The UN demands the US pay Reparations

[Traditio]

Which sociological definition of culture are you operating with? I'm guessing none, you operate with the definition of culture that suits your vile racism.

1. If you disagree with me, then facts and arguments are quite sufficient. There's no need for these emotive displays. They don't really help your case, argumentatively. :idunno:

2. I don't know. I suppose a general definition is something like: "the collective practices, values, etc. of some coherent group of people, especially that of a body politic, and this, insofar as traditionally and historically understood by that group or body politic (I do not understand these two terms as logically equivalent)."

I don't want to deny that something like "black culture" can exist, but I don't think that it should be denied that there is such a thing as an American culture, independently of any number of sub cultures, and in point of fact, it is functionally equivalent to white American culture as historically understood.

And only any idiot would think that you could define what a dog is without reference to its parts and the functional expressions of those parts. You want to define what a dog is without referings a significant part of it, the part you don't like.

How about "canine animal"? In all cases of definition, the whole is logically/notionally prior to the parts. "Dog" is conceptually prior to "canine" or "animal," and, again, substance is logically prior to accidents: "four footed" and "furry" are logically posterior to "dog."

You mean like the constitutional right to freedom of religion? You just violated that yourself by wishing to expel all Muslims based on their religion.

Muslims don't believe in freedom of religion. Or in the constitution. They believe in shariah law.

Here, I wish to quote Judge Dredd from America:

"Rights? Sure. I'm all for rights. But not at the expense of order."

Freedom of religion is fine...normally. But some religions, some cultures, etc. are inherently subversive against the State. Islam is one of them. Scientology is another. :idunno:

 

[ok doser]

... I'm not a victim ...

but social justice warriors like rex need for there to be victims

 

[Traditio]

That kind of slime doesn't deserve a "compelling argument." Maybe you don't see it as slime because you're already standing in it.

What do you understand by "crime against humanity"?

 

[annabenedetti]

How many of us are descended from people the Romans kept as slaves? I guess I'd better send a bill to the Italian government as some of my forefathers might have been kept as slaves by the Romans. I want reparations! Whilst we're at it, anyone of Saxon descent should probably send a bill to the Scandinavian countries demanding reparations for the treatment of our forefathers by the Viking invaders who committed mass murder. Then I think I'll send a bill to France for the Norman invasion of the 11th century where the Normans ethnically cleansed England. Again, I want reparations for the horrific, wide-scale genocide the French committed against my countrymen.

Or I could just accept that this is ancient history and I'm not a victim anymore. I'm responsible for my own actions and cannot blame what happened to my forefathers in the past for where I'm at in life.

You sure felt like a victim at university, you made a whole thread about how you were a victim of feminists and "SJWs." Maybe now you feel a little more capable of passing the feminist in the hallway who "forced" you to share a political opinion?

 

[Selaphiel]

How about "canine animal"? In all cases of definition, the whole is logically/notionally prior to the parts. "Dog" is conceptually prior to "canine" or "animal," and, again, substance is logically prior to accidents: "four footed" and "furry" are logically posterior to "dog."

You actually believe there is an essence "dog"? Would advise you to look into a biology book that was written post 1300AD. What exactly is this essence? Care to define it?

Species are determined by capability to sexually reproduce, which is determined by genetic make up, which are parts of the dog. There is no such thing as an eternal idea of what a dog is. There might be more to what a dog is, in that case it is emergent systemic properties, not some vague idea of essence.

Muslims don't believe in freedom of religion. Or in the constitution.

This based on your profound understanding of Islam? Plenty of Muslims believe in religious freedom and the constitution. You are just making yet another braindead generalization based on absolute ignorance. As if you have ever read as much as page of a Muslim theologian from presiding in a western culture.

 

[rexlunae]

How many of us are descended from people the Romans kept as slaves? I guess I'd better send a bill to the Italian government as some of my forefathers might have been kept as slaves by the Romans.

The Italian government of today is no more (and perhaps significantly less) the successor of the Roman state than the British government is. Nor is it clear that you, as a descendant of the Angles or the Saxons, have been significantly harmed by the ways that your unknown ancestors were treated.

I want reparations! Whilst we're at it, anyone of Saxon descent should probably send a bill to the Scandinavian countries demanding reparations for the treatment of our forefathers by the Viking invaders who committed mass murder. Then I think I'll send a bill to France for the Norman invasion of the 11th century where the Normans ethnically cleansed England. Again, I want reparations for the horrific, wide-scale genocide the French committed against my countrymen.

I'm not sure the Normans ethnically cleansed the Anglo-Saxons. And in any case, they ultimately formed a fused culture with a new language and members significantly of dual descent, such that untangling the earlier populations from present ones is near impossible.

Or I could just accept that this is ancient history and I'm not a victim anymore. I'm responsible for my own actions and cannot blame what happened to my forefathers in the past for where I'm at in life.

