Multiculturalism

But this thread isn't about that kind of Multiculturalism.You would think that nearly 400 posts in the topic would be crystal clear.

We have tested ours. We've also tested theirs.Ours are better.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

We all know what you believe.What's lacking is your demonstration that your believed way is better.

Not on topic.This thread is about Multiculturalism policies, either explicit or implicit.Letting a con-man off easy because he's a 'Gypsy' is implicit Multiculturalism.Writing a law that says sentencing considerations should pay "particular attention to aboriginal offenders" is explicit Multiculturalism.That's the topic.

Of course not.We don't need to reassess our idea of morality to conclude that eating pizza is okay but that Type III FGM is not.

Or they're wrong.

You are right about one thing: You have not taken an actual position other than 'dats da way it is, folks' this entire thread.As for demonstrating that equality before the law, individual liberties, etc. are better than their alternatives you can refer to my earlier posts in this thread.Of course, if you're a moral relativist, you'll never get it; but that's your problem and not mine.

Because I don't need to. I am not required to respect the opinions of everyone who happens to have opinions.

I don't recall saying there are unquestionable moral absolutes. So I'm not sure what I'm supposed to give an example of.

I don't recall saying there are unquestionable moral absolutes. So I'm not sure what I'm supposed to give an example of.

Believing in absolute morals is different than absolute morals existing. For example, no morality at all exists outside of humanity as far as we can tell.Asking me to point out moral absolutes that I've never claimed exist is stupid. If Straggler wants to reword his question to actually reflect the position I've taken, then I'd be glad to answer it.

Straggler's a big boy. I think he can ask his own questions.I'm certainly not going to go shooting out answers for potential questions that he hasn't even asked yet.

The question Straggler has asked makes no sense in light of my stated position.There's really nothing to avoid other than an irrelevant question that has nothing to do with my position. I do? Where? I insist on Straggler asking relevant questions. If that is 'pedantic obstinance', so be it.

I don't think actions are "inherently moral or immoral". As I said in Message 505: "no morality at all exists outside of humanity as far as we can tell."When I talk about moral relativism, I am talking largely about cultural moral relativism.

There is only one right answer. But that doesn't mean there is only one inherently right answer. If you have a question to ask that is not related to terminology (and even better, one that is related to Multiculturalism), then, please, ask it. I've told you that I do not consider my position one of moral absolutism. So you should know that you aren't going to get anywhere by asking me questions about moral absolutes. If your only question is what I label things, then perhaps a different thread discussing my view on morality would be a good place to ask it.For this thread, I took it for granted that we would have general agreement on basic morals. I didn't really anticipate there would be anyone who thought it was okay to practice infibulation on little girls so long as other people's cultures find it acceptable (or even desirable). The discussion you and I had about circumcision was not, in my opinion, a moral argument. I think you and I both agree that parents have the right to make decisions for their children that affect their safety and bodily integrity but that children also deserve to have their basic safety guarded against poor parenting decisions. Our disagreement is on where circumcision lies in relation to these two, occasionally conflicting, standards. But that is really a scientific dispute; not a moral one.Anyway. As far as this all concerns Multiculturalism, we just have to ask ourselves if we want a society full of tribalism, patriarchy, child sex trafficking, diseased bushmeat and all of the other problems suffered in other cultures. If we don't want that, then I think we can agree that runaway Multiculturalism (promoted in some cases) is also not something we want. It's really a matter of "what's in it for us?".So let's ask that question: There was a lot of quibbling at the start of this thread over whether there were really any negativities associated with Multiculturalism. But now I think most of us are at the point of admitting that there are enough negativities related to Multiculturalism that it is worth considering just how much Multiculturalism (if any) we want. Maintaining Multiculturalism typically requires intentional effortit's work. There are established costs (the negativities + work).Are there any benefits? What's in it for us?