What's wrong with saying...
- Thread starter infoterror
- Start date
veil the sky
Lexicon V
infoterror said:
I think you are wrong, some of these ARE accepted amongst the mainstream, if only implicitly by it's behaviour, if not explicitly through it's legislation.
1. Jewish culture and values are different enough from my own that I don't want to force them to coexist.
nobody is forcing jews to co-exist are they? and fundamental jews don't integrate by nature of their religion of itself, which is why they can't become part of society in general in the same way many other religions can. that is why they have israel!
2. All other races would make poor breeding partners for my people, as it would cause us as a unique population to cease to exist.
this assumes that the purpose of breeding is to maintain uniquity of populations (by which you mean races)
what you really mean to propose is that 'breeding with other races will do 'poorly' for my people' (again by which you mean race)
the only meaningful question here without purely discussing semantics is whether uniquity in races is something which we should seek to preserve, which i believe it is. but is that necessarily by prohibiting interracial breeding? i don't believe so, i think that is too high a price to pay. is it by setting in place cultural structures and social principles which preserve and strengthen those cultures themselves and perpetuate them? i believe yes it is.
i can't tell where you stand between these two positions.
3. The pursuit of money and power replaces culture and values systems, thus we should cultivate culture before we worry about developing our economy.
what if a defining attribute of your culture is inextricable from economic prosperity? cultures themselves only exist by virtue of the struggle of man against the state of nature into which he was born, so all cultures work by one method or other to make mankind prosper. economics is just one manifestation or facet of this. having said that i think there is value in the diversity of culture as well as in fundamental ethical principles. economic strength on it's own isn't enough to sustain a populus, there must be a balance between economic prospertity and ethical stability as well as other things. i don't think you can separate culture from economics quite so easily. it just seems easier to imagine living in an affluent culture where we take prosperity for granted.
4. People are of different levels of quality, and we should breed them toward the highest level possible.
this proposition only makes sense if you assume that people are 'born with innate levels of ability' with which i only partially agree.
you could argue that 'people are of different levels of quality' because we have 'bred them' as such, rather than the other way round, and we should 'foster' all people to the highest possible level of quality.
it is also true that certain people are apt at certain and different things. so to what are you saying we should 'breed them toward the highest level possible'? the highest level ofwhat?
5. Some have better judgment skills than others, thus they should rule.
they do rule. all successful cultures are set up so that this happens.
Actually the divorce rate from the last census was 59% and increasing. I'd say its over 60% by now. Once all the older couples start dying off, it'll be at least 75%.
infoterror said:
There must be a reason why the other 50% stay together, and that reason could easily be love. So you're back where you started. Now wasn't that a waste of time?
10293847 said:
I wouldnt say love is the reason the 50% stays together. Thats a rather idealistic notion, and frankly not very realistic. Ask middle aged or elderly couples, or spend some time with them to find out why they are still together. For most they have become friends, and they have gotten used to each other. Others stay married for the sake of the children, for financial reasons, because they cant stand loneliness and so on. Sure some stay in love, but I sure wouldnt call it a majority.
And love is almost totally irrational and fallible; thats what is so wonderful and at the same time problematic about it.
speed said:
The point I was trying to make is that there isn't one sole reason why someone stays together or doesn't. Not every person that divorces does so because they have fallen out of love. They could still be in love, but other circumstances could have risen to cause the seperation.
Love is such a personal issue, that to call it "irrational and fallible" is "not very realistic" and representiave of all.
The Hubster: In all honesty, how can you support muilticulturalism when you live in a Sydney area, haven't you seen how dominate one race/culture becomes over the other? There are some areas (very poor ones I might add) of Sydney where the ratio of Europeans to Asians is 1:8. Races cannot co-exist, regardless of what you may think.
infoterror said:
1. It’s your opinion and you have every right to think it - be it biased or flawed in some way is always up for debate, I for one will not express an opinion on this. However on the remark on “forced co-existence”, well, you can usually never force things to happen anyway in cultures – otherwise you will create many problems down the road. (off topic but Christianity did do this, which may be why some of the problems exist today not only “in the west” but all over the world).
2. Well, this is actually a flawed argument on many accounts. First it seems that the term “race” is being thrown around like people of other races are different people – this is not true, there is far less of a genetic difference between groups than of people of the same group (Ex: There is more variation between Africans themselves than compared to Africans and Asians). Not to mention that if you bring up different people’s based on their old migration patterns you will see that yes there are instances when heredity can play a part in cleaning the gene pool if it were (Anasazi Jews for instance and the genetic disability that unfortunately plagues them (Jewish/German descent), but there are also parts where it helps clean it up – because more than likely the case of the Anasazi is that one person had this gene as a recessive trait and it just kept getting passed on and on until it ran through the entire people (every group of people has something like this in them – for good and bad consequences). Not only this but also on an even more scientific level race is equal to species and vice versa, we are all of the genus homo so….these arguments of “non interbreeding because their different” is actually purely cultural, and has nothing to do with biology.
3. I agree, but this could be gone into depth more I would really enjoy reading your view on this more.
4. Well, I’m not sure how to think by what you mean in this, it is pretty vague as there are at least a couple notions of widely different concepts that jumped in my head when I read this – of course their would be definite repercussions and cultural clashes..
5. Judgment skills in what sense? For example the view of justice? Justice itself is still flawed in our government and everywhere else – be it because it’s a human construct or something we cannot ever attain due to our current majority behavior….I’ll stop here because it would branch out into other things – but what kind of judgment skills do you speak of?
derek
Grey Eminence
veil the sky said:
I tend to agree with what you've said. But i can see sense in the other position. Not necessarily it's logic, or pragamatic workings, as you have pointed out. But i see alot of sense in the general stance.
