you're just stating your opinion, you'll have no trouble stating your opinion in the form of an answer to a question.Please see above points 1 - 5.

EDIT: Ah, as promised I went back, now I see where in post #96 you replied to what I said in Post 34 and asked, basically, what you asked above. Sorry, but I had not seen or read that when I posted #107 and my other posts herein to this point and until post #153 (which this is a reply to) you did not ask the question of me again after post #107. As you can see, once I knew what it was you were asking, I was more than willing to reply. Until you repeated the question though, I had no clue why you would think I wouldn't reply.

The bolded comments render your entire argument laughable.

1) Taken as a whole, these two posts make it clear that you are finally giving up any pretense at being able to justify your views, or even explain them logically. "Why?" is a apparently a question that is beyond you.

Also, in the above posts:

1) You acknowledge that your claimed basis for the validity of your argument does not exist, yet you still claim it as a basis for validity. Cute.

2) You acknowledge that your arguments are based on nothing but bigotry and that you think that's just fine. Interesting. Your entire argument in this thread started out with a complaint about being called a "bigot" yet here you are defending bigotry as an OK viewpoint. Then why should you object to the label? Is it just that it upsets you that, once we figure out that your views are based only on bigotry, we are no longer interested in hearing them? If so then, well... tough. Just because you think your views are interesting and correct, that doesn't obligate anyone else to think so, too.

3) I also enjoy the way, having admitted your own bigotry, you still attempt to avoid being put outside the pale by claiming that everyone is a little bit of a xenophobe. This is, of course, BS, because you cannot know how other people think. All you are doing here is trying an end run around us saying, "Pfft, if that's all you've got, then your argument has no reason or logic behind it, so we reject it." But you fail because your claim that everyone is like you is as unfounded as every other argument you've made here.

4) And I laughed out loud at the "Because we say it is" comment. That was classic. And of course, the classic come back is, "What do you mean 'we,' white man?" Why don't you just admit that this "we" is just you and a few other nervous rich people?

5) And finally, you appeal to absolute government authority, as if such a thing exists. As if governments don't get their authority from the governed. As if laws don't change with the winds of social pressure. As if you can silence debate by pointing to some unassailable authority that is universally recognized and that no one will challenge. And especially as if you would say that about a government that claimed the right to do something you did not approve of -- such as, oh, say... open the country's borders without restrictions on immigration.

Naturally, I disagree with you.

Taking your points in order:

1) Just because the historical reason for keeping a policy has become invalid, that does NOT invalidate the current reason for keeping it. You've never heard of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons?

2) Because I'm not talking about bigotry, I'm talking about xenophobia, and they are two different things. Bigotry is holding you and yours above others, to hold a position that one is better or greater than others. Xenophobia is simply "fear of the different", and I will stand by my statement that it is neither always wrong nor always bad. Xenophobia can manifest as bigotry or racism, which ARE bad, but those are not the only ways it can manifest.

And I am not a bigot, because I do not hold myself superior to anyone, or anyone inferior to me. I take people as I find them. I'm quite well aware of my own xenophobia, and keep it on a tight leash.

3) Please do some research on this point before you post again. I am not a psychologist, but every book on the subject that I have read agrees that xenophobia is a basic, core part of the human psyche, possessed by all humans. And yes, this is a plea to authority, but it also happens to be correct.

4) Why do you assume I'm rich? Never mind; it's not really relevant. But in this case "we" are the general populaces of the various nations involved - i.e. everyone in the country. We chose it to be so, and so it happened.

5) If one is speaking of the powers of government, that is not the same as an appeal to authority. And the one thing you have not said, is that I am wrong.

Naturally, I disagree with you.

Taking your points in order:

1) Just because the historical reason for keeping a policy has become invalid, that does NOT invalidate the current reason for keeping it. You've never heard of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons?
Yeah, and I've also heard of pathetic prevarication in an attempt to deny that you lost a point. You can't have it both ways. You can't appeal to historical example, then admit that your example is false, and then still appeal to it. Not unless you're trying to be laughed at.

2) Because I'm not talking about bigotry, I'm talking about xenophobia, and they are two different things. Bigotry is holding you and yours above others, to hold a position that one is better or greater than others. Xenophobia is simply "fear of the different", and I will stand by my statement that it is neither always wrong nor always bad. Xenophobia can manifest as bigotry or racism, which ARE bad, but those are not the only ways it can manifest.

And I am not a bigot, because I do not hold myself superior to anyone, or anyone inferior to me. I take people as I find them. I'm quite well aware of my own xenophobia, and keep it on a tight leash.
Of course you stand by your assertions. You're a bigot. A xenophobic one. You're only reinforcing that impression with every word you say. Also, being aware of your bigoted impulses doesn't help the situation. Keeping your xenophobia on a leash doesn't help anyone if you still let it piss all over our lawns.

3) Please do some research on this point before you post again. I am not a psychologist, but every book on the subject that I have read agrees that xenophobia is a basic, core part of the human psyche, possessed by all humans. And yes, this is a plea to authority, but it also happens to be correct.
And this time you even try to buffer yourself from it by admitting your own lack of knowledge while still telling us that you're right.

Yeah, uh-huh. Try again.

4) Why do you assume I'm rich? Never mind; it's not really relevant. But in this case "we" are the general populaces of the various nations involved - i.e. everyone in the country. We chose it to be so, and so it happened.
I didn't say you were rich. I referred to you AND some nervous rich people. I didn't say you were one of them. And you have yet to support your claim to be representative of a general viewpoint. You just keep asserting it over and over. Perhaps this "we" group you prefer above all others is a community of parrots? Is that why you're so good at repeating yourself?

5) If one is speaking of the powers of government, that is not the same as an appeal to authority.
Except of course, when the powers you're speaking of don't exist and when the only reason you claim them is to try to kill an opposing argument.

And you haven't addressed my final point, which is that I don't believe you'd be making such claims of governmental power to which all must bow if we were talking about all the times that governments lift restrictions on immigration rather than impose them. In fact, Neesika already brought this up, and you ignored her, too. What's the matter, can't think of a comeback for that one?

And the one thing you have not said, is that I am wrong.
Oh, didn't I? How remiss of me. I'll do it now:

You are wrong.

Yah, I replied to your post and that was it. Post 107 was NOT directed at you or intended to apply to you and no thought was given to you at all after I posted #34. More simply. I read your post and replied to it in #34. I then did NOT think about this thread, consider you, read anything you wrote or do anything of the sort until I posted #107 as a standalone post, without any regard or reference to anyone else in the thread. Sorry, but you and your opinion are really not so important to me that I MUST be responding to you when I post something.

107 was more of the same arguments you made in 34. I addressed both. You are responding and still responding. Jee, it kind of seems like a discussion to me! Why, even an arugment! Guess I'm not delusional then.


How can I lose a contest I'm unaware that I am in. You say I lose cause I won't answer you question, I don't know what question you think I need to answer.





Ahh, here is the question.

*applause*

Where did you ask that of me before hand - I'll go back and find it, I don't recall this being asked, I would have answered if I had realized this is what you were all bent out of shape about and why you felt I was refusing to answer you. I will note that this is changing the debate first off

No, it isn't. It's asking you to follow through with your logic. It's very right on topic, unlike your "I wasn't addressing YOU, you delusional crackhead" bullshit.


2. Race - no race, by reason of their race alone, is inferior to any other race. A man is a man whether he is white, black, red, green or plaid.


