Multiculturalism is dead

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

The fact you are using maths to define your logic is illustrative of your absolute way of seeing things, while I'd perhaps not dare be so absolute. While obviously I'd be hard pushed to argue that 1+1.5 also equaled 2, that is kind of what I'm saying -it just depends what 1, 1.5 and 2 actually are to you. Maths is not the tool to explain this, just as its also not the best tool to use in approaching the massively complex issues of real life.

Basically, what I'm saying is that to so someone who has grown up believing in god and the bible verbatim, creation and god's existence will be "true" to them, as sure as 1+1=2. Equally, to someone who has grown up without religion -but with science, the absence of god and theory of evolution wil be "true" -also as 1+1=2 to them.

---

I am using: true
you are using: "true"

But those are not the same. Saying that it is

Quote:

---

"true" to them

---

Is just another way of saying they believe it. So what you said is that someone who believes in god believes in god, and someone who believes that 1+1=2 believes that 1+1=2. And as you say, someone may believe that 1+1.5 =2. But that is false.

Basically I am talking about truth, and you are talking about belief, except you call belief "truth". Don't do that.

1+1=2 is a standard example of something that is true. I used it not because I'm not aware that human situations are more complex, but rather because I'm still not sure whether you think it is true or not. Truth is different from perception or belief. When I get my eyes checked and they show me the list of letters, I may perceive an F as an E. But the truth is that it is an F. I may believe it is an E. But the truth is that it is an F. And I don't think the scaling is that drastic into human situations. I may perceive that someone is insulting me, and I may believe it, but the truth can be that they weren't insulting me. I don't think you have any grounds for claiming that the difficult is impossible.

Quote:

---

Well, we believe something is true untill it is proved otherwise. Our opinions change -as may our beliefs, according to external circumstances, basicaly according to new information. Science is only as robust as the evidence it uses. Even then, the brain can make one individual disbelieve things in the face of what to another might be apparently overbearing evidence to the contrary.

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

1+1=2 is a standard example of something that is true. I used it not because I'm not aware that human situations are more complex, but rather because I'm still not sure whether you think it is true or not. Truth is different from perception or belief. When I get my eyes checked and they show me the list of letters, I may perceive an F as an E. But the truth is that it is an F. I may believe it is an E. But the truth is that it is an F. And I don't think the scaling is that drastic into human situations. I may perceive that someone is insulting me, and I may believe it, but the truth can be that they weren't insulting me. I don't think you have any grounds for claiming that the difficult is impossible.

---

:laugh: yes I do believe 1+1=2, don't worry! I do also agree that absolute truth is very different to belief, hence my trying to demonstrate that two apparently simple but radicaly opposing equations can, to humans, appear as simple a truth as 1+1=2. Numbers are clean of the dross of reality.

The reason I am ambiguous about truth is that in reality, the occasions where we master complete information - and would hence be able to determine the absolute truth, are scarce. This means that when we bandy around terms like truth or fact in real life, we are actually talking more about a perception based on a quantity of information -which is itself perhaps not accurate and hence unfounded.

This has completey gone over into the territory of the current thread "a lie", but anyhoo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

:laugh: yes I do believe 1+1=2, don't worry! I do also agree that absolute truth is very different to belief, hence my trying to demonstrate that two apparently simple but radicaly opposing equations can, to humans, appear as simple a truth as 1+1=2. Numbers are clean of the dross of reality.

The reason I am ambiguous about truth is that in reality, the occasions where we master complete information - and would hence be able to determine the absolute truth, are scarce. This means that when we bandy around terms like truth or fact in real life, we are actually talking more about a perception based on a quantity of information -which is itself perhaps not accurate and hence unfounded.

This has completey gone over into the territory of the current thread "a lie", but anyhoo.

---

In any situation where one or more of the parties involved has incomplete information that still does not make there reasoning or beliefs true for whatever they are doing or thinking.

Some years back we would use asbestos to fireproof a house because we had incomplete information we felt it had no health risk this was still wrong even though we did not know it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

:laugh: yes I do believe 1+1=2, don't worry! I do also agree that absolute truth is very different to belief, hence my trying to demonstrate that two apparently simple but radicaly opposing equations can, to humans, appear as simple a truth as 1+1=2. Numbers are clean of the dross of reality.

The reason I am ambiguous about truth is that in reality, the occasions where we master complete information - and would hence be able to determine the absolute truth, are scarce. This means that when we bandy around terms like truth or fact in real life, we are actually talking more about a perception based on a quantity of information -which is itself perhaps not accurate and hence unfounded.

This has completey gone over into the territory of the current thread "a lie", but anyhoo.

---

Well lets jump back to this threads topic. I mentioned as an example reading Aristotle not just because of the interesting other culture but because he might have ideas that were true and I might learn some truth from reading them. His questions "what is virtue" etc are not as clear cut as 1+1. But you said you weren't interested in whether what he said was true. Why not? Nothing you've said about truth since then has explained it. In fact, the more complicated it is to get close to the truth the more I think you'd want to read philosophers with that end in mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

someone may believe that 1+1.5 =2. But that is false.

---

Or do you just believe it to be false?