Slavery isn't ancient history, nor is segregation or white supremacy. Its effects continue to this day, and they harm a specific group of people still distinguishable from others in American society.

 

[kmoney]

1. If you disagree with me, then facts and arguments are quite sufficient. There's no need for these emotive displays. They don't really help your case, argumentatively. :idunno:

2. I don't know. I suppose a general definition is something like: "the collective practices, values, etc. of some coherent group of people, especially that of a body politic, and this, insofar as traditionally and historically understood by that group or body politic (I do not understand these two terms as logically equivalent)."

I don't want to deny that something like "black culture" can exist, but I don't think that it should be denied that there is such a thing as an American culture, independently of any number of sub cultures, and in point of fact, it is functionally equivalent to white American culture as historically understood.



How about "canine animal"? In all cases of definition, the whole is logically/notionally prior to the parts. "Dog" is conceptually prior to "canine" or "animal," and, again, substance is logically prior to accidents: "four footed" and "furry" are logically posterior to "dog."



Muslims don't believe in freedom of religion. Or in the constitution. They believe in shariah law.

Here, I wish to quote Judge Dredd from America:

"Rights? Sure. I'm all for rights. But not at the expense of order."

Freedom of religion is fine...normally. But some religions, some cultures, etc. are inherently subversive against the State. Islam is one of them. Scientology is another. :idunno:

You want to talk about emotive displays? Seriously? lain:

 

[ok doser]

Slavery isn't ancient history...

actually, the end of slavery in america predates the horseless carriage, indoor plumbing, electric lighting, the telephone, heavier than air flight, etc, etc, etc

it's an artifact of our past

let it go

 

[Traditio]

You actually believe there is an essence "dog"?

Yes. I believe that there are such things as dogs, and that individual dogs are really similar to each other insofar as they are dogs, and really different from other things that are not dogs, and this, insofar as dogs are dogs and non-dogs are not dogs.

What exactly is this essence?

What dogs are.

Kripke is helpful on this point (cf. Naming and Necessity). Species names designate certain kinds of things.

Care to define it?

"An animal (the genus) of the canine variety (the specific difference)."

Species are determined by capability to sexually reproduce, which is determined by genetic make up, which are parts of the dog.

You're attempting to make substances logically dependent upon accidents. Other way around, bro.

At any rate, this is the fundamental problem with all of you liberals. You don't have a conception of "kinds" independently of your own mental constructs. You think that, in reality, there's only an enumeration of atomistic individuals, and anything further is our own imaginative fictions.

That's why you can't admit that there's such thing as "an American culture."

And yet, ironically, you probably agree with reparations. Because you apparently can see kinds when it suits you ideologically.

 

[genuineoriginal]

the United States fully participated in slavery prior to the Civil War.

The United States abolished slavery in the Civil War.
Therefore, there are no reparations owed.

It is amazing how you are completely unable to grasp such a simple concept.

 

[genuineoriginal]

annabenedetti is liberal Slime.

FTFY, and you are welcome.

 

[ok doser]

2016 - 1865 = 151 years

yes, that's right - 151 years ago

 

[lovemeorhateme]

You sure felt like a victim at university, you made a whole thread about how you were a victim of feminists and "SJWs." Maybe now you feel a little more capable of passing the feminist in the hallway who "forced" you to share a political opinion?

I created a thread to share my experience of what they are like, not to claim victimhood. At no point did I say "I'm a victim". I said that Christians and right wingers are a minority and their opinions, like all of those of straight, white men are treated with disdain. So there was no need for this blatant character assassination directed towards me. Let's get back to the subject of this thread now, shall we?

 

[Traditio]

I know one named "Barack".

But none named Shaquan, huh?

Even if there's some truth to that, so what? Why do you feel that authorizes discrimination?

If you flip me off, you expect me to treat you nicely?

...when we all know the only thing worth studying is white, European history and philosophy. Right?

I didn't say that. That said, it is telling that black people flock to their own sectarian courses of study.

It's illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, under the terms of laws that mostly white people passed.

Well refusing to hire someone named "Shaquan" isn't discrimination on the basis of race. It's "discrimination" on the basis of name, probable cultural upbringing, etc. Were he named "Jonathan," the employer wouldn't have the slightest clue about his race.

Where, as you yourself have noted, they have little living cultural connection,

You would think that. But whenever Winter comes around, I keep hearing the word "Kwaanzaa." I wonder what's up with that.

Again, they have at least as much right to live here as a white person, and that's no justification for mistreating them.

"Hey, boss man, I know I am a goth and I dress in a positively ridiculous manner. I further am aware that I have all sorts of bizarre piercings and am covered in tattoos...but you should hire me anyway!"

Whose correct pronunciation of the alphabet?

The actual one. You know, the one where "r" isn't pronounced like the word "aura." Do try and keep up.

 

[lovemeorhateme]

The Italian government of today is no more (and perhaps significantly less) the successor of the Roman state than the British government is. Nor is it clear that you, as a descendant of the Angles or the Saxons, have been significantly harmed by the ways that your unknown ancestors were treated.



