My right...what? I think you forgot a noun in there someplace.
Wow. Really? You are going to go all schoolmarm on me for making a homophone error? Man, I feel sorry for our non-native speakers, like Montalve, when you get to setting your sights on them. Real mature my friend.
condemming all previous peoples as "racist,hatefull biggotted" ...I didn't call anyone racist, hateful, or bigoted, but, if I had, I would have spelled it right.
*sigh* Good to see that the schoolmarms are out in force. Funny, they never make an effort to correct those that they agree with.
What I was objecting to in pres man's post was the setting up of a meeting between primitive Native Americans and European colonizers with cell phone technology. That would be a novel worthy of Harry Turtledove and is entirely fictional. Such a comparison is convenient because it emphasizes 'their' negative -- wipes bum with bark, poor medical care -- and 'our' positive -- technological superiority, global communication, space travel, etc.
Well if that is what you took away, then you infered the wrong thing. I didn't imply that the colonists had those technology levels, instead I suggested that had things not played out the way they did, that we might not have developed the science we now have. As was pointed out above, the native americans in the northern continent were scientifically stagnant. But yes, the colonists were about 2,000 years more advanced scientifically than the northern native american communities.
He suggests that colonization, with all its negative consequences, is necessary for cultural exchange. I don't believe it is.
Say what? I never suggest such a thing. I *sigh* again suggested that where we are today is "thanks" to the fact that the colonists "won" and the native americans "lost". Let's say that europe just did trade with the americas and not invasion and conquering. Sounds good right? We get our "cultural exchange", right? But would they have advanced as fast as what happened. Remember, they would have had to fundamentally change their entire cultural mindset.
While cultural exchange and conflict may quite often occur side-by-side, there are many examples of nations sharing technology without destroying each other.
True, but that usually happens when both cultures are willing to abandon previous cultural beliefs in order to adapt to the new situation. And where the goal is increased technological advancement.
EDIT: And again, I am not suggesting that I am happy with every individual action that was taken in the development of the U.S., but I think that even with the really nasty things that happpened that the advancement for humanity (as a whole and not just certain individual groups) is better off in the long run with how things played out than what would have happened if the americans had not been overrun.
If the choice is live on sustance only, wipe my butt with a piece of bark, and weep when my friend's wife dies in childbirth; or have technology that increases the survival rates of people, that allows me to communicate all across the globe, to have governments and companies send people and items into space...I didn't realize that Americans from the year 2010 colonized America in 1492. Are you really suggesting that if it weren't for colonization than native Americans would be living exactly the same lifestyle they had 600 years ago? Are you also saying that technological advances would not have occurred if it weren't for colonization? Seriously?
That is exactly my point Tarren,
It may not be a popular point but IF it wasn't for colonization the native peoples would have continued the way they had for roughly 1000 years. They had no written language, that was introduced by the settlers,they had a poor system of currency called wampum. By the standards of any civilization they were a stagnat people. They were not progressing because there was no dramatic change for them to adapt to. The settlers first introduced horses to the natives and iron work and so many other advances that the Politically correct revisionist can't stand.
Just as a clarification I am referring to the noth american tribes not the central american civilizations. Also of note I keep referring to the earlier american settlers not the whites because the early settlers had indentured servants of all colors mostly white. People love to look at our early history with todays politically correct lenses firmly in place and thats an unfair assesment.
We must learn from history both the good but mostly the bad. Did you know that a common present back in world war 2 was the boiled skull of a japaneses solider. They didnt do it to german soliders because they were white but the jappanese were not given that consideration.History is a wonderful subject that I love investigating as a hobby but I don't stop at just the high school level I enjoy reading the accounts of the people that were there. If you have never read the life stories of actual slaves from their perspective or the journals from the soliders involved in the spanish american war or any of the other times of intrest your missing alot of great stuff. The problem comes when you can't get past your modern views and try to understand the people that were living it at the time instead of condemming all previous peoples as "racist,hatefull biggotted" or any other label that makes us today feel so morally supperior.
