quote:

ORIGINAL: DeviantlyD

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
Only a fucking liar would deny it, or a fool. Your choice.

I deny it.


I am no liar nor a fool.

I'd say that's up for debate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

FR:

For those who wish for me to define "multiculturalism" as current practiced:  by this I mean encouraging the "salad bowl" concept of a nation i.e. protecting and encouraging a minority culture within a larger culture to keep separate languages, traditions and beliefs, and that "all ways are equal" when it comes to culture.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

NakisisaX... I understand, and not understand, your posting. I understand the sentences, and some of their meanings, but I do not understand the whole. Or at least, not as an answer.

I truly respect you. But please let me put this in a very easy way. Like talking to a child. It is not you - it is me. English is not my mother tongue. I have difficulties here.

1. A person (for example: you) belongs to many different cultures at the same time. Some are cultures defined by geography, some by ascendant, occupation, way of life (urbanite / rural), hobbies, kinks (BDSM culture), etc, etc, etc. There are almost infinite criteria.

Do you agree with this?

2. Even within the geographical and/or genetic, there are many possible divisions. You can divide by planet (yep), continent, subcontinent, area, region, province/State, municipality, or even part of the city (Beverly Hills subculture). You can divide by huge (African), big (Chinese), middle-sized (Illirian culture), small (Sicilian subculture) or tiny "clades" of ancestors. There are almost infinite levels of granularity.

Do you agree with this?

3. Providing you agree with (1) and (2): How can you possibly say, that it is morally better for a person to concentrate on ONE kind of culture in ONE level of granularity, as in any other?

----------

I will ask the same in another way now. Feel free to ignore one of the two presentations completely.

In your sentence, "It is important to learn about other cultures one comes in contact with but its even more important to learn everything about yours" - you implicitly say that there is something like "my" culture. Which is ONE culture, and not many. According to you, I should have to care specially about that ONE culture. And this would be morally good. And failing on doing it would be morally bad.

Which and why? In my case. In my specific case, please.

If you say that I decide, then you are saying nothing, because you are saying "You should not ignore the culture which you consider imporant". Well, of course, if I myself consider it important, I won't ignore it. This sentence is not informative. It says nothing.

But if you tell me that there is a criteria to decide which is "my" culture, and there is a justification for - why I should care about it more as about any other of my cultures... then I kindly ask you again - which is this criteria, and where is the justification.

Please try to concentrate on me. You are not saying that YOU should do something. You were saying that PEOPLE, we ALL, should do something. And I am asking myself how and why this applies to me.

Thank you again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

when the shit hits the fan then it's the clan.

I mean your family.

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve
Perhaps the only reasonable interpretation of Firms proposal is that we all become equally and uniformly rigidly prejudiced, territorial, and provincial, I think that might be doable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
1. Multiculturalism as currently practiced and espoused by many is both a dead-end, and overall is detrimental to a free and open society.

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

For those who wish for me to define "multiculturalism" as current practiced:  by this I mean encouraging the "salad bowl" concept of a nation i.e. protecting and encouraging a minority culture within a larger culture to keep separate languages, traditions and beliefs, and that "all ways are equal" when it comes to culture.

Yeah, we need to crack down on them biscuit eatin' crackers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

For those who wish for me to define "multiculturalism" as current practiced:  by this I mean encouraging the "salad bowl" concept of a nation i.e. protecting and encouraging a minority culture within a larger culture to keep separate languages, traditions and beliefs, and that "all ways are equal" when it comes to culture.


That is a misnomer and self-deception.

Mob statute culture over-rules all other culture and ultimately destroys the essense of all culture but its own.

Yeah, we need to crack down on them biscuit eatin' crackers.

I'm not sure what you mean, exactly, other than this appears to be an attempt at being insulting.

My premise is that the US society is pretty unique, in that we have been practicing "multiculturalism" for centuries already. 

If toleration is practicing ok.