Oh? But you said it all depends on the criteria you use to judge superiority. That's your argument for the superiority of cultures. You just need to make a 'value judgment' based on some 'criteria' and blam, one culture is superior. Same would go with race if you believed in your own argument...

...but I guess you don't.

3. Ethnicities - Ethnicity connotes shared cultural, linguistic, behavioural and/or religious traits, it is many things all at once all lumped together, a sort of "meta" grouping and does not lend it self to classification as inferior or superior. So I would say no

"Culture" is a lot of things lumped together and doesn't lend itself to classification as inferior or superior either.

Your argument is fail.... even you don't agree with its reasoning, because you don't like the conclusions it supports.

107 was more of the same arguments you made in 34. I addressed both. You are responding and still responding. Jee, it kind of seems like a discussion to me! Why, even an arugment! Guess I'm not delusional then.
*applause* Whatever, as I noted, I was not responding to you and was unaware of the question you had posed until I read post 153. Feel free to believe as you wish though.

No, it isn't. It's asking you to follow through with your logic. It's very right on topic, unlike your "I wasn't addressing YOU, you delusional crackhead" bullshit. I never called you a "crackhead" but if you still believe I was addressing you in post 107, you are delusional.
As to following through on my logic - in 107 I said, either all cultures are equal, or they are not. I then said IMO they are not, but which is superior and which is inferior is dependent on the criteria used to rank them.
I guess if you are asking do I feel the same about the items you mentioned, my answer would be the same, either some races are superior or they are not, some religions are superior or they are not, etc. And I answered you, As to races, no race is superior. As to religion, some are superior, etc. But a different set of criteria will be used to evaluate a religion over a culture and therefore, you are are changing the debate when move into the area of evaluating the superiority or inferiority of a religion vs. doing the same for a culture.

Oh? But you said it all depends on the criteria you use to judge superiority. That's your argument for the superiority of cultures. You just need to make a 'value judgment' based on some 'criteria' and blam, one culture is superior. Same would go with race if you believed in your own argument...

...but I guess you don't.You would be guessing wrong. Read it again, either cultures are equal or they are not. I said they are not, but which is better depends on criteria. As to races, I answer the question, they are equal, so criteria by which to judge superiority is irrelevant and out the window. Criteria to judge superior over inferior is only relevant when it is determined that they are disparate and not equal. Since they are felt to be equal, there are no criteria for evaluation called into question.

"Culture" is a lot of things lumped together and doesn't lend itself to classification as inferior or superior either.Yes it is many things together, but no that does not mean it cannot be classified as superior or inferior. Comparing the meta group of ethnicity (which includes culture) with culture alone is an apples to oranges comparison.

Your argument is fail.... even you don't agree with its reasoning, because you don't like the conclusions it supports.
Actually, the argument fails for YOU because YOU don't like the idea that it is possible to judge something as inferior or superior. It is your desire and belief that all are equal and that there something wrong in claiming one thing to be superior to another. I disagree and the argument does not fail for me. I note, in this regard, that you do not take issue with my claim that some religions are superior to others or that some sexual preferences are superior to others. Using your logic from earlier in this conversation, you failure to address those must mean that you agree with the idea that some religions and some sexual preference are in fact superior to others, therefore, again using your logic, you must agree it is conceivable that some cultures are superior to others, you just don't want to concede that fact.
See how that works both ways?

Whether you wish to admit it or not, the culture espoused by the leadership of Nazi Germany and that was the predominant culture of that nation and adhered to by significant numbers of people in the rest of Europe and around the world during the 1930's and 1940's and still today by "skin heads" and "white supremacy" groups is an inferior culture.

This can be explained, however, under the theory of the "social contract". Citizens of a state have "signed the contract", either implicitly by being born to the naton involved, or explicitly through a citizenship ceremony. Those within the contract have no obligation to allow others to do so - they may pick and choose who may or may not become part of the "contractual obligation". Likewise the government involved has only those who "signed the contract" to consider - the rights and needs of non-contractors are not important.You are correct in that members of the social contract are under no obligation to allow nonmembers to take part.
What you haven't explained is how the social contract applies to a particular piece of land, and/or how merely moving onto a piece of land indicates an attempt by an outsider to enter the social contract.

Whether you wish to admit it or not, the culture espoused by the leadership of Nazi Germany and that was the predominant culture of that nation and adhered to by significant numbers of people in the rest of Europe and around the world during the 1930's and 1940's and still today by "skin heads" and "white supremacy" groups is an inferior culture.Again, I ask if you mean to argue that culture is so nebulous that it changes every 15 or so years, or do you mean that the culture of Nazi Germany is the same German culture that existed prior to the Nazis' rise to power and currently exists today?

Do you beieve this is also true for issues such as drug use, trade, private sexual activities, guns, and other things? That government should exercise a monopoly on thses things by force?

If not, please explain why immigration is different from these other things.

Drug use, guns and trade should be regulated by the government.

Whatever

Brilliant.

I never called you a "crackhead" but if you still believe I was addressing you in post 107, you are delusional.

I never said shit about you addressing me specifically in post 107. You were simply stating your same old nonsense argument. I tore it down, no matter if you posted it in two different posts. Get over it.

As to following through on my logic - in 107 I said, either all cultures are equal, or they are not. I then said IMO they are not, but which is superior and which is inferior is dependent on the criteria used to rank them.
I guess if you are asking do I feel the same about the items you mentioned, my answer would be the same, either some races are superior or they are not, some religions are superior or they are not, etc. And I answered you, As to races, no race is superior.

You didn't say "IMO." You stated as fact and continue to portray it that way. Your only reasoning is as above - "which is superior and which is inferior is dependent on the criteria used to rank them." That same support goes equally for judging which races are superior, but now, inconsistently, you claim that no race is superior.


But a different set of criteria will be used to evaluate a religion over a culture and therefore, you are are changing the debate when move into the area of evaluating the superiority or inferiority of a religion vs. doing the same for a culture.

The debate isn't about which religion or culture is superior, or why. It is about whether it is even possible for a religion or culture to be 'superior' or 'inferior.' You maintain that it is. Fine. But your only supporting argument for it, can equally apply to superiority of race.

Yet you don't thus apply it. Hence you contradict your own reasoning. Get it yet?

Read it again, either cultures are equal or they are not. I said they are not, but which is better depends on criteria. As to races, I answer the question, they are equal, so criteria by which to judge superiority is irrelevant and out the window.

You have given no reason why a culture can be superior but a race cannot. "They are equal" is not a reason. I can say the same for cultures. "They are equal." But unlike you, when I say this I am not being a hypocrite and invalidating my argument. Get it yet?

Criteria to judge superior over inferior is only relevant when it is determined that they are disparate and not equal. Since they are felt to be equal, there are no criteria for evaluation called into question.

They are "felt" to be equal? Gosh, so are cultures!

Yes it is many things together, but no that does not mean it cannot be classified as superior or inferior. Comparing the meta group of ethnicity (which includes culture) with culture alone is an apples to oranges comparison.

The meta group of cultures ALSO includes other cultures. The Culture of the West. Then the Culture of the United States. Then the Culture of California. Then the Culture of Santa Barbara. Then the Culture of East Side. Culture includes quite a number of other things as well, but I suppose that's all Greek to you too.

Actually, the argument fails for YOU because YOU don't like the idea that it is possible to judge something as inferior or superior. It is your desire and belief that all are equal and that there something wrong in claiming one thing to be superior to another. I disagree and the argument does not fail for me.