Just as looking at things with a politically correct lens is unfair, so is painting all those that came before as savages who would never learn these things ever. I would call this intellectual superiority, which is just as bad as the moral superiority you decry. And indentured servitude was worlds away different from the slavery that came along later, while comparisons can be made, I wouldn't use them for this argument.
However, you are correct about taking a look at ALL sides of history- there are a lot of stories that don't get told in High School, or even College. Unfortunately, some stories will always be lost to time, and that is where our modern vanity gets in the way of things.
|
That is exactly my point Tarren,
It may not be a popular point but IF it wasn't for colonization the native peoples would have continued the way they had for roughly 1000 years. They had no written language, that was introduced by the settlers,they had a poor system of currency called wampum. By the standards of any civilization they were a stagnat people. They were not progressing because there was no dramatic change for them to adapt to. The settlers first introduced horses to the natives and iron work and so many other advances that the Politically correct revisionist can't stand.
Just as a clarification I am referring to the noth american tribes not the central american civilizations. Also of note I keep referring to the earlier american settlers not the whites because the early settlers had indentured servants of all colors mostly white. People love to look at our early history with todays politically correct lenses firmly in place and thats an unfair assesment.
I'm pretty sure the indians had written languages (IIRC cherokee had a language far before we came along). As to currency, they had a totally different style of community which made currency much less important.
Again, we might have introduced these things to the indians with an eventual positive effect, but how do you reconcile that with the indian relocation act (i think that's what it was) ie.- the trail of tears. These people were forcibly removed from their ancestral homes and forced on a 1000mile journey--at times there were scores of indians dying each day.
That's the problem with American "diplomacy." We feel it is our responsibility to spread our way of life...whether our "victim" wants it or not.
A quick note to Tarren Dei. I am sorry if I didnt convey my statement more clearly I would NEVER, EVER call anyone on this boared racist, biggoted or any other type of personal attack. I was speaking in general as to historians and so forth. I never meant to convey anything negative to anyone personally on this board.
I am however haveing great fun discussing law,history and othe rpoints of personal intrest. Yes I know my spelling sucks but as long as the main point in made then why worry about the small stuff.
If anyone took any of my comments as a personal attack then please acept my sincere regrets. I am not sorry about my opinions nor do I expect anyone else to be. Thats the point of discussion is to exchange ideas. When Tarren said I called him such and so I realised I needed to write this
Wow. Really? You are going to go all schoolmarm on me for making a homophone error? Man, I feel sorry for our non-native speakers, like Montalve, when you get to setting your sights on them. Real mature my friend.
1. Way to ignore my post. Look over there!
2. I don't hold non-native speakers to the same standard. If English isn't your first language, then I apologize.3. You could use some time with a "schoolmarm," particularly of the history teacher variety. BTW, is calling people "schoolmarms" an example of being "real mature?"
But really; are you still trying to defend your position? The words you're looking for are "I was wrong. My bad." It happens. People won't think less of you for it.
2. I don't hold non-native speakers to the same standard.
Is that racist?
<half-humor, half serious, since it applies to teh topic at hand>
2. I don't hold non-native speakers to the same standard.Is that racist?
<half-humor, half serious, since it applies to teh topic at hand>
It has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with native language.
no, those are the red people
the brown people actually mixed with the with
they didn't prospere but lived a bit better...
You're right of course. I apologize. It's just that I have such trouble differentiating between all those pesky non-white people. Who do they think they are, anyway? The world would be a much better place if they'd just roll over, die, and let the modern, enlightened white folk take their land.
White people: Proving our cultural superiority one package of Charmin Ultra at a time.
;-)
It is funny, some posters are discussing cultural differences, other posters are discussing pigmentation differences. Who are the racists again?
It is funny, some posters are discussing cultural differences, other posters are discussing pigmentation differences. Who are the racists again?
Silly me. You're right: Arguing that other cultures are inherently inferior to ours isn't racism. It is, however, ignorant bigotry. My apologies.
Just to be sure I understand your position, would I be correct to infer that Native Americans would have been undeserving of genocide if they had invented the two-ply double roll? If not, would you please clarify the level of technological superiority which justifies invasion and genocide for the greater good? Thanks!
