Jump to content

M.Dancer

Member
  • Posts

    20,488
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by M.Dancer

  1. The problem is you guys want to have a sociological discussion about disadvantaged groups, known as minority groups in academia, but use it interchangeably with a mathematical minority. A person is not part of a sociological minority group simply because they are part of the mathematical minority. Whites in South Africa during Apartheid were a mathematical minority, but they certainly were not a "minority group" nor did they have "minority status", as the thread title indicates, because in that context we're talking about status in regards to power and privilege. When you talk about Whites attaining minority status, you're not simply talking about numbers. You're conflating that concept of minority with the idea that Whites will somehow be in a disadvantaged position. They won't. I'm sorry that you're incapable of understanding some fundamental concepts about the meaning of "minority groups".

    Oh that's nonsense...but that is really your own problem.

    The Japanese are the second largest Asian group in Canada. They are indeed a minority and a "visible

    minority"

    Now tell me because they aren't disadvantaged, they are not a visible minority...

  2. It's simple, really. Only an idiot would see Whites as a minority group in South Africa during Apartheid. The Black population was many times larger, but sociologically they were the minority group in that situation.

    There are no visible minorities in South Africa. But they were and are a minority.

    except I assume for the mathematically challenged...

  3. If you're not even willing to use the terms in their proper context, then there's no point in even having a discussion with you.

    WHat? You already decided that the proper context was too narrow....and decided that it is what ever you want it to mean.

    Lets refresh...

    A visible minority is a person who is visibly not one of the majority race in a given population.

    The term is used as a demographic category by Statistics Canada in connection with that country's Employment Equity policies. The qualifier "visible" is important in the Canadian context where political divisions were traditionally determined by language (English vs. French) and religion (Catholics vs. Protestants), or by ethnic background - "invisible" traits. Since the reform of Canada's immigration laws in the 1960s, immigration has been heaviest from areas other than Europe, thus creating visible minorities. Members of visible minorities are defined by the Canadian Employment Equity Act as "persons, other than Aboriginal people, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour."[1] The term is used to address the alleged labour market disadvantage of this group.

    That definitely does not include a gender or sexual orientation....not does it even include whther someone is privileged or not.

    The only other definition I am aware of, is yours.

    I for one have no problem either discussing the accepted version, or your own.

  4. No. It means exactly what I said it means. How many times do I have to repeat that it has nothing to do with population and everything to do with privilege?

    As many times as you need to. Won't make it right nor will it make a majority a minority. Nor will it make the privileged minorities oppressed.

    It will make you look silly though....

  5. The story of Abraham happened before the Mosaic Law was given.

    Did Abraham commit adultery by begetting a son from the maid....I don't know.

    So you are saying then...that the bible is time sensitive...laws before the mosaic were not in effect? That cain killing abel was ....not a crime....does that play forward too?

    Laws against gays are no longer in place....can we chuck the bible references then?

  6. Now, it'll be interesting to see how you'd fit Cronus into this.

    See that's the thing Betsy, if ID is valid, it wouldn't presume that the creator is jehovah....why can't ID allow other another god, or gods?

    Now don't get me wrong, I reject ID as unscientific and merely creationism in disguise.

    I reject creationism as superstitious nonsense that should be relegated to the camp fire along with ghost stories and meetings of other like minded spirit believers

  7. how condescending...they know how to fish, farm, etc...when international fishing corporations have depleted the fish stocks and it doesn't rain to water the crops you can teach them all you want but there still won't be any food on the table...

    baloney....no one in somalia even fished 35 years ago.

    The Somali fishing fleet is largely artisanal. Cooperative fishermen have about 700 small boats (6 to 8 m long),and private fishermen operate an additional 100 boats of similar size. The Somali Government helped the fishermen buy and motorize these vessels under the country's 1974-78 development program. The only commercial vessels are operated by the state-owned company Somalfish, which has I I

    trawlers. These vessels are based in Kismayu and are about 23-27 m long.

    According to Ministry sources, none of these trawlers are currently operational, due to technical problems.

    http://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/mfr4412/mfr44124.pdf

    Now, instead of fishing, of which the claim that the oceans are delpleted is without merit, have turned to crime

  8. I suspect that it was but this is a tough thing to quantify, so I won't argue this one.

    Do you have anything to offer me in terms of background on this topic ? I would gladly read it.

    Are you aware say, of maragaret thatcher's parents?

    Or perhaps, the development of the canal system in england in the 19th century?

    Or....the lever bros?

    ...or the rise of the middle-class in England in general

  9. Actually it's not off topic. It is part of the problem that the US is in with their debt. You cannot operate that kind of military without that kind of cost. it's part of the budget, hence part of the problem with the national debt.

    Right...First you claimed they wouldn't cut the military budget...When shown that it is indeed a topic in politics...you brushed it aside and you limply tried to claim that the US has never reduced the military budget.

    Thus shown they have in the past, you have no argument that they won't in the future.

    Next!

  10. Two additional comments:

    - Entitlement exists at all levels. Yes even the wealthy believe they are entitled to live better than most of us, and help themselves to money that's not really theirs.

    Incorrect. They earn their money, it is neither given to them from the state or stolen.

    Now of course, the communists believe the rich steal their wealth, but their opinions are like Joey from Friends says, Is a Moo point

  11. :rolleyes:

    Can't add anything to expand on that? Of course, no!

    Something tells me Bambino is already sold on creation...

    ....but he's so hang-up on the word, Biblical.

    For some reason....he just can't simply get beyond that word, Biblical! :lol:

    So you would be willing to accept the classical greek-roman version of creation?

    Hello Cronus?

    In the beginning there was an empty darkness. The only thing in this void was Nyx, a bird with black wings. With the wind she laid a golden egg and for ages she sat upon this egg. Finally life began to stir in the egg and out of it rose Eros, the god of love. One half of the shell rose into the air and became the sky and the other became the Earth. Eros named the sky Uranus and the Earth he named Gaia. Then Eros made them fall in love.

    Uranus and Gaia had many children together and eventually they had grandchildren. Some of their children become afraid of the power of their children. Kronus, in an effort to protect himself, swallowed his children when they were still infants. However, his wife Rhea hid their youngest child. She gave him a rock wrapped in swaddling clothes, which he swallowed, thinking it was his son.

    Once the child, Zeus, had reached manhood his mother instructed him on how to trick his father to give up his brothers and sisters. Once this was accomplished the children fought a mighty war against their father. After much fighting the younger generation won. With Zeus as their leader, they began to furnish Gaia with life and Uranus with stars.

    Soon the Earth lacked only two things: man and animals. Zeus summoned his sons Prometheus (fore-thought) and Epimetheus (after-thought). He told them to go to Earth and create men and animals and give them each a gift.

    Prometheus set to work forming men in the image of the gods and Epimetheus worked on the animals. As Epimetheus worked he gave each animal he created one of the gifts. After Epimetheus had completed his work Prometheus finally finished making men. However when he went to see what gift to give man Epimetheus shamefacedly informed him that he had foolishly used all the gifts.

    Distressed, Prometheus decided he had to give man fire, even though gods were the only ones meant to have access to it. As the sun god rode out into the world the next morning Prometheus took some of the fire and brought it back to man. He taught his creation how to take care of it and then left them.

    When Zeus discovered Prometheus' deed he became furious. He ordered his son to be chained to a mountain and for a vulture to peck out his liver every day till eternity. Then he began to devise a punishment for mankind. Another of his sons created a woman of great beauty, Pandora. Each of the gods gave her a gift. Zeus' present was curiosity and a box which he ordered her never to open. Then he presented her to Epimetheus as a wife.

×
×
  • Create New...