It is YOUR desire and belief that all races are equal, which is why you say they are. It is YOUR desire and belief that some cultures are superior and others inferior, which is why you say you are. But your argument doesn't allow you to cherry-pick. Either your argument holds water and applies to both race and culture, or it doesn't and applies to neither. You have given no reasoning why races are all equal (other than "they are felt to be equal", lol) that cannot be applied just as easily to why all cultures are.

I note, in this regard, that you do not take issue with my claim that some religions are superior

Because it's not necessary for me to do in order to reveal your biased hypocrisy.

to others or that some sexual preferences are superior to others. Using your logic from earlier in this conversation, you failure to address those must mean that you agree with the idea that some religions and some sexual preference are in fact superior to others, therefore, again using your logic, you must agree it is conceivable that some cultures are superior to others, you just don't want to concede that fact.

I'll take this as a "No Clomata, I have no fucking clue what your logic is but I'm rubber and you're glue LOL"


Whether you wish to admit it or not, the culture espoused by the leadership of Nazi Germany and that was the predominant culture of that nation and adhered to by significant numbers of people in the rest of Europe and around the world during the 1930's and 1940's and still today by "skin heads" and "white supremacy" groups is an inferior culture.

Continuing to state things like "X is an inferior culture" doesn't in any way support your argument.

Really kid, just quit now because I have the feeling that, while you aren't quite aware enough to be humiliated yet, at some distant point in the future you might be, and I'd feel bad for having so cruelly exploited your weaknesses like this.

Well, no I wouldn't. Do go on. Maybe some more circular reasoning, ad hominem or blind assertions will magically make you right.

Just shutup.

Just shutup.

How about not? Yeah I'll choose that option instead. Thanks though. :fluffle:

No, not just you. Wowmaui as well. You both disagree, you've had lengthy post explaining why you disagree, and that's what we've established. You disagree, you won't change the other's mind, end of story.

Again, I ask if you mean to argue that culture is so nebulous that it changes every 15 or so years, or do you mean that the culture of Nazi Germany is the same German culture that existed prior to the Nazis' rise to power and currently exists today?
No, cultures by their nature will change over time. The prevalent culture in 1940 Germany is clearly not the same culture prevalent there today.

Drug use, guns and trade should be regulated by the government.

Should immigration also be regulated by government?

Why or why not?

No, cultures by their nature will change over time. The prevalent culture in 1940 Germany is clearly not the same culture prevalent there today.
I don't think that's so clear. I think you are taking a rather shallow view of what constitutes culture. It is far more than just the prevailing fashions or politics of a few decades. German culture has been a continuous pattern for many centuries -- and the Nazis came out of it -- or at least the men who made up the Nazi movement did. They may have been aberrant individuals who grouped together, but they were aberrant Germans, products of the German culture, and those who are still alive, are still Germans.

The Nazi movement by no means defines German culture, but throughout the Nazi period, Germany remained identifiably German, and it still is.

Should immigration also be regulated by government?

Why or why not?

I think it should, as long as it's the democratic will of the people, it's done in an orderly and reasonable manner, and it's not an arbitrary process.

There are legitimate reasons for regulating immigration, like ensuring the safety of the nation, keeping criminals out, not letting the country turn into a safe haven for fugitives, protecting (comprehensive) social security systems, etc.

No, cultures by their nature will change over time. The prevalent culture in 1940 Germany is clearly not the same culture prevalent there today.How much time does it take for a culture to change?

Clomata,

Let me phrase it a different way so maybe you understand what I have been trying (apparently unartfully) to convey. I understand your point, but I'm not so sure you understand mine or why the argument you are trying to make about my points doesn't apply in my opinion.

Either a culture, race, religion, whatever, is equal to all others of its kind intrinsically due to the very nature of the item in question or they are unequal with one being superior to another due to the intrinsic nature of the item in question. It is when one is intrinsically, due to its nature, unequal with others of its kind, that various criteria can be used to determine or judge which one is superior and which is inferior. In other words, in my opinio, on their face, some things can be said to be equal and some things can be said to be unequal.

For example, a race is, in my opinion, intrinsically, due to its very nature, equal to any and all other races. It is essential to the real nature of a human that it be of some race. You can't have a race w/o a person first. You can have people that aren't black, but you can't have blacks without people. The essential characteristics of race render race a neutral item with no race being superior to another. Race is a static condition encompassing a single concept.

On the other hand, in my opinion (since you take issue with the idea it could be a factual assertion), a culture can be, due to its intrinsic nature, unequal with another culture. It is therefore possible to state one culture is superior to another. Cultures are fluid and change with time and leaderhip. They are not static and are composed of many different things, they do not embrace a single concept like race does. As a result they are, inherently, by their very nature, unequal. Which is superior and which is not will be based on the criteria used to judge the multiple similarities and differences.

A culture that is inferior today can, by a shift in the attitude of its members and the undertaking of a new set of behaviors become superior tomorrow. On the other hand, a Chinese person can do anything he wants to do, he'll always be Chinese, he cannot change his race.

It is because of the intrinsic characteristics of somethings that it can be said they are equal and that they are unequal. When they are unequal, obviously, some will be superior to others. When they are equal, obviously none are superior.

The question is then what intrinsic characteristics will require a finding that something is equal or unequal. I would suggest that the characteristics that are important will change depending on the item being evaluated for the purpose of determing its equality with others of its kind. An intrinsic characteristic that is static and completely unchangeable by the thing being measured is an important characteristic (but is not the determining one in all cases) that lends itself to the idea that the item is equal to all others of its type (like race) whereas an inherent characteristic that is subject to and can be changed by the item itself (like the morays of a culture can be changed by the culture itself) lends itself to the idea that the item is unequal with others of its type and hence subject to classification as superior or inferior.

Since each thing to be evaluated has different intrinisic characteristics, it is not inconsistent to say, for example, that all races are equal whereas all cultures are not. They are inherently and intriniscally composed of different things rending one, on its face, equal with all its counterparts and one, on its face, unequal with its counter parts.

Ok, hopefully, as I have tried to do here, you will step back and take a deep breath and come back at it in a calmer manner (i concede a bit of being snide and rude in my posts and apologize for that since I know it doesn't help explain my position).

I don't think that's so clear. I think you are taking a rather shallow view of what constitutes culture. It is far more than just the prevailing fashions or politics of a few decades. German culture has been a continuous pattern for many centuries -- and the Nazis came out of it -- or at least the men who made up the Nazi movement did. They may have been aberrant individuals who grouped together, but they were aberrant Germans, products of the German culture, and those who are still alive, are still Germans.

The Nazi movement by no means defines German culture, but throughout the Nazi period, Germany remained identifiably German, and it still is.
I respectfully disagree, the Nazi movement did define German culture at that time. German culture changed, however, and the Nazi movement was (and is) no longer the defining element. There were and are undeniably aspects of German culture that were the same then as they are now and as they were 500 years ago. But there are elements that have changed. When the totality of German culture is considered it can be said that German culture has changed since the rise and fall of the 3rd Reich.

How much time does it take for a culture to change?that will depend on many factors. A change can also be significant or minor. I would say minor changes probably happen more or less with each generation and with some generations major changes happen.

I respectfully disagree, the Nazi movement did define German culture at that time. German culture changed, however, and the Nazi movement was (and is) no longer the defining element. There were and are undeniably aspects of German culture that were the same then as they are now and as they were 500 years ago. But there are elements that have changed. When the totality of German culture is considered it can be said that German culture has changed since the rise and fall of the 3rd Reich.
I disagree completely because I think you are looking through the wrong end of the telescope, as it were. The Nazi movement was part of a larger, international fascist/corporatist movement that touched several cultures at the time. But the German Nazis were different from, for instance, the Italian fascists or the Spanish nationalists. They were different because they were German, not Italian or Spanish. Nazism did not define German culture, but to an extent German culture defined Nazism.