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Just to be sure I understand your position, would I be correct to infer that Native Americans would have been undeserving of genocide if they had invented the two-ply double roll? If not, would you please clarify the level of technological superiority which justifies invasion and genocide for the greater good? Thanks!
Wow, bugleyman misinterpreting arguements because he can't argue them? I'm shocked!
And I'll point out that there was no genocide. Since we left survivors, you must feel that western civ superior to the Hopewell or to the other first peoples' tribes that wiped them out.
It is funny, some posters are discussing cultural differences, other posters are discussing pigmentation differences. Who are the racists again?Silly me. Arguing that other cultures are inherently inferior to ours isn't racism. It's ignorant bigotry. My apologies.
Just to be sure I understand your position, can I assume Native Americans would not have been deserving of genocide if they had invented two-ply rolls?
bugleyman, I am not sure if you are just trying to troll or if you honest don't understand the issues being dicussed. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you honestly don't understand the position I am taking.
"inherently inferior" is a weighted term and not one I have not used. The reason is because it reflects some kind of judgement call. What I have said is that they were "technologically and scientificly behind", I don't think anyone with a grain of self-honesty would argue with that position. I am not making any judgement as to the value they have as humans, obviously they were just as valuable as humans as were the colonists. But socially their culture just didn't have the technological and scientific drive that the colonist society had, like I said, they were something like 2000 years behind the curve. I don't think the world would have been better to wait for them to catch up, even if they would and didn't stagnate.
And again (for the third time), I am not saying I am happy with many of the individual actions that occurred, but I am not sure if things had played out differently that we would be better off as an entire species if they had. Maybe we would be, maybe we might all have replicators, star ships, and world peace if we hadn't had the trail of tears. I don't know, but intuitively I don't think so. If anything, if the colonists and then the U.S. (and Canada and Mexico and every other nation in the "new world") hadn't "ravaged" the land for its resources we wouldn't have had the growth in science and technology that we now have.
I can be saddened (sp?) by the horrible things that have occurred but still believe the entire species is better off now than we were then. Yes it is horrible what happened to the native american populations, but if the only choices were for that not to happen and we not have life saving technologies that save millions of lives of people of all nationalities and genetic backgrounds, or for it to happen and we to have all of those things, well there is no real choice in my mind. To quote Spock, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
Now could we have gotten all of those scientific discoveries and still treated the native americans well? Maybe. I don't honestly know how it would have play out. If people wanted to "ravage" the land for resources, could we do that while still respectfully treating the native americans? It is easy with our current state of society and technology and to say that it wasn't necessary, but I personally believe that without that "growing pains" we wouldn't have been able to succeed as fast or as effectively.
Just to be sure I understand your position, would I be correct to infer that Native Americans would have been undeserving of genocide if they had invented the two-ply double roll? If not, would you please clarify the level of technological superiority which justifies invasion and genocide for the greater good? Thanks!
Wow, bugleyman misinterpreting arguements because he can't argue them? I'm shocked!
And I'll point out that there was no genocide. Since we left survivors, you must feel that western civ superior to the Hopewell or to the other first peoples' tribes that wiped them out.
Wow, Matthew Morris, conservative troll, appearing out of nowhere to take pot shots at me? I'm shocked.
Genocide doesn't require complete destruction. It is merely the systematic, deliberate destruction of a particular racial or cultural group. That is a common misconception, however.
Yes, pres man, I'm being extremely sarcastic. I'm eviscerating you because I'm exasperated. I think we both are. Assuming you wish to be taken seriously:
First of all, I understand the argument that you're making. You're putting forth the idea that our imperialism, though unpleasant, was ultimately for the greater good.
For the record, the original statement that kicked off this whole mess was:
<SNIP> The WE I was refering to was the european settlers that became Americans. I am very glad that they did what they did. We may have made some mistakes here and there but as a whole we have been benevolent and kind.
Which is a fantasy, pure and simple. But in fairness, you didn't say that. What you did say was:
"If the choice is live on sustance only, wipe my butt with a piece of bark, and weep when my friend's wife dies in childbirth; or have technology that increases the survival rates of people, that allows me to communicate all across the globe, to have governments and companies send people and items into space. Well, there really is no choice for me."