Well as with all Mathematical proofs: either they are correct, or the axioms from which they derive do not hold. For an “impossible” scenario wherein it is possible that all natural numbers are in fact equal to 21:

There's this village with a barber shop.
All the village's men are shaved.
All the men who do not shave themselves are shaved by the barber from the barber's shop.
The barber is one of the village's men.

If you can find this village it follows that 0 = 21, 1 + 1= 21, etc. etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Well lets jump back to this threads topic. I mentioned as an example reading Aristotle not just because of the interesting other culture but because he might have ideas that were true and I might learn some truth from reading them. His questions "what is virtue" etc are not as clear cut as 1+1. But you said you weren't interested in whether what he said was true. Why not? Nothing you've said about truth since then has explained it. In fact, the more complicated it is to get close to the truth the more I think you'd want to read philosophers with that end in mind.

---

I didn't (and wouldn't) say I am I not interested in absolute truth or not, ultimately I guess through wider experiences and learning of other views I'd hope to catch glimpses of it. What I was saying above is that (perhaps given the rarity of absolute truth), I am more interested in understanding how someone else might hold something to be true, which to me might be false. Why is this thing a truth for them? Why isn't it a truth for me? What are the conditions that lead us to our differening positions? Who is to say that one or the other is correct? Which is the truer truth?

Does anyone have a rope ladder? Only I seem to have disapeared up the [Place of little Sunshine] of philosophy and would like to get out now. No, frankly I couldn't give a [substance commonly associated with Place of little Sunshine] if that is true or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

I didn't (and wouldn't) say I am I not interested in absolute truth or not, ultimately I guess through wider experiences and learning of other views I'd hope to catch glimpses of it. What I was saying above is that (perhaps given the rarity of absolute truth), I am more interested in understanding how someone else might hold something to be true, which to me might be false I don't believe. Why is this thing a truth for them do they believe it? Why isn't it a truth for me don't I believe it? What are the conditions that lead us to our differening positions? Who is to say that one or the other is correct? Which is the truer truth?

---

Fixed :stare:

I think I've said that why people go wrong in their thinking is interesting, but mostly because it helps you find out what the truth is (which is more interesting). And you said you would hope to "catch glimpses of it through diverse ideas" which means you sort of agree, although I don't know why you don't pursue it directly.

But I don't think the approach of "well this is true to this culture, but not true to me" is a good way to approach it. It lends itself to sticking with your current beliefs. If their idea isn't true to you, if it's just kinda relative, why change your mind in any radical way? But if you don't just value diversity, and approach say, buddhism, with the idea that it is either a good way of life or not, then you may very well reject it (how intolerant?) but you actually give yourself more of a chance of embracing it. Because you are treating seriously buddhism's claim that your beliefs are false.

2+2=1

1+1=1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I think I've said that why people go wrong in their thinking is interesting, but mostly because it helps you find out what the truth is (which is more interesting). And you said you would hope to "catch glimpses of it through diverse ideas" which means you sort of agree, although I don't know why you don't pursue it directly.

But I don't think the approach of "well this is true to this culture, but not true to me" is a good way to approach it. It lends itself to sticking with your current beliefs. If their idea isn't true to you, if it's just kinda relative, why change your mind in any radical way? But if you don't just value diversity, and approach say, buddhism, with the idea that it is either a good way of life or not, then you may very well reject it (how intolerant?) but you actually give yourself more of a chance of embracing it. Because you are treating seriously buddhism's claim that your beliefs are false.

---

:grin: I'm not sure it IS about changing my mind, although I have adopted habits or beliefs from others. It is good to experience things and "expand horizons" but perhaps more important than affecting the latest fad is an appreciation of why and how things are different for other people.

EDIT: double post? weird.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I think I've said that why people go wrong in their thinking is interesting, but mostly because it helps you find out what the truth is (which is more interesting). And you said you would hope to "catch glimpses of it through diverse ideas" which means you sort of agree, although I don't know why you don't pursue it directly.

But I don't think the approach of "well this is true to this culture, but not true to me" is a good way to approach it. It lends itself to sticking with your current beliefs. If their idea isn't true to you, if it's just kinda relative, why change your mind in any radical way? But if you don't just value diversity, and approach say, buddhism, with the idea that it is either a good way of life or not, then you may very well reject it (how intolerant?) but you actually give yourself more of a chance of embracing it. Because you are treating seriously buddhism's claim that your beliefs are false.

---

:grin: I'm not sure it IS about changing my mind, although I have adopted habits or beliefs from others. It is good to experience things and "expand horizons" but perhaps more important than affecting the latest fad is an appreciation of why and how things are different for other people.

What are you referring to with "affecting the latest fad"?

And what is "an appreciation of how and why things are different for other people"? Is that appreciation as in understanding? And what are the things that are different?

I find your use of words confusing...are you saying "it's important to understand why people believe things" or "it's important to acknowledge and respect the beliefs that other people have because they are equally valid".* The latter is multiculturalist so I assume you mean that. But I have just been arguing against that and saying that the truth is primary, and that when we treat it as such we respect other people more, and are less comfortable in our own beliefs.

*You word things in such a way that it implies both. But the second implication gets all of its apparent credibility from the truth of the first. Stated on its own it is not credible. It's the same think you do by using the word truth in quotation marks, and using "true for them" in place of "belief". Don't do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

the same think you do by using the word truth in quotation marks, and using "true for them" in place of "belief". Don't do that.

