Multiculturalism

Given your well documented predilection for vagueness and ambiguity it's more a case of "Ah, the old necessary clarification game". Is there any reasoned basis to this idea that it is moral to obey laws? Or is it completely random such that you might just as well have decided that it was moral to wear banana skins on your feet? If it is stupid to relate laws to morals why do you deem the disobeying of laws to be indicative of lacking morals? Bearing in mind that it was you who made the connection - How are laws and morals connected?

Then you probably didn't mean to say

quote:

---

When we agree on a definition of "morality" we can discuss the morality

---

So what makes an attitude 'valid'? So you're proposing something is like science in that humans are the peers. So it's 'like science' in the same way as art, music, film and book criticism. Which doesn't sound very much like science at all.

I eat onions. If I am an exception then that is simply an indication of the lack of taste in others.Let me know when you want to follow the Forum Rules and maybe we can pick this discussion up again.

Nah man, you just can't read.

I don't think in terms of "making things legal". For the purposes of cultural diversity, we have to be circumspect about how we handle what is illegal. I understand why I'm doing it. I don't understand what you're objecting to because you seem to wind up agreeing with me.

If there is any overlap between their attitude and our attitude, we would agree that those areas of overlap are "valid". I'm proposing that somehing is like science if it is peer-reviewed.

So you are saying that there is nothing you personally would object to being made legal for the purposes of cultural diversity? Ie., murder wouldn't bother you as being decriminalized for some culture's benefit because you don't think in those terms.A peculiar mindset. And if something turns is illegal - should we consider decriminalizing for the purposes of cultural diversity especially in light of immigrants of said culture? Is there anything you would object to being decriminalized for the purposes of cultural diversity? I was disputing the notion that governments should avoid enacting laws that target the criminal practices of cultural minorities etc. I was arguing that there are reasons why specific FGM laws were enacted rather than relying on pre-existing child abuse laws. I was disputing the contribution to the thread that is: 'we should think about things'. I'm trying to steer your non-committal position towards taking a position on the topic for the purposes of actually having an on-topic debate. I'm objecting to you taking my previous summary of what I am doing in this discussion with you as if it were my argument, I'm objecting to your characterising part of my summary as circular because the acts were not illegal until the law came out. I'm pointing out that FGM and related operations are against human rights, and objecting to your claims that I was hedging in my defence of this, I'm objecting to your insisting on trying to wave all this away because your starting point was not disagreeable to me, I'm objecting to your avoiding answering my questions that probe your views of the topic and finally, I am presently objecting to you questioning what I am arguing or objecting to every few days even though my words are recorded for your convenience.

Learn to not be an arse. That's absurd. Plus what you actually said was this: This is factually wrong. Laws serve several purposes, two main ones are to justify punishment and to deter, and the two are linked. Laws DO deter. That's a simple, uncontested fact.It is not proof that laws do not deter that some people still commit some crime. If you thought about it for even a moment you could work out why that is true. Nor is it a reason to abandon law, just because some people commit crime.THAT is a stupid position.

As I mentioned in another post, definitions of "murder" already vary. A culture's definition of murder could already be taken into acount in terms of premeditation. But my position is that we should be less committed to dogmatic positions. "The topic" seems to be that we need more dogmatic opposition to "poisonous" foreign cultures.

OK, not sure 'valid' is quite the right word here. In that case we are only talking about invalid attitudes, not the valid ones. Right, but if 'peers' are 'humans' then just about any human pursuit is as like science as this one, which kind of makes the comparison useless doesn't it? And this useless comparison is your defense as to why you think 'maybe' is a useful contribution?Did Macbeth's ambition lead to his downfall? Maybe.
Did Lady Macbeth's ambition play a bigger role? Maybe.
Did Banquo's own ambitions result in his own demise? Maybe.This is reasonable and science-like literary criticism, is it? Imagine a thread about Macbeth where you replied to a 200 word argument about ambition directed at another poster by quoting a single question-cluster with the word 'Maybe', you'd feel the best thing to do upon being criticized for this apparent non-answer would be to repeat it, and upon being called out for that, making spurious accusations against the poster in question. After the poster proves the spurious accusations false you would reply to this by pointing out that this the way things are done in science and when asked to demonstrate this scientific approach you eventually say we compare our views on Macbeth with the views of other readers and that this is why you ultimately simply said 'Maybe' and this is why your approach is like science.Maybe this will help illuminate as to why I am questioning the value of the contributions you've been making in this thread.

If you want to miss the point, go right ahead. I'll just waste both of our times by repeating the point using more words. So you are saying that there is nothing you personally would object to being made legal for the purposes of cultural diversity? Ie., non-consensual human sacrifice wouldn't bother you as being decriminalized for some culture's benefit because you don't think in those terms. I said nothing of dogma.Multiculturalism is a thing. What do you think the optimum parameters are for society to deal with disagreements about acceptable practice as a result of the desires of minority cultures? You don't have to be absolute or dogmatic, just express a view regarding multicultural policies and try and defend it. No. The topic is about the opposition or support for multiculturalism. I support it, and have defined a set of principles and ideas as boundary conditions to this support. Jon and Tangle have been arguing differently.This was a thread about the effects of multiculturalism has on school life, criminal investigations, the US constitution and the rights of citizens among other things. We could go back to that, or we could continue the discussion the way you have been taking it, to whatever end you think you are working towards.

"Maybe" is what makes discussion possible. That's why the study of literature involves more essay questions than true-or-false. I'm imaging a thread in which somebody keeps demanding a yes-or-no answer and the answer, "Maybe," is intended to foster a broader discussion. If you don't approve of my contributions to this thread you can feel free to toddle off and bother somebody else. In any case, I will continue to contribute as I see fit.

It's funny how it seems to have failed here, isn't it? My initial 200 word post was posting 'maybes', you just said 'maybe' and I've been trying to extract blood from the stone since. And look where we've ended up: you responded to my post asking about jar's views and all you've said in the multitude of posts you've had the opportunity to do so is basically that we should be discussing things. If you want to discuss multiculturalism and what path we should be taking through the issues it raises I'm all ears. If you want to defend your useless posts to the exclusion of this, then you are putting the above comment to lie every time you do. So perhaps you should try answers that are more essay like than literally saying the answer is 'true or false'. So let's go back to the message that started this subthread. What do you think about how the various side effects should be weighted, what factors have what influence - can you use your ideas to reach your best estimate for what you think is a good way we should live together? I'd rather you stick with this this thread, rather than your imaginary one. I'd rather you engage in a broad discussion than simply advocating we should have one. I'm perfectly content to eviscerate your poor contributions, thank you very much.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Jon sounds pretty dogmatic. I was objecting to his dogmatism when you came in. What do you mean by "optimum parameters"? Maybe you could give an example of what your optimum parameters are. I've done that. I think the way our governments are handling multicultural policies is just fine. There's always room for improvement but I think they're on the right track, for example in making allowaces for cultural differences when administering existing laws (and in not enforcing laws that were poorly thought out). That's what I said. We seem to be divided by a common language.

Well, it has failed here because you keep diverting the discussion toward meta-discussion about discussion. If you'll stop shooting at me I'll stop ducking. For fuck's sake, you asked me to imagine one: "Imagine a thread about Macbeth...." What I'm advocating, and what vimesey and Tangle both objected to, is that we, as a society, should engage in a broad discussion about what other cultures can contribute to our value system. I'm not advocating that "we" (you and me) should discuss anything. You only seem to be interested in how I discuss and that ain't gonna change. My viscera can do this all day, thank you very much.