RE: The changing face of America

RE: The changing face of America (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Aylee -> RE: The changing face of America (3/26/2011 10:58:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee ~Fast Reply~ Nope. I am tired of celebrating diversity. I do not think that it is even healthy to do so. Celebrating diversity means celebrating differences. So first those differences have to be enumerated. Which leads to stereotyping and pigeon-holing people into some one-dimensional view. It also sets up an Us versus Them mentality. You see it all the time and does not lead to harmony and happiness. It leads to the demonization of the "other." Uh.....remember that whole idea of a great melting pot? And the inscription on the Statue of Liberty? People like you astound me. Diversity is what this country was built on. "Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence." John Jay, 1st Chief Justice of the United States, President of the Continental Congress, Federalist Papers, 1787

Sanity -> RE: The changing face of America (3/26/2011 11:06:49 AM)
Not everyone likes diversity. quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife Uh.....remember that whole idea of a great melting pot? And the inscription on the Statue of Liberty? People like you astound me. Diversity is what this country was built on.

tazzygirl -> RE: The changing face of America (3/26/2011 11:11:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn FR FR This post is not in response to the previous post Sorry, I forgot to put the "FR" thing in front of what I said. I estimated that the general audience would be able to discern by content and context that a post having nothing to do with the immediately prior post but rather with the several posts by DYB, DS, and Aylee, so named in the post concerning here, that the post in fact was addressing and commenting on the posts thus identified, and not to the circumstantially immediate post. I assumed too much, sorry. PS Aside from the small issue that "Welcome to - - - - - - " is a standard rhetorical device, meaning something along the lines of "this is how it is," not that one is actually welcoming or inviting a person into a place. I think what you are assuming is that it bothered me. I actually found it funny. Get your knickers out of a wad and laugh along. It is sorta ironic, ya know?

Edwynn -> RE: The changing face of America (3/26/2011 12:09:16 PM)
Agreed. Other than it's Saturday and the knickers are in the wash at the time. I unknot them before throwing them in, most of the time.

Edwynn -> RE: The changing face of America (3/26/2011 12:33:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee "Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence." John Jay, 1st Chief Justice of the United States, President of the Continental Congress, Federalist Papers, 1787 Written at the time of slavery and native peoples displacement, so thanks for that insight as to how both were taken as a given at that time. Aside from the fact that the original Declaration of Independence was written with primarily capitalized nouns, not just as to the assumption of speaking to a putatively German king who himself never spoke the language of his granddad, but because that deutsche mindset was actually still close at hand, along with the significant writings of French and British political theorists being therewith invoked, who in fact not always spoke the same language. But I agree with the sentiment on one point ... If only we had kept the Irish out!

popeye1250 -> RE: The changing face of America (3/26/2011 12:55:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk Its diversity that makes this country great. Take last week, we were all Irish for the day. Could go into a Irish bar and see people celebrating their "difference". I am not sure why everyone has to make it seem bad. DYB, diversity yes! Letting the third world into this country no! I find it a bit rich that descendants of immigrants now say no to immigration, for it strikes me as a case of I'm Alright Jack The invitation to come to America was extended to your ancestors for a better life, so why do you find it so hard to reciprocate, are you not American ? If the boot were on the other foot, and you were living under oppression or in abject poverty, would you stay in that country or try to move elsewhere for a better life ? Aneirin, and just how long do you think that can continue? In 1900 we had what, 50 million people? We're a mature country of 300 million plus now and don't need immigration anymore, there's no jobs! Thanks to this "global economy" all the good manufacturing jobs went overseas. That was then this is now. We don't have to let anyoneinto this country! All the third world knows when it comes to the U.S. is, "gimme, gimme, gimme!" The fairy tale days of starry eyed immigrants on wooden ships entering New York harbor and gazing whistfully at the statue of liberty are o-v-e-r! You're living a fantasy Buddy. Oh, and we don't use buggy whips anymore either we use car keys now and "Camelot" shouldn't ever be mentioned in the same sentance as that criminal, disgusting, Irish Clan of theives, murderers, child molestors, cheats, borderline retards and low i.q morons from Boston! The Kennedys! Now THERE's one HELL of an argument against anymore immigration! "That was than,this is now"...Didn't you quote George Washington just yesterday in support of your xenophobic views ? You really do need to make up your mind. Mike????? Now I can't quote George Washington? That was in another thread. Look up "context." And here we go with that word again, "xenophobic." Do you know what that word means? It means, "a fear of foreigners." You're talking about a very small group of people with a psychological disease or "phobia" (fear) and trying to apply it to anyone who doesn't agree with your viewpoint. It's a medical condition not a "political" condition. Wasn't there another similar term a few years ago that was bandied about and in vogue with the left, "Homophobia?" And then recently it was "Racist." That term was so overused and so missapplied by the left as to become neutered and irrelevant. Hispanics were trying to use it and "Hispanic" is not a race just like "illegal alien" is not a race. Then they tried to get everyone to stop using the term, "illegal alien!" What should we start calling rapists, "lovers of easy opportunity?" "Casual aquaintances of vulnerable women?" Words mean something, if your going to use them out of context or missapply them then they don't mean anything. What about Bush and, "A coalition of the willing?" Yet later on we find out that the "willing" were PAID with U.S. Taxpayer Dollars to be,....."willing!" Mike, you know what I have a "fear" of? I have a "fear" of our government. I have a "fear" of a govt. that couldn't care less what the American People think! I have a "fear" of a govt. that's really run by Exon/Mobil, General Electric and General Motors and (not) the American People anymore! I have a "fear" of a govt. that gets us into corporate wars yet uses the excuse of "Human Rights" to do so. ("Ah fuck the people! Just tell 'em it's for "Human Rights!") Our govt. is out of control! Hillary Clinton has become an advocate for foreign countries not for the U.S. anymore! They're trying to use the term "Human Rights" as a blank check to do whatever they want to do! Now, what's the term for "fear of government?" You know, the way you've been talking lately you sound more and more like a Republican. Why don't you join the Republican party, they'd make you a Precinct Captain and you could work on Michelle Backman's campaign.

