|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On January 14 2015 21:36 Hoenicker wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2015 20:32 Ricjames wrote:On January 14 2015 05:51 Sub40APM wrote:On January 14 2015 00:12 Ricjames wrote:On January 13 2015 23:53 Oshuy wrote:On January 13 2015 22:58 Ricjames wrote:
The average birth rate for european countries/families is 1,4, while the average birth rate for muslim countries/families is well over 6. Some places average at 8. Do the math and you will realize that Europe will be overrun by muslim population if the immigration policy stays as it is rather soon. On January 13 2015 23:30 Ricjames wrote:
I was not refering to second/third generation in Europe. Muslim countries overall. Doesn't matter what you or I say, it is a fact that situation doesn't look bright. Then it is just blatantly false. Fertility rates are geographicly correlated, there is no link to religion. Fertility rates above 6 are rare, only seen in sub-saharian africaThe countries where this is the case include Niger, Mali and Somalia that are mainly muslim, but are mostly chrisian countries: Chad, Burundy, Congo, Nigeria, Angola, Uganda. However i do not accept if it would affect me or other people in any kind of a way. I do not accept women walking around with fully covered faces. What if its their choice, why does your right to be offended by fully covered faces superseded their right to decide to cover To be honest - i don't care if it is their choice (due to being brainwashed since birth), i don't like it and feel offended / intimidated by it. I don't see any reason why should i tolerate something like that in my own country. For instance there is an etiquette rule in here that people should not wear any head cover (caps, hoodies, bandana, headscarfs...) when inside, especially in public buildings like schools, banks, offices and so on. People tolerate headscarfs, which I am ok with as long as i can see your whole face. This is our tradition and rule of our society. There was a case where young woman was breaking the school rules by wearing niqab and she was asked to stop or she will not be allowed into the school. She took this to a court with her lawyer and fortunately lost the case. The difference is that they came to our country and they are supposed to obbey our laws, rules, society customs and traditions. Not trying to change it or even make us submit to their rules or customs. If that makes me xenophobic or racist, then be it. Forcing people with distinct cultural differences to adhere to culture and rules that are distincly alien to them, only serves to further alienate and distance them from the (in this case) judeo-christian majority. Hence creating emotions of low self esteem, frustration, and in the end hopelesness which can lead to violence. It is a very difficult subject matter and in no way straigthforward, but accepting other peoples beliefs and customs is a start. Its difficult to draw a line and to say if you wear this you are sexist, and subjugating women, when those very women just want to wear whatever it is they want to wear.
The term forcing doesn't mean anything in this case. The question is wheither the society acknowledge diversity or not : either way, people are "forced", either from their familial, ethnic or religious culture, or from the dominant society. "Accepting peoples beliefs" is also unclear. What does it even mean ? Does it mean from one individual to another (what we call tolerance, a necessary value), or does it mean institutionally, by accepting and favoring specific individuals that comes from specific minorities (affirmative action and discrimination) ?
In reality, the nation can be a tool to wage war on others, but in the limited space of the nation it is a tool to resolve conflict around common value and representations. Celebrating what we have in common rather than what distinguish is a good way to create unity. This idea that the differences of cultures and rules are overwhelming and cannot be fought against is essentialist and very anglo saxon : a society of individuals, where the common ground is nowhere to be found, always result in a society of inequalities and lackluster welfare, because there are no ground on which you can make people accept redistribution. It's exactly what happened in the US between what has been defined as the black and white "communities".
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
On January 15 2015 02:37 oneofthem wrote:
good post whitedoge
Thank you my dear.
|
On January 15 2015 01:13 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2015 21:36 Hoenicker wrote:On January 14 2015 20:32 Ricjames wrote:On January 14 2015 05:51 Sub40APM wrote:On January 14 2015 00:12 Ricjames wrote:On January 13 2015 23:53 Oshuy wrote:On January 13 2015 22:58 Ricjames wrote:
The average birth rate for european countries/families is 1,4, while the average birth rate for muslim countries/families is well over 6. Some places average at 8. Do the math and you will realize that Europe will be overrun by muslim population if the immigration policy stays as it is rather soon. On January 13 2015 23:30 Ricjames wrote:
I was not refering to second/third generation in Europe. Muslim countries overall. Doesn't matter what you or I say, it is a fact that situation doesn't look bright. Then it is just blatantly false. Fertility rates are geographicly correlated, there is no link to religion. Fertility rates above 6 are rare, only seen in sub-saharian africaThe countries where this is the case include Niger, Mali and Somalia that are mainly muslim, but are mostly chrisian countries: Chad, Burundy, Congo, Nigeria, Angola, Uganda. However i do not accept if it would affect me or other people in any kind of a way. I do not accept women walking around with fully covered faces. What if its their choice, why does your right to be offended by fully covered faces superseded their right to decide to cover To be honest - i don't care if it is their choice (due to being brainwashed since birth), i don't like it and feel offended / intimidated by it. I don't see any reason why should i tolerate something like that in my own country. For instance there is an etiquette rule in here that people should not wear any head cover (caps, hoodies, bandana, headscarfs...) when inside, especially in public buildings like schools, banks, offices and so on. People tolerate headscarfs, which I am ok with as long as i can see your whole face. This is our tradition and rule of our society. There was a case where young woman was breaking the school rules by wearing niqab and she was asked to stop or she will not be allowed into the school. She took this to a court with her lawyer and fortunately lost the case. The difference is that they came to our country and they are supposed to obbey our laws, rules, society customs and traditions. Not trying to change it or even make us submit to their rules or customs. If that makes me xenophobic or racist, then be it. Forcing people with distinct cultural differences to adhere to culture and rules that are distincly alien to them, only serves to further alienate and distance them from the (in this case) judeo-christian majority. Hence creating emotions of low self esteem, frustration, and in the end hopelesness which can lead to violence. It is a very difficult subject matter and in no way straigthforward, but accepting other peoples beliefs and customs is a start. Its difficult to draw a line and to say if you wear this you are sexist, and subjugating women, when those very women just want to wear whatever it is they want to wear. The term forcing doesn't mean anything in this case. The question is wheither the society acknowledge diversity or not : either way, people are "forced", either from their familial, ethnic or religious culture, or from the dominant society. "Accepting peoples beliefs" is also unclear. What does it even mean ? Does it mean from one individual to another (what we call tolerance, a necessary value), or does it mean institutionally, by accepting and favoring specific individuals that comes from specific minorities (affirmative action and discrimination) ? In reality, the nation can be a tool to wage war on others, but in the limited space of the nation it is a tool to resolve conflict around common value and representations. Celebrating what we have in common rather than what distinguish is a good way to create unity. This idea that the differences of cultures and rules are overwhelming and cannot be fought against is essentialist and very anglo saxon : a society of individuals, where the common ground is nowhere to be found, always result in a society of inequalities and lackluster welfare, because there are no ground on which you can make people accept redistribution. It's exactly what happened in the US between what has been defined as the black and white "communities".
There's nothing wrong with a society that values and allows the choices of the individual. Anglo-saxon culture is the culture that has created by far the largest and most abundant systems of voluntary aid. Even here in Sweden, voluntary aid is a very foreign concept.