And change over time does not mean that the culture is different, any more than the way you change over time means that you stop being you and become someone else. Regardless of how much you change, the people who know you recognize you.

You are still taking the shortest term, most shallow view of the matter in order to justify your argument.

I disagree completely because I think you are looking through the wrong end of the telescope, as it were. The Nazi movement was part of a larger, international fascist/corporatist movement that touched several cultures at the time. But the German Nazis were different from, for instance, the Italian fascists or the Spanish nationalists. They were different because they were German, not Italian or Spanish. Nazism did not define German culture, but to an extent German culture defined Nazism.

And change over time does not mean that the culture is different, any more than the way you change over time means that you stop being you and become someone else. Regardless of how much you change, the people who know you recognize you.

You are still taking the shortest term, most shallow view of the matter in order to justify your argument.

I understand your point and we can agree to disagree on that. But please rest assured, I am not taking the view I have for the purpose of justifying my argument. I take the view I have because that is the view I have, it has nothing to do with any attempt to win or lose or justify anything. It is my view and I am expressing it, I do not form views in order to justify arguments. I use arguments to explain views.
That someone disagrees with my view and/or discounts or disparages my arguments doesn't matter to me. I don't come in here expecting to change anyone's mind. I come here for the practice in expressing and arguing my views.

Yeah, and I've also heard of pathetic prevarication in an attempt to deny that you lost a point. You can't have it both ways. You can't appeal to historical example, then admit that your example is false, and then still appeal to it. Not unless you're trying to be laughed at.

I didn't "appeal" to anything. You asked what the origin was, I gave it to you. You asked for a good reason to keep it, I gave you that too. You've entirely failed to address either, just pointed out that there is a dissonance between them, which is true, but hardly relevant.


Of course you stand by your assertions. You're a bigot. A xenophobic one. You're only reinforcing that impression with every word you say. Also, being aware of your bigoted impulses doesn't help the situation. Keeping your xenophobia on a leash doesn't help anyone if you still let it piss all over our lawns.

And here comes the name calling. Rather than talk about the points of the matter, let's just bury the other guy under epithets and lies.


And this time you even try to buffer yourself from it by admitting your own lack of knowledge while still telling us that you're right.

Yeah, uh-huh. Try again.

Oh, sorry, oh omniscient, all knowing sage, am I not to admit that certain areas I am NOT an expert in? Clearly, you must have half a dozen doctorates and professorhoods, since you can be assumed to be knowledgable in every discilpline, every area of study, omnicompetent in every trade.

Go ahead and crucify me for daring to try to be honest with you. Then go DO THE FUCKING RESEARCH to find out whether I'm right or not, since clearly you don't have a clue.


I didn't say you were rich. I referred to you AND some nervous rich people. I didn't say you were one of them. And you have yet to support your claim to be representative of a general viewpoint. You just keep asserting it over and over. Perhaps this "we" group you prefer above all others is a community of parrots? Is that why you're so good at repeating yourself?

I usually repeat arguments because my opponent simply doesn't address them. I answered the question two posts ago.



And you haven't addressed my final point, which is that I don't believe you'd be making such claims of governmental power to which all must bow if we were talking about all the times that governments lift restrictions on immigration rather than impose them. In fact, Neesika already brought this up, and you ignored her, too. What's the matter, can't think of a comeback for that one?

I don't generally try to do other's thinking for them, M, but in this case, it seems I will have to make an exception.

What part of Absolute Right is it that you don't understand? If someone has an absolute right to do something, such as control immigration, then they may do as they lke with it - raise it, lower it, forbid it, whatever. I the situation is such we need more people, they lower restrictions, if we need less, they raise restrictions. I have no particular problem with any of that.

The real question you need to ask yourself is why YOU would assume I would have a problem with lowering immigration barriers. If it's because I'm not parroting the usual PC pablum on the issue (as I suspect is the case), then I think you've just shown a fair bit more about your own prejudices, than about mine.

I didn't "appeal" to anything. You asked what the origin was, I gave it to you. You asked for a good reason to keep it, I gave you that too. You've entirely failed to address either, just pointed out that there is a dissonance between them, which is true, but hardly relevant.
You did neither such thing. You claimed a historical precedent. Neesika pointed out that the historical condition you claimed never existed. You admitted that yet still said it was a valid support for your argument.

Seriously, you've had this explained to you three times now. If you can't see where you went wrong, well...frankly, I'm not surprised.

And here comes the name calling. Rather than talk about the points of the matter, let's just bury the other guy under epithets and lies.
I gave you a detailed explanation of why the word "bigot" applies to one who posts and defends the kinds of arguments you are making.

As for "xenophobe," that's your word, not mine. You claimed that as the proper name for your arguments and the person who makes them.

Both equally apply as far as I'm concerned.

Oh, sorry, oh omniscient, all knowing sage, am I not to admit that certain areas I am NOT an expert in? Clearly, you must have half a dozen doctorates and professorhoods, since you can be assumed to be knowledgable in every discilpline, every area of study, omnicompetent in every trade.

Go ahead and crucify me for daring to try to be honest with you. Then go DO THE FUCKING RESEARCH to find out whether I'm right or not, since clearly you don't have a clue.
Only you're not right. And if you were honest about it, you wouldn't be making such self-contradictory arguments, because you would have realized that you didn't have the understanding of the issue necessary to formulate an argument that was logical and internally consistent and that would allow you to answer "why" questions concerning it -- which is what you have been failing to do all along.

I usually repeat arguments because my opponent simply doesn't address them. I answered the question two posts ago.
My position is that your "answer" was not responsive. It was evasive and off-point. That is why I am still asking for an answer.

I don't generally try to do other's thinking for them, M, but in this case, it seems I will have to make an exception.

What part of Absolute Right is it that you don't understand?
The part that makes you thing such a thing exists.

If someone has an absolute right to do something, such as control immigration, then they may do as they lke with it - raise it, lower it, forbid it, whatever. I the situation is such we need more people, they lower restrictions, if we need less, they raise restrictions. I have no particular problem with any of that.
However, you have yet to establish that such an absolute right exists at all. You have not answered those posters who have asked you to explain or justify your claim except to continue insisting that "absolute right" exists. Repetition is not explanation.

The real question you need to ask yourself is why YOU would assume I would have a problem with lowering immigration barriers. If it's because I'm not parroting the usual PC pablum on the issue (as I suspect is the case), then I think you've just shown a fair bit more about your own prejudices, than about mine.
No, it's because you say stuff like this last paragraph. ^^

All right, let me try again.

The absolute right exists because the government claimed it does and the populace did not disagree.

Thus it is the same as any other right - claimed by either a group (the populace) or the government, and either successfully defended or not opposed.

That's all.

Should immigration also be regulated by government?

Why or why not?

Yes, so you don't get a ton of people flooding in. Everyone should take a citizenship test.

that will depend on many factors. A change can also be significant or minor. I would say minor changes probably happen more or less with each generation and with some generations major changes happen.If cultures change fairly quickly, then why be concerned with whether or not one is better? It'll be different a few years later anyway.

Yes, so you don't get a ton of people flooding in. Everyone should take a citizenship test.