And here's the problem: What you've presented is a false dichotomy. You have presented absolutely no evidence to support the assertion that Native American society would have remained technologically inferior had Europeans not invaded.* What, if not culturalism, are you basing this on? And even assuming you're right, who are we to make that choice for others?
The truth is we can't possibly know how things would have developed. What we can (and do) know is that seizing the land and property of another culture and calling it justified because we're "more advanced" is wrong.
*The European nations which did the invading had themselves spent many technologically-backward centuries in the Dark Ages, yet they made great strides during the Renaissance. Your apparent ignorance of the fact that very scenario you're discounting as unlikely in North America had already happened in Europe is what lead me to make my sarcastic remark about history.
It has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with native language.
Are you implying that the two are mutually exclusive?
It has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with native language.Are you implying that the two are mutually exclusive?
I'm not sure what you mean. Mind explaining? I *think* you're confusing correlation and causation, but I'm not sure.
It's just that I have such trouble differentiating between all those pesky non-white people.
Sarcasm aside, that is the type of remark I personally find offensive in a debate. Perhaps because our cultural bias (in America) tends to derive from white European settlers, we only learn of white racism, to the point that it quite often seems that racism is the sole purview of whites.
But I ask, how familiar are you with China's Han majority? or African tribalism? Japanese "nationalism"? All cultures exhibit their racism, and the racism that currently exists in America is (for the most part) vastly watered down in comparison.
It sounds like many of the somments posted here are being made by people not familiar with the views of other cultures. Listen to the way others talk about "other others" and compare that to the insular ignorant of America. When otherwise higly intelligent people say things like "Never trust an Indian" or "All members of that tribe are liars", I notice. And unlike most Americans, those views are rarely challenged by the society at large (though in local areas I have seen those challenges to teh mindset occur).
I think, like I have heard natives describe the coming of democracy to former dictatorships, that many people are uncomfortable with so much choice and freedom and prefer strict laws so they do not have to do so much thinking. Black, white, yellow, brown, red, taupe, mauve, vermilion or whatever the color, dealing with "different" requires thought and self-awareness... and people are lazy. Don't be lazy; get to know the non-whites and all the subtle variations in between.
I'm not sure what you mean. Mind explaining? I *think* you're confusing correlation and causation, but I'm not sure.It has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with native language.Are you implying that the two are mutually exclusive?
I was asking if you thought that race and native language were completely separate from each other.
My answer is sometimes yes, sometimes no. Most Batak tribesmen speak Batak. That is, race = native language. But most Batak also speak Bahasa (as that is the official language). So while Bahasa is a constructed language it could also be considered native, adn over 300 ethnic groups speak it.
My point is that sometimes language is associated with race. I don't know many Chinese who speak Batak, nor any Hispanics who do, so if you ran into a Batak (and could identify her by her facial features) you might rightly assume she speaks Batak based on her race.
Many would extrpolate that most "brown" folk form south of the borader speak Spanish (or Portuguese), Often that might be correct, though there are many other languages available too.
My larger point is that discriminating based on language could be construed as racist... though personally I think one would usually have to be looking for racism to label it as such.
I'm confused.
And here's the problem: What you've presented is a false dichotomy. You have presented absolutely no evidence to support your implicit assertion that Native American society would have remained technologically inferior had Europeans not invaded.
Of course not, I am not trying to "prove" anything. I am telling you what I feel is most likely true. There is no way to prove what would have happened either way, in supoort for my position or in opposition of my position. Is there evidence that the native americans would have advanced scientifically and technologically if they had been left isolated? Remember that europe didn't advance all on its own, it was because it was in contact with northern africa, western asian, the middle east, and occassionally with trips to the far east. I don't think an isolated americas would produce the same progress that occurred. Can I prove that? No. You don't believe that is true? Ok.
What, if not culturalism, are you basing this on? You've said you believe it to be true, but that's not an argument.