You believing that it's fair to force everybody to accept a arbitrary redistribution of wealth makes you a authoritarian.
|
On January 15 2015 04:56 L1ghtning wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2015 01:13 WhiteDog wrote:On January 14 2015 21:36 Hoenicker wrote:On January 14 2015 20:32 Ricjames wrote:On January 14 2015 05:51 Sub40APM wrote:On January 14 2015 00:12 Ricjames wrote:On January 13 2015 23:53 Oshuy wrote:On January 13 2015 22:58 Ricjames wrote:
The average birth rate for european countries/families is 1,4, while the average birth rate for muslim countries/families is well over 6. Some places average at 8. Do the math and you will realize that Europe will be overrun by muslim population if the immigration policy stays as it is rather soon. On January 13 2015 23:30 Ricjames wrote:
I was not refering to second/third generation in Europe. Muslim countries overall. Doesn't matter what you or I say, it is a fact that situation doesn't look bright. Then it is just blatantly false. Fertility rates are geographicly correlated, there is no link to religion. Fertility rates above 6 are rare, only seen in sub-saharian africaThe countries where this is the case include Niger, Mali and Somalia that are mainly muslim, but are mostly chrisian countries: Chad, Burundy, Congo, Nigeria, Angola, Uganda. However i do not accept if it would affect me or other people in any kind of a way. I do not accept women walking around with fully covered faces. What if its their choice, why does your right to be offended by fully covered faces superseded their right to decide to cover To be honest - i don't care if it is their choice (due to being brainwashed since birth), i don't like it and feel offended / intimidated by it. I don't see any reason why should i tolerate something like that in my own country. For instance there is an etiquette rule in here that people should not wear any head cover (caps, hoodies, bandana, headscarfs...) when inside, especially in public buildings like schools, banks, offices and so on. People tolerate headscarfs, which I am ok with as long as i can see your whole face. This is our tradition and rule of our society. There was a case where young woman was breaking the school rules by wearing niqab and she was asked to stop or she will not be allowed into the school. She took this to a court with her lawyer and fortunately lost the case. The difference is that they came to our country and they are supposed to obbey our laws, rules, society customs and traditions. Not trying to change it or even make us submit to their rules or customs. If that makes me xenophobic or racist, then be it. Forcing people with distinct cultural differences to adhere to culture and rules that are distincly alien to them, only serves to further alienate and distance them from the (in this case) judeo-christian majority. Hence creating emotions of low self esteem, frustration, and in the end hopelesness which can lead to violence. It is a very difficult subject matter and in no way straigthforward, but accepting other peoples beliefs and customs is a start. Its difficult to draw a line and to say if you wear this you are sexist, and subjugating women, when those very women just want to wear whatever it is they want to wear. The term forcing doesn't mean anything in this case. The question is wheither the society acknowledge diversity or not : either way, people are "forced", either from their familial, ethnic or religious culture, or from the dominant society. "Accepting peoples beliefs" is also unclear. What does it even mean ? Does it mean from one individual to another (what we call tolerance, a necessary value), or does it mean institutionally, by accepting and favoring specific individuals that comes from specific minorities (affirmative action and discrimination) ? In reality, the nation can be a tool to wage war on others, but in the limited space of the nation it is a tool to resolve conflict around common value and representations. Celebrating what we have in common rather than what distinguish is a good way to create unity. This idea that the differences of cultures and rules are overwhelming and cannot be fought against is essentialist and very anglo saxon : a society of individuals, where the common ground is nowhere to be found, always result in a society of inequalities and lackluster welfare, because there are no ground on which you can make people accept redistribution. It's exactly what happened in the US between what has been defined as the black and white "communities". There's nothing wrong with a society that values and allows the choices of the individual. Anglo-saxon culture is the culture that has created by far the largest and most abundant systems of voluntary aid. Even here in Sweden, voluntary aid is a very foreign concept. You believing that it's fair to force everybody to accept a arbitrary redistribution of wealth makes you a authoritarian.
Exactly not. This redistribution of wealth is the result of a democratic process, supported by common value and a desire for equality. Anglo saxon culture has created the largest system of voluntary aid, and it is also one of the most unegalitarian society (by far if you look at developped countries only). The system of voluntary aid exist because the welfare does not, and it is not as efficient to fight poverty.
But it's true that anglo saxon society are not necessarily worst, they're usually more democratic, have better journalism, are more diverse from an intellectual standpoint (diversity is a wealth) : there is good in both, but I wouldn't trade my welfare state and my conception of a citizen for their. If you're interested about a fair comparaison between the two, I suggest read Alesina & Glaeser's "Fighting poverty in the US and Europe : A world difference".
|
On January 15 2015 05:03 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2015 04:56 L1ghtning wrote:On January 15 2015 01:13 WhiteDog wrote:On January 14 2015 21:36 Hoenicker wrote:On January 14 2015 20:32 Ricjames wrote:On January 14 2015 05:51 Sub40APM wrote:On January 14 2015 00:12 Ricjames wrote:On January 13 2015 23:53 Oshuy wrote:On January 13 2015 22:58 Ricjames wrote:
The average birth rate for european countries/families is 1,4, while the average birth rate for muslim countries/families is well over 6. Some places average at 8. Do the math and you will realize that Europe will be overrun by muslim population if the immigration policy stays as it is rather soon. On January 13 2015 23:30 Ricjames wrote:
I was not refering to second/third generation in Europe. Muslim countries overall. Doesn't matter what you or I say, it is a fact that situation doesn't look bright. Then it is just blatantly false. Fertility rates are geographicly correlated, there is no link to religion. Fertility rates above 6 are rare, only seen in sub-saharian africaThe countries where this is the case include Niger, Mali and Somalia that are mainly muslim, but are mostly chrisian countries: Chad, Burundy, Congo, Nigeria, Angola, Uganda. However i do not accept if it would affect me or other people in any kind of a way. I do not accept women walking around with fully covered faces. What if its their choice, why does your right to be offended by fully covered faces superseded their right to decide to cover To be honest - i don't care if it is their choice (due to being brainwashed since birth), i don't like it and feel offended / intimidated by it. I don't see any reason why should i tolerate something like that in my own country. For instance there is an etiquette rule in here that people should not wear any head cover (caps, hoodies, bandana, headscarfs...) when inside, especially in public buildings like schools, banks, offices and so on. People tolerate headscarfs, which I am ok with as long as i can see your whole face. This is our tradition and rule of our society. There was a case where young woman was breaking the school rules by wearing niqab and she was asked to stop or she will not be allowed into the school. She took this to a court with her lawyer and fortunately lost the case. The difference is that they came to our country and they are supposed to obbey our laws, rules, society customs and traditions. Not trying to change it or even make us submit to their rules or customs. If that makes me xenophobic or racist, then be it. Forcing people with distinct cultural differences to adhere to culture and rules that are distincly alien to them, only serves to further alienate and distance them from the (in this case) judeo-christian majority. Hence creating emotions of low self esteem, frustration, and in the end hopelesness which can lead to violence. It is a very difficult subject matter and in no way straigthforward, but accepting other peoples beliefs and customs is a start. Its difficult to draw a line and to say if you wear this you are sexist, and subjugating women, when those very women just want to wear whatever it is they want to wear. The term forcing doesn't mean anything in this case. The question is wheither the society acknowledge diversity or not : either way, people are "forced", either from their familial, ethnic or religious culture, or from the dominant society. "Accepting peoples beliefs" is also unclear. What does it even mean ? Does it mean from one individual to another (what we call tolerance, a necessary value), or does it mean institutionally, by accepting and favoring specific individuals that comes from specific minorities (affirmative action and discrimination) ? In reality, the nation can be a tool to wage war on others, but in the limited space of the nation it is a tool to resolve conflict around common value and representations. Celebrating what we have in common rather than what distinguish is a good way to create unity. This idea that the differences of cultures and rules are overwhelming and cannot be fought against is essentialist and very anglo saxon : a society of individuals, where the common ground is nowhere to be found, always result in a society of inequalities and lackluster welfare, because there are no ground on which you can make people accept redistribution. It's exactly what happened in the US between what has been defined as the black and white "communities". There's nothing wrong with a society that values and allows the choices of the individual. Anglo-saxon culture is the culture that has created by far the largest and most abundant systems of voluntary aid. Even here in Sweden, voluntary aid is a very foreign concept. You believing that it's fair to force everybody to accept a arbitrary redistribution of wealth makes you a authoritarian. Exactly not. This redistribution of wealth is the result of a democratic process, supported by common value and a desire for equality. Anglo saxon culture has created the largest system of voluntary aid, and it is also one of the most unegalitarian society (by far if you look at developped countries only). The system of voluntary aid exist because the welfare does not, and it is not as efficient to fight poverty. But it's true that anglo saxon society are not necessarily worst, they're usually more democratic, have better journalism, are more diverse from an intellectual standpoint (diversity is a wealth) : there is good in both, but I wouldn't trade my welfare state and my conception of a citizen for their. If you're interested about a fair comparaison between the two, I suggest read Alesina & Glaeser's "Fighting poverty in the US and Europe : A world difference".
