Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Like I said many many times, we are who we are through experiences. Based on many many MANY of Lucario's thoughtful, fair and balanced posts here on city data, I have no reasons to think "poorly" of him.
Lucario is obviously not obsessed with revenge and power, this is just insanely ridiculous.
Look, I didn't say that I thought you thought poorly of him, or him of you. He said in response to you... "Not true, Lily. At least in America, there is nothing I can do to keep myself from being seen as a minority."
I assume from the context that he believes being seen as a minority is a "bad thing". Since he seems to be saying that "there is nothing he can do" to prevent it.
I can also assume that his goal is to stop people from seeing him as a minority. Which seems to me that he is annoyed that people see him as "different", and that generally being different isn't really a good thing. Thus is the source of my assumption that people are "thinking of him poorly".
What I was trying to explain, is that when people think poorly of me(and trust me, they do). My immediate response isn't to try to make them like me, or to even agree with me. My immediate response is, "I don't really care what you think, and if you don't like me, then go away and leave me alone".
People like Lucario on the other hand, seems to be more interested in changing the opinions of people who think poorly of him. Which there is nothing wrong with that as long as it is through discussion. But what bothers me about people like Lucario, is that they can never keep it in the bottle of civil discourse. They are always eager to use the power of government to force their views on others.
Which is why I said, I don't understand why blacks aren't anarchists/secessionists(IE, people like me, who just want the government to leave them alone). No, blacks tend to be socialists/statists, who are eager to use the power of government to further their interests.
But what kind of person would be so eager to use the power of government for their own selfish interests, at the full disregard to the interests of those who disagree with them? In my opinion, only people who are either obsessed with power and control, or people who are looking for revenge and to punish those who they believe have wronged them.
Now, in some ways I can actually agree with that sentiment. I just think its sad when people refuse to just come out and say it.
I know that he will come out and talk about how, "We don't need to split up, we just need to all get along".
Which is why I ended with saying "There are nearly 200 countries in the world. Is that the right number? Should there be more countries or less? Why do countries even exist? What is a nation anyway?".
The reason is, if we were to go off the idea that "We are all the same people in the same nation, we should all get along" mentality. Then what would even be the purpose of having multiple nations at all? Why wouldn't we just have a "one-world nation", where we can all force each other to get along.
Obviously that is a stupid idea. And so is it a stupid idea to have 316 million people in the same nation, a large percentage of them who hate each other.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 01-22-2015 at 09:50 AM..
You on the other hand seem to think that when people think poorly of you, that you can somehow force those people to no longer think poorly of you. Or possibly, you seem interested in using the government in some way to punish those people for ever thinking badly of you to begin with.
You seem to be obsessed with either revenge or power, rather than freedom of mutual respect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Look, I didn't say that I thought you thought poorly of him, or him of you. He said in response to you... "Not true, Lily. At least in America, there is nothing I can do to keep myself from being seen as a minority."
I assume from the context that he believes being seen as a minority is a "bad thing". Since he seems to be saying that "there is nothing he can do" to prevent it.
Look,
The bolded is where I had problem with. I KNOW you did not imply we (Lucario and I) thought poorly of each other.
your bolded proved one thing and one thing only: You speculated.
You believed that somehow, you had the right to put words in people's mouth. Just by one sentence response from a poster, how did you know that, he
1 is obsessed with either revenge or power?
2. is interested in using the government in some way to punish those people for ever thinking badly of him to begin with.
The above are all in your head. It is YOUR idea, not the poster's. All these "speculation" (notice that I did not use the word accusation) only make you look a little bit defensive.
In all fairness, I think you are speculating. Even the poster Lucario was disagreeing with me, I understand fully what he was trying to say.
Like I said many many times, we are who we are through experiences. Based on many many MANY of Lucario's thoughtful, fair and balanced posts here on city data, I have no reasons to think "poorly" of him.
Lucario is obviously not obsessed with revenge and power, this is just insanely ridiculous.
Thanks Lily. As Redshadowz has been on my ignore list for untold years, I would not have seen his rather crazy post had you not commented. He must have an issue with me or any of a number do posters here. I haven't the slightest idea where he's coming from.
Thanks Lily. As Redshadowz has been on my ignore list for untold years, I would not have seen his rather crazy post had you not commented. He must have an issue with me or any of a number do posters here. I haven't the slightest idea where he's coming from.