Despite this, we have a generally cohesive political structure and society (or have had).

Held together by guns of the deMOBcracy.

The question is why?  And how do we continue to enjoy the benefits of a "multicultural society" without breaking it?

Its already broken and has been broken since the inception of this country, albeit better than "some" other countries.

The only benefit would be the ability to practice the culture that is our own. In  america anyone tries to act on their cultural tenets will wind up in jail when the statute culture comes after them with guns.

My thesis is that there are certain "American ideals" or "American cultural ethos", and adherence to these by any individual from another culture will allow them to become "American". 

Fine but like everything in america its all just a show.  I deals are not what is in practice and never was in practice and never will be in practice in america.  people do not understand the law in this country.

This doesn't mean that other nations, or cultures do not have some or even all of them, just that without them, we run the risk of becoming a cultural Yugoslavia.

We are the deMOBcracy.

We can argue what these "American ethos" are, exactly, and whether or not we should continue to encourage them, but assuming we are, I believe some of the major ones are:

1.  Belief in the "rule of law" rather than the "rule of a man".

Whats the difference?  Vattel?

2.  Valuing individuality and the concept that an individual is the primary focus of rights and success.

Of course you realize "individual" has been defined as a taxing term and applies to a corporation as well as a man or woman?

3.  The legitimacy of the republican form of government.

Well the government might be republican but it hires corporations and devises trusts to do its job that it remain immune.  Now what?

4.  Freedom of religion, as long as it doesn't violate the law or general public consensus of morality.

well you have just successfully wiped out and negated question number one. 

You just made the deMOBcracy the religion of the day.

Freedom of religion et al as long as we approve.

now what?


5.  The belief that property rights are an important concept, and that ownership of property is an inalienable human right.

This one is also wiped out by #4.

This stuff is a bitch aint it?

Some or all of these are and have undergoing attack - or, if this is too strong a word for you - there are pressures to modify and change some or all of these ethos.  Multiculturalism, in which the "rights" of groups are valued more than individual rights is one of the paths of attack.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

For those who wish for me to define "multiculturalism" as current practiced:  by this I mean encouraging the "salad bowl" concept of a nation i.e. protecting and encouraging a minority culture within a larger culture to keep separate languages, traditions and beliefs, and that "all ways are equal" when it comes to culture.

Yeah, we need to crack down on them biscuit eatin' crackers.

I'm not sure what you mean, exactly, other than this appears to be an attempt at being insulting.

My premise is that the US society is pretty unique, in that we have been practicing "multiculturalism" for centuries already.  Despite this, we have a generally cohesive political structure and society (or have had).

The question is why?  And how do we continue to enjoy the benefits of a "multicultural society" without breaking it?

My thesis is that there are certain "American ideals" or "American cultural ethos", and adherence to these by any individual from another culture will allow them to become "American".  This doesn't mean that other nations, or cultures do not have some or even all of them, just that without them, we run the risk of becoming a cultural Yugoslavia.

We can argue what these "American ethos" are, exactly, and whether or not we should continue to encourage them, but assuming we are, I believe some of the major ones are:

1.  Belief in the "rule of law" rather than the "rule of a man".

2.  Valuing individuality and the concept that an individual is the primary focus of rights and success.

3.  The legitimacy of the republican form of government.

4.  Freedom of religion, as long as it doesn't violate the law or general public consensus of morality.

5.  The belief that property rights are an important concept, and that ownership of property is an inalienable human right.

Some or all of these are and have undergoing attack - or, if this is too strong a word for you - there are pressures to modify and change some or all of these ethos.  Multiculturalism, in which the "rights" of groups are valued more than individual rights is one of the paths of attack.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

Well, I wasntt raised in Southern culture, with it's quaint and exotic ways, it's own weird food, outlandish dress, and incomprehensible dialects - what culture are you talking about here?

1.) in what way is this precept violated by multiculturalism, other than by people who insist on defining everyone else's sexuality for them?

