Imagine my surprise.
Yes, I'm the idiot and you're the blithe intelligent one. I'm okay with this.
No, you already made your beliefs about culture known, I just question the use of quotes in this instance, and you continue to dance around the issue. Why the quotes, seriously? Do you not think I have a cultural background? That's the only other "plausible" reason. If you want to know why I think you did it, it was because you wanted to frame the idea of Western Civilization as some sort of fiction.
A lot of what you've said is just stuff you've assumed, and none of it is really true. I don't think you don't have a cultural background. I don't think Western Civilization is some sort of a fiction, that's ridiculous considering where I live and how I was raised. You cannot tell me that I think otherwise, no matter what your inference is.
The phrase "Moon-god worshiping" was in the second post in the thread.
So I'm the bad guy because I took opposition to you using hateful language like that? If anyone else of any kind of religious belief said something similar I'd take offence too.
Yes you did do that, and furthermore, you have contradicted yourself in the process, and quite clearly here. You believe in the fiction of multiculturalism, which is an attempt to "bring 'class action' grievances in a pluralistic society in order to carve separate cultural identities, with special advantages, in the name of inclusion. Hall of mirrors stuff meant to extend class warfare on a horizontal axis," but that's probably not the meaning you're willing to admit.
Again, this is you taking things I've said and blowing them out of proportion, yes I believe in a multi cultural society but no, contrary to what you're trying to imply I do not believe in affirmative action or different cultures having special advantages.
Rather, you'd take it to mean a "promoted cultural relativism as a politically correct approach to the West in general. Its purpose was to diminish further the traditional cultural values by asserting that those values belonged to just one culture in an array of cultures within our society." But even under this meaning, you assert that religious belief is not an excuse to hold beliefs contrary to what you value. So which is it? Is everything relative and inclusive, or do you hold some cultural values which others must conform to? My use of quotes here is to show I am not using my own words.
Multiculturalism as I see it means the following - "...reaching out to both the native-born and newcomers, in developing lasting relationships among ethnic and religious communities. It encourages these communities to participate fully in society by enhancing their level of economic, social, and cultural integration into the host culture" and "the appreciation, acceptance or promotion of multiple cultures, applied to the demographic make-up of a specific place, usually at the organizational level, e.g. schools, businesses, neighborhoods, cities or nations." I guess it depends on your point of view and the source of your definition. I've lived a fairly multicultural life and no bad has come from it.
Also I believe in the freedom to practice whichever religion one chooses, I believe in equal rights and treatment for men, women and LGBT persons, I believe in equal rights and treatment for people of all colors. Those are my beliefs, I don't think those are necessarily cultural values but
human ones. Whilst I believe in the freedom for people to practice whichever religion they choose, I do acknowledge that some sects of certain religions do have beliefs that go against my belief in equal rights for all those aforementioned groups and that is something that I do not condone.
Again, here is have to question how you can decide what is or isn't excusable, hateful, or prejudiced. Would, say, Armenians be guilty of being inexcusably hateful and prejudiced because of their desire to have their own homeland?
I don't know enough about Armenia to answer that question - but no one in the UK is being kicked out of their homeland or taken over or systematically killed. A lot of these groups, especially the National Front and EDL are made up of goose stepping racists who want nothing more than to just beat up people different from them, how is the rightness or wrongness of something like that up for debate?
How can the belief that one race has more right to life than another not be hateful? How can the treatment of non-white, non male, non hetero-normative peoples as second class citizens be excused?
Who decides what forward is? I already asked this. It reduces to some simple and ridiculous tautology. "I'm right, everyone else is wrong, because I'm right and everyone else is wrong." That's what you're going with?
Isn't that what you're going with? I can't see how equal treatment of people is wrong. Equal treatment, not special or preferential treatment.
I want to make clear that no question that I have asked to this point is rhetorical. These following are, so actually feel free to not address or acknowledge them in any way: How can you explain that your cradle-to-grave entitlement state of inconceivable post-modern relativism of a puritanical degree has resulted in these riots? Would not states with less be experiencing more violence? How can you explain that they haven't?
Yo, I'm not a politics student. You're using language and terms here that I'm not familiar with, either you can take the fact that I'm not completely certain what you're talking about as confirmation that I'm a moron and you're right about everything you're saying or you could simplify what you're saying as best as you can so I can at least attempt to answer your questions.