I know ... lol Redshadowz had made some valid points. But sometimes, I admit that I don't know what he is talking about. hehe
The founding fathers were victims of assorted mental blindspots that we, looking back, find it hard to imagine. Think of neurological pathologies where an otherwise sane and fully rational person unconsciously confabulates elaborate explanations for how the arm (that we can all clearly see is her arm) is not her arm - it is her sister's arm, etc. She is rational except for this one little aspect of life - the identity of her left arm. The problem with blindspots is that you can't recognize them as blindspots.
But the founding fathers did, nevertheless, demonstrate that they understood the value of diversity, and they designed a political system that serves to overcome blindspots over time by allowing and encouraging diversity. Free speech, the separation of church and state, state's rights, and the motto on the Statue of Liberty (which came 100 years later, but I think is consistent with the mindset of the founding fathers) all indicate a basic belief that there is strength to be gained by letting diverse ideas and ways of life comingle under the general canopy of a free nation. Advancements like the 14th and 19th Amendments are proof-in-the-pudding that their ideas worked. They might not have specifically intended for blacks and women to vote and hold office, but they did purposefully sow the sorts of seeds that could grow to overcome the blindspots of their own generation.
I would also point out that all of these ideas imply an appreciation for the "salad bowl" version of multiculturalism. They certainly understood that there is strength in unity, but they clearly did not push for a homogeneous ("melting pot") society. They protected the core values of individual liberties, the rights of free assembly, etc., so that a salad-bowl style of diversity could survive, and thereby help the nation as the whole (the unity in e pluribus unim) to maintain its strength.
First, there is no evidence that the founding fathers "demonstrated the value of diversity". In fact, if you read the founding fathers you can actually see pretty plainly a hatred of diversity.
In fact, in the Federalist Papers #2, John Jay writes...
"With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that 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."
As for "freedom of religion", that was only a limitation on the Federal government, not the state governments. In fact, many states continued having a "state church" well after America became independent.
Furthermore, the 14th and 19th amendments cannot be argued to be "proof in the pudding" of what the founding fathers wanted. Especially since the 14th amendment only came about because of a Civil War. Nor can the inscription on the Statue of Liberty, which as you said was created a hundred years later, could possibly be construed to be intended all along. Had that been what they wanted, it would have been that way from the beginning.
As for the whole "salad bowl" concept. Keep in mind, the salad bowl did exist, but as a general rule, the salad bowl only consisted of "White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestants".
Of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, only one of them wasn't a protestant. His name was Charles Carroll.
Ironically, Charles Carroll did not hold public office in the state of Maryland, because Catholics were legally barred from holding public office in the state of Maryland.
Further, one of the primary causes of the Revolutionary War, was that after the "Seven-years war". The "Northwest territories" seized by the British Empire from France, were to be granted to Catholic Quebec, in the "Quebec Act". Which many will say was one of the primary causes for the Revolutionary War.
Basically, the history of America that you have created in your mind, isn't the true history of America. It is a white-washed, politically-correct narrative which completely ignores any reality whatsoever. The Founding Fathers were not the egalitarians you imagine. Nor did they intend to create an egalitarian/socialist society. They would have been hopeless libertarians/minarchists, and Thomas Jefferson was practically a full-blown anarchist. And lets not forget their being VERY racist and sexist as well.
Your bolded proved one thing and one thing only: You speculated.
You believed that somehow, you had the right to put words in people's mouth. Just by one sentence response from a poster, how did you know that, he
1 is obsessed with either revenge or power?
2. is interested in using the government in some way to punish those people for ever thinking badly of him to begin with.
It has to do with a psychological pathology. As I've said repeatedly, I do not believe in using "force" to control others. My pathology is inherently "pacifist". Not only do I not want to use force against others, I also do not believe in voting for someone else to use force against others either.
If someone willfully supports the use of government force to control the actions and behaviors of others. Especially in a way that punishes that person for merely a "perceived wrong". Or secondly, if you willfully support government force for the benefit of yourself. Then you are doing so selfishly.
The only legitimate action of an individual, or a government, is self-defense.
This isn't just my opinion, it is actually a Christian ideal. In essence, it is exactly the same as the "Just-War theory". Whereby "war"(IE force) can only be used for self-defense, never for gain.