---

I'll give you a better answer to the rest in the morning. I've not responded to this so far but why is it you dislike (I assume) my truth as perception/belief? You are kidding yourself if you think there is a practical absolute truth to everything. That sits at the very core of why people have different opinions in the first place. Are you going to insist that it is true that god exists or not? How on earth could you prove it either way! Much more, how could you persuade someone of the oppsoite opinion that they are wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

I'll give you a better answer to the rest in the morning. I've not responded to this so far but why is it you dislike (I assume) my truth as perception/belief? You are kidding yourself if you think there is a practical absolute truth to everything. That sits at the very core of why people have different opinions in the first place. Are you going to insist that it is true that god exists or not? How on earth could you prove it either way! Much more, how could you persuade someone of the oppsoite opinion that they are wrong?

---

I dislike your use of the word truth when you mean belief because truth is importantly different from belief. You also seem to use "absolute truth" in place of "truth". Why must I expect there to be an absolute truth to everything if I don't think truth is the same as belief? I think that reworded properly this would read "why do you think some things are true"? But you yourself think many things are true.

Belief is when you hold that a certain proposition is true. So you see why it is bad to conflate the two? If we substitute your definition, it becomes "belief is when someone believes something" which isn't really a definition.

Now, are you claiming that the reason people have different beliefs is because there is no truth about certain questions? Why don't you just think that they have different beliefs because that particular truth is hard to find? For example, think about any historical question. What started the trojan war? Was it like homer described it? Historians have a wide variety of beliefs about these questions. But it can't be doubted that the events truly happened in a certain way.

One last thing, the two suggestions you make at the end are something I think it is important to cast off. It is not about proving, it is about giving the best reason we can. Should we give up on anything that we can't be absolutely certain about? And it is not important whether someone of the opposite opinion would be convinced. Could you convince someone who believed that the external world was an illusion that he was wrong? Possibly. But if you couldn't it wouldn't say much about whether the external world is an illusion.

In the context of multiculturalism and diversity, I am indeed talking about beliefs. Belief, which to all intents and purposes, seems like truth to the person who holds it. In this I mean things where the worth of an outcome -and hence the truth of the maxim, are defined by desirability of said outcomes. The desirability itself is defined by personal or cultural values. So in the case of abortion, we have two staunchly opposed camps divided by their valuation of the possible consequences of abortion (lets not get into those!).

I am not talking about truth in the sense of irrefutable evidence, I am talking about cultural norms and values -the very interest I have in diversity.

I take your point that (forgive the paraphrasing) "appreciation without proper examination does not lead to progress", but that's also not the point. Multiculturalism, as I said at the beginning, is about different people and cultures living alongside and with each other -with tolerance wrought from mutual understanding. It is not about social engineering in the sense of cherry-picking the best of a range of cultures to create an "uber-society" -which is where I understood you saw the value of such an exercise.

Perhaps winding back to your very first post in this thread, there certainly are disucssions to be had when trying to reconcile opposing cultural values, e.g. the role of women in society. No satisfactory outcome to such conflicts will happen without a measure of mutual understanding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

In the context of multiculturalism and diversity, I am indeed talking about beliefs. Belief, which to all intents and purposes, seems like truth to the person who holds it. In this I mean things where the worth of an outcome -and hence the truth of the maxim, are defined by desirability of said outcomes. The desirability itself is defined by personal or cultural values. So in the case of abortion, we have two staunchly opposed camps divided by their valuation of the possible consequences of abortion (lets not get into those!).

I am not talking about truth in the sense of irrefutable evidence, I am talking about cultural norms and values -the very interest I have in diversity.

---

I think you have to say "cultural norms and values" then. Although values is a bad word as well. Because it implies that it is good. So, "cultural norms" seems best.

You say that:

1) The worth* of an outcome
2) the truth of a maxim (?)

Are defined by the desirability. But that is only true for things that are purely a matter of taste. As in, if I like dill pickles and you like bread and butter. Or "in my culture we stand 2 feet away when talking, in yours 4 feet away". But many (most?) things that we would call cultural norms aren't purely matters of taste. And those are the things people care about the most. The truth of whether abortion is wrong is not determined by cultural norms. But that seems to be the conclusion you reach when you conflate truth and belief.

Quote:

---

I take your point that (forgive the paraphrasing) "appreciation without proper examination does not lead to progress", but that's also not the point. Multiculturalism, as I said at the beginning, is about different people and cultures living alongside and with each other -with tolerance wrought from mutual understanding. It is not about social engineering in the sense of cherry-picking the best of a range of cultures to create an "uber-society" -which is where I understood you saw the value of such an exercise.

Perhaps winding back to your very first post in this thread, there certainly are disucssions to be had when trying to reconcile opposing cultural values, e.g. the role of women in society. No satisfactory outcome to such conflicts will happen without a measure of mutual understanding.

---

I don't think multiculturalism is just tolerance from understanding. There is more their ideologically. It is the acceptance or promotion of other cultures for the sake of diversity. I have already described the problems with that.

I don't think it's about creating an uber society? :inquisitive:

But simply (as you bring up) it would be better if society was homogeneous in their acknowledgment of certain truths about how women should be treated. And so on. Why do you think opposing cultural values have to be reconciled? Some of them have to be stamped out, and don't require mutual understanding to do so, just the long arm of the law--think about "cultural values" as you call them that promote wife beating. I think it is only after talking in such a way that conflates truth with belief that you end up with a mental schema that puts basic morals in a relativistic framework like that.

