This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Universe Prince
Pages: 1 ... 235 236 [237] 238 239 ... 244
3541
« on: November 02, 2006, 11:53:17 PM »
America is a nation govern by ratified legislation. All legislations are subject to, amendment and repeal. All states have the same constitutional process, but have individual constitutional statues. So, America is a country that makes up the law as we go along. Those who seek to deny the people the right to change existing laws, illegally deny the people the right of diversity. Due Process is the one constant, if we amend or repeal due process we no longer have a democracy.
I don't recall disputing the notion that we have laws, Larry, and I'm a little confused as to what, exactly, is your point. Would you care to clarify?
3542
« on: November 02, 2006, 11:48:30 PM »
Well that's 1 opinion, that i'm afraid I don't share, as I've read the piece many a time, and it comes across as specfically referencing the negative of diveristy simply for the sake of diversity.
Can you find me that specific comment where he qualifies the rest of his comments as being specifically about diversity for diversity's sake? Because I can't find it. I cannot find any place in that column where he says anything that indicates or implies that he was only criticizing diversity for diversity's sake. So how do you come to that conclusion?
Yes, he criticises diversity, but thru-out the piece appears to connect that criticism to the idea of we must be a diverse country or else, not simply a blanket criticism of diversity. At least that's how I read it. You & Js obviously read it differently
I read it as it was. I read it as Mr. Sowell's words being what he meant to say, not meaning something contrary to what he was actually saying. And frankly, I just don't know how the column could be said to appear not to be a blanket criticism of diversity. At no point did Mr. Sowell say anything about diversity that was not negative. He did not qualify his comments in any way. Again, I am taking what he said as what he meant to say, and you have not given me any reason not to do so.
3543
« on: November 02, 2006, 04:35:41 PM »
I do believe we have the continued diverging ideas of what diversity means, the way Sowell is using it. Meaning, if you have a negative perception of Sowell, prior to even reading his piece, you're going to assume he's anti-ANY diversity, regardless of how the term being used.
Um, no. This is not about Thomas Sowell. This is about Mr. Sowell's words. The man directly and without subtlety said there has been no evidence "given to verify the wonderful benefits [diversity] is assumed to produce." He also said, "Despite much gushing about how we should 'celebrate diversity,' America's great achievement has not been in having diversity but in taming its dangers that have run amok in many other countries. Americans have by no means escaped diversity's oppressions and violence, but we have reined them in." Please note the lack of any positive connotations to diversity in Mr. Sowell's description of the situation. Mr. Sowell himself has defined diversity as something dangerous that must be contained and something without benefits. At no point in his column does Mr. Sowell mitigate his comments by talking about the American "melting pot" or about meaning just diversity for the sake of diversity. His entire column is entirely negative toward diversity period. And so far, Sirs, you have not been able to point anything among Mr. Sowell's words that indicates otherwise. Yes, you have talked about your own views and about what you believe Mr. Sowell "really" meant. But none of that changes what Mr. Sowell actually said. Since you, Sirs, are not Mr. Sowell, I have to take not your optimistic interpretation but Mr. Sowell's words as what Mr. Sowell means.
3544
« on: November 02, 2006, 04:16:21 PM »
The most necessary common ideal might be to "Live and let live " or to " Let all go to hell in their own way " as sort of a minimum requirement . What is the solution for a person or set of persons who do not share this minimum and live amoung us?
I believe the solution we have is that they become involved in politics and try to make their preferences into laws. Anyway, you're asking the wrong question. You don't need to find a solution to force on other people who don't agree with you. We have enough of that going on and it has caused nothing but problems. The question you should be asking is how do you adapt to a situation where others may not share your ideas about leaving other people alone. If you seek to solve the problem of other people not leaving you alone by forcing your ideas on other people, you've become part of the problem, not the solution.
I consider conformity to be a thing with a proper place and proper times , it is most proper when it is volentary , forced conformity is so unAmeircan it ought to be avoided in any circumstance short of deadly necessity.
Good. I'm glad we agree on that.
3545
« on: November 02, 2006, 04:03:32 PM »
The rights that belong to a Human Being by natural right should always be a matter of discusson between citizens.
Why?
The enjoyment of a right in the context of a society is often a compromise , the social order can be a tool for the protection of rights and the production of priveledges the enhancement of safety.
A compromise with what? Safety? No, there is no real reason to compromise between rights and safety. The safest thing for society is the protection of rights. There is, therefore, no compromise needed. The only time people start insist there is a need for compromise between rights and safety is when they want to start infringing on the liberty to exercise one's rights. And that never makes society safer.
With no social order only the strong and intellegent and welthy would have a full set of rights , the less advantaged become by one means or another enslaved.