Well I'm basing my opinion on the only outcome that we can actually observe occurring. These things DID happen, and we are where we are today. Could we have gotten here with those things not happening? Possibly, but again there exists no proof. Could things have come out even better than we are today? Possibly, but again there exists no proof. Could things have come out worse than we are today? Possibly, but again there exists no proof.
But even assuming you're right, who are we to make that choice for others?
I'm not sure I understand who you mean by "others" (excluding people on Lost of course). Are you talking about the whole of humanity or just the native americans?
The truth is we can't possibly know how things would have developed. What we can (and do) know is that seizing the land and property of another culture is wrong.
Really, you believe that is a universal truth? What if a culture had lots of arable but was not using it because they didn't want to, and another culture is undergoing famine and starvation? You don't think there wouldn't be some kind of moral "right" to taking that land in order to feed the starving?
It is accepted, ok tolerated, in my country for the government to sieze property for use for social needs (schools, fire stations, etc). That is there is a recognition that the needs of the many sometimes must infringe on the needs of the few.
*The European nations which did the invading had themselves spent many technologically-backward centuries in the Dark Ages, yet they made great strides during the Renaissance. Your apparent ignorance of the fact that very scenario you're discounting as unlikely in North America had already happened in Europe is what lead me to make my sarcastic remark about history.
The fact that the dark ages were a technological-backwards movement meant that the cultures had been forward at one time. Are you suggesting the northern native americans were at a level equal to europe before the dark ages at some point? And even in those backwards times, they were still more advanced technologically than the native americans were. So I guess I'm not seeing your point, if there is one.
EDIT: Also since you mentioned teachers earlier, I believe most teachers know from experience that it is easier to teach someone something if they have learned it before but have forgotten it or are at least familiar with the basis of it. I am postulating that the same is true with cultures.
I'm confused.
My job here is done! ;D
I'm not sure what you mean. Mind explaining? I *think* you're confusing correlation and causation, but I'm not sure.It has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with native language.Are you implying that the two are mutually exclusive?I was asking if you thought that race and native language were completely separate from each other.
My answer is sometimes yes, sometimes no. Most Batak tribesmen speak Batak. That is, race = native language. But most Batak also speak Bahasa (as that is the official language). So while Bahasa is a constructed language it could also be considered native, adn over 300 ethnic groups speak it.
My point is that sometimes language is associated with race. I don't know many Chinese who speak Batak, nor any Hispanics who do, so if you ran into a Batak (and could identify her by her facial features) you might rightly assume she speaks Batak based on her race.
Many would extrpolate that most "brown" folk form south of the borader speak Spanish (or Portuguese), Often that might be correct, though there are many other languages available too.
My larger point is that discriminating based on language could be construed as racist... though personally I think one would usually have to be looking for racism to label it as such.
** spoiler omitted **
My expectations of language proficiency are based on whether the writer is a native speaker of the language in question. I'm sure there is a strong correlation to race, I'm not making any inferences based on race (which, in fact, I have no way of knowing on the Internet).
So no, I don't see how my behavior could accurately be labeled as racist. But I suspect you know that. So is your point that I'm doing the same thing to Pres man?
If so, to clarify: I don't think pres man's argument is racist, but I do think it's culturalist. I believe he's making assumptions about the continued technological inferiority of intact Native American culture without any reasonable evidence to back them up.
I'm confused.My job here is done! ;D
shakes fist
Damn you! DAMN YOOOOOOUUUUUUU!!!!!!
|
|
no, those are the red people
the brown people actually mixed with the white
they didn't prospere but lived a bit better...You're right of course. I apologize. It's just that I have such trouble differentiating between all those pesky non-white people. Who do they think they are, anyway? The world would be a much better place if they'd just roll over, die, and let the modern, enlightened white folk take their land.
White people: Proving our cultural superiority one package of Charmin Ultra at a time.
;-)
tsk tsk tsk
details detail :PPres man
and its not a discussion of pigmentation... the native american are from red skin raze, much like japanese are from the yellow one, and european caucasianas are white...
