Wild Bill Posted October 14, 2012 Report Posted October 14, 2012 (edited) WB - I brought blacks into this, based on your criteria. Well? ---double post Edited October 14, 2012 by Wild Bill Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
TimG Posted October 14, 2012 Report Posted October 14, 2012 (edited) Some cultural traits are negative when compared with own's own culture. Do you have a bias against female circumcision? How about the suppression of women's rights?This is where the "holier than thou" pro-immigration crowd runs and hides, The fact is they reject that notion that ALL cultural behaviors should be considered acceptable but they get their hypocritical noses out of joint when somebody suggests that a different behavior is unacceptable and start screaming racism instead of having a discussion about where we draw the line on what is acceptable. Edited October 14, 2012 by TimG Quote
Michael Hardner Posted October 14, 2012 Report Posted October 14, 2012 "Based on your criteria"? Are you serious? YOU can make extrapolations on what I NEVER SAID to paint me as some kind of racist? You're not a racist - you're biased against ethnicity it seems. American inner city black people are definitely a culture and an ethnicity - are you denying that part ? I don't expect MLW to change for me but I think just for my own peace of mind I will take a break for a while. I'm sorry that you feel that way, but maybe take a look at your views and understand why you seem to be so disturbed here. I'm just repeating your own criteria back to you: ethnicity + culture + crime is something that "we" (whoever "we" are) need to consider. So, you are the one who set that criteria not me. By that criteria, you can make some decisions that you (clearly) would find disturbing. Somehow in your mind, you see your criteria as not being applicable to that group that I have brought up. I don't mean to attack you personally, I'm just trying to see how your criteria is NOT applicable to these groups. Try to look at these things objectively, I don't mean to offend. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted October 14, 2012 Report Posted October 14, 2012 This is where the "holier than thou" pro-immigration crowd runs and hides, I'm still here. WB is the one who is upset and talking about leaving. The fact is they reject that notion that ALL cultural behaviors should be considered acceptable but they get their hypocritical noses out of joint when somebody suggests that a different behavior is unacceptable and start screaming racism instead of having a discussion about where we draw the line on what is acceptable. Who is getting out of joint ? I want to know what the criteria is. If we're not going to have somebody sitting at the border saying "Roma, bad, Christian Egyptian good..." based on their personal likes and dislikes then we need objective criteria. I'm happy to serve the criteria back to anybody who is unable to grasp the abstractions involved. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted October 14, 2012 Report Posted October 14, 2012 ...or... we can just be total hypocrites and list the people we "LIKE" then work backwards to develop a bogus set of reasons for acceptance. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Argus Posted October 14, 2012 Report Posted October 14, 2012 Uh.... well... do racists object to such things as a mainstay of their ideas ? Did the Nazis persecute races because of how they looked of because of their perceived behavior ? Their philosophy was based on eugenics and that no matter how good you were, no matter how law abiding, how economically succesful and ingenius and creative, if you didn't have the right ethnicitiy you should die. I think that's the opposite of the worries about Roma. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 14, 2012 Report Posted October 14, 2012 Very interesting - I wouldn't have suspected that Jamaicas do so much better than Chinese. What do you think of this study ? Jamaicans speak something that resembles English. The Chinese not only don't speak English they don't even use the Roman alphabet. And despite the perception of China as a high tech haven the great majority of the country still lives in poverty, with restricted educational opportunities. The same could be said of most of Asia, east, south and west, and the middle east. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 14, 2012 Report Posted October 14, 2012 I think the racists say it's about "culture" now not race, since it's not just African Americans that are part of it. You know... all those inner-city white kids acting "black" are part of the "culture." Sorry about all the quotes. I broke the irony meter. I think this conversation would be better off without people desperately stretching to find a way to describe anyone who is uncomfortable with immigration, or anyone who has the balls to judge certain nations or cultures as backward to our own as 'racist'. Maybe, since the talk so stresses you out, you should leave, Cyber. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
cybercoma Posted October 14, 2012 Report Posted October 14, 2012 (edited) Please re read what I wrote. I said areas of Toronto and I also said almost always. I'm also talking about present day. you cannot possible argue this. It's a known fact. I can argue this and I will. Comparing Chicago and Toronto is not like comparing Toronto to Kolkota. It doesn't matter that you're talking about present day either because my point is that the racial and ethnic makeup of ghettoes in major urban cities changes over time. That's the point and that's a "known fact" to those that study these things. This contradicts your notion that there's some sort of racial determinant to living in the ghettoes. So the question I have for you is why do you suppose the ethnic and racial makeup of our ghettoes change over time? Asked another way, what is it that remains the same about the ghettoes while the racial and cultural makeup changes? Edited October 14, 2012 by cybercoma Quote