Because that is asking for a "special right" to dictate to others whom they are allowed to share their lives with, not constitutional, due process, equal protection.

The problem is "what rule"? and "what law"?

"rule of law" can and has been interpreted by courts in ways people cannot even imagine.  IF you are able to even go there.

Cases involving rights include the gubafia (you as a subject-citizen) and they set the standard for what "they are *willing" to listen to cherry picking cases they do not want to deal with.

Nice job huh?  get to drink the milk and never haul out the manure.

quote:

Types of Law


Administrative Law (Govt. Law, Public Law, Regulatory Law)
Admirality and Maritime Law
Advertising and Marketing (Media Law, Entertainment Law)
Agriculture Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution, Arbitration,
Animal Law
Antitrust and Trade Regulations
Appellate
Architectural and Engineering Law
Aviation and Aerospace (Transportation)
Banking (Finance, Financial Institutions and Services, Banking Regulation)
Bankruptcy (Foreclosure, Insolvency, Reorganization, Workout, Debtor and Creditor,
Collections)
Biotechnology
Bond (Municipal Finance, Securities)
Business
Business Litigation
Capital Markets
Charities
Civil
Collections (Bankruptcy, Debtor and Creditor)
Commercial Law (Transactions, Commercial Litigation)
Commodities (Securities)
Common Law
Communications and Telecommunications
Competitive Practices (Antitrust and Trade Regulations)
Computer and Internet Law (Intellectual Property, Technology)
Condemnation (Eminent Domain)
Construction Law (Architectural and Engineering Law; Real Estate, Construction
Litigation)
Cooperative and Condominium (Real Estate)
Copyright (Intellectual Property)
Corporate (Antitrust and Trade Regulations, Transactions, Corporate Litigation)
Corporate Finance (Bond, Finance, Securities)
Creditors’ Rights (Debtor and Creditor)
Criminal Defense (White-Collar Criminal Law)
Debtor and Creditor (Creditors’ Rights)
Domestic Relations (Family Law)
Drug (Food and Drug)
E-Commerce, E-Business
Education Law
Eminent Domain (Condemnation, Land Use, Real Estate)
Employee Benefits (ERISA and Executive Compensation, Labor and Employment)
Energy (Natural Resources, Oil and Gas, Utilities)
Engineering (Construction Law)
Entertainment Law (Media, Entertainment Litigation)
Environmental Law (CERCLA, FIFRA, RCRA, Land Use, Natural Resources, Toxic
Torts, Environmental Litigation)
Equity
ERISA (Employee Benefits, Pension)
Estates and Trusts (Probate)
Family Law (Domestic Relations, Matrimonial Law)
Federal Income Tax (Taxation)
Fiduciary Law (Estates and Trusts)
Finance (Banking, Corporate Finance, Financial Institutions, Services, Private Finance, Placements)
Financial Institutions, Financial Services (Banking, Finance, Investment Companies)
Food and Drug (Pharmaceuticals, Technology, Biotechnology)
Foreclosure (Bankruptcy)
Foundations (Nonprofit Organizations)
Franchise Law
Futures and Options (Securities)
Government Affairs (Legislative Law, Lobbying)
Government Contracts
Governmental Law (Election Law, Administrative Law, Government Contracts,
Legislative Law, Municipal)