What the hell?
By what kind of measure is the Anglo-saxon political system more democratic? Like seriously, the US voting system is a bad 18th century joke. Or the English 'House of Lords', don't make me laugh...
And how is the US media controlled by 5 rich oligarchs (and a 4 to 1 ratio of journalist to 'PR specialist') better than my German journalism exactly?
The last point I don't get, sorry. What do you actually mean by intellectual diversity? How do you measure it? And why should Anglo-Saxons be better at it?
|
On January 15 2015 05:03 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2015 04:56 L1ghtning wrote:On January 15 2015 01:13 WhiteDog wrote:On January 14 2015 21:36 Hoenicker wrote:On January 14 2015 20:32 Ricjames wrote:On January 14 2015 05:51 Sub40APM wrote:On January 14 2015 00:12 Ricjames wrote:On January 13 2015 23:53 Oshuy wrote:On January 13 2015 22:58 Ricjames wrote:
The average birth rate for european countries/families is 1,4, while the average birth rate for muslim countries/families is well over 6. Some places average at 8. Do the math and you will realize that Europe will be overrun by muslim population if the immigration policy stays as it is rather soon. On January 13 2015 23:30 Ricjames wrote:
I was not refering to second/third generation in Europe. Muslim countries overall. Doesn't matter what you or I say, it is a fact that situation doesn't look bright. Then it is just blatantly false. Fertility rates are geographicly correlated, there is no link to religion. Fertility rates above 6 are rare, only seen in sub-saharian africaThe countries where this is the case include Niger, Mali and Somalia that are mainly muslim, but are mostly chrisian countries: Chad, Burundy, Congo, Nigeria, Angola, Uganda. However i do not accept if it would affect me or other people in any kind of a way. I do not accept women walking around with fully covered faces. What if its their choice, why does your right to be offended by fully covered faces superseded their right to decide to cover To be honest - i don't care if it is their choice (due to being brainwashed since birth), i don't like it and feel offended / intimidated by it. I don't see any reason why should i tolerate something like that in my own country. For instance there is an etiquette rule in here that people should not wear any head cover (caps, hoodies, bandana, headscarfs...) when inside, especially in public buildings like schools, banks, offices and so on. People tolerate headscarfs, which I am ok with as long as i can see your whole face. This is our tradition and rule of our society. There was a case where young woman was breaking the school rules by wearing niqab and she was asked to stop or she will not be allowed into the school. She took this to a court with her lawyer and fortunately lost the case. The difference is that they came to our country and they are supposed to obbey our laws, rules, society customs and traditions. Not trying to change it or even make us submit to their rules or customs. If that makes me xenophobic or racist, then be it. Forcing people with distinct cultural differences to adhere to culture and rules that are distincly alien to them, only serves to further alienate and distance them from the (in this case) judeo-christian majority. Hence creating emotions of low self esteem, frustration, and in the end hopelesness which can lead to violence. It is a very difficult subject matter and in no way straigthforward, but accepting other peoples beliefs and customs is a start. Its difficult to draw a line and to say if you wear this you are sexist, and subjugating women, when those very women just want to wear whatever it is they want to wear. The term forcing doesn't mean anything in this case. The question is wheither the society acknowledge diversity or not : either way, people are "forced", either from their familial, ethnic or religious culture, or from the dominant society. "Accepting peoples beliefs" is also unclear. What does it even mean ? Does it mean from one individual to another (what we call tolerance, a necessary value), or does it mean institutionally, by accepting and favoring specific individuals that comes from specific minorities (affirmative action and discrimination) ? In reality, the nation can be a tool to wage war on others, but in the limited space of the nation it is a tool to resolve conflict around common value and representations. Celebrating what we have in common rather than what distinguish is a good way to create unity. This idea that the differences of cultures and rules are overwhelming and cannot be fought against is essentialist and very anglo saxon : a society of individuals, where the common ground is nowhere to be found, always result in a society of inequalities and lackluster welfare, because there are no ground on which you can make people accept redistribution. It's exactly what happened in the US between what has been defined as the black and white "communities". There's nothing wrong with a society that values and allows the choices of the individual. Anglo-saxon culture is the culture that has created by far the largest and most abundant systems of voluntary aid. Even here in Sweden, voluntary aid is a very foreign concept. You believing that it's fair to force everybody to accept a arbitrary redistribution of wealth makes you a authoritarian. Exactly not. This redistribution of wealth is the result of a democratic process, supported by common value and a desire for equality. Anglo saxon culture has created the largest system of voluntary aid, and it is also one of the most unegalitarian society (by far if you look at developped countries only). The system of voluntary aid exist because the welfare does not, and it is not as efficient to fight poverty. But it's true that anglo saxon society are not necessarily worst, they're usually more democratic, have better journalism, are more diverse from an intellectual standpoint (diversity is a wealth) : there is good in both, but I wouldn't trade my welfare state and my conception of a citizen for their. If you're interested about a fair comparaison between the two, I suggest read Alesina & Glaeser's "Fighting poverty in the US and Europe : A world difference".
So redistribution of wealth is fair, if it's democratic?
In that case, the confiscation of wealth from the jews in Nazi Germany was fair.
Imagine that you and 4 of your friends went out to get dinner. Then when it was time to pay, 3 of them got together and said that you would pay everything. That's also fair in your eyes, right? Democracy is always fair, right?
Democracy is a lie. It's not fair. Democracy is only fair to the extent that we don't trade away our liberties, in exchange for personal (typically short term) gains.
Unfortunately, as it turns out, the majority in our society seems to be willing to trade away a lot of our liberties in order to set up systems that helps them personally, and by doing so, they also trade away the liberties of those who didn't want to trade away their liberties, but who were silenced by the majority.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not against democracy. But I don't fall for the lie that everything under a democracy is fair and just. For me, what the majority thinks is irrelevant. The majority can't always be right. The only thing that should matter for a person who aims to be a egalitarian is liberty.
What gives you the right to decide what someone else should do with their own resources?
Traditional Anglo-saxon societies are only the most unegalitarian societies in the eyes of a person who doesn't understand what egalitarianism means.
