I gather ZEB and Vroom don;t get along.
Zeb said social liberals condone the haete crimes then proceeded to call vroom a social liberal, which imlies that vroom would condone the violent act in the original post. To which vroom got offended.
It’s nice to say all “liberals” would condone such a crime but I’m sure you’s find the vast majority of liberals do not.
As far as the original post, it’s a tragedy, and pathetic.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I’m sorry that you have a difficult time following along.
I think it’s obvious at this point that the liberals who ushered in the era of the politically correct are having a difficult time balancing justice with their warped sense of what is (or should be) “Politically correct.”
Is there something you don’t like about that?
Please tell me…
Grow up Zeb.
It’s not nice to say people believe in X, when X isn’t something they believe in.
Perhaps you’d like it if people loudly proclaimed you to be a Satanist?
Nothing in this thread has anything to do with me. The laws of the land clearly override any cultural background of the people choosing to live in that land.
That being said, if people wish to retain or remember aspects of their history, within those laws, who gives a crap.
Please commence twisting my words…[/quote]
vroom:
You are actually so off base this time around that nothing I could say at this point would make you look any more confused than you already seem.
Acutally, you were confused from your first post on hwen you stated to BB:
"I don’t quite see what you are trying to say.
I’m guessing you are saying (that the author is stating) that in Europe liberal groups are unwilling to take a stand against culturally driven abuse?"
While most times you are just flat out liberal (and wrong) on the issues, this time around you are entertaining me.
Please do more of this 
Nonsense, I politely asked both BB and yourself for clarification, just to make sure I wasn’t getting things wrong…
If you choose not to be cooperative, don’t blame me.
A multicultural society is the inevitable result of free nations. People migrate in search of a better life. This is how America, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and many other countries were founded, and continue to grow.
Being multicultural does not mean having to accept honor killings, oppression of women, and other practices. Some limits can, and must, be drawn.
To use cultural practices you dislike as a reason to rail against multiculturalism is ridiculous.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
United we stand, divided we fall.
Which part does multiculturalism fit?
[/quote]
So you’re for a white only America? Is that what you’re saying?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
So I want to play devil’s advocate for one sec. Also I want to point out a difference between cultural relativity and diversity. Diversity is not just accepting someone because they are a minority or different but accepting them because they are an individual. It is the individual differences summed up in a community that give us diversity.
Relativity, on the other hand, is validating behavior based on culture of origin. As I stated earlier relativity has no place in a land of concrete law.
I then ask, is teaching diversity counterintuitive to teaching nationalism?
Any thoughts?
[/quote]
I agree with you totally. Why do multiculturalism and cultural relativity have to go hand in hand?
Most countries are multi-cultural but some set standards exist. They are called LAWS.
I am disturbed by how this thread has become a haven for thinly-disguised racism. People talking about how their countries (basically, the US and Canada) should be mono-cultural. They are using this cultural relativism issue as a cover for their bigotry.
I’m sorry, but respecting culture has to end when that culture starts breaking laws and disrespecting others. I’m a social liberal, and I’m abhorred by the concept of the “honor killing” and whatnot. That is a cultural practice that is full of shit. Have a parade, dress up in a dragon costume, belly-dance, drink tequila until you pass out leaving behind the faint odor of cirrhosis on your breath, but if you feel like you have to beat somebody up on account of your cultural pride and nothing else, then you need to think again.
I liken this issue to something else which is a big part of my job: medical confidentiality. The rule of thumb is “confidentiality ends when harm begins.” For example, if you are an HIV patient and someone here at work is medically exposed to your blood, guess what? They are now entitled to find out that you are HIV positive because that has ramifications on their own health.
To think that some concept of cultural pride trumps the well-being of anyone is ridiculous. Cultural pride ends when harm begins.
[quote]deanosumo wrote:
I agree with you totally. Why do multiculturalism and cultural relativity have to go hand in hand?
Most countries are multi-cultural but some set standards exist. They are called LAWS.
I am disturbed by how this thread has become a haven for thinly-disguised racism. People talking about how their countries (basically, the US and Canada) should be mono-cultural. They are using this cultural relativism issue as a cover for their bigotry.
[/quote]
Thus proving the point that you cannot begin to have a discussion about cultural values without someone quickly resorting to the bigot/racist/xenophobe card. No passing go, no collecting $200.
There’s quite a difference between mono-cultural and having no national culture, and lots of room for discussion as to where we should try to fall on the spectrum between those two points – and most importantly, WHY we should try to be at any particular point on the spectrum. And we need to be able to have a discussion on both utility and moral values with respect to WHY.
Laws do reflect our moral values – and as you have seen in other threads, there can be quite a bit of disagreement over those laws as well. And the morals/values behind those laws are important for everyone to understand – hopefully to agree on, but at the very least to understand. But there are plenty of things that fly below the level of criminality that are still important for us to discuss (because, among other things, this is how you get to the point of advocating good-faith changes to the laws when they no longer reflect national mores).
Boston Barrister I agree with you a 100%
If you type the words ?Sydney, Lebanese and gang rape? into a search engine and read the results I don?t know how you can be an advocate for multiculturalism, especially if you are a women.
About the melting pot:
What happens if you keep adding only one ingredient? Eventually the whole pot becomes that one ingredient (not a harmonious mixture of all the previous ingredients). This is the case in Europe where the vast majority of immigrants are Muslims.
Deanosumo,
“I am disturbed by how this thread has become a haven for thinly-disguised racism. People talking about how their countries (basically, the US and Canada) should be mono-cultural. They are using this cultural relativism issue as a cover for their bigotry.”