*worth is another word like "values". It implies universality, but you are using it relatively.

***********************

Basically alh, there are three general ways to respond to a group of people with beliefs other than your own. You can say:

1) that's right, I was wrong
2) not important/matter of taste/live and let live
3) that's wrong

Multiculturalism focuses too much on #2. It replaces judgment of other cultures with a moral principle that they are simply to be tolerated, and it's reasoning for that is the claim that it is just a matter of belief anyway.

I think many people see it as a choice between multiculturalism and racism and xenophobia, unfortunately. They are right to argue that not discouraging other cultures simply because they aren't our own is important, and it's quite true in a modern state diversity should not be tampered with without good reason. But since it is primarily a moral position and not a philosophical one, it leads to a bad ideology. Very often when people are quite sure they are correct about a moral issue they reason about it badly.

Meh we have a cancer in our society and it's called islam. The absolute majority of christians and gays who fled to my swamp are intimidated and physically assaulted by people who want nothing but peace, people who are so disrespected that robbing grannies and harassing young white women is just cause and effect. It is, people from 100% neighbourhoods know that. Getting really tired of this. And my boy is on trial. Get. the. hell. out. this. is. the. Netherlands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Meh we have a cancer in our society and it's called islam Religon.

---

Fixed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Fixed

---

True of course but there is still the much bigger problem, the Islamphilae of the left. The left adores anything Islam because they feel and know they should, social exclusion hurts a lemming, they jump for the dhimmi of the year award every second they feed on taxes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

True of course but there is still the much bigger problem, the Islamphilae of the left. The left adores anything Islam because they feel and know they should, social exclusion hurts a lemming, they jump for the dhimmi of the year award every second they feed on taxes.

---

snore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

snore.

---

It's normal that gutmensch simply disregards the reasons behind the rise of the populist right. I hope the gutmensch keeps doing that. Gutmensch still don't understand the trouble gutmensch is in, way too elitist for comprehensiblity of the situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

It's normal that gutmensch simply disregards the reasons behind the rise of the populist right. I hope the gutmensch keeps doing that. Gutmensch still don't understand the trouble gutmensch is in, way too elitist for comprehensiblity of the situation.

---

Gosh that sounds a lot like Golum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

Gosh that sounds a lot like Golum.

---

Ah, personally again, don't even try. I will completely destroy you in any effort, you can't you simply aren't smart enough. Try it, and I will prove it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

It's normal that gutmensch simply disregards the reasons behind the rise of the populist right. I hope the gutmensch keeps doing that. Gutmensch still don't understand the trouble gutmensch is in, way too elitist for comprehensiblity of the situation.

---

One can simultaneously acknoweldge the reasons behind the rise while agreeing the cutting off an already estranged minority group is perhaps not the best way to go.

Simply because one does not buy into your view of apocolyptic muslim cultural genocide in the bastion of culture that is Holland does not mean one is ignorant or lacking sufficent foresight.

They could just be disagreeing

Simple disagreement would be lovely, setting up the climate for murder isn't. The left kills whatever it doesn't like, they have done it before and they will keep doing it. Pim Fortuyn wasn't the first, Janmaat was, he lived but his wife was paralysed in a leftist terrorist attack. As if that wasn't enough the permit to build an escalator for his now legless wife was refused by the 100% activist city council. Absolute sadistic trash. At the time, I was howling with the wolves, being 10 and all that, I thought she had it comming. Still remember the day my activist teacher at basic-school felt the need to :daisy: my skull on why this party was all wrong, my ears still bleed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

In the context of multiculturalism and diversity, I am indeed talking about beliefs. Belief, which to all intents and purposes, seems like truth to the person who holds it. In this I mean things where the worth of an outcome -and hence the truth of the maxim, are defined by desirability of said outcomes. The desirability itself is defined by personal or cultural values. So in the case of abortion, we have two staunchly opposed camps divided by their valuation of the possible consequences of abortion (lets not get into those!).

I am not talking about truth in the sense of irrefutable evidence, I am talking about cultural norms and values -the very interest I have in diversity.

I take your point that (forgive the paraphrasing) "appreciation without proper examination does not lead to progress", but that's also not the point. Multiculturalism, as I said at the beginning, is about different people and cultures living alongside and with each other -with tolerance wrought from mutual understanding. It is not about social engineering in the sense of cherry-picking the best of a range of cultures to create an "uber-society" -which is where I understood you saw the value of such an exercise.

Perhaps winding back to your very first post in this thread, there certainly are disucssions to be had when trying to reconcile opposing cultural values, e.g. the role of women in society. No satisfactory outcome to such conflicts will happen without a measure of mutual understanding.

---

Truth is a philosophical absolute, it exists in only one form, the correct one. Perception of truth is what you are talking about.

If you don't believe in absolute truth then you flat out don't believe in Truth, the word has not meaning for you.

In terms of multiculturalism this is important, without Absolute Truth any culture is equally valid in any circumstance provided they are considered beneficial to the one subscribing to them.