Argus Posted October 14, 2012 Report Posted October 14, 2012 If you don't see what's wrong with your analogy, I can't help you. I have a feeling that no amount of explaining how awful it is will make any difference. So if you have nothing of substance to add but how shocked, appalled and horrified you are why don't you just take your dainty and delicate sensibilities elsewhere and let the grown ups talk? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
TimG Posted October 14, 2012 Report Posted October 14, 2012 And despite the perception of China as a high tech haven the great majority of the country still lives in poverty, with restricted educational opportunities. The same could be said of most of Asia, east, south and west, and the middle east.I don't know where this study got its data but it does not sound reliable. Vancouver has a lot of of extremely wealthy Chinese immigrants who have no sources of income in Canada. If this study only look at reported income then the results are useless. Quote
cybercoma Posted October 14, 2012 Report Posted October 14, 2012 "Based on your criteria"? Are you serious? YOU can make extrapolations on what I NEVER SAID to paint me as some kind of racist? So now I can be branded for whatever you THINK might be the logical extension of my argument! An extrapolation that is not only ridiculous but one I cannot defend. It's not an extrapolation if it fits the logical framework that you provided. You offered a theory and MH is working well within the boundaries of that. You shouldn't take a break from the forum because your beliefs are challenged. You should reflect on what he's saying and why he's saying it. You should think about how this does or does not fit within your criteria. If it doesn't, as you say, you should explain clearly what your criteria are and why this does not fit with that. MH is doing an excellent job of getting you to explore and justify your own thoughts and beliefs, but you've shown that you're not really interested in that by quitting. It's too bad. Quote
Argus Posted October 14, 2012 Report Posted October 14, 2012 ...or... we can just be total hypocrites and list the people we "LIKE" then work backwards to develop a bogus set of reasons for acceptance. Maybe if they're people we like it's because they're people whose values, accomplishments and behaviour we approve of. Doesn't that make sense. And if that's the case it's probably because they're a lot like us. And most humans prefer people who are fundamentally similar to themselves, especially in terms of things like violence and religion. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 14, 2012 Report Posted October 14, 2012 I don't know where this study got its data but it does not sound reliable. Vancouver has a lot of of extremely wealthy Chinese immigrants who have no sources of income in Canada. If this study only look at reported income then the results are useless. It's simply using census data. And while there are wealthy Chinese there are an awful lot of poor ones, too, working in sweatshops you never see. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Michael Hardner Posted October 14, 2012 Report Posted October 14, 2012 Their philosophy was based on eugenics and that no matter how good you were, no matter how law abiding, how economically succesful and ingenius and creative, if you didn't have the right ethnicitiy you should die. I think that's the opposite of the worries about Roma. Fair enough - and what made a race or an ethnicity noble or ignoble ? It was their perceived traits, nothing more. I'm pretty floored by the fact that perceived negative traits of whole groups of people seem to be seriously being considered as a way to decide whether to allow them in to Canada. It misses the point entirely. Are groups different ? Yes, definitely. But I would have thought that the idea of passing judgment on whole groups of people in this way would have died a long time ago. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted October 14, 2012 Report Posted October 14, 2012 So if you have nothing of substance to add but how shocked, appalled and horrified you are why don't you just take your dainty and delicate sensibilities elsewhere and let the grown ups talk? It seems to me that 'delicate sensibilities' are also part of people who prescribe certain theories then keel over when someone suggests that. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
TimG Posted October 14, 2012 Report Posted October 14, 2012 I'm happy to serve the criteria back to anybody who is unable to grasp the abstractions involved.Well for starters - no one is suggesting that any physical characteristic is used a criteria. It is a strawman to suggest it is implied. The criteria that people are using are based on learned cultural behaviors whether we are talking about misogyny or a lack of work ethic. Quote
Argus Posted October 14, 2012 Report Posted October 14, 2012 (edited) Right... context... why don't we just 'flip over all the cards' as they used to say, and specify the people we DON'T want, then work backwards to come up with criteria hm ? Is somebody at some point going to define Black inner city Americans as an 'ethnicity' or is that still a "third rail" for people who are against ethnicity/cultures ? Anybody can answer that one... I've written about the cultural and value issues of north American urban blacks on any number of occasions. These include the general lack of value placed on education, the immitation of the hiphop "gangsta" values, especially including a ludicrously heightened machismo inspired agression among young black males, the enormous level of single parenthood and subsequent lack of involvement of the 'fathers', the general persecution complex which saps the will to strive for better under the assumption that nothing will work anyway, etc. What would you like to discuss? Should we be importing them as immigrants? No. Edited October 14, 2012 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