Should we also have government restrict how many births a female citizen may have? We don't want to have a ton of people flooding in.

Should citizens also have to take the test? Why or why not?

Well, I don't know about whatever country you're in but where I live we got a lot of Poles, Gypsies etc coming in from Eastern Europe to get free healthcare, and they don't even need a visa to get in, so it's not that great.

All right, let me try again.

The absolute right exists because the government claimed it does and the populace did not disagree.

Thus it is the same as any other right - claimed by either a group (the populace) or the government, and either successfully defended or not opposed.

That's all.

Many governments claim rights that the populace agrees with. Historically, the US government claimed the right to exterminate and forcibly remove aboriginal peoples from their land. The citizenry at the time supported these measures.

Now, only a completely amoral person would suggest that governments should have the right to exterminate large segments of the population based solely on popular permissiveness. Logically, we have to have limits on what the government can do within such a framework.

So, the next question is, why should we allow the government to claim this right and not others such as disenfranchising women?

Yes, so you don't get a ton of people flooding in. Everyone should take a citizenship test.

Even those who only wishes to reside in the country for a limited time? Those who would get a work permit now?

If cultures change fairly quickly, then why be concerned with whether or not one is better? It'll be different a few years later anyway.
I'm not concerned about it. I acknowledge it is in a constant state of flux and that an evaluation of superior/inferior status will only be applicable at a fixed period in time. What is superior today may not be so tomorrow. That's ok by me. I was merely making the point that not all cultures are equally as good as all others. Which is better and worse will constantly shift, the point is only that they are not all on an equal footing at all times.

Yes, so you don't get a ton of people flooding in. Everyone should take a citizenship test.

I agree. Everyone should.

Gone should be the days where an immigrant has to be better educated than someone who happened to just 'fall out' the right side of a line.

I agree. Everyone should.

Gone should be the days where an immigrant has to be better educated than someone who happened to just 'fall out' the right side of a line.

Hehe. I think your definition of "everyone" and his differ somewhat. I'm in favor of this one, but mostly because I already know I'd probably pass the test.

Well, I don't know about whatever country you're in but where I live we got a lot of Poles, Gypsies etc coming in from Eastern Europe to get free healthcare, and they don't even need a visa to get in, so it's not that great.

They've free healthcare in Poland too, you know......And no, theres nothing wrong with it - they come for the jobs. As things have started to slide, they've started to go back. Its the way of things.

They've free healthcare in Poland too, you know......And no, theres nothing wrong with it - they come for the jobs. As things have started to slide, they've started to go back. Its the way of things.

maybe it's the way you're saying it, but it sounds like
"we're here for the party, stay for the party, but leave when the party's over and let someone else deal with the mess."

Hehe. I think your definition of "everyone" and his differ somewhat. I'm in favor of this one, but mostly because I already know I'd probably pass the test.

I have no doubt his definition of 'everyone' differs from mine. People often have a way of interpreting the language such that 'bad' things are things that other people do, and 'everyone' includes everyone except them.

I'm actually pretty sincere about it - if you require some kind of academic qualification to be allowed to become a citizen, it is discriminatory to allow someone to become a citizen by virtue of birth.

Perhaps those born within the borders should be allowed 'contingent' citizenships, to be withdrawn after the 18th year if they have - by that point - failed to pass a test.

Many governments claim rights that the populace agrees with. Historically, the US government claimed the right to exterminate and forcibly remove aboriginal peoples from their land. The citizenry at the time supported these measures.

Now, only a completely amoral person would suggest that governments should have the right to exterminate large segments of the population based solely on popular permissiveness. Logically, we have to have limits on what the government can do within such a framework.

So, the next question is, why should we allow the government to claim this right and not others such as disenfranchising women?

Now, THAT'S a good question. Like the disenfranchisement of women, control of immigration can be claimed to harm a segment of the population (those refused entry), and similarly, it does not conform to the prevailing standard ideology.

The only reasons I can find for permitting it's continuation are 1) Economic (massive population shifts create economic instablity via tax losses and gains, import and export variances and infrastructure overstress) and 2) Purely pragmatic (individual nations can only support x number of people).

The original xenophobia that caused the right to be seized in the first place is no longer really a sufficient issue.

The only reasons I can find for permitting it's continuation are 1) Economic (massive population shifts create economic instablity via tax losses and gains, import and export variances and infrastructure overstress) and 2) Purely pragmatic (individual nations can only support x number of people).


Within credible limits, neither of those things is actually a problem - or even true.

If you have rational immigration, you are taking pretty good care to make sure you have all the right data on your immigrants, and can ensure they fit without issue, into the pay-and-tax structure, etc.

And, there's not much of a downside to increasing tax revenue.

If you have rational immigration, a nation like the US (which currently holds what... 300 million?) could hold far, far more. A nation like the UK is home to a ballpark 60 million, and you could wedge it INTO Georgia. What you couldn't do, is maintain the kind of wide-blue-yonder attitude and perspective, when you had 2 or 3 billion people in the US. But, you could put them here, and - provided the US found some way to be competetive in the world markets, you could sustain them here.

Within credible limits, neither of those things is actually a problem - or even true.

If you have rational immigration, you are taking pretty good care to make sure you have all the right data on your immigrants, and can ensure they fit without issue, into the pay-and-tax structure, etc.

And, there's not much of a downside to increasing tax revenue.

If you have rational immigration, a nation like the US (which currently holds what... 300 million?) could hold far, far more. A nation like the UK is home to a ballpark 60 million, and you could wedge it INTO Georgia. What you couldn't do, is maintain the kind of wide-blue-yonder attitude and perspective, when you had 2 or 3 billion people in the US. But, you could put them here, and - provided the US found some way to be competetive in the world markets, you could sustain them here.

With rational immigration, I completely agree with you. But how do you ensure the levels of immigration are rational without government control?

With rational immigration, I completely agree with you. But how do you ensure the levels of immigration are rational without government control?

Does it have to be without government control? There is a big difference between an obstructive immigration policy... and rational immigration. You could practically open the borders and still have 'rational' immigration, provided you made efforts to coordinate where people were moving in and out of the country, and to both track, and assist those doing so.

But it doesn't explicitly require government. There are other mechanisms, some of which are self-limiting natural factors of rapid immigration (like the new equilibrium in economies).

im a bit disapointed he didnt mention the carrying capacity of America. There is always some king of limitation to how many people can live in an area. What is that number? How can you make sure it dosnt exceed that point.

All countries should be capable of supplying food and water to their own people. If there are too many people within America there will be some starving to death. Migration is the easiest factor to change in population growth. Its time it was used as such to reach a sustainable population

im a bit disapointed he didnt mention the carrying capacity of America. There is always some king of limitation to how many people can live in an area. What is that number? How can you make sure it dosnt exceed that point.

All countries should be capable of supplying food and water to their own people. If there are too many people within America there will be some starving to death. Migration is the easiest factor to change in population growth. Its time it was used as such to reach a sustainable population

True this.




300 Years Ago:rolleyes:

maybe it's the way you're saying it, but it sounds like
"we're here for the party, stay for the party, but leave when the party's over and let someone else deal with the mess."
Not really how it is, though. More :

"we'll do your shittiest and most underpaid jobs for a bit to make some money, then leave"

Also, you don't get free healthcare here unless you are a British citizen or an EU member here on a holiday. You have to pay if you come here for medical treatment, and I believe you also have to pay here if you come for a job without sorting your papers out properly even within the EU.