If you do believe in Absolute Truth then all cultures are measured against that Truth, or you best guess of what it is, and some are found more wanting than others.

From this we can see that Multiculturalism is litterally a proposition without value - so we can reject it as philosophically useless.

Meh after reading about the hardships of an Egyptian gay who had to flee the islam only to find it here as well, it isn't just bad it's hell. Multiculture isn't dead, nobody means the Asians or the Hindu's after all. It are the arabs, they belong in the middle-east we don't have any desert to dust of, living in a modern civilisation is just too confusing.

Quote:

---

It are the arabs, they belong in the middle-east we don't have any desert to dust of, living in a modern civilisation is just too confusing.

---

Thanks. Should I pick my stuff up now or do you want me to leave tomorrow?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Thanks. Should I pick my stuff up now or do you want me to leave tomorrow?

---

Depends on how much you ask, if that is too much it would be right now

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Meh after reading about the hardships of an Egyptian gay who had to flee the islam only to find it here as well, it isn't just bad it's hell. Multiculture isn't dead, nobody means the Asians or the Hindu's after all. It are the arabs, they belong in the middle-east we don't have any desert to dust of, living in a modern civilisation is just too confusing.

---

That's a bit harsh. You understand they invented agriculture, law, and the first cities, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

That's a bit harsh. You understand they invented agriculture, law, and the first cities, right?

---

lolwut, arabs didn't invent anything they conquered places where there was inventiion.There is no real contribution only camels and swords.

Quote:

---

Depends on how much you ask, if that is too much it would be right now

---

Don't be nonsensical. I'm an Arab, at least partially.

You are saying that Arabs can't live in a modern society? Take the United States, for example. In 1999, the median annual income of one Arab-American family was $47,000, compared to a general $42,000. In 2009 the median annual income is $59,012 compared to a general $59,029, and that is counting the influx of people coming from the wartorn regions in the Middle-East. Arab-Americans are one of the most well-integrated people in the United States.

Quote:

---

lolwut, arabs didn't invent anything they conquered places where there was inventiion.There is no real contribution only camels and swords.

---

Hey, it's Thomas d'Aquinas on the phone, he wants to have a word with you about a certain Al-Farabi.

Apoligies, was no ad hominum, go too far at times.

It's not me I'm worried about, I don't feel particularly attached to my Arabicity (I made that word up), but I don't think Arabs can't live in a modern society. Hell, look at Jordan. They're going in the right direction, as far as I can see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Truth is a philosophical absolute, it exists in only one form, the correct one. Perception of truth is what you are talking about.

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

If you don't believe in absolute truth then you flat out don't believe in Truth, the word has not meaning for you.

---

Quite. And again, where have I given you (and Sasaki) the impression I don't believe in absolute truth? My divergence from absolute truth to perceived truth is because cultural and social beliefs (perceived truths) are too complex/biased to be absolute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

In terms of multiculturalism this is important, without Absolute Truth any culture is equally valid in any circumstance provided they are considered beneficial to the one subscribing to them.

If you do believe in Absolute Truth then all cultures are measured against that Truth, or you best guess of what it is, and some are found more wanting than others.

---

Only if you measure cultures against each other. As I am at pains to explain, multiculturalism is not about measuring one culture or society against another. It is about mutual toleration based on understanding and negotiation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

From this we can see that Multiculturalism is litterally a proposition without value - so we can reject it as philosophically useless.

---

Whatever. If your purpose IS to blend cultures and identities into the best composite, then clearly multiculturalism is useless. My point is that that is not what multiculturalism is for -nor is it why its proponents like it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

lolwut, arabs didn't invent anything they conquered places where there was inventiion.There is no real contribution only camels and swords.

---

There are 2 things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other peoples culture and the Dutch

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

There are 2 things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other peoples culture and the Dutch

---

:bow: Nigel Powers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

There are 2 things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other peoples culture and the Dutch

---

It's better to be known than liked, and everybody loves the Dutch or at least tries to, but everybody has an opinion on this pocket-superpower regardless. Holland pwns Texas by a landslide in coolness

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

:bow: Nigel Powers.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

It's better to be known than liked, and everybody loves the Dutch or at least tries to, but everybody has an opinion on this pocket-superpower regardless. Holland pwns Texas by a landslide in coolness

---

Step back; breathe...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

It's better to be known than liked, and everybody loves the Dutch or at least tries to, but everybody has an opinion on this pocket-superpower regardless. Holland pwns Texas by a landslide in coolness

---

lol.

The only reason people know your country exists is because whores and smack are legal

One trick pony much?

Quote:

---

The only reason people know your country exists is because whores and smack are legal

---

And they're planning to end that, too. Thinking of moving to Belgium, or France.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

lol.

The only reason people know your country exists is because whores and smack are legal

One trick pony much?

---

You know it's true, it just doesn't get any more awesome. You are immediately everybody's best friend. Except in Belgium. And Texas probably but I mean common, at least Egypt decorated their desert with awesome pyramids.

I think that many others have legal or semi-legal positions on both of those issues, but first to market matters - Vaigra is not the best treatment out there, but it's the one everyone knows.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I think that many others have legal or semi-legal positions on both of those issues, but first to market matters - Vaigra is not the best treatment out there, but it's the one everyone knows.