zenny -> RE: The changing face of America (3/26/2011 1:00:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: zenny We're not. Something like 6% difference between groups(races) in how our DNA manifests. And it's a very important 6%. http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/Race.pdf After reading the link you supplied I was left wondering if you had read it too. My reading is that the figure of 6% (claimed in your post to account for genetically determined racial variation among humans) is twenty (20) times greater than the proper figure for comparison to Charles' figure of 0.5% The accurate figure is actually 0.03%.* The linked paper makes no claims, nor does it offer any evidence about the importance of that 0.03%. Need I point out that 0.03% is hardly a substantial base on which to make a point? The paper is a critique of current orthodoxy in the fields of philosophy, biology, genetics and anthropology re: race. It seeks to open a discussion of a possible relationship between race and genetics. Or, as the author puts it: "My aim is to challenge the arguments that are usually thought to invalidate the biological concept of race." No attempt was made to propose a biological concept of race. According to the most generous reading of the paper, such a concept remains, at this point, a theoretical possibility rejected out of hand by scientific consensus in all the relevant disciplines. That doesn't necessarily invalidate it. It does necessitate some serious argument and evidence, both of which were lacking. So I'm sorry to say that you will have to offer far more compelling evidence than this if you wish your claims (opinions? prejudices?) to be given serious consideration. As the rest of the post was equally uninformed and, at times, even wilder speculation I'm not going to bother taking it too seriously. Then you didn't read the article very well or at all. If you had then you would have notice it on page 6 (148) half way down and it's continual reference throughout the rest of the article. "Lewontin estimated the inter-racial variation comprises only about 7% of the total genetic variation in the human species" That is what I meant by 6% difference in manifestation. I guess it is difficult to understand without the proper frame of reference. Also, had you read it fully you would have also noticed it tearing philosophers a new one using scientific fact. Then tearing other scientists a new one for offhandedly dismissing results and ignoring research because its unpopular. The biological concept of race has already been established. However, it was been pigeonholed by bad research for the better part of 30 years. I also like how you don't address anything else I've said and simply pass off what I say as prejudice to avoid doing so. But this was only intended to illustrate a point, not sidetrack. So I ask again, Why it is only EU and USA must be multicultural and diverse? Why not Australia, China, Japan, India, etc.? Why do people feel the need to move to other places for a better life and ask that place and their people to change? If they wanted change, why not change where they're at and better their home country? This is analogous to moving in with a stranger against their wishes and pushing them to renovate their home because it doesn't look like the one I previously lived in. I ask again how would you like an influx of 22 million Aborigines?

lazarus1983 -> RE: The changing face of America (3/26/2011 1:03:06 PM)
I've always dislike terms like African American, Asian American, Hispanic American, etc etc. We are Americans, regardless of color or ancestry. I approach a person and deal with them based on their own individual merits. To prescribe to them stereotyped traits and characteristics of their skin color or ancestry is the lowest form of collectivism.