|
On January 15 2015 04:56 L1ghtning wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2015 01:13 WhiteDog wrote:On January 14 2015 21:36 Hoenicker wrote:On January 14 2015 20:32 Ricjames wrote:On January 14 2015 05:51 Sub40APM wrote:On January 14 2015 00:12 Ricjames wrote:On January 13 2015 23:53 Oshuy wrote:On January 13 2015 22:58 Ricjames wrote:
The average birth rate for european countries/families is 1,4, while the average birth rate for muslim countries/families is well over 6. Some places average at 8. Do the math and you will realize that Europe will be overrun by muslim population if the immigration policy stays as it is rather soon. On January 13 2015 23:30 Ricjames wrote:
I was not refering to second/third generation in Europe. Muslim countries overall. Doesn't matter what you or I say, it is a fact that situation doesn't look bright. Then it is just blatantly false. Fertility rates are geographicly correlated, there is no link to religion. Fertility rates above 6 are rare, only seen in sub-saharian africaThe countries where this is the case include Niger, Mali and Somalia that are mainly muslim, but are mostly chrisian countries: Chad, Burundy, Congo, Nigeria, Angola, Uganda. However i do not accept if it would affect me or other people in any kind of a way. I do not accept women walking around with fully covered faces. What if its their choice, why does your right to be offended by fully covered faces superseded their right to decide to cover To be honest - i don't care if it is their choice (due to being brainwashed since birth), i don't like it and feel offended / intimidated by it. I don't see any reason why should i tolerate something like that in my own country. For instance there is an etiquette rule in here that people should not wear any head cover (caps, hoodies, bandana, headscarfs...) when inside, especially in public buildings like schools, banks, offices and so on. People tolerate headscarfs, which I am ok with as long as i can see your whole face. This is our tradition and rule of our society. There was a case where young woman was breaking the school rules by wearing niqab and she was asked to stop or she will not be allowed into the school. She took this to a court with her lawyer and fortunately lost the case. The difference is that they came to our country and they are supposed to obbey our laws, rules, society customs and traditions. Not trying to change it or even make us submit to their rules or customs. If that makes me xenophobic or racist, then be it. Forcing people with distinct cultural differences to adhere to culture and rules that are distincly alien to them, only serves to further alienate and distance them from the (in this case) judeo-christian majority. Hence creating emotions of low self esteem, frustration, and in the end hopelesness which can lead to violence. It is a very difficult subject matter and in no way straigthforward, but accepting other peoples beliefs and customs is a start. Its difficult to draw a line and to say if you wear this you are sexist, and subjugating women, when those very women just want to wear whatever it is they want to wear. The term forcing doesn't mean anything in this case. The question is wheither the society acknowledge diversity or not : either way, people are "forced", either from their familial, ethnic or religious culture, or from the dominant society. "Accepting peoples beliefs" is also unclear. What does it even mean ? Does it mean from one individual to another (what we call tolerance, a necessary value), or does it mean institutionally, by accepting and favoring specific individuals that comes from specific minorities (affirmative action and discrimination) ? In reality, the nation can be a tool to wage war on others, but in the limited space of the nation it is a tool to resolve conflict around common value and representations. Celebrating what we have in common rather than what distinguish is a good way to create unity. This idea that the differences of cultures and rules are overwhelming and cannot be fought against is essentialist and very anglo saxon : a society of individuals, where the common ground is nowhere to be found, always result in a society of inequalities and lackluster welfare, because there are no ground on which you can make people accept redistribution. It's exactly what happened in the US between what has been defined as the black and white "communities". There's nothing wrong with a society that values and allows the choices of the individual. Anglo-saxon culture is the culture that has created by far the largest and most abundant systems of voluntary aid. Even here in Sweden, voluntary aid is a very foreign concept.
Maybe voluntary aid is just something foreign to you even tough your country is one who gives the most.
The idea that Americans give away the most is another myth, just like the American dream and the fictional American social ladder.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_governments_by_development_aid
|
On January 15 2015 06:11 L1ghtning wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2015 05:03 WhiteDog wrote:On January 15 2015 04:56 L1ghtning wrote:On January 15 2015 01:13 WhiteDog wrote:On January 14 2015 21:36 Hoenicker wrote:On January 14 2015 20:32 Ricjames wrote:On January 14 2015 05:51 Sub40APM wrote:On January 14 2015 00:12 Ricjames wrote:On January 13 2015 23:53 Oshuy wrote:On January 13 2015 22:58 Ricjames wrote:
The average birth rate for european countries/families is 1,4, while the average birth rate for muslim countries/families is well over 6. Some places average at 8. Do the math and you will realize that Europe will be overrun by muslim population if the immigration policy stays as it is rather soon. On January 13 2015 23:30 Ricjames wrote:
I was not refering to second/third generation in Europe. Muslim countries overall. Doesn't matter what you or I say, it is a fact that situation doesn't look bright. Then it is just blatantly false. Fertility rates are geographicly correlated, there is no link to religion. Fertility rates above 6 are rare, only seen in sub-saharian africaThe countries where this is the case include Niger, Mali and Somalia that are mainly muslim, but are mostly chrisian countries: Chad, Burundy, Congo, Nigeria, Angola, Uganda. However i do not accept if it would affect me or other people in any kind of a way. I do not accept women walking around with fully covered faces. What if its their choice, why does your right to be offended by fully covered faces superseded their right to decide to cover To be honest - i don't care if it is their choice (due to being brainwashed since birth), i don't like it and feel offended / intimidated by it. I don't see any reason why should i tolerate something like that in my own country. For instance there is an etiquette rule in here that people should not wear any head cover (caps, hoodies, bandana, headscarfs...) when inside, especially in public buildings like schools, banks, offices and so on. People tolerate headscarfs, which I am ok with as long as i can see your whole face. This is our tradition and rule of our society. There was a case where young woman was breaking the school rules by wearing niqab and she was asked to stop or she will not be allowed into the school. She took this to a court with her lawyer and fortunately lost the case. The difference is that they came to our country and they are supposed to obbey our laws, rules, society customs and traditions. Not trying to change it or even make us submit to their rules or customs. If that makes me xenophobic or racist, then be it. Forcing people with distinct cultural differences to adhere to culture and rules that are distincly alien to them, only serves to further alienate and distance them from the (in this case) judeo-christian majority. Hence creating emotions of low self esteem, frustration, and in the end hopelesness which can lead to violence. It is a very difficult subject matter and in no way straigthforward, but accepting other peoples beliefs and customs is a start. Its difficult to draw a line and to say if you wear this you are sexist, and subjugating women, when those very women just want to wear whatever it is they want to wear. The term forcing doesn't mean anything in this case. The question is wheither the society acknowledge diversity or not : either way, people are "forced", either from their familial, ethnic or religious culture, or from the dominant society. "Accepting peoples beliefs" is also unclear. What does it even mean ? Does it mean from one individual to another (what we call tolerance, a necessary value), or does it mean institutionally, by accepting and favoring specific individuals that comes from specific minorities (affirmative action and discrimination) ? In reality, the nation can be a tool to wage war on others, but in the limited space of the nation it is a tool to resolve conflict around common value and representations. Celebrating what we have in common rather than what distinguish is a good way to create unity. This idea that the differences of cultures and rules are overwhelming and cannot be fought against is essentialist and very anglo saxon : a society of individuals, where the common ground is nowhere to be found, always result in a society of inequalities and lackluster welfare, because there are no ground on which you can make people accept redistribution. It's exactly what happened in the US between what has been defined as the black and white "communities". There's nothing wrong with a society that values and allows the choices of the individual. Anglo-saxon culture is the culture that has created by far the largest and most abundant systems of voluntary aid. Even here in Sweden, voluntary aid is a very foreign concept. You believing that it's fair to force everybody to accept a arbitrary redistribution of wealth makes you a authoritarian. Exactly not. This redistribution of wealth is the result of a democratic process, supported by common value and a desire for equality. Anglo saxon culture has created the largest system of voluntary aid, and it is also one of the most unegalitarian society (by far if you look at developped countries only). The system of voluntary aid exist because the welfare does not, and it is not as efficient to fight poverty. But it's true that anglo saxon society are not necessarily worst, they're usually more democratic, have better journalism, are more diverse from an intellectual standpoint (diversity is a wealth) : there is good in both, but I wouldn't trade my welfare state and my conception of a citizen for their. If you're interested about a fair comparaison between the two, I suggest read Alesina & Glaeser's "Fighting poverty in the US and Europe : A world difference". So redistribution of wealth is fair, if it's democratic? In that case, the confiscation of wealth from the jews in Nazi Germany was fair. Imagine that you and 4 of your friends went out to get dinner. Then when it was time to pay, 3 of them got together and said that you would pay everything. That's also fair in your eyes, right? Democracy is always fair, right? Democracy is a lie. It's not fair. Democracy is only fair to the extent that we don't trade away our liberties, in exchange for personal (typically short term) gains. Unfortunately, as it turns out, the majority in our society seems to be willing to trade away a lot of our liberties in order to set up systems that helps them personally, and by doing so, they also trade away the liberties of those who didn't want to trade away their liberties, but who were silenced by the majority. Don't get me wrong. I'm not against democracy. But I don't fall for the lie that everything under a democracy is fair and just. For me, what the majority thinks is irrelevant. The majority can't always be right. The only thing that should matter for a person who aims to be a egalitarian is liberty. What gives you the right to decide what someone else should do with their own resources? Traditional Anglo-saxon societies are only the most unegalitarian societies in the eyes of a person who doesn't understand what egalitarianism means.