Was someone arguing against social order? Anyway, you're confusing rights and liberty again, imo. And I think history has shown that even with social order, some people can still end up enslaved. So social order is hardly synonymous with the protection of rights.
With a social order there can be a structure that protects rights and safety mutually up to the amount that there can be a consensus of what is needed and right , this consencus ought to involve fair and strong debate open to all.
Conversely, with social order there can be a structure that oppresses the liberty and safety of a minority by majority consensus. So having a consensus of what is needed and right is not a guarantee of the protection of rights or of liberty or of safety. In any case, you seem to be confusing society and social order. Society does not exist because we have a social order. Social order exists because we have a society. And even if we had an anarcho-capitalist society with no "democratic" consensus or government, we would still have a social order because society would still exist. To be clear, there is nothing wrong with people building a consensus among themselves as to what is needed and right within society. The problem comes when people decide their consensus should be enforced on everyone else. And a consensus that is made to apply to everyone is really what you're talking about, are you not?
3546
« on: November 02, 2006, 03:35:04 PM »
We are a society of freedom, right?
No.
We are a society based on the rule of law.
Is it your assertion then that our society, American society, is not free? America is not the land of the free but the land of the rule of law?
3547
« on: November 02, 2006, 03:28:23 PM »
Is there any chance we could wait for evidence before we start condemning the guy?
3548
« on: November 02, 2006, 01:16:55 AM »
The danger of diversity is scism and an attitude of "I'll get mine".
The danger is that some people won't agree with us? Oh no! What ever shall we do? Are we so fragile that we need everyone to agree to the same social ideals?
There is a brotherhood amoung Americans , it allows us all to be Irish on St. Patricks day while in Ireland itself not even the Irish are entirely Irish if you ask one about another.
A brotherhood. Is this the same brotherhood that has some people claiming Republicans are greedy and self-centered while other claim Democrats want American soldiers to die and America to lose?
When we have the brotherhood thing going on we are invincible and willing to self sacrifice our comfort , wealth and even lives to the comon good as volenteers . Volenteers have always gotten a lot done in America.
Is Assimilation joining the brotherhood? The fellow feeling is the important part , the accent , clothing , minor customs , religious prefrences and etc. are secondary to the central idea that America is a nation .
WE do things for each other , when in need especially or when under threat most especially. We garuntee for each other a certain minimum respect and mutual protection for each oters rights. Some of our worst problems have been caused by drawing a line around the tribe and trying to be exclusive , Americans who speak strangely and beleive strange things and do strange things or look diffrent can actually be good Americans if they have the Affection for the ideal that makes America America in the first place.
Okay, you're starting to sound a little creepy, like you're recruiting for a cult. Anyway... The central idea that America is a nation? Is that really the central idea? I hope not. And what is this guarantee of mutual protection for others' rights? We take other people's liberty away any time it suits us. Gun bans. Smoking bans. Proposed amendments to ban homosexual marriage. Mutual protection of others' rights? No, not really. And I gotta say, the whole they can be good Americans if they agree with us about American ideals, well, it's just creepy. You spoke of "drawing a line around the tribe and trying to be exclusive", but isn't that what you're doing? Drawing a line and declaring these are the good Americans?
A lot of immagrants arrive with a good idea of how to assimilate into this brotherhood scheme , some even have an exaggerated idea of how good it is , guys like that refresh our idealism , reinvigorate the affection we feel for our American way.
Our American way? What is our American way?
Are some immagrants a threat to this fellowship? Maybe some are , if they can't or won't respect the rights of their fellows and help to build the ideal why do we want them and why do they want to be here? But who is this?
And help to build the ideal? What ideal? Whose ideal? The Republican ideal? The Democrats ideal? The Libertarian ideal? And what is this about why do we want them here? Maybe I'm crazy, but I was under the impression that an American ideal was freedom. What you're talking about doesn't sound like freedom to me. You sure sound like you're preaching conformity to some (as yet vague and undefined) American ideal. Sure, you're willing to tolerate little differences so long as the people submit to whatever this ideal is supposed to be and agree to be part of the "brotherhood". I'm half expecting you to start talking about the "common good" and the "enemies of the people". You're talking as if there is some sort of ideological test to see if someone has really chosen to be part of the "brotherhood" and anyone who doesn't pass is not or should not be wanted here.
Are some immigrants a challenge to the status quo of our society? Sure. But we only need fear that if we have a rigid and inflexible society. But we are not that way, are we? We are a society of freedom, right? Not of ideological purity, right? As I asked before, are we so fragile that we need everyone to agree to the same social ideals? I hope we are not.
Oh, and thank you for helping to illustrate the importance of the assimilation issue to the immigration debate.
3549
« on: November 01, 2006, 06:37:41 PM »
Uh, anyway, why does the country go downhill?
