U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-11-2015, 08:00 PM
 
Location: Newport Beach, California
32,978 posts, read 19,952,237 times
Reputation: 12880

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
I could really care less about race. My concern is "the soul", "character", "morality", and "freedom". To me, the world of the future is less moral, less free, and more lonely. It is going further and further away from human nature, and replacing it with emptiness, materialism, and hedonism.

First, Steven Pinker is a political hack. He has an agenda. Secondly, he cherry-picks his data something terrible. And thirdly, what data he actually gets right, needs to be put in proper context.
Disagree. Unless you can prove there is an universal moral code. So yes, moral code and culture are closely connect to race. At least culture is CLOSELY connected to race or ethnicity. Multiculturalism simply do not work in the long run, especially when one believes that there is a superior culture or race, and the only way to achieve peace is through violence and dominance.

So you think the world will become more violent?

I don't think Pinker is a hack. He is not even political. He is an author and I doubt he has any interests in politics.

Last edited by lilyflower3191981; 05-11-2015 at 08:19 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-11-2015, 08:43 PM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
8,096 posts, read 4,692,243 times
Reputation: 2877
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981 View Post
Disagree. Unless you can prove there is an universal moral code. So yes, moral code and culture are closely connect with race. At least culture is CLOSELY connected with race. Multiculturalism simply do not work in the long run, especially when one believes that there is a superior culture or race, and the only way to achieve peace is through violence and dominance.

So you think the world will become more violent?

I don't think Pinker is a hack. He is not even political. He is an author and I doubt he has any interests in politics.

Well, it isn't that the world will become more immoral as a result of multiculturalism(although it plays a role). I actually place most of the blame for immorality on democracy itself, urbanization, and materialism.


Lets backtrack for a moment.


Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote something called the "Discourse on the Arts and Sciences", all the way back in 1750.

Discourse on the Arts and Sciences - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In it, he basically comes out intensely in opposition to civilization itself. He claims that civilization has made people evil. And that in effect, nothing good has ever come out of civilization.

"In Discourse on the Arts and Sciences Rousseau argues that the arts and sciences have not been beneficial to humankind, because they arose not from authentic human needs but rather as a result of pride and vanity. Moreover, the opportunities they create for idleness and luxury have contributed to the corruption of man. He proposed that the progress of knowledge had made governments more powerful and had crushed individual liberty; and he concluded that material progress had actually undermined the possibility of true friendship by replacing it with jealousy, fear, and suspicion."

As Franklin said, "The Care and Labour of providing for Artificial and Fashionable Wants, the sight of so many rich wallowing in Superfluous plenty, whereby so many are kept poor and distressed for Want, the Insolence of Office . . . and restraints of Custom, all contrive to disgust [the Indians] with what we call civil Society."

Noble savage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He also wrote, "Having few artificial Wants, they(indians) have abundance of Leisure for Improvement by Conversation. Our laborious Manner of Life compar’d with theirs, they esteem slavish & base; and the Learning on which we value ourselves, they regard as frivolous & useless."

Benjamin Franklin: Remarks Concerning the Savages of North America


Rousseau continues by declaring that, "Human civilization has always been artificial, creating inequality, envy, and unnatural desires."

"In Rousseau's philosophy, society's negative influence on men centers on its transformation of amour de soi, a positive self-love, into amour-propre, or pride. Amour de soi represents the instinctive human desire for self-preservation, combined with the human power of reason. In contrast, amour-propre is artificial and encourages man to compare himself to others, thus creating unwarranted fear and allowing men to take pleasure in the pain or weakness of others."


Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Cultivators of the earth are the most valuable citizens. They are the most vigorous, the most independant, the most virtuous, & they are tied to their country & wedded to it's liberty & interests by the most lasting bonds.... I consider the class of artificers as the panders of vice & the instruments by which the liberties of a country are generally overturned.

Jefferson's Letter to John Jay 9/23/1785


Jefferson also said "When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe."


Basically, what I actually hate is civilization itself, but I blame the city most of all. The best people in all nations, through all-time have always lived in the country and cultivated the land(IE farmers). Yet, these people have increasingly become pariahs, as the hedonists and materialists who control American culture, are steering society toward debauchery.

In feudalism, the best men were the peasants and serfs, not the corrupt nobles or kings.


If there were no cities, we would have more "Yes sirs, and yes ma'ams". Cities and a culture of dependence poison everything.

The human character needs freedom, it needs real independence. Slavery and dependency, even in its most benign forms, destroys the human character. It destroys the soul. It destroys everything good.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNftCCwAol0


The future to me, looks more "New-world order", "Brave New World", than "Jeffersonian Democracy". And I have no idea how to prevent it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2015, 09:06 PM
 
Location: Newport Beach, California
32,978 posts, read 19,952,237 times
Reputation: 12880
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
Well, it isn't that the world will become more immoral as a result of multiculturalism(although it plays a role). I actually place most of the blame for immorality on democracy itself, urbanization, and materialism.


Basically, what I actually hate is civilization itself, but I blame the city most of all. The best people in all nations, through all-time have always lived in the country and cultivated the land(IE farmers). Yet, these people have increasingly become pariahs, as the hedonists and materialists who control American culture, are steering society toward debauchery.