cybercoma Posted October 14, 2012 Report Posted October 14, 2012 Their philosophy was based on eugenics and that no matter how good you were, no matter how law abiding, how economically succesful and ingenius and creative, if you didn't have the right ethnicitiy you should die. I think that's the opposite of the worries about Roma. That's very close to the theoretical framework you're working with. Explicitly, no matter how law abiding, how economically successful and ingenious and creative, if you don't come from the right ethnicity (or country, since you like to float between the two) you shouldn't be allowed in Canada. Rather than accepting people on their individual merits, you want to slam the door on people because of the "culture" that they come from. This is an awful and dangerous proposition because the people that are exceptions to their culture may be the ones that are trying to escape it. However, you would slam the door on them and force them to remain in their "barbaric" societies, as you call them. Quote
cybercoma Posted October 14, 2012 Report Posted October 14, 2012 Maybe, since the talk so stresses you out, you should leave, Cyber. Maybe you shouldn't try figuring out how people feel because you suck at it. I'm not stressed out at all. White supremacist groups in recent years have switched their arguments from race (since there is social intolerance for those arguments) to culture. When pressed, it becomes clear that culture is a thinly veiled racism, as their idea of culture is generally tied to race. Quote
TimG Posted October 14, 2012 Report Posted October 14, 2012 (edited) . When pressed, it becomes clear that culture is a thinly veiled racism, as their idea of culture is generally tied to race.So you think that anyone who objects to female circumcision or honour killings or selective female abortion is a racist? Edited October 14, 2012 by TimG Quote
Michael Hardner Posted October 14, 2012 Report Posted October 14, 2012 Maybe if they're people we like it's because they're people whose values, accomplishments and behaviour we approve of. Yes, definitely ! Doesn't that make sense. And if that's the case it's probably because they're a lot like us. And most humans prefer people who are fundamentally similar to themselves, especially in terms of things like violence and religion. Enthusiastically, yes. But... the entire point of our particular flavour of democracy is to set up an objective meta document (a constitution) which sets out meta laws that prevent us from acting in comfortable, familiar but discriminatory ways. If we can find a way to describe such traits in non-discriminatory ways then I am in favour of doing so. I'm also in favour of having discussions of such things based on real date (which is not collected now, I understand) if we can do so in an objective way... somehow. Now, let's consider that such discussions are almost impossible to have on a large-scale basis, and that for every Argus who can debate the facts there are others who are only able to argue these things emotionally. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Argus Posted October 14, 2012 Report Posted October 14, 2012 It seems to me that 'delicate sensibilities' are also part of people who prescribe certain theories then keel over when someone suggests that. I don't especially mind it when people call me names, Michael. What I don't like is that on this site they're free to do so because you and Charles are both of the same left wing ideological view, and don't consider terms like 'bigot' or 'racist' as insults. On the other hand, if I reply that the person using those terms is an idiot and a moron I'll wind up getting suspended. And now you'll suggest something along the lines of 'well, if you don't want people calling you a racist don't act like one' but the same term doesn't apply if someone is acting like a moron or an idiot, now does it? I don't get to call them morons or idiots just because they so clearly are. In essence, what people like you and Cyber are trying to do is bully people away from talking about issues which make you uncomfortable. And the only reason you can get away with it at times is because Charles is even more uncomfortable than Cyber with anything that isn't politically correct. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
cybercoma Posted October 14, 2012 Report Posted October 14, 2012 it's probably because they're a lot like us. By a lot like "us", you mean a lot like you. Canada is not homogeneously like Argus. We have Asians, SIkhs, African-Canadians and Muslims in Parliament. Don't let that stop you from saying those MPs aren't like "us" though. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted October 14, 2012 Report Posted October 14, 2012 Well for starters - no one is suggesting that any physical characteristic is used a criteria. It is a strawman to suggest it is implied. The criteria that people are using are based on learned cultural behaviors whether we are talking about misogyny or a lack of work ethic. I never thought that physical characteristics were the basis for this. Again, virulent racism may mention such things but they use implied racial characteristics as motivation for their actions. Is this a revelation ? Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.