As it continues to lose its identy, as more and more people see America as simply 1 big handout that , oh by the way, is this big mean imperialistic oppressive country, that they unfortunately just happen to live. More & more people sticking their hands out and decrying, "where's mine?". And likely less & less people willing to sacrafice their lives in the service of such a perceived wretched country
As it continues to lose its identity? What does that even mean? As more people see America as a big handout? Who are these people? And frankly, wouldn't the one big handout issue a problem arising from the handouts rather than from the people coming here? When pre-existing problems result in unexpected consequences, those consequences are not the problem.
Diversity has obviously produced a load of benifits to this country. But once again, diversity in the assimilation of cultures, for the sake of improving/enhancing American Culture is 1 thing. Diversity simply for the sake of diversity is much more likely what Sowell was referring to
Considering Mr. Sowell didn't even come close to saying that, I am left wondering upon what you could possibly be basing that conclusion.
Okay, but that doesn't alter the fact that the assimilation issue is related to the immigration issue
Indirect relationship, yes. Direct coorelation that if person A supports X of 1 obligates that they don't support Y of the other, NO
Are you denying that the assimilation issue is a major part of the immigration debate? And by the way, no one made the correlation you're talking about. So why are you arguing against it?
no one said a word about enforcement of immigration law or about comparing it to anything until you did. So I have no idea why you're even bother to make this point.
The point was brought up with your quote "Aren't you expecting people to assimilate? Maybe you're not, but as I recall, that is one of the major objections to open borders and letting all those Mexicans "flood" into America.". YOU brought the 2 into play.
I did? Let me see... um, no, no, not seeing a word about enforcement of immigration law. And I never compared it to support one way or the other to immigration. I believe what I said was, "as I recall, that is one of the major objections to open borders and letting all those Mexicans 'flood' into America." And so far, I haven't seen anything to contradict that idea that concerns about assimilation are part of the concerns about open borders. In fact, you're the one who said if immigrants do not assimilate then the country goes downhill. So you keep making my point while you insist, apparently, that there is no connection.
I was required to differentiate the 2.
You were? By whom? Did someone pass legislation requiring you to do so? Oh, no, wait, you mean you felt you were required to do so. So, you admit then that someone can speak of being required to do something without meaning there must be some legislation requiring it. Okay. Good. I'm glad we cleared that up. Maybe next time someone talks about people not being required to assimilate, we can just skip the whole outraged "did someone pass a law" bit.
Anyway, no, actually, you were not required to differentiate between immigration and assimilation. I assure you I already knew the difference. No one said they were the same. I believe I said, basically, the assimilation issue is tied to the immigration issue because people who are upset about immigration are concerned about assimilation, or rather a supposed lack thereof.
Nothing you've said refutes the notion that the matter of immigrants assimilating into our culture is a major part of the general objection to open borders
WRONG. Assimilation IS absolutely beneficial to American culture. Those that don't support open borders do so as a "major part of the general objection" based on our own finate resources, for our own citizens, and the absolute threat of foreign terrorism
I ask again, are you denying that the assimilation issue is a major part of the immigration debate? People objecting to open borders are not complaining about people not speaking English, not complaining about subdivisions or communities of Mexicans, not complaining about Spanish on local signs and such? Are you seriously telling me none of that is involved in the objections against open borders?
In any case, you still have yet to explain why we need legal and illegal immigration in the first place. Yes, we all know you support legal immigration. But why?
Been there, done that. See above quote for a quick recap
Been there, not done that. What finite resources? Welfare? Again, this is an illustration of the problem with Welfare, not with open immigration. And what about terrorism? We've had domestic terrorism by American citizens, and I don't see you clamoring for closing down the state borders to protect us from terrorists blowing up buildings like, say, what happened in Oklahoma City some years back. We don't need legal and illegal immigration to protect us from these things, and I doubt the ability of it to protect us because, frankly, we still have people coming in and we still had a terrorist attack from guys who did not covertly cross our southern border.
In any case, the immigration issue is a side track from the main issue, and clearly... well, let's set it aside and get back to the notion of being oppressed by diversity. I'll repeat my questions about this.
What, exactly, are the oppressions brought about by diversity? Am I oppressed by living in a diverse society? And if so, what have I lost, i.e., in what way have I been oppressed? If not the oppression of an individual, then perhaps society, in part or as a whole, has been oppressed. In which case the question remains. In what way has society—which is individuals and therefore includes me—been oppressed? What, exactly, is oppressive about diversity?
For that matter, what are the dangers and violence of diversity? Mr. Sowell said, "Despite much gushing about how we should 'celebrate diversity,' America's great achievement has not been in having diversity but in taming its dangers that have run amok in many other countries. Americans have by no means escaped diversity's oppressions and violence, but we have reined them in." So what are these dangers of diversity that must be tamed? What is the violence of diversity that must be reined in?