I just estipulated the differences between the north american indian progrom in USA and the forceful conquer and bastardization of Mexico and central and southern american native americans...
the conquering spanish might have been bastards in more than one way, but it was a great qwuantity those who decided to mix with the local populace... (willingly or not for the locals, but anyway)... and the priest while destroying the temples were trying to asimilate the locals into their religion and civilization (of course to better control)
still Meztizos in general fared better here than native americans in USA... just made made a long statement short.
and no
I try to separate the modern world with world of those times
i am not of the guys who critizise the spanish for conquering or who wish they shouldn't... i am as mixed blood as anyone... so I wouldn't exist without their arrival, and I do believe in time paradoxes :P
there is no use to complain about history... things happened... and history msot of the time is modificed to be part of the status quo or the victors side of things, so much that thieves, thugs, murderers become heroes for all to admire.
history is beautiful topic... unfortunately is biased, modified, altered... there is no such thing as absolute truth...
Tindal this doesn't make less the personal anecdotes of people... but these are foten affected by emotions, memory if told time after a time... yet as you point this are the closest we might have to learn a higher truth.
now a point for everyone... if any could answer me...
why does people in USA think 5 de Mayo is so important?
seriously... for what i see is OUR most important day in your calendar... and while its important, here its not even oficial (except for shools and definitively some goevrment offices)... for how much importance i hear it receives anyone would think its out July 4...
|
now a point for everyone... if any could answer me...
why does people in USA think 5 de Mayo is so important?
seriously... for what i see is OUR most important day in your calendar... and while its important, here its not even oficial (except for shools and definitively some goevrment offices)... for how much importance i hear it receives anyone would think its out July 4...
Oh, that! That would be my fault. My birthday celebration has just gotten slightly out of hand over the years. What can I say, people like me.
So I guess I'm not seeing your point, if there is one.
My point is that in the absence of proof, it's pretty darn hard to see why (other than cultural bias) you believe we're better off, or that what happened to Native Americans was ultimately for the greater good.
Assuming you agree I correctly articulated your point, I think we're done here.
Edit: I see from your posts that you're a Star Trek fan. Excellent. Two words: Prime Directive.
|
|
It has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with native language.Are you implying that the two are mutually exclusive?
technically yes.
Spaniards are caucasian, they speak spanish...
so they might not speak or write english correct
and to tell the truth they have less oportunities to learn english than some people here in Mexico, they have a law that FORCES every media to be translated BEFORE being prescented or sold in Spain... at least this was true some years ago for movies, tv, books & manga.
while i know people who had born in USA who are of latinamoerican stock and they are english native speakers :P
so yeah... race and language are not necesarily related.
|
|
now a point for everyone... if any could answer me...
why does people in USA think 5 de Mayo is so important?
seriously... for what i see is OUR most important day in your calendar... and while its important, here its not even oficial (except for shools and definitively some goevrment offices)... for how much importance i hear it receives anyone would think its out July 4...
Cinco de Mayo is important to Americans as a day to go out and get drunk.
It's Saint Patrick's Day with a sombrero on it.
|
|
Oh, that! That would be my fault. My birthday celebration has just gotten slightly out of hand over the years. What can I say, people like me.now a point for everyone... if any could answer me...
why does people in USA think 5 de Mayo is so important?
seriously... for what i see is OUR most important day in your calendar... and while its important, here its not even oficial (except for shools and definitively some goevrment offices)... for how much importance i hear it receives anyone would think its out July 4...
oh!!!
is zombie fest? cool!
do we get to hunt zombies then?
ok pary! (yeah we mexican are always looking for excuses for partying :P)
now a point for everyone... if any could answer me...
why does people in USA think 5 de Mayo is so important?
seriously... for what i see is OUR most important day in your calendar... and while its important, here its not even oficial (except for shools and definitively some goevrment offices)... for how much importance i hear it receives anyone would think its out July 4...
Cinco de Mayo is important to Americans as a day to go out and get drunk.
It's Saint Patrick's Day with a sombrero on it.
mmm
the worst part is that explains a lot... :P|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Just to be sure I understand your position, would I be correct to infer that Native Americans would have been undeserving of genocide if they had invented the two-ply double roll? If not, would you please clarify the level of technological superiority which justifies invasion and genocide for the greater good? Thanks!