~:smoking:

---

Stupid example as viagra isn't cool, although I do understand it comes to mind naturally when discussing Texas market-technically. I still call fail.

I thought Viagra is Canadian for exports?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

That's a bit harsh. You understand they invented agriculture, law, and the first cities, right?

---

No, that was the Assyrians and Summarians, both groups conquered by the Arabs after the coming of Islam.

multiculturalism has always been more like pan culturalism...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

You know it's true, it just doesn't get any more awesome. You are immediately everybody's best friend. Except in Belgium. And Texas probably but I mean common, at least Egypt decorated their desert with awesome pyramids.

---

If anyone wants to deck themselves in orange and come marching down my street, they are welcome anytime!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

Yes.


Quite. And again, where have I given you (and Sasaki) the impression I don't believe in absolute truth? My divergence from absolute truth to perceived truth is because cultural and social beliefs (perceived truths) are too complex/biased to be absolute.


Only if you measure cultures against each other.

---

If you have accepted the above then some cultures are morally and practically better than others. So measuring them is not only possible, it is also litterally a philosopgical imperative.

Quote:

---

As I am at pains to explain, multiculturalism is not about measuring one culture or society against another. It is about mutual toleration based on understanding and negotiation.


Whatever. If your purpose IS to blend cultures and identities into the best composite, then clearly multiculturalism is useless. My point is that that is not what multiculturalism is for -nor is it why its proponents like it!

---

As I said, multiculturalism doesn't work - as has been demonstrated time and again.

Maybe you could argue that multiculturalism does have some philosophical use in terms of promoting some absolute truths, since the value of peace that comes from harmony between different cultures is greater than the conflict that would be caused by allowing inferior cultures to be assimilated.

For example, when people feel their way of life is under threat, they often take it to an extreme to protect their identity. And this polarisation is what gives us Wahhabis and Jihadists etc.

Just a thought, couldn't leave without arguing with you PVC. :tongue2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Maybe you could argue that multiculturalism does have some philosophical use in terms of promoting some absolute truths, since the value of peace that comes from harmony between different cultures is greater than the conflict that would be caused by allowing inferior cultures to be assimilated.

For example, when people feel their way of life is under threat, they often take it to an extreme to protect their identity. And this polarisation is what gives us Wahhabis and Jihadists etc.

Just a thought, couldn't leave without arguing with you PVC. :tongue2:

---

Except.... not everyone shares our Christian desire to see man in a state of universal peace and love.

Such cultures must be struck down with righteous fury!

Ahem.

Sorry, I had a medieval moment there.

Still, India would be a much more miserable place today were it not for Western interference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

For example, when people feel their way of life is under threat, they often take it to an extreme to protect their identity. And this polarisation is what gives us Wahhabis and Jihadists etc.

Just a thought, couldn't leave without arguing with you PVC. :tongue2:

---

Nope, only ignorance does that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Nope, only ignorance does that.

---

I dissagree, one can feel threatened because of one's ignorance but ultimately it is the percieved threat, not the ignorance, that provokes the violent reaction.

Although, the New Atheists are pretty ignorant about Christianity and violently oppose it - so I suppose you do have a corralation in fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Although, the New Atheists are pretty ignorant about Christianity and violently oppose it - so I suppose you do have a corralation in fact.

---

How so? Violent no disrespectful yes, imho you should just deal with that, asking me to alter my daily business out of respect for your imaginary friends is much more intrusive than mocking said intrusion could ever be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

How so? Violent no disrespectful yes, imho you should just deal with that, asking me to alter my daily business out of respect for your imaginary friends is much more intrusive than mocking said intrusion could ever be.

---

Not physically violent, but if you look at the invective that Dawkins, "religion is the cause of most wars" Hitches "religion ruins everything" or Pullman "I want to destroy the foundation of Christianity" you get the distinct impression this is more than just reasoned dislike, or even disdain.

Do you not think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Not physically violent, but if you look at the invective that Dawkins, "religion is the cause of most wars" Hitches "religion ruins everything" or Pullman "I want to destroy the foundation of Christianity" you get the distinct impression this is more than just reasoned dislike, or even disdain.

Do you not think?

---

Obvious attacks, but I agree with them, and they can go in with a stretched leg I don't mind really

Quote:

---

Still, India would be a much more miserable place today were it not for Western interference.

---

In the eyes of people from the West, yeah, and I agree. However, Muslim Indian scholars viewed the British raj as the Dar al-Harb.

Anything non-islamic can be that, it means 'house of war', land of unbelievers.

Quote:

---

Anything non-islamic can be that, it means 'house of war', land of unbelievers.

---

I'm quite aware, thank you very much. I must correct you however, land of unbelievers is "dar al-kufr", meaning (literally) "house of the non-believers.

However, several Islamic scholars (especially from Persia) have said that a non-Shari'a state can very well be a dar al-salaam.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

In the eyes of people from the West, yeah, and I agree. However, Muslim Indian scholars viewed the British raj as the Dar al-Harb.

---

Non sequitur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

I'm quite aware, thank you very much. I must correct you however, land of unbelievers is "dar al-kufr", meaning (literally) "house of the non-believers.

However, several Islamic scholars (especially from Persia) have said that a non-Shari'a state can very well be a dar al-salaam.

---

Don't bs me I know my stuff, it simply means territory not yet under islam.