3550
« on: November 01, 2006, 04:51:08 AM »
The production of that film was the purpose of shooting those soldiers.
Was it? How do you know?
The insurgency is makeing no attempt to take or hold territory , the attrition rate is much harder on them than us and they have no hope of matching our military in any sort of strength.
But they can get a snuff film made and depend on CNN to carry it.
Even if I accept your categorization of it as a snuff film, so what? I realize this seems a harsh position, but frankly it isn't any more harsh than the notion that we all have to accept the fact sometimes innocent people die in war. What do we have to fear? Is it a surprise that they have snipers targeting our troops? Is it a shock that our soldiers and marines die in Iraq from enemy fire? Do the terrorists seem more sympathetic now than they did before? I understand some people find the film offensive. So don't watch it. I haven't. Are you offended by CNN? Then don't watch. Organize a boycott.
I don't see how we have anything to fear from seeing the enemy as the enemy really is. I don't see how we have anything to fear from seeing the truth. President Bush has said that we're supposed to pay attention to what the enemy says and does, that we need to keep in mind what the enemy wants to do to us. So why are we berating CNN for "terrorist propaganda"? I just don't buy it.
3551
« on: November 01, 2006, 01:58:02 AM »
That's kinda like asking, what exactly is the danger to heterosexual marriage brought about by legalizing gay marriage?
I've been wondering about that too, but I'm not sure I'm ready to sit through that discussion.
3552
« on: November 01, 2006, 01:51:22 AM »
the perpetual showcasing of 1 side of a story, minus the other half, which also includes "the truth", becomes a rallying cry for both Terrorists, and those who are both anti-war and/or anti-Bush. THAT becomes a technical definition of Terrorist Propoganda, I'm afraid
First, you haven't demonstrated they have only ever shown one side of the story. Second, how does that become a technical definition of "terrorist propaganda"? Are we just making up definitions as we going along?
3553
« on: November 01, 2006, 01:46:03 AM »
then our country continues to go downhill, as people have less and less reason to be an American
If people do not want to assimilate, our country goes downhill? But you're not expecting immigrants to assimilate? Uh-huh. Okay. Uh, anyway, why does the country go downhill?
I'm simply extrapalating the points he was trying to articulate in his piece, and how they would coincide with the melting pot theory
I'm curious as to how you extrapolate his comment about there being no evidence that diversity has produced any benefit.
ENFORCEMENT of immigration laws does not equate to not supporting the notion of immigrating & assimilating to this country.
Okay, but that doesn't alter the fact that the assimilation issue is related to the immigration issue. And by the way, no one said a word about enforcement of immigration law or about comparing it to anything until you did. So I have no idea why you're even bother to make this point.
I'll ask this once, in this thread.
Thank God for small favors.
Please do NOT try making me out as not supporting immigration.
No one was.
I simply don't support open borders. I support LEGAL immigration, and for those who LEGALLY enter this country, I hope do so because they wish to be an American, and live the American dream. Which AGAIN does NOT equate to them ignoring or abolishing the culture they came from
APPLES & ORANGES......NO JOKE
Nothing you've said refutes the notion that the matter of immigrants assimilating into our culture is a major part of the general objection to open borders. If anything, you've reinforced that notion. So you may not be joking, but you're not making a lot of sense either. In any case, you still have yet to explain why we need legal and illegal immigration in the first place. Yes, we all know you support legal immigration. But why? And no, this is not about are you for or against enforcement of existing law. Dig deeper. Why do we need the law in the first place? Take your time. I'm in no rush. And incidentally, I would not have asked if you hadn't started talking about it.
3554
« on: November 01, 2006, 01:17:54 AM »
Is a repetition of selected truths with the deliberate absense of others that may negate the pre-selected truths, lean more towards "terrorist propoganda" than "news" perhaps?\
I think you give the news media far too much credit. Whatever bias they might have, they're not secretly trying to propagandize for the terrorists. If you have evidence to the contrary, then you should have no trouble convincing the U.S. Justice department to charge them with treason or something similar. Otherwise, this "terrorist propaganda" talk is just a lot of biased verbiage with no real substance.
"Terrorist propaganda"? Can we please save that for actual terrorist propaganda? Communication is much easier when the words we use actually mean something.
3555
« on: November 01, 2006, 12:56:02 AM »
Once the door is open for foreign aid to be used for special interest, what was supposed to be foreign aid, become corporate welfare.
You're assuming that foreign aid by itself is somehow pure. Perhaps you should consider that foreign aid by its very nature is used for special interest.
Pages: 1 ... 235 236 [237] 238 239 ... 244
Show Posts