Wow, bugleyman misinterpreting arguements because he can't argue them? I'm shocked!
And I'll point out that there was no genocide. Since we left survivors, you must feel that western civ superior to the Hopewell or to the other first peoples' tribes that wiped them out.
Wow, Matthew Morris, conservative troll, appearing out of nowhere to take pot shots at me? I'm shocked.
Genocide doesn't require complete destruction. It is merely the systematic, deliberate destruction of a particular racial or cultural group. That is a common misconception, however.
I don't need to 'attack you' Indeed, you make an excellent job of playing the fool without help.
BTW, I've been in and out of this thread. Not my fault if, in all your trolling, you've missed my posts.
Funny though, since we still have first people's cultures, languages, and artifacts, you still aren't backing up your arguement, especially the deliberate part.
But by all means, go on and continue to misstate peoples' points for your own prattling. I'm amused.
I don't need to 'attack you' Indeed, you make an excellent job of playing the fool without help.<SNIP>
Alas, if only that were true, perhaps you'd stop trying? :P
<SNIP>But by all means, go on and continue to misstate peoples' points for your own prattling. I'm amused.
Come off it, dude. You have a bone to pick with me. I disagree with you, but I'm obviously smart, and so you feel threatened. I get it, but posts devoid of content other than "ha, ha! I'm laughing?" They're telling when Houston posts them, and they're telling when you post them.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
<SNIP>But by all means, go on and continue to misstate peoples' points for your own prattling. I'm amused.Come off it, dude. You have a bone to pick with me. I disagree with you, but I'm obviously smart, and so you feel threatened. I get it, but posts devoid of content other than "ha, ha! I'm laughing?" They're telling when Houston posts them, and they're telling when you post them.
Then maybe you should stop making them?
Back on the original topic. I'm glad for the revisions to the AZ law. While I thought the language was clear enough, obiviously some others didn't.
Then maybe you should stop making them?
I'm rubber, you're glue...?
Back on the original topic. I'm glad for the revisions to the AZ law. While I thought the language was clear enough, obiviously some others didn't.
The revisions were good. Where they enough? I haven't given it enough thought, which is why I haven't commented on them yet.
You don't think there wouldn't be some kind of moral "right" to taking that land in order to feed the starving?
I should really leave well enough alone, but...
Socialist! :P
Hmmmm...this looks like a good place.
drops a landmine
No one will ever notice this with all the b$*!$##@ being thrown around....YAP!
NEW YORK, April 29 (UPI) -- Seven in 10 U.S. adults support arresting people who can't prove they're in the United States legally, a poll about Arizona's new immigration law indicated.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/04/29/Poll-Most-support-Arizona-immigra tion-law/UPI-55921272544207/
This just in: Seven in ten U.S. adults support killing the other three and taking their stuff (yes, that is my tongue-in-cheek way of asking why public opinion matters). ;-)
This just in: Seven in ten U.S. adults support killing the other three and taking their stuff (yes, that is my tongue-in-cheek way of asking why public opinion matters). ;-)
YEAH!!! Who cares what that stoopid public thinks! It's not like they can vote or anything....
This just in: Seven in ten U.S. adults support killing the other three and taking their stuff (yes, that is my tongue-in-cheek way of asking why public opinion matters). ;-)YEAH!!! Who cares what that stoopid public thinks! It's not like they can vote or anything....
*sigh*
Sure they can vote. But they can't vote to strip their fellow citizens of their rights, which is what is what opponents of the Arizona law contend is the issue. I don't think I've ever seen a credible argument in support of government by simple majority. Have you?
|
This just in: Seven in ten U.S. adults support killing the other three and taking their stuff (yes, that is my tongue-in-cheek way of asking why public opinion matters). ;-)YEAH!!! Who cares what that stoopid public thinks! It's not like they can vote or anything....*sigh*
Sure they can vote. But they can't vote to strip their fellow citizens of their rights, which is what is what opponents of the Arizona law contend is the issue. I don't think I've ever seen a credible argument in support of government by simple majority. Have you?
Illegal immigrants are not our fellow citizens.