In feudalism, the best men were the peasants and serfs, not the corrupt nobles or kings.


If there were no cities, we would have more "Yes sirs, and yes ma'ams". Cities and a culture of dependence poison everything.

The human character needs freedom, it needs real independence. Slavery and dependency, even in its most benign forms, destroys the human character. It destroys the soul. It destroys everything good.


The future to me, looks more "New-world order", "Brave New World", than "Jeffersonian Democracy". And I have no idea how to prevent it
.
In theory, but you and i both know 100% freedom is unattainable unless all men in their degree are capable of reason and moral responsibility.

When you travel, you don't expect others to respect YOUR culture, you learn to respect other people's cultures.

You are a guest in somebody else’s home when you arrive in a foreign land. With this comes a new set of rules, traditions and expectations.

You don’t have to like these, you don’t have to take them on, but you definitely have to respect them and follow them while you are visiting that culture.

How can you possibly blame civilization. Civilized people embrace better angles in their natures. You cannot deny that.

World is getting more and more diverse, it might not necessarily be a good thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2015, 09:18 PM
 
Location: Newport Beach, California
32,978 posts, read 19,952,237 times
Reputation: 12880
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post

"In Discourse on the Arts and Sciences Rousseau argues that the arts and sciences have not been beneficial to humankind, because they arose not from authentic human needs but rather as a result of pride and vanity. Moreover, the opportunities they create for idleness and luxury have contributed to the corruption of man. He proposed that the progress of knowledge had made governments more powerful and had crushed individual liberty; and he concluded that material progress had actually undermined the possibility of true friendship by replacing it with jealousy, fear, and suspicion."
.
He who said that is an idiot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2015, 09:37 PM
 
1,140 posts, read 970,149 times
Reputation: 309
I don't deny the Holocaust, but am disgusted at how Jews use it to get what they want. Same with you know who and slavery (also segregation to a lesser extent).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2015, 10:31 PM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
8,096 posts, read 4,692,243 times
Reputation: 2877
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981 View Post
How can you possibly blame civilization. Civilized people embrace better angles in their natures. You cannot deny that.
Well, you have to define what you mean exactly by "civilized". In my view, enlightenment thinkers were probably the epitome of civility. Enlightenment thinkers were "classical liberals", with a healthy respect for human nature, and an almost extreme faith in "the people".

Modern society is not classically liberal at all. To the extent that it praises diversity and tolerance, it does so completely hypocritically, and only because its real goal is integration and unity.


Those who support anti-discrimination laws are merely bigots of a different variety. Liberals claim to be tolerant, but they are violently intolerant of anyone who doesn't agree with them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

In my view, the government should never be involved in sanctioning any activity or view whatsoever. In the case of same-sex marriage, I believe that the government shouldn't be involved at all. And that having the government legally sanction any type of marriage, is itself a form of intolerance.


The liberal left will rant and ramble about tolerance, and then they will turn around and demand "hate-speech laws". These kinds of laws exist all over Europe, and I've heard many effectively arguing that no one should be allowed to say anything which might offend someone else.

These liberals, while claiming to love Freedom of Speech, are increasingly looking as if they want to make it illegal to draw a picture of Mohammad.


The problem here, is that in a multicultural society(or really, any sort of pluralistic society), the government always moves towards being intolerant of intolerance. And in order to integrate and unify the people, the government will have to place regulations and restrictions on the people.


Now, there has been a surge in recent years of libertarians, and other people who are more classically liberal, and that is good. But it is unlikely that society will actually be moving in that direction. And why? Because cities are incompatible with classical liberalism. The countryside can become classically liberal overnight, and do well. But Cities can only exist through despotism. And because cities control the culture of America(and increasingly so), all you have right now are some "hangers-on" for tradition, or those who daydream of more liberty. But the culture of this country will continue on a slow march towards centralization, corruption, and despotism.


I don't find New York City or Washington D.C. to be any more civilized than Arkansas City, Kansas. In fact, I find it to be quite the opposite. But the power is increasingly being centralized in cities, which allow them to use that power to centralize ever-more power in them. It is an imbalance of power which inevitably exists in democracy. Small always yields to big.


Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981 View Post
World is getting more and more diverse, it might not necessarily be a good thing.
Nations are getting more diverse, the world is getting less diverse. Languages and cultures are still dying out. The goal is to basically "Westernize" the world. And the so-called "terrorists" in the middle-east, their primary goal is to destroy that "Globalism" which they believe is destroying their cultures and is attacking their values. Is it any surprise that Bin Laden attacked the World Trade Center? It is the center of this globalism/internationalism.

The Arabs see American involvement in the Middle-East as an off-shoot of colonialism, called "neocolonialism". Its purpose to to manipulate foreign government, to throw open markets, and to maintain access to the natural resources of those countries. And really, they are right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocolonialism


What we see in regards to diversity in the world, over the long-run is intended to break down national borders, to break down nations themselves. And to push the world towards internationalism. You have the European Union trying to break down national borders across Europe, expanding further and further south and east. Most of the nations of the world are increasingly moving towards the Western/American economic model. With very few holdouts. And those holdouts will ultimately have their hands forced through huge economic pressure(boycotts, sanctions, trade deals, lucrative contracts, etc).