I understand your point and we can agree to disagree on that. But please rest assured, I am not taking the view I have for the purpose of justifying my argument. I take the view I have because that is the view I have, it has nothing to do with any attempt to win or lose or justify anything. It is my view and I am expressing it, I do not form views in order to justify arguments. I use arguments to explain views.

That someone disagrees with my view and/or discounts or disparages my arguments doesn't matter to me. I don't come in here expecting to change anyone's mind. I come here for the practice in expressing and arguing my views.
Sorry, when I said "justify your argument," I did not mean that you had made it up for the purpose of this discussion. You were using it to explain the reasoning behind ("justify," as in demonstrate the balanced foundation of) your argument that Nazism was a distinct culture, different from other presumed German cultures. I think you failed, however, to demonstrate that.

However, I also think this is beside the point of whether there is a valid foundation upon which to judge one culture as superior to another. In reference to Nazism, the criticism has been that you are creating a cultural distinction that does not actually exist in order to create an example in support of your argument. However, I agree with those who have focused on another, far more fatal, flaw in your argument, namely that the criteria for making such judgments are entirely subjective and personal to whoever is doing the judging in any given instance.

All right, let me try again.

The absolute right exists because the government claimed it does and the populace did not disagree.

Thus it is the same as any other right - claimed by either a group (the populace) or the government, and either successfully defended or not opposed.

That's all.
If the populace CAN disagree (ever, at any time, or for any reason) AND can do something about it (like vote the bastards out or stage a revolution) then the claimed right is not absolute, and down comes your house of cards.

If the populace CAN disagree (ever, at any time, or for any reason) AND can do something about it (like vote the bastards out or stage a revolution) then the claimed right is not absolute, and down comes your house of cards.

Not in the least. An absolute right is simply one which is not in any way limited or subject to review or overrule.

The government most assuredly has that currently with regards to immigration and immigration policy.

That rght could be revoked, or made non-absolute, if the popuklace willed it to be so.

If the populace CAN disagree (ever, at any time, or for any reason) AND can do something about it (like vote the bastards out or stage a revolution) then the claimed right is not absolute, and down comes your house of cards.Not in the least. An absolute right is simply one which is not in any way limited or subject to review or overrule.
Seems like you guys are using two versions of the term 'absolute'.

Yes, the government has the absolute right (in the sense of rights within the state), as the ultimate authority in the state, to determine immigration, etc., but it doesn't have the absolute right (in the sense of rights within the universe as a whole) to enforce it's authority, as the populace can rebel.

Semantics are fun.

Not in the least. An absolute right is simply one which is not in any way limited or subject to review or overrule.

The government most assuredly has that currently with regards to immigration and immigration policy.

That rght could be revoked, or made non-absolute, if the popuklace willed it to be so.
Any right that can be taken away or restricted is not an absolute right. You don't get to have it both ways. You don't get to claim an absolute right of government as justification for immigration restrictions, and in the same argument acknowledge that said "right" is limited and restricted by the consent of the governed. If such a right was absolute in the government, then the people would have no legal ability to make changes to it, and any attempt to do so would be a violation of law. I challenge you to show that this is the case.

If you were making a realistic argument, you might say that a government holds power (not a right) over immigration policy, by consent of the governed, and that said power may, from time to time, increase or decrease in scope, again following the will of the governed. That would be accurate, but it does not support the rest of your argument.

Any right that can be taken away or restricted is not an absolute right. You don't get to have it both ways. You don't get to claim an absolute right of government as justification for immigration restrictions, and in the same argument acknowledge that said "right" is limited and restricted by the consent of the governed.
Yes you can.

An absolute right can still be limited; it's not the same as absolute power to enforce said right. For example, when I'm on holiday from work or uni, I have an absolute right to sleep when I want to; I'm the ultimate authority over my body and its sleeping patterns.

That doesn't mean I can enforce that absolute right. I might be woken up by, say, a noisy bird outside my window.

Similarly, a copyright holder has an absolute right to distribute or withhold distribution of his or her copyrighted works, yet may very well be unable to enforce said right.

Seems like you guys are using two versions of the term 'absolute'.

Yes, the government has the absolute right (in the sense of rights within the state), as the ultimate authority in the state, to determine immigration, etc., but it doesn't have the absolute right (in the sense of rights within the universe as a whole) to enforce it's authority, as the populace can rebel.

Semantics are fun.
Yeah, D is using a version that doesn't actually exist.

And actually, legally, governments do not have rights at all. They have powers and privileges, not rights.

My position is that government power over immigration control is held by consent of the governed. The level of power and the kinds of policies it enforces varies from time to time. The mere existence of such a power does not in any way suggest some kind of a "right" over something that is unassailable as a reason for why this or that must or must not be done or is or is not possible -- which is how D has been attempting to use it.

Reading back over his arguments, one sees that he has attempted to claim this "right" of the government to restrict immigration as the causative support for his assertion that all countries restrict immigration. He has not only failed to prove that the elements of his argument actually exist, he has also failed to show how they related to each other. I dismiss his argument as just a fantastical non sequitur. He claims that there is some kind of necessity to restricting immigration that gives governments some kind of "absolute right" to do so. He ignores the fact that countless governments at various times have done the exact opposite of restricting immigration, which undermines his claims about (a) what's good or bad for a country and (b) what governments do. He has also failed to give a rational explanation for his assertion that a government can have "rights" and that those rights are "absolute" -- at least he has not so far attempted to provide any explanation that goes deeper that "it just is."

im a bit disapointed he didnt mention the carrying capacity of America. There is always some king of limitation to how many people can live in an area. What is that number? How can you make sure it dosnt exceed that point.

All countries should be capable of supplying food and water to their own people. If there are too many people within America there will be some starving to death. Migration is the easiest factor to change in population growth. Its time it was used as such to reach a sustainable population
That was true until one-hundred years ago, when the Otis Elevator Company installed a massive safety brake under the continent. The only problem we have to worry about now is the slight inconvenience waiting for the fire department to come and open the doors for us.

I have no doubt his definition of 'everyone' differs from mine. People often have a way of interpreting the language such that 'bad' things are things that other people do, and 'everyone' includes everyone except them.


Who says I'm a he? My everyone means everyone.

Yes you can.

An absolute right can still be limited; it's not the same as absolute power to enforce said right. For example, when I'm on holiday from work or uni, I have an absolute right to sleep when I want to; I'm the ultimate authority over my body and its sleeping patterns.

That doesn't mean I can enforce that absolute right. I might be woken up by, say, a noisy bird outside my window.

Similarly, a copyright holder has an absolute right to distribute or withhold distribution of his or her copyrighted works, yet may very well be unable to enforce said right.
I fail to see any reasoning behind the idea that a right that can be taken away is absolute. All I see is an equivocation with language that amounts to little more than, "Well, it's absolute if I choose to describe it thus, regardless of how it actually functions in reality."

Also, a "sole" right is not an absolute "right." You are the sole controller over your body (though biologically, you do not actually have total control over its sleep patterns, any more than any other involuntary body function), but that does not mean you have the right to just lie down and sleep whenever, wherever you want. For instance, you may not have the legal right to sleep on a bench in a public park in many places. The cop who rouses you and makes you move along is not violating your rights to bodily integrity and control.

Finally, I still fail to see how governments can have rights, except as another loose use of a word.

Yeah, D is using a version that doesn't actually exist.
I don't think so; see above

And actually, legally, governments do not have rights at all. They have powers and privileges, not rights.
I'd disagree. Governments, within their own jurisdictions, have the right to do many things. This is a right asserted by them and backed up with force and (usually) popular assent. Governments in the western world have rights to do many, many things, including removing children from parents in certain situations, collecting tax money, imprisoning citizens, etc.; many destructive, intrusive things.