You don't think there wouldn't be some kind of moral "right" to taking that land in order to feed the starving?I should really leave well enough alone, but...
Socialist! :P
Ouch! Just don't say "Ni!"
Seriously, I'm actually supportive of many "socialist" measures, so it doesn't bother me to be called it. Of course, I would be fine with the culture with all of the arable land to grow crops and sell it to the other country, thus making a profit on the other countries suffering, so I'm not entirely sure where I would fall in the economic-political spectrum ultimately.
If so, to clarify: I don't think pres man's argument is racist, but I do think it's culturalist. I believe he's making assumptions about the continued technological inferiority of intact Native American culture without any reasonable evidence to back them up.
I have claimed that the native americans were roughly 2000 years behind technologically than the native americans at the time of contact. Do you dispute that rough estimate?
My point is that in the absence of proof, it's pretty darn hard to see why (other than cultural bias) you believe we're better off, or that what happened to Native Americans was ultimately for the greater good.
And I find it hard to understand how in the absence of proof, you seem to be able to say with 100% certainty what actually occurred wasn't the best possible outcome for humanity as a whole (not just individual segments of it). See I have said on multiple occassions that it is possible that had things worked out differently things might have actually been better (usually with a bit of sarcasm, but still I acknowledged the possibility).
Assuming you agree I correctly articulated your point, I think we're done here.
Very well.
Edit: I see from your posts that you're a Star Trek fan. Excellent. Two words: Prime Directive.
Yup, I definitely see some value in that ideal. Though of course, how much the other culture effects your own depends on how closely the ideal is followed. There have been multiple occassions when the ideal was tossed to the side due to pragmatic considerations. Sadly one of the worst examples where it was abandoned was the saving of Wesley's life, should let him die.
|
|
I don't think I've ever seen a credible argument in support of government by simple majority. Have you?
Of course not. That's why the Founding Fathers set us up as a representative republic. But that doesn't mean public opnion counts for nothing. In fact, it counts for everything, because that is what swings votes one way or another. Just ask every single politician.
Sure, sometimes the public is misinformed. And sometimes they get lied to and fooled. But overall, they aren't stupid, and what they think should never be discounted.
Illegal immigrants are not our fellow citizens.
Correct -- as far as it goes. But what about the people who just happen to be out and forgot their driver's licenses? They're no longer our fellow citizens, either?
It's important to realize that what a law is intended to accomplish, and what it actually does, are usually not the same thing. There's some overlap between them, and the better the law, the greater the overlap, but that's all that can be said.
You don't think there wouldn't be some kind of moral "right" to taking that land in order to feed the starving?are you acepting for illegal immigrants to go and take your jobs? legal rights and land?
because they are starving here :P
i mean you are syaing its moraly right... :P
I don't blame those illegal immigrants for trying to support their families, no. I do blame their own cultures that make such drastic measures necessary. I also blame those employers that do employ them in the U.S. that make these a feasible choice, to come illegally.
I would much rather have a legal method of immigration, that is safe for everyone involved. So that you don't have tractor trailer fulls of people that die when abandoned in the desert, and you don't have people's private property damaged and destroyed by people moving through the area illegally.
|
|
Now why would you want to go ahead and do that? What did we zombies ever do to you? Seriously, all this violence against the heart beat challenged - I blame Hollywood.is zombie fest? cool!
do we get to hunt zombies then?i know i know
but we need to make place for the vampire chicks!
Vampire chicks!! Give me a break. Just because they "look good"? Hasn't anyone ever told you it's not what's on the outside! It's what's on the inside that makes a person beautiful - which means I win the paegent!
Vampire chicks!! Give me a break. Just because they "look good"? Hasn't anyone ever told you it's not what's on the outside! It's what's on the inside that makes a person beautiful - which means I win the paegent!Now why would you want to go ahead and do that? What did we zombies ever do to you? Seriously, all this violence against the heart beat challenged - I blame Hollywood.is zombie fest? cool!
do we get to hunt zombies then?i know i know
but we need to make place for the vampire chicks!
What if what's on the inside is now on the outside? Eeewww!