Edwynn -> RE: The changing face of America (3/26/2011 1:10:26 PM)
quote: So I ask again, Why it is only EU and USA must be multicultural and diverse? Why not Australia, China, Japan, India, etc.? Bingo.

Aylee -> RE: The changing face of America (3/26/2011 1:14:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee "Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence." John Jay, 1st Chief Justice of the United States, President of the Continental Congress, Federalist Papers, 1787 Written at the time of slavery and native peoples displacement, so thanks for that insight as to how both were taken as a given at that time. Aside from the fact that the original Declaration of Independence was written with primarily capitalized nouns, not just as to the assumption of speaking to a putatively German king who himself never spoke the language of his granddad, but because that deutsche mindset was actually still close at hand, along with the significant writings of French and British political theorists being therewith invoked, who in fact not always spoke the same language. But I agree with the sentiment on one point ... If only we had kept the Irish out! And just how do your comments show that this country was founded on diversity? For your information, John Jay was anti-slavery. And what in the hell does any of this have to do with keeping the Irish out? I won't even explain the Romans to you.

Edwynn -> RE: The changing face of America (3/26/2011 1:17:17 PM)
You should know by now that it is ALWAYS more fun to pontificate and huff and puff on something concerning which you've never had any personal r/l experience yourself. Hence the OP. And no, it's not just "human nature," it is the nature of idiots, and that is all there is to say about it.

thishereboi -> RE: The changing face of America (3/26/2011 1:25:49 PM)
quote: What is needed, is a common language for all Everyone speaking the same language, same accents. Sorry, but the thought of that is just fucking depressing.

thishereboi -> RE: The changing face of America (3/26/2011 1:27:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk I don't know spanish but I am positive I could learn it. We are the only country on earth that is too lazy to learn another language. Its pathetic. How many languages do you speak?

Aneirin -> RE: The changing face of America (3/26/2011 1:29:17 PM)
Most in England speak English, but most areas have their own regional accent, that being they have their own identity in accent, but they speak the same language. Accent is the pronunciation of wordage, depending on what part of the country one comes from accents vary and are quite colourful within the same language. Mine is a mix of Scouse and West Country now, which has a peculiar habit of appearing, the scouse comes out when am drunk or angry and the west country is the times in between.

slvemike4u -> RE: The changing face of America (3/26/2011 1:31:03 PM)
Nice rant pops....please do not have a stroke over anything I have posted. As to me being a Republican...been there,done that.....and withdrawn my membership once the party moved too far right.I was thinking of perhaps becoming an "independent" ,but after viewing your stuff it seemed to me to be to similar to the Repubs....so I went Democratic.

Edwynn -> RE: The changing face of America (3/26/2011 1:36:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee "Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence." John Jay, 1st Chief Justice of the United States, President of the Continental Congress, Federalist Papers, 1787 Written at the time of slavery and native peoples displacement, so thanks for that insight as to how both were taken as a given at that time. Aside from the fact that the original Declaration of Independence was written with primarily capitalized nouns, not just as to the assumption of speaking to a putatively German king who himself never spoke the language of his granddad, but because that deutsche mindset was actually still close at hand, along with the significant writings of French and British political theorists being therewith invoked, who in fact not always spoke the same language. But I agree with the sentiment on one point ... If only we had kept the Irish out! And just how do your comments show that this country was founded on diversity? For your information, John Jay was anti-slavery. And what in the hell does any of this have to do with keeping the Irish out? I won't even explain the Romans to you. Where was I 'arguing' FOR diversity? I merely stated the situation as existed. I can count on others thinking that I am arguing 'for' or 'against' something as a matter of others' projection, when I am stating mere fact. Truth be known, I actually despise the terms "diversity" and 1,000 times more so "melting pot." When one grows up fully amidst cultural and racial variety, and then 15 years into adulthood has to hear all this crap ("diversity" "melting pot") that others try to foist upon everyone without themselves having any clue, never any r/l experience themselves, ....... yes, it ticks me off greatly they are too busy calling you a racist to STFU and actually listen and learn anything. Yes! More terms! More studies! By all means! All diatribe after the first couple of sentences is directed to the general audience, Aylee, and sorry I did not hand you ear muffs beforehand in any regard.