Health Care Law (Professional Liability)
Housing and Urban Development (Real Estate)
Immigration Law
Import, Export (International Trade)
Indian Law
Insolvency (Bankruptcy)
Insurance (Insurance Defense and Regulation)
Insurance Litigation
Intellectual Property (Copyright, Patent and Trademark Law, Intellectual Property Litigation)
International Law, Transactions, International Litigation
International Trade
Investment Companies (Commodities, Financial Institutions and Services, Securities)
Joint Ventures (Partnerships, Joint Ventures)
Labor and Employment (Safety and Health, Employee Benefits, Labor and Employment Litigation)
Land Use (Zoning, Eminent Domain, Environmental Law)
Leasing, Lease Finance (Real Estate)
Legislative Law (Government Affairs, Governmental Law, Lobbying)
Lending (Finance)
Litigation (Appellate, Business, Commercial Law, Construction, Corporate, Labor, Real
Estate, Securities)
Lobbying (Governmental Affairs, Legislative Law)
Maritime Law (Admirality and Maritime Law)
Matrimonial Law (Family Law)
Media (Advertising and Marketing, Entertainment Law)
Medical (Health Care Law)
Medical Malpractice (Professional Liability)
Mergers and Acquisitions
Mining (Natural Resources)
Mortgage Finance
Mortgage Foreclosure
Municipal (Bond, Government Affairs, Governmental Law, Municipal Finance, Public
Finance)
Natural Resources (Mining and Water, Energy, Environmental Law, Oil and Gas)
Nonprofit Organizations (Charities)
Oil and Gas (Energy, Natural Resources)
Partnerships, Joint Ventures
Patent (Intellectual Properties)
Pension (Employee Benefits)
Personal Injury (Torts)
Personal Services
Pharmaceuticals (Food and Drug)
Private Finance, Placements (Finance)
Privatization (Business)
Probate (Estates and Trusts)
Products Liability (Torts)
Professional Liability (Medical Malpractice, Torts)
Project Finance (Public Finance)
Public Agency (Governmental Law)
Public Finance (Municipal Finance)
Public Law (Administrative Law)
Public Utility (Utilities)
Real Estate (Real Estate Tax, Eminent Domain, Leasing, Lease Finance)
Regulated Industries (Energy, Utilities)
Regulatory Law (Administrative Law, Banking Regulation, Regulated Industries)
Resorts and Casino Law
Safety and Health (Labor and Employment)
Science (Technology)
Securities (Corporate Finance, Securities Litigation)
Sports Law
State and Local Taxes (Taxation)
Subrogation (Insurance)
Syndications
Tax-Exempt Organizations (Nonprofit Organizations)
Taxation
Technology and Science (Biotechnology, Computer Law, Food and Drug, Intellectual Property)
Telecommunications (Communications and Telecommunications)
Torts (Environmental Law, Personal Injury, Products Liability, Professional Liability)
Toxic Torts
Trade Regulation (Antitrust and Trade Regulation)
Trademark (Intellectual Property)
Transactions (Commercial Law, Corporate Law)
Transportation (Admiralty and Maritime Law, Aviation and Aerospace)
Trusts (Estates and Trusts)
Utilities (Energy, Regulated Industries)
Venture Capital (Finance)
Water (Natural Resources)
White-Collar Criminal Law (Criminal Defense)
Workers’ Compensation (Labor and Employment)
Workout (Bankruptcy)
Zoning (Land use)