We talk about egalitarianism as regards to opportunities and treatment, the focus isn't on freedom. The goal isn't to have everybody have as much freedom as possible but that everybody should have the same rights and should be treated equally. It's you who doesn't understand egalitarianism.
And the concept of freedom is also very abstract, maybe you have never heard of the social contract, here you go: basic principle of democracies, giving away some freedom to gain more freedom. Sounds like magic heh? Maybe if you follow the ultra liberals narrative http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
|
On January 15 2015 06:12 Acertos wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2015 04:56 L1ghtning wrote:On January 15 2015 01:13 WhiteDog wrote:On January 14 2015 21:36 Hoenicker wrote:On January 14 2015 20:32 Ricjames wrote:On January 14 2015 05:51 Sub40APM wrote:On January 14 2015 00:12 Ricjames wrote:On January 13 2015 23:53 Oshuy wrote:On January 13 2015 22:58 Ricjames wrote:
The average birth rate for european countries/families is 1,4, while the average birth rate for muslim countries/families is well over 6. Some places average at 8. Do the math and you will realize that Europe will be overrun by muslim population if the immigration policy stays as it is rather soon. On January 13 2015 23:30 Ricjames wrote:
I was not refering to second/third generation in Europe. Muslim countries overall. Doesn't matter what you or I say, it is a fact that situation doesn't look bright. Then it is just blatantly false. Fertility rates are geographicly correlated, there is no link to religion. Fertility rates above 6 are rare, only seen in sub-saharian africaThe countries where this is the case include Niger, Mali and Somalia that are mainly muslim, but are mostly chrisian countries: Chad, Burundy, Congo, Nigeria, Angola, Uganda. However i do not accept if it would affect me or other people in any kind of a way. I do not accept women walking around with fully covered faces. What if its their choice, why does your right to be offended by fully covered faces superseded their right to decide to cover To be honest - i don't care if it is their choice (due to being brainwashed since birth), i don't like it and feel offended / intimidated by it. I don't see any reason why should i tolerate something like that in my own country. For instance there is an etiquette rule in here that people should not wear any head cover (caps, hoodies, bandana, headscarfs...) when inside, especially in public buildings like schools, banks, offices and so on. People tolerate headscarfs, which I am ok with as long as i can see your whole face. This is our tradition and rule of our society. There was a case where young woman was breaking the school rules by wearing niqab and she was asked to stop or she will not be allowed into the school. She took this to a court with her lawyer and fortunately lost the case. The difference is that they came to our country and they are supposed to obbey our laws, rules, society customs and traditions. Not trying to change it or even make us submit to their rules or customs. If that makes me xenophobic or racist, then be it. Forcing people with distinct cultural differences to adhere to culture and rules that are distincly alien to them, only serves to further alienate and distance them from the (in this case) judeo-christian majority. Hence creating emotions of low self esteem, frustration, and in the end hopelesness which can lead to violence. It is a very difficult subject matter and in no way straigthforward, but accepting other peoples beliefs and customs is a start. Its difficult to draw a line and to say if you wear this you are sexist, and subjugating women, when those very women just want to wear whatever it is they want to wear. The term forcing doesn't mean anything in this case. The question is wheither the society acknowledge diversity or not : either way, people are "forced", either from their familial, ethnic or religious culture, or from the dominant society. "Accepting peoples beliefs" is also unclear. What does it even mean ? Does it mean from one individual to another (what we call tolerance, a necessary value), or does it mean institutionally, by accepting and favoring specific individuals that comes from specific minorities (affirmative action and discrimination) ? In reality, the nation can be a tool to wage war on others, but in the limited space of the nation it is a tool to resolve conflict around common value and representations. Celebrating what we have in common rather than what distinguish is a good way to create unity. This idea that the differences of cultures and rules are overwhelming and cannot be fought against is essentialist and very anglo saxon : a society of individuals, where the common ground is nowhere to be found, always result in a society of inequalities and lackluster welfare, because there are no ground on which you can make people accept redistribution. It's exactly what happened in the US between what has been defined as the black and white "communities". There's nothing wrong with a society that values and allows the choices of the individual. Anglo-saxon culture is the culture that has created by far the largest and most abundant systems of voluntary aid. Even here in Sweden, voluntary aid is a very foreign concept. Maybe voluntary aid is just something foreign to you even tough your country is one who gives the most. The idea that Americans give away the most is another myth, just like the American dream and the fictional American social ladder. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_governments_by_development_aid
That's governmental aid. It's not the same thing. Also, that's aid given to developing countries, which is not what we're talking about. Those numbers would probably give a good estimation for how big the welfare state is in said countries though. Anglo-saxon societies are by far the most giving when it comes to money taken directly out of your own pockets.
|
On January 15 2015 06:11 L1ghtning wrote:
So redistribution of wealth is fair, if it's democratic?
In that case, the confiscation of wealth from the jews in Nazi Germany was fair.
Imagine that you and 4 of your friends went out to get dinner. Then when it was time to pay, 3 of them got together and said that you would pay everything. That's also fair in your eyes, right? Democracy is always fair, right?
Democracy is a lie. It's not fair. Democracy is only fair to the extent that we don't trade away our liberties, in exchange for personal (typically short term) gains.
Unfortunately, as it turns out, the majority in our society seems to be willing to trade away a lot of our liberties in order to set up systems that helps them personally, and by doing so, they also trade away the liberties of those who didn't want to trade away their liberties, but who were silenced by the majority.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not against democracy. But I don't fall for the lie that everything under a democracy is fair and just. For me, what the majority thinks is irrelevant. The majority can't always be right. The only thing that should matter for a person who aims to be a egalitarian is liberty.
What gives you the right to decide what someone else should do with their own resources?
Traditional Anglo-saxon societies are only the most unegalitarian societies in the eyes of a person who doesn't understand what egalitarianism means.
I have got a news flash for you:
Redistribution of wealth is the highest in a Laissez-faire economy. By far!
Redistribution is happening all the time and it is predominantly from the bottom to the top!
And it is not hard to see why: interests, dividends, rents are all pumping money to the top of the pyramid in any capitalist economy.
Any dimwit can see that you can not form a society on such a flawed system. (Unless he is a total hermit) Any individual is always part of a group that support him and his way of life. A doctor can not operate if the janitor has not cleaned up the operating room. An financier can not get interests on his investment without a couple of laborers working hard for it. We are all in it together! That is why people came up with the 'welfare state' as a counter weight / band aid.
But leave it to the US education system to unlearn achievements from the 18th century...
|
On January 15 2015 06:46 lord_nibbler wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2015 06:11 L1ghtning wrote:
So redistribution of wealth is fair, if it's democratic?
In that case, the confiscation of wealth from the jews in Nazi Germany was fair.
Imagine that you and 4 of your friends went out to get dinner. Then when it was time to pay, 3 of them got together and said that you would pay everything. That's also fair in your eyes, right? Democracy is always fair, right?
Democracy is a lie. It's not fair. Democracy is only fair to the extent that we don't trade away our liberties, in exchange for personal (typically short term) gains.
Unfortunately, as it turns out, the majority in our society seems to be willing to trade away a lot of our liberties in order to set up systems that helps them personally, and by doing so, they also trade away the liberties of those who didn't want to trade away their liberties, but who were silenced by the majority.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not against democracy. But I don't fall for the lie that everything under a democracy is fair and just. For me, what the majority thinks is irrelevant. The majority can't always be right. The only thing that should matter for a person who aims to be a egalitarian is liberty.
What gives you the right to decide what someone else should do with their own resources?
Traditional Anglo-saxon societies are only the most unegalitarian societies in the eyes of a person who doesn't understand what egalitarianism means. But leave it to the US education system to unlearn achievements from the 18th century...
You are talking to a Swedish dude yo. And in the 1700s the concept of social welfare was a rare one, you are probably about 180 years too early if you want to view Bismark's social security as the first innovation of the welfare state.
But keep stoking that anti-Americanism.
|
On January 15 2015 06:50 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2015 06:46 lord_nibbler wrote:On January 15 2015 06:11 L1ghtning wrote:
So redistribution of wealth is fair, if it's democratic?