thishereboi -> RE: The changing face of America (3/26/2011 1:37:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: RacerJim America's face looked just fine before the invasion of illegal Hispanics/Latinos and Muslims began. This quote right here should be example number one the next time someone foolishly asks me why I dare refer to you as....racistjim. The proof is in the pudding ....so to speak. I'm pretty sure I have never questioned it before and you're right. That does pretty much explain it all. I also have to give you credit for not painting the entire right with his bs posts like Aynne did up in post 43.

popeye1250 -> RE: The changing face of America (3/26/2011 1:38:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Nice rant pops....please do not have a stroke over anything I have posted. As to me being a Republican...been there,done that.....and withdrawn my membership once the party moved too far right.I was thinking of perhaps becoming an "independent" ,but after viewing your stuff it seemed to me to be to similar to the Repubs....so I went Democratic. Mike, You're to the right of me. Now what's that term for "fear of govt?"

slvemike4u -> RE: The changing face of America (3/26/2011 2:28:17 PM)
I thought loony tunes was a series of cartoons....but after reading your recent posts....I'm not so sure. The "right of you".....pops I hope I'm nowhere near you,left ,right or diagonal.

tweakabelle -> RE: The changing face of America (3/26/2011 3:29:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zenny quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: zenny We're not. Something like 6% difference between groups(races) in how our DNA manifests. And it's a very important 6%. http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/Race.pdf After reading the link you supplied I was left wondering if you had read it too. My reading is that the figure of 6% (claimed in your post to account for genetically determined racial variation among humans) is twenty (20) times greater than the proper figure for comparison to Charles' figure of 0.5% The accurate figure is actually 0.03%.* The linked paper makes no claims, nor does it offer any evidence about the importance of that 0.03%. Need I point out that 0.03% is hardly a substantial base on which to make a point? The paper is a critique of current orthodoxy in the fields of philosophy, biology, genetics and anthropology re: race. It seeks to open a discussion of a possible relationship between race and genetics. Or, as the author puts it: "My aim is to challenge the arguments that are usually thought to invalidate the biological concept of race." No attempt was made to propose a biological concept of race. According to the most generous reading of the paper, such a concept remains, at this point, a theoretical possibility rejected out of hand by scientific consensus in all the relevant disciplines. That doesn't necessarily invalidate it. It does necessitate some serious argument and evidence, both of which were lacking. So I'm sorry to say that you will have to offer far more compelling evidence than this if you wish your claims (opinions? prejudices?) to be given serious consideration. As the rest of the post was equally uninformed and, at times, even wilder speculation I'm not going to bother taking it too seriously. Then you didn't read the article very well or at all. If you had then you would have notice it on page 6 (148) half way down and it's continual reference throughout the rest of the article. "Lewontin estimated the inter-racial variation comprises only about 7% of the total genetic variation in the human species" That is what I meant by 6% difference in manifestation. I guess it is difficult to understand without the proper frame of reference. Also, had you read it fully you would have also noticed it tearing philosophers a new one using scientific fact. Then tearing other scientists a new one for offhandedly dismissing results and ignoring research because its unpopular. The biological concept of race has already been established. However, it was been pigeonholed by bad research for the better part of 30 years. I also like how you don't address anything else I've said and simply pass off what I say as prejudice to avoid doing so. But this was only intended to illustrate a point, not sidetrack. So I ask again, Why it is only EU and USA must be multicultural and diverse? Why not Australia, China, Japan, India, etc.? Why do people feel the need to move to other places for a better life and ask that place and their people to change? If they wanted change, why not change where they're at and better their home country? This is analogous to moving in with a stranger against their wishes and pushing them to renovate their home because it doesn't look like the one I previously lived in. I ask again how would you like an influx of 22 million Aborigines? Yes I understood what the paper says. It is you who misunderstands. In the section I have bolded, you are quoting a statistic in an inappropriate context and conveying a totally false impression of the scientific position. The " total genetic variation in the human species" amounts to, as Charles pointed out, about 0.5% of our total genetic inheritance. The amount of genetic variation between humans is a tiny percentage of total human genetic inheritance. So 7% of the " total genetic variation in the human species" = 7% x 0.5% = 0.35% of our total genetic inheritance. To assert Lowentin claims it is 7% is to over-state his position by a factor of 20! You claim that "The biological concept of race has already been established.". I have never heard that claim made by a reputable scientist. I have heard it rubbished on many occasions by reputable scientists. Even the paper that you referenced quotes several well known biologists rubbishing that claim. It's very clear to me that you are unable to comprehend academic papers. I'll be happy to continue this conversation with you after you have show that you have acquired this ability.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875