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.
Actually, I'm a recent convert to the concept of multiculturalism, but not in the way you might think. Fact is if you want a functioning nation you need to single culture. However, as far as I'm concerned I'm more than willing to see this nation split right down the middle rather than give up my traditional culture. What I want is borders.
You can always go to Germany and reconstruct the Berlin wall. Plus, they would be more willing to accept a single-minded, communist ideology than this mixed-bag, hodge podge, group of riff raff we currently have living in the USofA.
You're missing my point. There is no "nation" anymore. We're just a group of disparate peoples, cultures, sub-cultures without a single culture, single language and definable borders. We more resemble a large tax collection territory. I find the culture of the west coast and the northeast, along with a few outposts in the flyover states, as being counter to the rest of us. here in the flyover states. It's time for a divorce. We can live without you. I'm not so sure we can live with you.
When was there ever a "nation" as you have defined it...and for whom? Darn sure wasn't any time between 1776 and 1980s for blacks, women, gay people, the handicapped, etc. Was it the 1990s or 2000s? I must have missed that period in history.
As for being a "group of disparate peoples, cultures, sub-cultures without a single culture...", the human body is an entity of disparate organs, tissues and microorganisms; each performing a different function independent of one another, yet complementary to whole and without malice to any other entity. The heart needs the blood, blood needs the veins and so forth.
Similarly, mankind could not exist with both man and woman. No disrespect to anyone who is gay or lesbian, but stick a nation of men on an island for 100 years and you will soon see an defunct nation.
If multiculturalism annoys you - and it is homogeneity that you seek - maybe you should stay off of the Internet, stop listening to music, watching television, driving a car or wearing clothes. Maybe GM and Ford could benefit from hiring some Germans or Japanese people, then maybe they could stop making such crappy cars that even AMERICANS refuse to buy.
In fact, what kind of car do YOU drive? Who made your stereo system, television and your clothes, Mr. "Homogenous American"?
Courts, neurobiologist, research psychologist, and sociologist do it everyday.
Your same sources are also retracting the very thing they "proved" a decade or two before. Let's stop allowing science to validate everything in the cosmos because it is a fact that man, sometimes, makes mistakes and have to do a little thing called the mea culpa shuffle. These were the same people that said blacks were not as intelligent as whites because of the differences in the shapes of the skulls. The same people who have now declassified Pluto as not being a planet, and the same people who said there are x planets, but finding new ones every few years. The same people who said life cannot exist anywhere outside of our solar system, or anywhere but on Earth, and are now finding clusters of planets in the goldilocks zone. The same people who cannot explain near-death experiences but proclaim there is no God. I'm not saying those sources are not occasionally right, but they are not the great validators that you think they may be...sorry.
BTW, did you just use the court system as a reliable source to validate that emotions can be proved? They couldn't even convict O. J. and are still falsely arresting people. Scientist are now telling people food that was bad for them 20 years ago is actually good for them.
No disrepect, but these are not valid sources. And, please I hope that someone does not use Deepak Chopra as a valid source to prove that there is human soul.
Now, let's get back to the original, never-ending debate about the declining "American values"...whatever those may be.
Last edited by ajsmith365; 02-16-2011 at 02:33 PM..
It would seem for many European Americans that have obtained some measure of assimilation into American society as also taken on the cultural value of discrimination, prejudice and racism toward non-White Americans. Is that the price for being "Accepted" into the American cultural mainstream?
I love it... because my family had to come through Ellis Island and do it the right way, and because my expectations are that others should follow the same rule of law makes me a racist?
Why do you think you're losing popular support for your insane way of thinking? You can only use the race card so much before it becomes a joke. It's long past that point!
Your same sources are also retracting the very thing they "proved" a decade or two before. Let's stop allowing science to validate everything in the cosmos because it is a fact that man, sometimes, makes mistakes and have to do a little thing called the mea culpa shuffle. These were the same people that said blacks were not as intelligent as whites because of the differences in the shapes of the skulls. The same people who have now declassified Pluto as not being a planet, and the same people who said there are x planets, but finding new ones every few years. The same people who said life cannot exist anywhere outside of our solar system, or anywhere but on Earth, and are now finding clusters of planets in the goldilocks zone. The same people who cannot explain near-death experiences but proclaim there is no God. I'm not saying those sources are not occasionally right, but they are not the great validators that you think they may be...sorry.
BTW, did you just use the court system as a reliable source to validate that emotions can be proved? They couldn't even convict O. J. and are still falsely arresting people. Scientist are now telling people food that was bad for them 20 years ago is actually good for them.