In that case, the confiscation of wealth from the jews in Nazi Germany was fair.
Imagine that you and 4 of your friends went out to get dinner. Then when it was time to pay, 3 of them got together and said that you would pay everything. That's also fair in your eyes, right? Democracy is always fair, right?
Democracy is a lie. It's not fair. Democracy is only fair to the extent that we don't trade away our liberties, in exchange for personal (typically short term) gains.
Unfortunately, as it turns out, the majority in our society seems to be willing to trade away a lot of our liberties in order to set up systems that helps them personally, and by doing so, they also trade away the liberties of those who didn't want to trade away their liberties, but who were silenced by the majority.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not against democracy. But I don't fall for the lie that everything under a democracy is fair and just. For me, what the majority thinks is irrelevant. The majority can't always be right. The only thing that should matter for a person who aims to be a egalitarian is liberty.
What gives you the right to decide what someone else should do with their own resources?
Traditional Anglo-saxon societies are only the most unegalitarian societies in the eyes of a person who doesn't understand what egalitarianism means. But leave it to the US education system to unlearn achievements from the 18th century... You are talking to a Swedish dude yo. And in the 1700s the concept of social welfare was a rare one, you are probably about 180 years too early if you want to view Bismark's social security as the first innovation of the welfare state. But keep stoking that anti-Americanism.
1. It is not anti-Americanism if we talk about the differences of Anglo-Saxon and West-European systems, and I take the the view of the former being inferior to the later.
2. He does not even know of the concept of minority rights in democracies and thinks taxes are inherently undemocratic.
So maybe it was the Swedish education that failed this time, but it sure failed.
|
On January 15 2015 06:46 lord_nibbler wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2015 06:11 L1ghtning wrote:
So redistribution of wealth is fair, if it's democratic?
In that case, the confiscation of wealth from the jews in Nazi Germany was fair.
Imagine that you and 4 of your friends went out to get dinner. Then when it was time to pay, 3 of them got together and said that you would pay everything. That's also fair in your eyes, right? Democracy is always fair, right?
Democracy is a lie. It's not fair. Democracy is only fair to the extent that we don't trade away our liberties, in exchange for personal (typically short term) gains.
Unfortunately, as it turns out, the majority in our society seems to be willing to trade away a lot of our liberties in order to set up systems that helps them personally, and by doing so, they also trade away the liberties of those who didn't want to trade away their liberties, but who were silenced by the majority.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not against democracy. But I don't fall for the lie that everything under a democracy is fair and just. For me, what the majority thinks is irrelevant. The majority can't always be right. The only thing that should matter for a person who aims to be a egalitarian is liberty.
What gives you the right to decide what someone else should do with their own resources?
Traditional Anglo-saxon societies are only the most unegalitarian societies in the eyes of a person who doesn't understand what egalitarianism means. I have got a news flash for you: Redistribution of wealth is the highest in a Laissez-faire economy. By far! Redistribution is happening all the time and it is predominantly from the bottom to the top! And it is not hard to see why: interests, dividends, rents are all pumping money to the top of the pyramid in any capitalist economy. Any dimwit can see that you can not form a society on such a flawed system. (Unless he is a total hermit) Any individual is always part of a group that support him and his way of life. A doctor can not operate if the janitor has not cleaned up the operating room. An financier can not get interests on his investment without a couple of laborers working hard for it. We are all in it together! That is why people came up with the 'welfare state' as a counter weight / band aid. But leave it to the US education system to unlearn achievements from the 18th century...
OK. I get, it, you're a marxist. You believe that in a laissez faire economy, despite the fact that you're personally in control of your own resources, and how you exchange it for other resources, "the man" will still find a way to screw you over.
I don't see the value in debating with someone who believes in such crazy conspiracy-theories.
2. He does not even know of the concept of minority rights in democracies and thinks taxes are inherently undemocratic.
So maybe it was the Swedish education that failed this time, but it sure failed.
Anyway. I have NEVER EVER said that taxes are undemocratic.The whole statement is a contradition. How could possibly taxes, supported by a majority be undemocratic? I'm pretty sure you were looking for another word there.
|
On January 15 2015 07:00 lord_nibbler wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2015 06:50 Sub40APM wrote:On January 15 2015 06:46 lord_nibbler wrote:On January 15 2015 06:11 L1ghtning wrote:
So redistribution of wealth is fair, if it's democratic?
In that case, the confiscation of wealth from the jews in Nazi Germany was fair.
Imagine that you and 4 of your friends went out to get dinner. Then when it was time to pay, 3 of them got together and said that you would pay everything. That's also fair in your eyes, right? Democracy is always fair, right?
Democracy is a lie. It's not fair. Democracy is only fair to the extent that we don't trade away our liberties, in exchange for personal (typically short term) gains.
Unfortunately, as it turns out, the majority in our society seems to be willing to trade away a lot of our liberties in order to set up systems that helps them personally, and by doing so, they also trade away the liberties of those who didn't want to trade away their liberties, but who were silenced by the majority.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not against democracy. But I don't fall for the lie that everything under a democracy is fair and just. For me, what the majority thinks is irrelevant. The majority can't always be right. The only thing that should matter for a person who aims to be a egalitarian is liberty.
What gives you the right to decide what someone else should do with their own resources?
Traditional Anglo-saxon societies are only the most unegalitarian societies in the eyes of a person who doesn't understand what egalitarianism means. But leave it to the US education system to unlearn achievements from the 18th century... You are talking to a Swedish dude yo. And in the 1700s the concept of social welfare was a rare one, you are probably about 180 years too early if you want to view Bismark's social security as the first innovation of the welfare state. But keep stoking that anti-Americanism. 1. It is not anti-Americanism if we talk about the differences of Anglo-Saxon and West-European systems, and I take the the view of the former being inferior to the later. 2. He does not even know of the concept of minority rights in democracies and thinks taxes are inherently undemocratic. So maybe it was the Swedish education that failed this time, but it sure failed.
Your reply to him had nothing to do with comparing America to Europe, it was just a broad reply about social contract to which you added an anti-American comment -- itself riddled with ignorance -- because you blindly assumed from the context of his heavily libertarian infused post that he was an America. Just say "I was wrong, comment 2) should replace the original sentence in which I blindly attack America."