Keep in mind that ignorance of the law is NO excuse even though there are over 60,000,000 as in 60 million of them!

Well unless of course you are a Judge and it is your job to PROTECT my rights then its ok if you forget 59,999,999,999.999999 of them to pad your retirement account!


Oh those pesky unalienable rights?  ABOLISHED!  See the supreme court Spies case!  The only right you have are as a second class person as a citizen and if the "God STATE" did not "GRANT it to you well too fucking bad then you do not have it and you do not have any remedy or recourse either, nor can you make a case as a free man under section 24 of the magna charta.  (unless you are really fucking good and smarter than judges who WILL try to trap you into THEIR system so they can exersize their power over you.


2.) See above.

3.) A government derives it's legitimacy form the consent of governed, period - all the governed, not just the special ones.

Really?  Thats bullshit, at least in america.  I dont consent to be governed yet I am forced by some assholes calling themselves a deMOBcracy with a gun telling me I either do what the MOB decided FOR ME to do or I get shot or jailed.

Now what?  (nice ideology though)  I mean it sounds good and creates an illusion that we chose this shit we call gubbermint.

4.) See, here you're trying to sneak in an bunch of arbitrary subjective standard, not just "obey the laws", now there's a "general consensus of morality", laws are no longer good enough for you and all that means is you have boundary issues - there is nothing special about your morality, consensus or otherwise.

Yep as I pointed out also, you cant claim a right then SUBJECT it to the MOB to decide for you how you can exercise that right.

The consensus here is that what you do in the privacy of your home is not subject to legislation,

Really?  Try banging your 12 year old and see just how fast agent smith reaches across that public private boundary to rip your balls off!  LOL

unless you're violating someone elses rights in the process.

Nope th ekid is the town whore and begs for it every night.  LOL

now what?

Then on a different (lighter) note what are the primary or fundamental guidelines for determining if you violated someone rights?

Which means you can eat, drink, talk and dress (or undress) any way you want - outside your home, there are more restrictions, but technically, the complainant is required to prove that their rights are somehow being violated or suck a lemon.

not required in many states.  any officer can level a complaint and the court will uphold it.  There is awesome money in "policing" the public and citing "policy" violations. 

Really horrible stuff like paint peeling on your house, grass too long etc.

Doesn't men people don't try, but there is no constitutional mandate for enforcing your personal druthers on others.

Unless you are the People who call themselves gubbermint, they gave themselves the authority to pretty much do whatever they want.

5.) Unless somebody else got there first.

And for the record, Yugoslavia was all about a minority culture imposing it's will on a majority, so what you are suggesting is that we take the same path and expect different results?

I'm very curious to hear just in what ways you seem to think you're being put upon here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
My thesis is that there are certain "American ideals" or "American cultural ethos", and adherence to these by any individual from another culture will allow them to become "American".  ...Some or all of these are and have undergoing attack - or, if this is too strong a word for you - there are pressures to modify and change some or all of these ethos.  Multiculturalism, in which the "rights" of groups are valued more than individual rights is one of the paths of attack.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterDabblerX

According to several religions, ownership of property is not possible. How are you going to reconcile that?

Thats even better.  Then we go to allodial land rights.  You may not own it but you have 100% right title and interest in it.

Right now as it is in america today you have usufructory right.  People in america own their land "subject" to the government (eminent domain), therefore the government has an "interest" in your land.  You are charged taxes ad valorem taxes on your home for "unrealized gains", that in fact the municipality puts up your land property as collateral for loans to itself and then sends you the bill for gains you never received.  "services at the end of a barrel of a gun" and take your property away if you do not go along with this feudal system.  Many people try and bow out and refuse their services perfect their patents and all sorts of other methods and it is ignored by the courts because it does not matter if you consent or not.

Oh but on the other hand there are those original "People" who came over and were granted land by the king who do hold their patents and land free of taxation.  In fact they wont even be found on the tax rolls!   shhhh!  LOL

Recently, the Supreme Court of the US upheld the right of a minority to over-rule the interests and will of the majority (see Citizens United). However, this is a minority that holds most of the money, so that might be okay.

Interesting, thanks I will.

And the form of government we have is not a republic. We used to have a democratic republic, now we have a representational republic that is quickly turning into a corporatocracy.

Well we always had a corporatocracy.  It was the large land owners under the king who set this whole system up.  As soon as they created the states they created 50 corporations, and then gave them sovereignty, not just to other nations, but OVER the inhabitants withing the circle they wanted to call a "state".

Now its all about MOB rule in the pretense of democracy, proof is that no one has ever voted on any amendment to the constitution, and rarely in the states and literally never on taxation with exception to California maybe.

They will claim that the states vote on the federal, well that then should have been put on referendums and passed to everyone in the estates to vote on, or how could the so called representatives lawfully vote on behalf of their constituents.

Its always been a plutocracy in many names.

Quite frankly, I am tired of the "God wants me to be happy - but not you" crowd. Practice your religion or not, but don't pretend to do one and do the other.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
3.  The legitimacy of the republican form of government.