And there’s your problem - you have it backwards. The faith of multiculturalism breeds ethnic separatism, which breeds racism, tribalism, etc., not the other way around.
If I were to move to France, I would expect to have to assimilate to French culture. Same if I moved to Tibet. And the same applies to anyone who comes to the US.
Having a multiracial nation that is monocultural is the better solution.
And like Boston mentioned, why the charge of bigotry and racism? I don’t think that white people are the only ones qualified to enjoy the American experience.
[quote]deanosumo wrote:
I am disturbed by how this thread has become a haven for thinly-disguised racism. People talking about how their countries (basically, the US and Canada) should be mono-cultural. They are using this cultural relativism issue as a cover for their bigotry.
[/quote]
It?s not about hating others its simple SURVIVAL of yourself and your way of life.
I notice that you are from Japan, which is a very Mono-cultural country. Japan accepts very few immigrants or refugees (e.g. 14 refugees for Japan in 2002 vs. 100,000 + for Britain, a similar size developed nation).
I doubt that you have experienced the problems that multiculturalism can cause.
Well, in a roundabout way, some of you are arguing for state controlled education.
Removing the influence of parental cultures from the education of multicultural children is part of how they are normalized into a “melting pot”.
Either that, or simply closing the borders down to “other” people.
[quote]vroom wrote:
While most times you are just flat out liberal (and wrong) on the issues, this time around you are entertaining me.
Nonsense, I politely asked both BB and yourself for clarification, just to make sure I wasn’t getting things wrong…
If you choose not to be cooperative, don’t blame me.[/quote]
Why vroom…I am most cooperative
[quote]deanosumo wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
United we stand, divided we fall.
Which part does multiculturalism fit?
So you’re for a white only America? Is that what you’re saying?
[/quote]
Zap:
Don’t you love it when your words are twisted?
(chuckling)
[quote]deanosumo wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
United we stand, divided we fall.
Which part does multiculturalism fit?
So you’re for a white only America? Is that what you’re saying?
[/quote]
No. I am for an integrated America where people can live together in harmony.
I believe the various ethnicities should work hard to “Americanize” while keeping the important parts of their cultures.
For example, my grandfather came over from Germany in his teens. He did not start to learn English until he was on the ship to America, yet he managed to speak perfect English with no accent and still kept his love for German beer. His neighborhood, while full of immigrants was a mix of Irish, German, Italian and anyone else.
I believe that any aspect of a culture that allows the abuse of women or minorities should be reviled. This does not mean we should reject the people from this culture or the good parts of the culture.
I would rather see more of a “melting pot” than the divisiveness modern “multiculturalism” brings.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Well, in a roundabout way, some of you are arguing for state controlled education.
Removing the influence of parental cultures from the education of multicultural children is part of how they are normalized into a “melting pot”.
Either that, or simply closing the borders down to “other” people.[/quote]
vroom, we already have a state controlled education system. It has done a pretty decent job to date.
Unfortunately the far left leaders of the teachers unions and modern “PC” crap such as this “multiculturalism” being taught in public schools have been screwing up the system.
The solution is to lessen the teachers unions power and kill this “PC” crap, not do away with the public school system. Exactly how to accomplish this is another debate.
If parents are not learning English and are teaching their kids that women are second class citizens than I see public schools as the only hope for these kids. This is often characterized as a “liberal” idea.
Liberalism found itself in direct conflict with itself when it decided to embrace the current philosophy of “multiculturalism”.
Canada is generally thought of as a multicultural nation, whereas the US is presumed to be a melting pot.
If you feel there are actually problems in the US with respect to cultural pockets or retention on culture, I would be surprised.
In Canada, I don’t see any attempt to bend criminal laws for cultural groups. I could be wrong, point it out to me and I’d be opposed to it.
You can also correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t PC teachings, in lower schools, simply that other people shouldn’t be hated or attacked because they have accents, skin colors or clothing that is different than my own?
Nobody has ever tried to tell me that I have to allow someone from background nationality X to ignore our laws because I live in a multicultural society.
It may indeed be that case that some cultures have norms that don’t fit in well with our own, and that they break certain types of laws more so than those from other cultures. They should be tried and where possible convicted, what else can we do?
This thread sounds like hysteria to me. Par for the course really. I guess maybe there are some out there with the beliefs given as the premise of this thread. There are others out there that believe the US should be a theocracy.
Both viewpoint are followed by those that could be termed radical crackpots who have little purchase on society in general.
I think just about everyone here would be happy to disagree with both of those viewpoints. I don’t think the hoopla around this topic is justified. Again, if I’m wrong, just point it out to me, maybe I haven’t been peeking into the right places to see it.
vroom, it is probably much ado about nothing to most people. The real victims are the women that are stuck in a culture that treats them as chattel.
Unfortunately I cannot cite any examples, but I have read about social service agents trying to help women in bad situations and being blocked because of “multiculturalism”.
I have no idea the scope or extent of the problem, but since it is not mine should I pretend it does not exist or should I try to discuss it rationally?
vroom, are you not aware that muslim sharia law is being seriously considered in Ontario?
Or that aboriginal justice now has a separate sentencing code in Canada?
PC has become it’s own form of tyranny.
It seems that you can not have a meaningful discussion about the cultural practices and attitudes of a definable group of people, without someone trying to censor and stifle the debate by throwing accusations of racism.
We all know racism is wrong. Accusing someone of racism is a really easy way to shut them up without addressing what they have said and it is a cop out.
People are trying so hard to be liberal and PC, that they are defending people who find liberalism and PC absolutely abhorrent. The result is the twisted situation in BB’s original post.