These rights, certainly, are only there because the governments (or the previous leading authority of the state) asserted them and can back them up, but as someone who does not believe in natural rights, that's how I see rights for individuals also.

(Moreover, is a right not simply a privilege combined with at least some form of power? My rights, as defined under the ECHR, the UNCHR, the constitution of the UK, etc., are privileges I have to exercise my liberty in certain ways, or to be free from certain impositions, backed up with power. All our rights are granted to us by states or international institutions.

But, this is a side-track.)

My position is that government power over immigration control is held by consent of the governed. The level of power and the kinds of policies it enforces varies from time to time. The mere existence of such a power does not in any way suggest some kind of a "right" over something that is unassailable as a reason for why this or that must or must not be done or is or is not possible -- which is how D has been attempting to use it.
Again, you seem to be talking about natural or universal rights; the natural or universal rights of people to move where they wish, as opposed to a right asserted by a government to limit that movement. Is this approaching your position?


P.S.

Don't you hate it when your posting and the posting of the person you're debating with are out of sync?

I fail to see any reasoning behind the idea that a right that can be taken away is absolute.
Because an absolute right is not an absolute power. Any right can be breached. Many would say that we have an absolute right to life (and others would add 'liberty' and 'property'). But that absolute right can be taken away by a murderer.

What absolute rights are there, if you claim they can't be taken away? An absolute right means, in my thinking, that any breach of that right is always wrong; not that the breach is impossible.

Finally, I still fail to see how governments can have rights, except as another loose use of a word.
Because they assert rights, often in constitutions, and these rights are backed up by power and accepted by other governments, the populace, international institutions, etc.

As I've shown above, there are many, many rights that a government has. Rights to interfere in your life in many, many ways.

maybe it's the way you're saying it, but it sounds like
"we're here for the party, stay for the party, but leave when the party's over and let someone else deal with the mess."

Well...theres no mess. Theres just no work.

I don't think so; see above
Yes, I'm aware, on the basis of the above, that you don't think so. I refer you also to the above to remind you that the disagreement is mutual.

I'd disagree. Governments, within their own jurisdictions, have the right to do many things. This is a right asserted by them and backed up with force and (usually) popular assent. Governments in the western world have rights to do many, many things, including removing children from parents in certain situations, collecting tax money, imprisoning citizens, etc.; many destructive, intrusive things.

These rights, certainly, are only there because the governments (or the previous leading authority of the state) asserted them and can back them up, but as someone who does not believe in natural rights, that's how I see rights for individuals also.
Replace the bolded word "right(s)" with the word "power(s)", and that would be my position regarding what governments have and do.

Do you see now where the disconnect is?

(Moreover, is a right not simply a privilege combined with at least some form of power? My rights, as defined under the ECHR, the UNCHR, the constitution of the UK, etc., are privileges I have to exercise my liberty in certain ways, or to be free from certain impositions, backed up with power. All our rights are granted to us by states or international institutions.
I disagree because I do not believe it is legitimate to describe such things as access to food and water, for example, as a "privilege" on the grounds that there is no legitimate reason to deny such access to any person under any circumstances.

But, this is a side-track.)
Agreed, but what is not a side-track is my position that no right that can be taken away or restricted by lawful means can legitimately be described as "absolute."

If there is a socially recognized "right" to free speech, but that right can be restricted within the framework of the law by disallowing certain kinds of speech (such as slander) or by taking it away altogether (such as by a court-mandated "gag order"), then that right is not absolute.

Likewise, if a government has the power to restrict immigration, but that power can be curtailed by the will of the governed from time to time within the framework of the law, then that power is not absolute.

Again, you seem to be talking about natural or universal rights; the natural or universal rights of people to move where they wish, as opposed to a right asserted by a government to limit that movement. Is this approaching your position?
No, it is not. I have made no assertions regarding whether people hold a "right" to move from country to country at all.

I have been arguing only against (A) the claim that governments hold a "right" to restrict immigration on the grounds that governments don't have "rights"; (B) the claim that any such supposed "right" is "absolute" despite being legally restrictable on the grounds that if it can be legally restricted then it is not absolute; and (C) the attempt to claim that the existence of such a right (if any such thing did actually exist) would serve to justify a claim that immigration restriction is the natural choice for all nations on the grounds that not all nations have always made that choice (that's the non sequitur part of the argument I have been attacking).

P.S.

Don't you hate it when your posting and the posting of the person you're debating with are out of sync?
That's the main reason I freaked slightly when the multi-quote button disappeared for a day.

Because an absolute right is not an absolute power. Any right can be breached. Many would say that we have an absolute right to life (and others would add 'liberty' and 'property'). But that absolute right can be taken away by a murderer.

What absolute rights are there, if you claim they can't be taken away? An absolute right means, in my thinking, that any breach of that right is always wrong; not that the breach is impossible.
Well, to a great extent, I do not believe that anything is "absolute." So, in that way, that would support what you are saying above. However, that is not really the right sense in which to talk about this.

Rights are legal constructs. The fact that a law can be broken does not invalidate or change the nature of the law. Only the law can alter the law.

So when it comes to thinking about the nature of a right, the actions of those who violate our rights outside the law, such as the actions of murderers and thieves, does not alter the nature of the legal construct that is the right in question.

However, if the law restricts a right, operating within its own framework and in accordance with its own generally accepted rules, then that does affect the nature of the right itself.

This is the difference between a restriction of a right and a violation of a right.

Because they assert rights, often in constitutions, and these rights are backed up by power and accepted by other governments, the populace, international institutions, etc.

As I've shown above, there are many, many rights that a government has. Rights to interfere in your life in many, many ways.
As before, replace the bolded word "rights" with "powers", and you will have stated my position in re what governments have and do.

Yes, I'm aware, on the basis of the above, that you don't think so. I refer you also to the above to remind you that the disagreement is mutual.


Replace the bolded word "right(s)" with the word "power(s)", and that would be my position regarding what governments have and do.

Do you see now where the disconnect is?


I disagree because I do not believe it is legitimate to describe such things as access to food and water, for example, as a "privilege" on the grounds that there is no legitimate reason to deny such access to any person under any circumstances.


Agreed, but what is not a side-track is my position that no right that can be taken away or restricted by lawful means can legitimately be described as "absolute."

If there is a socially recognized "right" to free speech, but that right can be restricted within the framework of the law by disallowing certain kinds of speech (such as slander) or by taking it away altogether (such as by a court-mandated "gag order"), then that right is not absolute.

Likewise, if a government has the power to restrict immigration, but that power can be curtailed by the will of the governed from time to time within the framework of the law, then that power is not absolute.


No, it is not. I have made no assertions regarding whether people hold a "right" to move from country to country at all.

I have been arguing only against (A) the claim that governments hold a "right" to restrict immigration on the grounds that governments don't have "rights"; (B) the claim that any such supposed "right" is "absolute" despite being legally restrictable on the grounds that if it can be legally restricted then it is not absolute; and (C) the attempt to claim that the existence of such a right (if any such thing did actually exist) would serve to justify a claim that immigration restriction is the natural choice for all nations on the grounds that not all nations have always made that choice (that's the non sequitur part of the argument I have been attacking).


That's the main reason I freaked slightly when the multi-quote button disappeared for a day.