I'm not sure the Normans ethnically cleansed the Anglo-Saxons. And in any case, they ultimately formed a fused culture with a new language and members significantly of dual descent, such that untangling the earlier populations from present ones is near impossible.



Slavery isn't ancient history, nor is segregation or white supremacy. Its effects continue to this day, and they harm a specific group of people still distinguishable from others in American society.

The point is that if we start making reparations to people not because of what they have suffered, but because of what their ancestors over 100 years ago suffered, where do we draw the line? You say slavery isn't ancient history, but what is ancient history for you? Wherever you draw the line between "ancient history" and "not ancient history" is arbitrary. So why don't we go back into the past and start making reparations for every atrocity every country has ever been involved in? That would at least be consistent. Personally I prefer not to feel victimised for suffering others in the past have gone through, nor to feel guilt for the perpetration of suffering my ancestors may have caused. I'm neither the victim nor the perpetrator of past atrocities.

 

[Selaphiel]

Yes. I believe that there are such things as dogs, and that individual dogs are really similar to each other insofar as they are dogs, and really different from other things that are not dogs, and this, insofar as dogs are dogs and non-dogs are not dogs.

Which can be sufficiently understood by referring to genetic make ups and anatomy.

What dogs are.

Dogs are what dogs are. Helpful stuff.

You're attempting to make substances logically dependent upon accidents. Other way around, bro.

So when an evolutionary leap from one species to another occurs, what happens to this substance? What exactly do we need this idea for? It seems to me far more likely that what you call substance is nothing but human categorization of a fluid world of accidents so to speak. Substance language has not taken the scientific revolutions seriously. What a table or a dog is is a field of activity in a relatively stable pattern. What process metaphysics calls a society of actual occasions.

At any rate, this is the fundamental problem with all of you liberals. You don't have a conception of "kinds" independently of your own mental constructs. You think that, in reality, there's only an enumeration of atomistic individuals, and anything further is our own imaginative fictions.

Ehm no, try again. You simply place the whole on the wrong end of the ontological spectrum so to speak. Emergent systemic properties are constituted by the parts, not the other way around. Form emerges from interactions among the parts, they are not at the bottom grounding them. That actually coheres with an evolutionary view of the world, where new forms emerge through the diversification of species in fluid transitions.

That's why you can't admit that there's such thing as "an American culture."

Because culture is not a fixed entity. As if you are in any way culturally equivalent to a 18th century American citizen.
The only difference is that you want culture to be determined by whatever white people do at any point in time.

 

[Traditio]

Which can be sufficiently understood by referring to genetic make ups and anatomy.

Selaphiel, for the purposes of preserving the coherency of the thread, I wish to note that the discussion of species would be better suited for another thread. What is important is the point below:

Because culture is not a fixed entity. As if you are in any way culturally equivalent to a 18th century American citizen.

I disagree with this. Let us ignore the question of the identity of a given culture over time. It at least must be granted that there is such a thing as a culture over and beyond the individuals who participate in it. There is such a thing as "Christmas" independently of the individuals who celebrate it.

You'll deny that American culture now is the same as American culture in the 18th century. But I'll ask: is there an historical continuity? Has there been a series of progressive adaptations, or complete rupture?

I think you must admit the former.

 

[annabenedetti]

I created a thread to share my experience of what they are like, not to claim victimhood. At no point did I say "I'm a victim". I said that Christians and right wingers are a minority and their opinions, like all of those of straight, white men are treated with disdain. So there was no need for this blatant character assassination directed towards me. Let's get back to the subject of this thread now, shall we?

No. I responded to your post and I'll even add to it. You expended a lot of words in that thread about your victim status at university and yet you want to preach to our black Americans about not to be a victim. Grow up.

 

[Traditio]

No. I responded to your post and I'll even add to it. You expended a lot of words in that thread about your victim status at university and yet you want to preach to our black Americans about not to be a victim. Grow up.

You're twisting his words. The claim that LMOHM is making is that it makes little sense to claim victim status because of ancient history, because, at that point, pretty much everyone can claim it against pretty much everyone else.

When LMOHM complained of victimization at his university, he was making a claim of actually being victimized here and now by specific people and their actions in a way which actually personally affected him in a real, tangible way.

 

[lovemeorhateme]

No. I responded to your post and I'll even add to it. You expended a lot of words in that thread about your victim status at university and yet you want to preach to our black Americans about not to be a victim. Grow up.

I did nothing of the kind. You were, do, and it seems continue to read things into my words that I haven't said. You did it continuously throughout our discussion on that thread and completely dismissed anything I had to say. I don't want a personal argument with you and would much rather get back to the point of this thread. If you have valid counter arguments then feel free to share them and rebut what I have to say. If you're just going to keep launching personal ad hominem attacks in my direction then would you kindly shut up?

Many thanks