Quote:

---

Non sequitur.

---

I don't know, it might be very important.

Since there apparently is a problem with Islam?

EDIT: Also, hey look, a self-describing post!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Nope, only ignorance does that.

---

This ignores the reactionary nature of almost every extreme political/social movement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

How so? Violent no disrespectful yes, imho you should just deal with that, asking me to alter my daily business out of respect for your imaginary friends is much more intrusive than mocking said intrusion could ever be.

---

With you 100%, atheists should be free to hate on me all they like and I should be free to be a Bible-bashing lunatic. If I hear one more person talk about the importance of 'respect' between different people then I will go and pimp-slap the **** out of them. I feel the urge to pimp-slap people a lot these days... :pimp:

'Respect' is one of those buzzwords the left likes to use to guilt-trip everyone into thinking like them and loving the people they do. There is no force more unstoppable or followed so blindly than "leftist moral outrage", my favourite term that I havent' used for a whlie now.

I hear people talking a lot about Christians moralising but I don't see it, it always seems to be a leftie that has to find something to be offended about. And worse they have to control everyone so that they can't offend them.

Bear in mind though, these are the attitudes not just of actual lefties, but also the centre-right. They're going to start pushing me to the old-style "far-right" as it is inappropriately called if things continue...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

With you 100%, atheists should be free to hate on me all they like and I should be free to be a Bible-bashing lunatic. If I hear one more person talk about the importance of 'respect' between different people then I will go and pimp-slap the **** out of them. I feel the urge to pimp-slap people a lot these days... :pimp:

'Respect' is one of those buzzwords the left likes to use to guilt-trip everyone into thinking like them and loving the people they do. There is no force more unstoppable or followed so blindly than "leftist moral outrage", my favourite term that I havent' used for a whlie now.

---

this is why i prefer the ye olde' english ideal of; "Does it really matter what these affectionate people do — so long as they don’t do it in the streets and frighten the horses!"
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mrs_Patrick_Campbell

don't interfere with my life, and i won't interfere in yours.

Quote:

---

Don't bs me I know my stuff, it simply means territory not yet under islam.

---

Don't be silly now. The Muzzies Muslims themselves can hardly agree on what constitutes "dar al-salaam", "dar al-harb" and "dar al-kufr". It's not something you, especially not you or me in that respect can pinpoint. Besides, it's not even a term from the Qur'an or Hadiths, but something a 13th century scholar made up to divide the world neatly into a world of non-believers and believers when it was important, military. You know, with the Mongols and all that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Don't be silly now. The Muzzies Muslims themselves can hardly agree on what constitutes "dar al-salaam", "dar al-harb" and "dar al-kufr". It's not something you, especially not you or me in that respect can pinpoint. Besides, it's not even a term from the Qur'an or Hadiths, but something a 13th century scholar made up to divide the world neatly into a world of non-believers and believers when it was important, military. You know, with the Mongols and all that?

---

Goes further back it's a core principle, bit like it was for the coralignans to devide the world into this and that, but that was then and now is now anyway. No such thing as burning witches in the bible, but it happened anyway.

Quote:

---

Goes further back it's a core principle, bit like it was for the coralignans to devide the world into this and that, but that was then and now is now anyway.

---

Oh no, no, no. The concept of dar al-Islam was something of a vague term until the 13th century scholar Abu Hanifa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Obvious attacks, but I agree with them, and they can go in with a stretched leg I don't mind really

---

Agreeing with them is one thing, hurling hatred and bile at a significant proportion of the population because they don't agree with you is not healthy. In fact, believing religion is "evil" or that religious beliefs "cause evil" is also unhealthy, because it assumes that, up until no more than 200 years ago pretty much everyone and everything was motivated by evil.

That's a Renaissance prejudice against the "ignorant" people of the past, it's a form of cultural self-hate, and it is inacurate.

So, it can't really be seen as intellectually very healthy.

Can it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Oh no, no, no. The concept of dar al-Islam was something of a vague term until the 13th century scholar Abu Hanifa.

---

Your wrong, from the beginning there was the house of war 'Dar al Harb' and 'Dar al Islaam'. Don't know if it came from Abu Hanifa, but I do know he lived 500 years earlier. I think you are confused with the age of humanism where there was discussion on changing it to 'Dar al Salaam' and 'Dar al Kaffir'

@PVC I understand what you are saying, some will kick a man when he's down and you don't deserve such contempt. But did you ever have someone at your door trying to convince you of atheism, or saw atheist protests against a shop that's open on a certain day, 'you' limit me more yhan vica versa. I'm an atheist but I don't hate religious people, I just think it's silly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

If you have accepted the above then some cultures are morally and practically better than others. So measuring them is not only possible, it is also litterally a philosopgical imperative.

---

So you would measure these cultures on what scale? The scale of how western and liberal they are? Their technological creativity? Wealth? How much they value religion and how devout they are? How they treat strangers? How they treat women? How they treat the weak?

Please do provide me with an absolute measure for the "worth" of a culture, which can be disambiguated from any cultural values themselves -and hence not dictated by your own personal valuation of things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

So you would measure these cultures on what scale? The scale of how western and liberal they are? Their technological creativity? Wealth? How much they value religion and how devout they are? How they treat strangers? How they treat women? How they treat the weak?