The problem I have with Lucario, is that he isn't simply an advocate for self-defense. He is a big advocate for things such as affirmative-action or other racial protections/privileges. Which are in effect not merely a form of self-defense, but rather a form of "social control".
He doesn't merely advocate for his own defense, he is an advocate for furthering his own political interests. While completely disregarding the interests of others.
The pathology of a man who uses government force to enrich himself, or to punish others. Is that he is either obsessed with money and power, or is obsessed with revenge and punishments.
Someone like Lucario will argue that he isn't really looking out for his own interests, rather he is merely looking out for the interests of society as a whole. Effectively, he will claim his actions, regardless of how punitive and controlling they are, are "for the good of everyone".
People like Lucario represent the two ideas that I hate the most about society. They believe that "The end justifies the means", and that we should "Sacrifice the few for the good of the many".
If you believe either of those things to be a moral good, then you are lost.
As for the whole "salad bowl" concept. Keep in mind, the salad bowl did exist, but as a general rule, the salad bowl only consisted of "White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestants".
This is a good point. Their concept of diversity was extremely limited. Most of them would have probably been horrified if someone from the future had told them about the types of power that non-whites, women, and Catholics would obtain in the future. These limitations on their conception of diversity are among the blindspots I referred to. But beneath the limited visions are the fundamental seeds that indicate an appreciation for the basic concept of diversity, and it is this basic concept that has carried through to the present, and played a role in creating the world we see today (for better or worse).
Anti-diversity mindsets favor monarchy, totalitarianism, etc. Democracy rests on a faith that people who have a variety of competing interests can form a union that is ultimately stronger than a state guided by the iron will of a single mind imposing a single way of thinking upon everyone. The founding fathers would have been appalled at the extremes to which "respect for diversity" has evolved, but the fundamental seeds of these extremes were very clearly planted in their minds when they fashioned the American political system. They clearly understood the general idea that strength grows from a salad-bowl of elements that are free to pursue their own versions of happiness. Clearly there are limits - we need a legal system to deal with those who pursue their happiness beyond the bounds of reason, and to resolve disputes that the competing individuals cannot peacefully resolve. The founding fathers did not create a system of anarchy. They established a flexible Judicial branch to help us walk the tightrope between individual freedoms and community interests. But their fundamental grounding principles most zealously protected those salad-bowl individual interests, and I say they protected these interests because they implicitly understood (albeit in a limited way in the context of the mindsets of their generation), that diversity is essentially a source of community strength. (Or, a variation: It would be better to be torn apart and die from too much individual freedom than to live without individual freedoms. In this case, the "strength" of diversity would not be in the form of power, in the usual sense, but in the form of meaningfulness of life. As in: "Better to die free that live in chains.)
The mindset behind pro-diversity/multiculturalism is not (or, at least, should not be) forcing diverse people to live together because we think its good for them. The mindset should be: Acknowledge and celebrate our salad-bowl differences by finding peaceful and compassionate ways to coexist. Without this pro-diversity mindset, we will indeed tear ourselves apart if each competing interest is guided by hatred for all others.
Anti-diversity mindsets favor monarchy, totalitarianism, etc. Democracy rests on a faith that people who have a variety of competing interests can form a union that is ultimately stronger than a state guided by the iron will of a single mind imposing a single way of thinking upon everyone.
This is so much poppy ****. In Europe, it is the elite leaders of those so-called social democracies who have been forcing diversity and multiculturalism down the throats of the majority who clearly don't want it through mass immigration and asylum. These is pro-diversity, anti-democracy totalitarianism. This is also happening in the United States.
This is so much poppy ****. In Europe, it is the elite leaders of those so-called social democracies who have been forcing diversity and multiculturalism down the throats of the majority who clearly don't want it through mass immigration and asylum. These is pro-diversity, anti-democracy totalitarianism. This is also happening in the United States.
This is a good point. Their concept of diversity was extremely limited. Most of them would have probably been horrified if someone from the future had told them about the types of power that non-whites, women, and Catholics would obtain in the future. These limitations on their conception of diversity are among the blindspots I referred to. But beneath the limited visions are the fundamental seeds that indicate an appreciation for the basic concept of diversity, and it is this basic concept that has carried through to the present, and played a role in creating the world we see today (for better or worse).