|
On January 15 2015 06:12 Acertos wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2015 04:56 L1ghtning wrote:On January 15 2015 01:13 WhiteDog wrote:On January 14 2015 21:36 Hoenicker wrote:On January 14 2015 20:32 Ricjames wrote:On January 14 2015 05:51 Sub40APM wrote:On January 14 2015 00:12 Ricjames wrote:On January 13 2015 23:53 Oshuy wrote:On January 13 2015 22:58 Ricjames wrote:
The average birth rate for european countries/families is 1,4, while the average birth rate for muslim countries/families is well over 6. Some places average at 8. Do the math and you will realize that Europe will be overrun by muslim population if the immigration policy stays as it is rather soon. On January 13 2015 23:30 Ricjames wrote:
I was not refering to second/third generation in Europe. Muslim countries overall. Doesn't matter what you or I say, it is a fact that situation doesn't look bright. Then it is just blatantly false. Fertility rates are geographicly correlated, there is no link to religion. Fertility rates above 6 are rare, only seen in sub-saharian africaThe countries where this is the case include Niger, Mali and Somalia that are mainly muslim, but are mostly chrisian countries: Chad, Burundy, Congo, Nigeria, Angola, Uganda. However i do not accept if it would affect me or other people in any kind of a way. I do not accept women walking around with fully covered faces. What if its their choice, why does your right to be offended by fully covered faces superseded their right to decide to cover To be honest - i don't care if it is their choice (due to being brainwashed since birth), i don't like it and feel offended / intimidated by it. I don't see any reason why should i tolerate something like that in my own country. For instance there is an etiquette rule in here that people should not wear any head cover (caps, hoodies, bandana, headscarfs...) when inside, especially in public buildings like schools, banks, offices and so on. People tolerate headscarfs, which I am ok with as long as i can see your whole face. This is our tradition and rule of our society. There was a case where young woman was breaking the school rules by wearing niqab and she was asked to stop or she will not be allowed into the school. She took this to a court with her lawyer and fortunately lost the case. The difference is that they came to our country and they are supposed to obbey our laws, rules, society customs and traditions. Not trying to change it or even make us submit to their rules or customs. If that makes me xenophobic or racist, then be it. Forcing people with distinct cultural differences to adhere to culture and rules that are distincly alien to them, only serves to further alienate and distance them from the (in this case) judeo-christian majority. Hence creating emotions of low self esteem, frustration, and in the end hopelesness which can lead to violence. It is a very difficult subject matter and in no way straigthforward, but accepting other peoples beliefs and customs is a start. Its difficult to draw a line and to say if you wear this you are sexist, and subjugating women, when those very women just want to wear whatever it is they want to wear. The term forcing doesn't mean anything in this case. The question is wheither the society acknowledge diversity or not : either way, people are "forced", either from their familial, ethnic or religious culture, or from the dominant society. "Accepting peoples beliefs" is also unclear. What does it even mean ? Does it mean from one individual to another (what we call tolerance, a necessary value), or does it mean institutionally, by accepting and favoring specific individuals that comes from specific minorities (affirmative action and discrimination) ? In reality, the nation can be a tool to wage war on others, but in the limited space of the nation it is a tool to resolve conflict around common value and representations. Celebrating what we have in common rather than what distinguish is a good way to create unity. This idea that the differences of cultures and rules are overwhelming and cannot be fought against is essentialist and very anglo saxon : a society of individuals, where the common ground is nowhere to be found, always result in a society of inequalities and lackluster welfare, because there are no ground on which you can make people accept redistribution. It's exactly what happened in the US between what has been defined as the black and white "communities". There's nothing wrong with a society that values and allows the choices of the individual. Anglo-saxon culture is the culture that has created by far the largest and most abundant systems of voluntary aid. Even here in Sweden, voluntary aid is a very foreign concept. Maybe voluntary aid is just something foreign to you even tough your country is one who gives the most. The idea that Americans give away the most is another myth, just like the American dream and the fictional American social ladder. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_governments_by_development_aid
Charities Aid Foundation ranked US no.1 in their 'World Giving Index' for what it's worth.
https://www.cafonline.org/pdf/CAF_WGI2014_Report_1555AWEBFinal.pdf
From the same org, different report:
![[image loading]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72070179/Charity.PNG)
Link
I didn't read through them, so let me know if any of the data / interpretation is smelly.
|
On January 15 2015 07:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2015 06:12 Acertos wrote:On January 15 2015 04:56 L1ghtning wrote:On January 15 2015 01:13 WhiteDog wrote:On January 14 2015 21:36 Hoenicker wrote:On January 14 2015 20:32 Ricjames wrote:On January 14 2015 05:51 Sub40APM wrote:On January 14 2015 00:12 Ricjames wrote:On January 13 2015 23:53 Oshuy wrote:On January 13 2015 22:58 Ricjames wrote:
The average birth rate for european countries/families is 1,4, while the average birth rate for muslim countries/families is well over 6. Some places average at 8. Do the math and you will realize that Europe will be overrun by muslim population if the immigration policy stays as it is rather soon. On January 13 2015 23:30 Ricjames wrote:
I was not refering to second/third generation in Europe. Muslim countries overall. Doesn't matter what you or I say, it is a fact that situation doesn't look bright. Then it is just blatantly false. Fertility rates are geographicly correlated, there is no link to religion. Fertility rates above 6 are rare, only seen in sub-saharian africaThe countries where this is the case include Niger, Mali and Somalia that are mainly muslim, but are mostly chrisian countries: Chad, Burundy, Congo, Nigeria, Angola, Uganda. However i do not accept if it would affect me or other people in any kind of a way. I do not accept women walking around with fully covered faces. What if its their choice, why does your right to be offended by fully covered faces superseded their right to decide to cover To be honest - i don't care if it is their choice (due to being brainwashed since birth), i don't like it and feel offended / intimidated by it. I don't see any reason why should i tolerate something like that in my own country. For instance there is an etiquette rule in here that people should not wear any head cover (caps, hoodies, bandana, headscarfs...) when inside, especially in public buildings like schools, banks, offices and so on. People tolerate headscarfs, which I am ok with as long as i can see your whole face. This is our tradition and rule of our society. There was a case where young woman was breaking the school rules by wearing niqab and she was asked to stop or she will not be allowed into the school. She took this to a court with her lawyer and fortunately lost the case. The difference is that they came to our country and they are supposed to obbey our laws, rules, society customs and traditions. Not trying to change it or even make us submit to their rules or customs. If that makes me xenophobic or racist, then be it. Forcing people with distinct cultural differences to adhere to culture and rules that are distincly alien to them, only serves to further alienate and distance them from the (in this case) judeo-christian majority. Hence creating emotions of low self esteem, frustration, and in the end hopelesness which can lead to violence. It is a very difficult subject matter and in no way straigthforward, but accepting other peoples beliefs and customs is a start. Its difficult to draw a line and to say if you wear this you are sexist, and subjugating women, when those very women just want to wear whatever it is they want to wear. The term forcing doesn't mean anything in this case. The question is wheither the society acknowledge diversity or not : either way, people are "forced", either from their familial, ethnic or religious culture, or from the dominant society. "Accepting peoples beliefs" is also unclear. What does it even mean ? Does it mean from one individual to another (what we call tolerance, a necessary value), or does it mean institutionally, by accepting and favoring specific individuals that comes from specific minorities (affirmative action and discrimination) ? In reality, the nation can be a tool to wage war on others, but in the limited space of the nation it is a tool to resolve conflict around common value and representations. Celebrating what we have in common rather than what distinguish is a good way to create unity. This idea that the differences of cultures and rules are overwhelming and cannot be fought against is essentialist and very anglo saxon : a society of individuals, where the common ground is nowhere to be found, always result in a society of inequalities and lackluster welfare, because there are no ground on which you can make people accept redistribution. It's exactly what happened in the US between what has been defined as the black and white "communities". There's nothing wrong with a society that values and allows the choices of the individual. Anglo-saxon culture is the culture that has created by far the largest and most abundant systems of voluntary aid. Even here in Sweden, voluntary aid is a very foreign concept. Maybe voluntary aid is just something foreign to you even tough your country is one who gives the most. The idea that Americans give away the most is another myth, just like the American dream and the fictional American social ladder. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_governments_by_development_aid Charities Aid Foundation ranked US no.1 in their 'World Giving Index' for what it's worth. https://www.cafonline.org/pdf/CAF_WGI2014_Report_1555AWEBFinal.pdfFrom the same org, different report: LinkI didn't read through them, so let me know if any of the data / interpretation is smelly.
Uuummm,I don't know...
http://www.globalhumanitarianassistance.org/humanitarian-aid-in-2009-headlines-from-the-latest-dac-data-release-2200.html
Look at donors by citizens.
http://www.globalhumanitarianassistance.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/GHA-Report-2013.pdf
That one says that (after page 30) it is actually impossible to know where the money from private donors come from.
Mmmm, well we can't know for sure but it looks like US citizens indeed give more to charities by % of their country's Gdp than their European counterpart.
edit: there was another table in your pdf with the % of Gdp per capita given by citizens to charities.In that one, everything is much closer so I don't know what to take from that.
|
On January 15 2015 07:19 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2015 07:00 lord_nibbler wrote:On January 15 2015 06:50 Sub40APM wrote:On January 15 2015 06:46 lord_nibbler wrote:On January 15 2015 06:11 L1ghtning wrote:
So redistribution of wealth is fair, if it's democratic?
In that case, the confiscation of wealth from the jews in Nazi Germany was fair.
Imagine that you and 4 of your friends went out to get dinner. Then when it was time to pay, 3 of them got together and said that you would pay everything. That's also fair in your eyes, right? Democracy is always fair, right?