No disrepect, but these are not valid sources. And, please I hope that someone does not use Deepak Chopra as a valid source to prove that there is human soul.
Now, let's get back to the original, never-ending debate about the declining "American values"...whatever those may be.
To discount all the findings of science simply because some of its conclusions sometimes change is illogical. Emotions are an integral part of the human experience. How we measure emotions, how we describe emotions, may change as we learn more about ourselves, but challenging that the majority of humans feel emotions is not an exercise in logic, but an exercise in delusion.
To discount all the findings of science simply because some of its conclusions sometimes change is illogical. Emotions are an integral part of the human experience. How we measure emotions, how we describe emotions, may change as we learn more about ourselves, but challenging that the majority of humans feel emotions is not an exercise in logic, but an exercise in delusion.
This causes me to ponder:
ajsmith365, Are you somehow in personal doubt that there is any such thing as human emotions?
To discount all the findings of science simply because some of its conclusions sometimes change is illogical. Emotions are an integral part of the human experience. How we measure emotions, how we describe emotions, may change as we learn more about ourselves, but challenging that the majority of humans feel emotions is not an exercise in logic, but an exercise in delusion.
Sounds like a civilized insult hurled at me. However, I will not reciprocate civilized incivility, but merely state the point.
One cannot ask Violett to prove tribalism is innate as it may, or may not, be able to be proven.
DC at the Ridge, I highly doubt that you are qualified to test anyone's mental dexterity. Point being, what man may THINK that he KNOWS or UNDERSTANDS today, may be proven by man to be totally erroneous tomorrow. Even if you can prove human emotion via tangible measures, there are other occurrences in nature that you cannot (or, as you would put it NOT YET); one example being a soul, an afterlife, and so forth. There are countless occurrences that cannot be proven.
Furthermore, I did not challenge whether human beings feel emotions, but provided it as an example to the responder to Violett to prove something that cannot be proven, yet does exist; as he asked for prove for her to prove something that, currently, may not be able to be proven.
Again, your mis-comprehension of my point is what has led you to this off-kilter quote. I never discounted ALL scientific findings; merely rebutted someone who placed ALL of their validity into a source that has "proven" to have a track record of less than 100% accuracy.
Just as you state it is illogical to discount ALL scientific findings due to its CHANGES IN CONCLUSIONS (otherwise defined as "prior error and correction"), it is delusional and illogical to place ALL of your faith into a science that has not PROVEN to be 100% accurate. I hope that you can put your human nature aside and see that I am right in this instance and retract your previous statement. It is not only the human thing to do, but the logical and truthful one.
Last edited by ajsmith365; 02-16-2011 at 04:08 PM..
Sounds like a civilized insult hurled at me. However, I will not reciprocate civilized incivility, but merely state the point.
One cannot ask Violett to prove tribalism is innate as it may, or may not, be able to be proven.
DC at the Ridge, I highly doubt that you are qualified to test anyone's civility. Point being, what man may THINK that he KNOWS or UNDERSTANDS today, may be proven by man to be totally erroneous tomorrow. Even if you can prove human emotion via tangible measures, there are other occurrences in nature that you cannot (or, as you would put it NOT YET); one example being a soul, an afterlife, and so forth. There are countless occurrences that cannot be proven.
Again, your delusional interpretation and non-comprehension of my point is what has led you to this off-kilter quote. I never discounted ALL scientific findings; merely rebutted someone who placed ALL of their validity into a source that has "proven" to have a track record of less than 100% accuracy.
Just as you state it is illogical to discount ALL scientific findings due to its CHANGES IN CONCLUSIONS (otherwise defined as prior error and correction), it is delusional and illogical to place ALL of your faith into a science that has not proven to be 100% accurate.
LOL. I never intended a CIVILized insult, but despite your assertion to the contrary, you most certainly did engage in inCIVILity yourself. First, you impugn my qualifications. To do something I never attempted to do and find ludicrous to boot. Why would I seek "to test anyone's civility"? I merely asserted that the majority of human beings do experience emotions, that science has attempted to analyze and to quantify such experiences, and that while such analyses may or may not be accurate, it is not the analyses that validate the experiences. Do you believe people experience emotions?
I have carefully avoided "soulful" discussions, since I don't consider them to be relevant to this thread.
Next, you stated that I was delusional and non-comprehending. Evidently, attacking my intelligence, me, personally, rather than attacking my argument, is what you consider sound debate. You clearly do suffer from some delusions.
If you don't believe that people experience emotions, then you would do well to argue this point, rather than to engage in personal attacks. I would be very interested in your argument. I find intellectual ripostes very stimulating.
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.