The future is not diverse, in fact, it is the opposite of diverse. A diverse society can never stay diverse for any length of time. Assimilation will always happen over a period of time, as long as you can break down segregation(IE forced integration), and as long as you can prevent the diversity from collapsing the society altogether.


If you dumped half of Mexico into America, over the long-term, as long as you can forcefully integrate them(public education), the Mexicans would be assimilated into American society. Of course, to some extent, it would also assimilate Americans into Mexican society. Basically, while the Mexicans would become more American, Americans would also become more Mexican. Eventually, America and Mexico would be similar enough that the southern border might seem pointless.

The difficult part is preventing this huge surge of immigrants, and the costs and change that are the result, from causing America(and even Mexico) to fall apart.


Nationalism refers to nation, and nation means "tribe". Often referred to as "ethnonationalism".

When I look at the future, either the ethnonationalists will rebel, and it could cause the kind of internal conflicts which led to WWII. Or the ethnonationalists will capitulate, and the future will be basically the "new world order".

I like to look at what is happening in Europe to imagine what the future will hold. Basically, will the European Union collapse under the weight of ethnonationalism and the pressures caused by large-scale immigration? Or will the European Union ultimately become something more like "The United States of Europe"?


I pray every day that the European Union collapses in such a chaotic way that its reverbations causes the collapse of the entire current world order.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2015, 10:37 PM
 
1,140 posts, read 970,149 times
Reputation: 309
Israel DOES NOT want peace with Palestine to EVER happen. Why? Palestinian terrorism is a convenient distraction from the organized crime committed by you know who around the world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2015, 10:40 PM
 
Location: Aztlan
2,686 posts, read 1,410,585 times
Reputation: 1282
Quote:
Originally Posted by motownewave View Post
Israel DOES NOT want peace with Palestine to EVER happen. Why? Palestinian terrorism is a convenient distraction from the organized crime committed by you know who around the world.
The mob?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2015, 10:48 PM
 
Location: Newport Beach, California
32,978 posts, read 19,952,237 times
Reputation: 12880
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
A diverse society can never stay diverse for any length of time. Assimilation will always happen over a period of time, as long as you can break down segregation(IE forced integration), and as long as you can prevent the diversity from collapsing the society altogether..
Immigration will continue to be a major force in U.S. life. The United Nations estimates that two million people a year will move from poorer to developed nations over the next 40 years, and more than half of those will come to the United States, the world’s preferred destination for educated, skilled migrants. In 2000, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, an association of 30 democratic, free-market countries, the United States was home to 12.5 million skilled immigrants, equaling the combined total for Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and Japan.

If recent trends continue, immigrants will play a leading role in our future economy. Between 1990 and 2005, immigrants started one out of four venture-backed public companies. Large American firms are also increasingly led by people with roots in foreign countries, including 15 of the Fortune 100 CEOs in 2007.




Read more: History, Travel, Arts, Science, People, Places | Smithsonian
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

Yes, the country will be more diverse. It is not going to be a good thing in the long run.

I have no interests in this thread anymore, honestly.

Bottom line is that I understand why SOME Americans are worried.

My ex's tech company for example, the projects have been moved to India. According to you, however, science is a total waste of time, Not everybody is living like you, occupying a large land in Oklahoma.

You are the king of your own world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2015, 11:02 PM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
8,096 posts, read 4,692,243 times
Reputation: 2877
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981 View Post
He who said that is an idiot.
Well, I don't think Rousseau was "wrong in his observation. At least not entirely.

What he is saying, is that those who engage in the arts and sciences, are primarily doing so out of pride and vanity. Or "Fame and fortune". For their name to go down in history.

Now, that isn't always true, but it certainly goes in that direction.


For instance, the kinds of people who become famous actors, singers, musicians, etc. These people don't just enjoy creating music for the sake of creating music. They are people who want to become rich, for their name to be known. It is a matter of pride and vanity, not for the name of art itself. The people who love art only for itself, rarely become known. And for that matter, if you look at modern music, almost everyone engaged in it aren't really even musicians or artists, they are simply entertainers. They don't write their own music, and their personalities themselves are crafted and fake.

As a general rule, people who are "in the public eye" to any degree, are some of the most shallow, the most vain, the most narcissistic people on the planet. Someone with humbleness and humility will never be "famous", nor does he want to be.


For that matter, much of what goes on in the name of science is all about "greatness". We went to the moon, not because of a human need, but for pride, vanity, nationalism. These "scientists" regularly rant about how America is falling behind Russia and China or whatever else in I suppose the "space race", or whatever. But what human need is served by it? It is pride and vanity, and it is pathetic.

That doesn't mean nothing good came from science. I personally love science. But just as in the case of "global warming" science. It seems to be much less about authentic human needs, and more about fame, politics, and money.


I want to add, I really love this video. Though it is on a different topic.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-2q-QMUIgY
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:15 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top