Democracy is a lie. It's not fair. Democracy is only fair to the extent that we don't trade away our liberties, in exchange for personal (typically short term) gains.
Unfortunately, as it turns out, the majority in our society seems to be willing to trade away a lot of our liberties in order to set up systems that helps them personally, and by doing so, they also trade away the liberties of those who didn't want to trade away their liberties, but who were silenced by the majority.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not against democracy. But I don't fall for the lie that everything under a democracy is fair and just. For me, what the majority thinks is irrelevant. The majority can't always be right. The only thing that should matter for a person who aims to be a egalitarian is liberty.
What gives you the right to decide what someone else should do with their own resources?
Traditional Anglo-saxon societies are only the most unegalitarian societies in the eyes of a person who doesn't understand what egalitarianism means. But leave it to the US education system to unlearn achievements from the 18th century... You are talking to a Swedish dude yo. And in the 1700s the concept of social welfare was a rare one, you are probably about 180 years too early if you want to view Bismark's social security as the first innovation of the welfare state. But keep stoking that anti-Americanism. 1. It is not anti-Americanism if we talk about the differences of Anglo-Saxon and West-European systems, and I take the the view of the former being inferior to the later. 2. He does not even know of the concept of minority rights in democracies and thinks taxes are inherently undemocratic. So maybe it was the Swedish education that failed this time, but it sure failed. Your reply to him had nothing to do with comparing America to Europe, it was just a broad reply about social contract to which you added an anti-American comment -- itself riddled with ignorance -- because you blindly assumed from the context of his heavily libertarian infused post that he was an America. Just say "I was wrong, comment 2) should replace the original sentence in which I blindly attack America."
I was wrong, in that he is apparently a Swede not a US citizen (could still have grown up in USA but whatever).
But you act like this it not the reality in the US. Like Ron Paul is not actually seen as a viable candidate for presidency.
'Defending liberty' became a code word for the 'right to exploit', but ordinary people actually go along with it, because 'Freedom, USA USA USA'...
|
On January 15 2015 07:56 lord_nibbler wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2015 07:19 Sub40APM wrote:On January 15 2015 07:00 lord_nibbler wrote:On January 15 2015 06:50 Sub40APM wrote:On January 15 2015 06:46 lord_nibbler wrote:On January 15 2015 06:11 L1ghtning wrote:
So redistribution of wealth is fair, if it's democratic?
In that case, the confiscation of wealth from the jews in Nazi Germany was fair.
Imagine that you and 4 of your friends went out to get dinner. Then when it was time to pay, 3 of them got together and said that you would pay everything. That's also fair in your eyes, right? Democracy is always fair, right?
Democracy is a lie. It's not fair. Democracy is only fair to the extent that we don't trade away our liberties, in exchange for personal (typically short term) gains.
Unfortunately, as it turns out, the majority in our society seems to be willing to trade away a lot of our liberties in order to set up systems that helps them personally, and by doing so, they also trade away the liberties of those who didn't want to trade away their liberties, but who were silenced by the majority.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not against democracy. But I don't fall for the lie that everything under a democracy is fair and just. For me, what the majority thinks is irrelevant. The majority can't always be right. The only thing that should matter for a person who aims to be a egalitarian is liberty.
What gives you the right to decide what someone else should do with their own resources?
Traditional Anglo-saxon societies are only the most unegalitarian societies in the eyes of a person who doesn't understand what egalitarianism means. But leave it to the US education system to unlearn achievements from the 18th century... You are talking to a Swedish dude yo. And in the 1700s the concept of social welfare was a rare one, you are probably about 180 years too early if you want to view Bismark's social security as the first innovation of the welfare state. But keep stoking that anti-Americanism. 1. It is not anti-Americanism if we talk about the differences of Anglo-Saxon and West-European systems, and I take the the view of the former being inferior to the later. 2. He does not even know of the concept of minority rights in democracies and thinks taxes are inherently undemocratic. So maybe it was the Swedish education that failed this time, but it sure failed. Your reply to him had nothing to do with comparing America to Europe, it was just a broad reply about social contract to which you added an anti-American comment -- itself riddled with ignorance -- because you blindly assumed from the context of his heavily libertarian infused post that he was an America. Just say "I was wrong, comment 2) should replace the original sentence in which I blindly attack America." I was wrong, in that he is apparently a Swede not a US citizen (could still have grown up in USA but whatever). But you act like this it not the reality in the US. Like Ron Paul is not actually seen as a viable candidate for presidency. 'Defending liberty' became a code word for the 'right to exploit', but ordinary people actually go along with it, because 'Freedom, USA USA USA'...
I am not acting like anything, I am just pointing out to you that your attack on America was out of line in the context of your exchange with him. Ron Paul is as viable as the former East German communists inside Linke people are in taking the Chancellorship. But you are right broadly that there is a large minority of Americans, maybe 20%, who believe in libertarian-fantasies. But attacking the US education system because of a Swede libertarian is out of line.
|
On January 15 2015 07:56 lord_nibbler wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2015 07:19 Sub40APM wrote:On January 15 2015 07:00 lord_nibbler wrote:On January 15 2015 06:50 Sub40APM wrote:On January 15 2015 06:46 lord_nibbler wrote:On January 15 2015 06:11 L1ghtning wrote:
So redistribution of wealth is fair, if it's democratic?
In that case, the confiscation of wealth from the jews in Nazi Germany was fair.
Imagine that you and 4 of your friends went out to get dinner. Then when it was time to pay, 3 of them got together and said that you would pay everything. That's also fair in your eyes, right? Democracy is always fair, right?
Democracy is a lie. It's not fair. Democracy is only fair to the extent that we don't trade away our liberties, in exchange for personal (typically short term) gains.
Unfortunately, as it turns out, the majority in our society seems to be willing to trade away a lot of our liberties in order to set up systems that helps them personally, and by doing so, they also trade away the liberties of those who didn't want to trade away their liberties, but who were silenced by the majority.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not against democracy. But I don't fall for the lie that everything under a democracy is fair and just. For me, what the majority thinks is irrelevant. The majority can't always be right. The only thing that should matter for a person who aims to be a egalitarian is liberty.
What gives you the right to decide what someone else should do with their own resources?
Traditional Anglo-saxon societies are only the most unegalitarian societies in the eyes of a person who doesn't understand what egalitarianism means. But leave it to the US education system to unlearn achievements from the 18th century... You are talking to a Swedish dude yo. And in the 1700s the concept of social welfare was a rare one, you are probably about 180 years too early if you want to view Bismark's social security as the first innovation of the welfare state. But keep stoking that anti-Americanism. 1. It is not anti-Americanism if we talk about the differences of Anglo-Saxon and West-European systems, and I take the the view of the former being inferior to the later. 2. He does not even know of the concept of minority rights in democracies and thinks taxes are inherently undemocratic. So maybe it was the Swedish education that failed this time, but it sure failed. Your reply to him had nothing to do with comparing America to Europe, it was just a broad reply about social contract to which you added an anti-American comment -- itself riddled with ignorance -- because you blindly assumed from the context of his heavily libertarian infused post that he was an America. Just say "I was wrong, comment 2) should replace the original sentence in which I blindly attack America." I was wrong, in that he is apparently a Swede not a US citizen (could still have grown up in USA but whatever). But you act like this it not the reality in the US. Like Ron Paul is not actually seen as a viable candidate for presidency. 'Defending liberty' became a code word for the 'right to exploit', but ordinary people actually go along with it, because 'Freedom, USA USA USA'...
There aren't many people in the US who actually act like "freedom, USA USA USA". It's a cultural given that we're very individualistic, but we may not actually be.
For many years now, researchers worldwide have been conducting surveys to compare the values of people in different countries. And when it comes to questions about how much the respondents value the individual against the collective — that is, how much they give priority to individual interest over the demand of groups, or personal conscience over the orders of authority — Americans consistently answer in a way that favors the group over the individual. In fact, we are more likely to favor the group than Europeans are.
Link
Make of that article what you will, but I'd encourage you to not build your opinion off of common stereotypes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