What i mean by this is: Do we spend too MUCH time searching for money and power? And if so does that upset the balance you have suggested? I agree that economics cannot be seperated from culture with a clear divide, but I think it is possible we can off-throw a delicate balance and do harm to our culture by focusing on our economy.
It makes sense to me to think as the economy and culture as reasonably mutually co-dependent, but not to the point where one essentially becomes the other.
veil the sky
Lexicon V
i personally believe that yes, in my own modern day society, there is an imbalance towards economic prosperity in itself rather than the whole, wider picture of cultural prosperity. i do wish that more people would take interest in the characteristics of our cultural identity, and realise how they help to sustain our way of life. the people who have this insight tend to be the people living outside of the cosmopolitan city centres, who are becoming increasingly marginalised and discriminated against by those in power. that's why i vote conservative!
the reason that the other aspects of culture are important is that good economics might bring financial prosperity and strength to a community, but it wont do anything for it's ethical well being; its behavioural problems, its dealings with crime etc.
a degree of diversity in a culture should ensure this balance. a healthy culture will contain both economically minded people, ethically or religiously minded people, scientifically minded people, military minded people etc etc. this way a culture shouldn't become too distorted one way or other, and is stable and provides the sustenance to the community that it is supposed to!
the reason that the other aspects of culture are important is that good economics might bring financial prosperity and strength to a community, but it wont do anything for it's ethical well being; its behavioural problems, its dealings with crime etc.
a degree of diversity in a culture should ensure this balance. a healthy culture will contain both economically minded people, ethically or religiously minded people, scientifically minded people, military minded people etc etc. this way a culture shouldn't become too distorted one way or other, and is stable and provides the sustenance to the community that it is supposed to!
WhiteBoyFunk
Married to Metal
- Oct 28, 2005
- 22
- 0
- 1
This thread has gone severely off topic. Between people taking part in pissing contests and my scrolling to avoid it I have lost my train of though. How upsetting. :Smug:
Kenneth R.
Cináed
1. then don't live by them.infoterror said:
2. unproven, unverified.
3. agreed.
4. unproven, unverified.
5. agreed.
derek
Grey Eminence
veil the sky said:
I agree with everything...except voting conservative...whats wrong with you?:Spin:
veil the sky said:
When it comes to economy in modern society. Everybody's just out there with the only drive to sustain themselves and not much more.
Yes, diversity is needed. Variety of people with different traits and expertise are needed to keep it going. But, multi-culturalism doesnt work. Even though that word is used to death and its lost its meaning. Hey look at me I used the word diversity because I'm open minded.
veil the sky
Lexicon V
multiculturalism?
where the hell did you get that from? i never mentioned anything whatsoever to do with multiculturalism....
where the hell did you get that from? i never mentioned anything whatsoever to do with multiculturalism....
Freanan
Member
infoterror said:
1. If with "don't want to coexist" you mean you do not want those values to coexist within the same society i pretty much agree - the same way as i would agree about the same statements if they were coined for other imported religions.
I still think that it can only be good to take a look at other people's value systems. or discuss with people holding different beliefs. It will show you flaws in your belief system and maybe inspire you to borrough singular traits of the other belief-system - or at least if it seems totally wrong to you it makes you see another example why your beliefs are more true to you.
If with "don't want them to coexist" you mean coexistence in the same world... Well as everytime when talking about ethics i can't in any way prove that this view would be wrong. But i simply disagree with it, as i think there are different belief systems (== strategies of survival), because different kinds of people in different parts of the world have different needs.
2. Hm, again i can't rationally prove that wrong, but it is arguable if the preservation of a singular special race of humans is that important.
If it is important to you personally, don't breed with people of other races...
So... i can't see any reason why your point of view is wrong. Maybe i even share it - but it is really irrelevant to me whether other people of my race share it too, or if they will rather go and build up mixed race couples...
3. I agree!
4. I agree that people are of different values. But i do not agree on the idea that other humans can really judge that values. Only nature knows who is most fit for survival.
Thus i also would never try to breed "better humans", apart from letting nature do it's work + trying to better myself and to propagate my personal belief system.
5. That's true in some way.
A pro-democratic person might still argue that modern democracy handels the consequences of this by having professional politicians rule...
derek
Grey Eminence
I wouldn't say most modern politicians are the most able people to lead, purely because they are elected democratically. it's clear to many that the pure democratic process of voting for a person to run things for you has long died. Most politicians gain power because of their wealth, backgrounds, contacts etc, rather than their innate and superior ability to make more fitting judgements that others.
Final_Product said:
Very very true. The local elections last week proved this point. Almost everyone running for a position was either the son, daughter, or nephew of a powerful company, law firm, or politician. A few others were very well-connected. The well qualified people running that did so out of civic duty, or because they thought they could help the city, generally finish last, and dont have any financial backing. It is ridiculous to think the most able people run for politics.
Freanan
Member
I know all that... I merely wanted to state that a pro-democratic person might argue that politicians are elected for their ability.
Of course this is only true to some degree (also depending on the country you live in), or not true at all...
On the other hand somebody who is only in his or her position for having connections might still be better then "the people" doing it all themselves, because he still will probably at least have a political education.
So he might be not the best choice, but still better then joe average...
Of course this is only true to some degree (also depending on the country you live in), or not true at all...
On the other hand somebody who is only in his or her position for having connections might still be better then "the people" doing it all themselves, because he still will probably at least have a political education.
So he might be not the best choice, but still better then joe average...