Please do provide me with an absolute measure for the "worth" of a culture, which can be disambiguated from any cultural values themselves -and hence not dictated by your own personal valuation of things.

---

Which culture do you deem morally superior:

A) Democratic Germany
B) Nazi Germany

I shall spare you from providing a list on just which aspects A is better than B, and suffice with the observation that if one accepts that one is better than the other, then one is not an absolute cultural relativist.

Quote:

---

Your wrong, from the beginning there was the house of war 'Dar al Harb' and 'Dar al Islaam'. Don't know if it came from Abu Hanifa, but I do know he lived 500 years earlier. I think you are confused with the age of humanism where there was discussion on changing it to 'Dar al Salaam' and 'Dar al Kaffir'

---

Not Dar al-Islam, dar al-Salaam. Although the root of both Islam and Salam are the same, the meaning is somewhat more elusive. And it did not come from Abu Hanifa, but from Ibn Taymiyyah, who did indeed live in the thirteenth century.

The concepts existed, certainly, but what did and did not constitute dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb wasn't made clear until the thirteenth century, when it (apparently) became vital for Muslim states to survive. Interestingly, this can be correlated with the end of the Islamic Golden Age.

Seeing how the principles of dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb weren't built during Muhammad's lifetime, but rather during a time of political turmoil is very important when it comes to the designation of the West in the eyes of the Islamic world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Which culture do you deem morally superior:

A) Democratic Germany
B) Nazi Germany

I shall spare you from providing a list on just which aspects A is better than B, and suffice with the observation that if one accepts that one is better than the other, then one is not an absolute cultural relativist.

---

Of course, as a liberal lefty A, but that it is MY OPINION, because I value some of what A has over B according to my own personal valuation of things. But now that you've asked me, why don't you ask Panzerjaeger*, for instance? Or, someone whom might identify with the far right?

Your post is the equivalent of asking a six year old who likes sweets but not cauliflower, whether they would prefer sweets or cauliflower. This isn't quite the elegant fencing I'm used to from you Louis :dizzy:

*picked only because I assume (possibly quite incorrectly, in which case I appologise in advance) that you might have a different opinion to Louis and msyelf in this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

The concepts existed, certainly, but what did and did not constitute dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb wasn't made clear until the thirteenth century, when it (apparently) became vital for Muslim states to survive. Interestingly, this can be correlated with the end of the Islamic Golden Age.

---

...and slap bang in the middle of the period of greatest threat to Muslim states by foreign aggression and occupation -crusades/outre-mer and the Mongols (who were to a degree Nestorian Christians).

The Qu'ran being written during Mohammed's is controversial, and the Hadith being written after his death is an absolute certainty, dates are not terribly important unless you let someone live 500 years after he did. No it's very much Dar al-Islaam and that can be interpreted as Dar al-Salaam (no need for war in the House of Islam, lotsa infighting for historical perspective, things were falling apart) with which islamist reformers tried to replace it with, somewhere in the period you mention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

Of course, as a liberal lefty A, but that it is MY OPINION, because I value some of what A has over B according to my own personal valuation of things. But now that you've asked me, why don't you ask Panzerjaeger*, for instance? Or, someone whom might identify with the far right?

Your post is the equivalent of asking a six year old who likes sweets but not cauliflower, whether they would prefer sweets or cauliflower. This isn't quite the elegant fencing I'm used to from you Louis :dizzy:

*picked only because I assume (possibly quite incorrectly, in which case I appologise in advance) that you might have a different opinion to Louis and msyelf in this.

---

Really? Is it only a personal opinion - like a preference of sweets over cauliflower - whether or not six million Jews should be exterminated?

Do you accept any morality at all?
If you happen upon a fourteen year old girl, who fell of her bicycle, is there moral equivalence between the man who calls an ambulance then lends her his cellphone to call her parents, and the man who drags her into nearby bushes, abuses her, then murders her to destroy the evidence of his act?

Even if current post-modern philosophy can pinpoint neither absolute truths nor morals, absolute moral relativism is a practical dead end. Resenment of absolutes, of people and ideologies claiming absolute truths should not mean one should fall for the trap of going the other extreme, to deny any morality or truth at all.

How is all this stuff about medieval Musims scholars directly relevant to us today anyway? Isn't it like arguing Christianity today is a threat because of the Crusades?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

How is all this stuff about medieval Musims scholars directly relevant to us today anyway? Isn't it like arguing Christianity today is a threat because of the Crusades?

---

Sure but the history of the Islamic world just happens to be fascinating and discussing it is always fun. Of course it's irrelevant but we are on page 6 most OT has been said.

Quote:

---

How is all this stuff about medieval Musims scholars directly relevant to us today anyway? Isn't it like arguing Christianity today is a threat because of the Crusades?

---

It is directly relevant in that Muslim scholars continuously refer to past scholars and events to justify their fatwas and stuff like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

It is directly relevant in that Muslim scholars continuously refer to past scholars and events to justify their fatwas and stuff like that.

---

Why should we care about any of that? Screw their fatwas, it's not relevant to us we have different laws. I don't care if it upsets them. The more upset the better really when it comes to Islam, the sooner they are used to seeing Mohammed being raped by a donkey the better (disclaimer non-Dutch won't understand this). Puts getting the finger over something trivial gently in perspective.