Anti-diversity mindsets favor monarchy, totalitarianism, etc. Democracy rests on a faith that people who have a variety of competing interests can form a union that is ultimately stronger than a state guided by the iron will of a single mind imposing a single way of thinking upon everyone. The founding fathers would have been appalled at the extremes to which "respect for diversity" has evolved, but the fundamental seeds of these extremes were very clearly planted in their minds when they fashioned the American political system. They clearly understood the general idea that strength grows from a salad-bowl of elements that are free to pursue their own versions of happiness. Clearly there are limits - we need a legal system to deal with those who pursue their happiness beyond the bounds of reason, and to resolve disputes that the competing individuals cannot peacefully resolve. The founding fathers did not create a system of anarchy. They established a flexible Judicial branch to help us walk the tightrope between individual freedoms and community interests. But their fundamental grounding principles most zealously protected those salad-bowl individual interests, and I say they protected these interests because they implicitly understood (albeit in a limited way in the context of the mindsets of their generation), that diversity is essentially a source of community strength. (Or, a variation: It would be better to be torn apart and die from too much individual freedom than to live without individual freedoms. In this case, the "strength" of diversity would not be in the form of power, in the usual sense, but in the form of meaningfulness of life. As in: "Better to die free that live in chains.)
The mindset behind pro-diversity/multiculturalism is not (or, at least, should not be) forcing diverse people to live together because we think its good for them. The mindset should be: Acknowledge and celebrate our salad-bowl differences by finding peaceful and compassionate ways to coexist. Without this pro-diversity mindset, we will indeed tear ourselves apart if each competing interest is guided by hatred for all others.
You keep talking, but you provide absolutely no evidence to support your case.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the founding fathers thought diversity was a good thing. Hell, the founding fathers even hated political parties.
In this link is an excerpt from George Washington's farewell address. You should read it.
Moreover, the founding fathers did not create a "flexible judiciary". The founding fathers actually created a practically non-existent judiciary. The judiciary of which you speak really came about as a result of the court case "Marbury v. Madison". In which the Supreme Court handed itself the power of Judicial Review, nearly two decades after the Constitution was written.
We need to keep in mind that the plaintiff in that case is James Madison. Who, if you don't already know, effectively wrote our Constitution. James Madison argued repeatedly that he did not believe that the Supreme Court had the power to decide the case. And the president at the time, Thomas Jefferson, agreed with him.
Thomas Jefferson wrote... "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
You seem to be completely rewriting history in your head because you want to believe something which isn't true.
The founding fathers did not favor diversity. Though the founding fathers did accept certain amounts of diversity out of pure necessity. For instance, the founding fathers allowed slavery to continue because it was the only way for the union to stay together(IE north and south). The founding fathers had to keep their mouths shut on the issue for fear of the country falling apart. That doesn't represent an appreciation for diversity. It is just the politics of empire.
The only thing correct that you actually said in your entire speech is this line "Anti-diversity mindsets favor monarchy, totalitarianism, etc"... And I agree with that statement. And I am actually thankful for the diversity we had, otherwise this country would already be Nazi Germany.
But then your following line "Democracy rests on a faith that people who have a variety of competing interests can form a union that is ultimately stronger than a state guided by the iron will of a single mind imposing a single way of thinking upon everyone".... This is not only wrong, but dangerously delusional.
No Democracy does not like diversity. Diversity in a democracy means "faction". The effect of faction is what is happening in places like Iraq. Where you have sections of the country effectively at war with each other.
Had America been half-Christian and half-Muslim in 1776, there wouldn't be a United States right now.
For that matter, the United States actually gave an open invitation for Quebec to become part of the United States in the "Articles of Confederation". Quebec declined because the Americans were such dicks when it came to the French and the Catholics.
With that said, I have nothing against diversity where it is "natural". Thomas Jefferson was not in favor of a large central government, and in all honesty would have been fine with diversity existing. But Thomas Jefferson never would have shoved it down anyone's throat.
Thomas Jefferson wanted people to remain "independent" of the government. Thereby making them independent of each other, almost to the extent that individuals, families, churches, and communities would practically operate as independent countries. In that world, you would see no objection from me to existence diversity. Because it couldn't "touch" me unless I voluntarily sought it out.
As I said, the problem with diversity, is it means that people who you don't agree with, get to rule over you. This can work as long as the differences are small. But when the differences are large, it just ends in the complete domination of one group by the other.
As George Washington said....
"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