Well, to a great extent, I do not believe that anything is "absolute." So, in that way, that would support what you are saying above. However, that is not really the right sense in which to talk about this.

Rights are legal constructs. The fact that a law can be broken does not invalidate or change the nature of the law. Only the law can alter the law.

So when it comes to thinking about the nature of a right, the actions of those who violate our rights outside the law, such as the actions of murderers and thieves, does not alter the nature of the legal construct that is the right in question.

However, if the law restricts a right, operating within its own framework and in accordance with its own generally accepted rules, then that does affect the nature of the right itself.

This is the difference between a restriction of a right and a violation of a right.


As before, replace the bolded word "rights" with "powers", and you will have stated my position in re what governments have and do.

Alright, I can see your point, but I have to say, I see this as a distinction without a difference. If it has the power to do something, and it is legal for government to do that something, then is it not the same as saying it has the right to do that something?

Alright, I can see your point, but I have to say, I see this as a distinction without a difference. If it has the power to do something, and it is legal for government to do that something, then is it not the same as saying it has the right to do that something?
No, it is not because rights and powers are NOT the same thing.

Who says I'm a he? My everyone means everyone.

You're from Bristol, of course you're a 'he'. There are no girls in Bristol.

In other words 'he' is being used as a generic reference, with no actual assumption of your real-life gender, attached.

If your 'everyone' means the same as mine, then good. I believe citizenship should be equally applied - if immigrants have to test to attain it, non-immigrants should have to do the same. If we are in agreement, I have no arguments.

No, it is not because rights and powers are NOT the same thing.

Theoretically. However, functionally, it is the same thing. Having the right to do something indicates that you are given possession of control over that thing, at least insofar as it affects you. the very definition of power is possession of control.

Theoretically. However, functionally, it is the same thing. Having the right to do something indicates that you are given possession of control over that thing, at least insofar as it affects you. the very definition of power is possession of control.
You are wrong.

Having a right to something does NOT indicate that you have "possession of control" over that thing, even insofar as it affects you. It is generally accepted that people have the right to access food and water, but are people in refugee camps in war-torn areas of Africa able to control their access to food and water? No, they do not have that power, regardless of whatever right they may have.

Having a right does not automatically give you the power to exercise or defend that right. Likewise, having the power to do something does not automatically give you the right to do that thing. "Right" and "power" are not the same thing.

If it were not so, then there would be no such thing as legitiimate restrictions on rights and no such thing as oppression (an illegitimate restriction/repression of rights). This is because, on the one hand, if rights and power went hand in hand, then the government would have no ability to restrict rights (as by disallowing slander as protected speech), and on the other hand, if power and rights went hand in hand (in that order), then nothing the government did to its citizens could ever be considered oppressive or illegitimate, because "might makes right" and if they have the power to do something, then they have the right to do it, too.

However, in reality (not theory), that's not how it works.

Clomata,

Let me phrase it a different way so maybe you understand what I have been trying (apparently unartfully) to convey. I understand your point, but I'm not so sure you understand mine or why the argument you are trying to make about my points doesn't apply in my opinion.

[quote]Either a culture, race, religion, whatever, is equal to all others of its kind intrinsically due to the very nature of the item in question or they are unequal with one being superior to another due to the intrinsic nature of the item in question. It is when one is intrinsically, due to its nature, unequal with others of its kind, that various criteria can be used to determine or judge which one is superior and which is inferior. In other words, in my opinio, on their face, some things can be said to be equal and some things can be said to be unequal.

Earlier you said whether or how a culture, race or religion was superior or not was based simply on the standards used to judge them.

Now you're saying it's some inherent, objective part of their nature.

You're actually making less sense now.

For example, a race is, in my opinion, intrinsically, due to its very nature, equal to any and all other races. It is essential to the real nature of a human that it be of some race. You can't have a race w/o a person first. You can have people that aren't black, but you can't have blacks without people. The essential characteristics of race render race a neutral item with no race being superior to another. Race is a static condition encompassing a single concept.

On the other hand, in my opinion (since you take issue with the idea it could be a factual assertion), a culture can be, due to its intrinsic nature, unequal with another culture.

Look, I get that it's your opinion, but your reasoning is flawed. Since according to your own thinking I can say, "It is essential to the real nature of a human that it be of some culture. You can't have a culture w/o a person first. You can have people that aren't Californian, but you can't have Californians without people. The essential characteristics of culture render culture a neutral item with no culture being superior to another. Culture is a static condition encompassing a single concept."

Now why is it you think you can say that about race and it's true, but not culture?

I'm not even addressing why you think a phrase like "the essential characteristics of $item render $item a neutral item with no $item being superior" is any kind of reasoning at all.

It is therefore possible to state one culture is superior to another. Cultures are fluid and change with time and leaderhip. They are not static and are composed of many different things, they do not embrace a single concept like race does.

Races are fluid and change with time and breeding. They also change according to definition. And they definitely don't embrace a single concept.

As a result they are, inherently, by their very nature, unequal.

If your above was your only reasoning, then you are also arguing that races are, inherently, by their very nature, unequal.

Which is superior and which is not will be based on the criteria used to judge the multiple similarities and differences.

A culture that is inferior today can, by a shift in the attitude of its members and the undertaking of a new set of behaviors become superior tomorrow. On the other hand, a Chinese person can do anything he wants to do, he'll always be Chinese, he cannot change his race.

So what if he can't change his race - what does that have to do with whether one race is superior to another?

Here's the fun bit - "Chinese" can be a description of culture, and it can also be a description of race. So for racists, your argument is ideal since it allows them to say "Chinese are inferior," and claim not to be racist since they are talking about the culture.

Even though in this case it's the exact same damn thing, you say that Chinese can be a superior/inferior 'culture,' but not a completely equal 'race.'


The question is then what intrinsic characteristics will require a finding that something is equal or unequal. I would suggest that the characteristics that are important will change depending on the item being evaluated for the purpose of determing its equality with others of its kind. An intrinsic characteristic that is static and completely unchangeable by the thing being measured is an important characteristic (but is not the determining one in all cases) that lends itself to the idea that the item is equal to all others of its type (like race) whereas an inherent characteristic that is subject to and can be changed by the item itself (like the morays of a culture can be changed by the culture itself) lends itself to the idea that the item is unequal with others of its type and hence subject to classification as superior or inferior.


I don't agree that being 'static and unchangeable' amounts to 'is equal' while being 'changeable and fluid' amounts to 'can be superior or inferior.' You can assert that these characteristics 'lend themselves' to superiority/equality but I don't see how they even matter to the subject.


Ok, hopefully, as I have tried to do here, you will step back and take a deep breath and come back at it in a calmer manner (i concede a bit of being snide and rude in my posts and apologize for that since I know it doesn't help explain my position).

I accept your apology but the more you explain your position the less I agree with it.

There are no girls in Bristol.

There aren't?

Well I certainly couldn't agree more. I especially like his comment about the difference in society during the time of mass immigration from Europe. Sowell noted how society demanded assimilation, integration and Americanization of immigrants, where as compared to today, social trends are just the opposite.

What do you think of this article and the way it applies to the great immigraiton/assimilation/multiculturalism debate?



You know, I might be a bit naive in that aspect, but ... who defined what American society was, and what the immigrants had to adapt to?
If I recall corretly, it was basically immigrants that had been there for a little longer than the newly arrived immigrants, right?

There aren't?
Nope, just men without beards. I used to live fairly nearby, I know this to be true.

There aren't?

Oooh, this is gonna be awkward....