America doesn't like black people!!!

Chris S...

Which Americans don't like Black People?

Asian Americans? White Hispanic Americans? Polynesian Americans? White Muslims Americans? Jewish Americans? Buddhist Americans? Hindu Americans? White Atheist Americans? White European Americans? ...?

ALL the above. Some of the above?

America is a Polyglot, Multicultural, Multinational, Multiracial, etc. Country.

America is a country, Clyde, and it is structured in a way that discriminates against black people because of its history.

All the Americans that aren't actively fighting to tear down the structures that discriminate are part of the problem. If you turn a blind eye to it because it doesn't affect you and you benefit a little from it, then you are part of the problem.

Americans are people. America is a country. So your comment doesn't make much sense.

---

Reality Internet Personality

US Peace Index
The USPI measures the level of peace in all 50 states according to 5 key indicators.
http://www.visionofhumanity.org/#/page/indexes/us-peace-index
Have I missed something?

Do you, or Es99, understand I AGREE with The Problem?

Do either of you understand I am also ANTI-CAPITALIST?

Nope. That is not apparent in your posts.

Do either of you understand I, as you, are against All (well- Most) Right Wing Ideas, as I am against All (well - Most) Left Wing Ideas?

You say that, then come out with right wing points of view. So you might think you aren't right wing, and maybe in America you are what passes for not right wing. Some of you people even think Obama is left wing.

I don't believe either of you, with the continuous Misinterpreting My Posts, understand, nor will ever.

I think it might have something to do with the way you write.

I do apologize, not really, regarding any 'Blasphemy' I commit against, what I categorize as, your 'Secular Religion'.

I literally have no idea what you are trying to say here, and today I lack the will to try and figure it out. You have some serious difficulties with sentence structure that make your posts quite opaque sometimes.

What are you trying to convey with the ''? I don't even know. Its a mystery.

Are you actually apologising? If so, what for? Are you not apologising? Its just not clear at all. Whose secular religion are you referring to? What are categorising and why?

You shroud yourself in mystery, Clyde, and then get upset when no one has a single idea what you are trying to say.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Lousiana is the most unpeaceful state in the US.
I dont get.
Because they are eating crayfish?
Mardi Gras?
Voodoo?
Kajun food?
Trinity food?

France?

They got some coffee,
Eatin' right through the cup,
An' when they go ka-ka
They make you stand up
In France
Way down in France
Way on down
Way on down
In France

Do you, or Es99, understand I AGREE with The Problem?

Do either of you understand I am also ANTI-CAPITALIST?

Nope. That is not apparent in your posts.

Do either of you understand I, as you, are against All (well- Most) Right Wing Ideas, as I am against All (well - Most) Left Wing Ideas?

You say that, then come out with right wing points of view. So you might think you aren't right wing, and maybe in America you are what passes for not right wing. Some of you people even think Obama is left wing.

I don't believe either of you, with the continuous Misinterpreting My Posts, understand, nor will ever.

I think it might have something to do with the way you write.

I do apologize, not really, regarding any 'Blasphemy' I commit against, what I categorize as, your 'Secular Religion'.

I literally have no idea what you are trying to say here, and today I lack the will to try and figure it out. You have some serious difficulties with sentence structure that make your posts quite opaque sometimes.

What are you trying to convey with the ''? I don't even know. Its a mystery.

Are you actually apologising? If so, what for? Are you not apologising? Its just not clear at all. Whose secular religion are you referring to? What are categorising and why?

You shroud yourself in mystery, Clyde, and then get upset when no one has a single idea what you are trying to say.

I don't have much of a problem understanding Clyde. I may not always agree with him, but that is neither here nor there.

Obama is slightly left of center on some things, and slightly right of center on others. What Obama IS, however, is a Statist.

As to 'secular religion'...

Perhaps Dr. Michael Crichton gave a good definition of why some term some belief systems of others a 'secular religion'.

In his speech 'Environmentalism is a religion' given to The Commonwealth Club in San Francisco on Sept. 15, 2003, he states:

I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was that certain human social structures always reappear. They can't be eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion. Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people---the best people, the most enlightened people---do not believe in any religion. But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious.

http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/2818/Crichton-Environmentalism-is-a-religion.aspx

Quite a number of us here have our 'pet issues'...

Martin's is Environmentalism.
Mine are anti-statism and anti-political corruption.
Yours are sexism, and apparently also racism.

We need to be careful about expressing our zeal on the subjects important to us; sometimes step back and reign it in.

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

Friedrich Nietzsche

Edit:

Snip... Clyde clarified while I was typing.

Give up - anyone know a good monastery?

Perhaps on Iceland?
https://translate.google.se/translate?sl=is&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fasatru.is%2F&edit-text=

The problem is, despite someone claiming that something is a religion, such as the social structures Dr. Crichton observed, does not make it so.

It is a perpetuation of the myth that all belief systems are secular religions. That Dr. Crichton, and anybody that agrees with him, sees similarities between these social structures and religion is merely our pattern matching brains attempting to identify and categorize our observations with things we've seen in the past. However, to always use old paradigms for classifications of belief systems is to expect that all things remain the same. This obviously could not be further from the truth. Things change all the time, and with new data comes new classifications (e.g. Pluto becoming classified as a dwarf planet).

Ergo, not all belief systems are religions.

Give up - anyone know a good monastery?

Perhaps on Iceland?
https://translate.google.se/translate?sl=is&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fasatru.is%2F&edit-text=

Nah... Chris, this one looks more... fun...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scourmont_Abbey

Their ale is quite good.

The problem is, despite someone claiming that something is a religion, such as the social structures Dr. Crichton observed, does not make it so.

It is a perpetuation of the myth that all belief systems are secular religions. That Dr. Crichton, and anybody that agrees with him, sees similarities between these social structures and religion is merely our pattern matching brains attempting to identify and categorize our observations with things we've seen in the past. However, to always use old paradigms for classifications of belief systems is to expect that all things remain the same. This obviously could not be further from the truth. Things change all the time, and with new data comes new classifications (e.g. Pluto becoming classified as a dwarf planet).

Ergo, not all belief systems are religions.

Even when the devotees of said belief systems start 'foaming and frothing at the mouth' in an apparent moment of a 'BLASPHEMY!' reaction when challenged?

Everyone knows that they are not REALLY religions, but as Dr. Crichton said, they fulfill the same need in many people that religion fills in others.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, sometimes people approach it like they would a duck.

It is not the belief system itself that merits it being called a 'secular religion'. It is the reaction of people that believe in said belief system when that belief system is threatened that qualifies it as a 'secular religion' in some people's minds.

I mean, that is all that an actual religion is anyway. A belief system is a religion because somewhere, somewhen, someone thought it was.

Even when the devotees of said belief systems start 'foaming and frothing at the mouth' in an apparent moment of a 'BLASPHEMY!' reaction when challenged?

You will always have those types of people in every group, and it is a natural human reaction by some to being challenged. Does that make it OK to paint everyone in that group with the same brush and call them all a religion? I would say no.

Everyone knows that they are not REALLY religions, but as Dr. Crichton said, they fulfill the same need in many people that religion fills in others.

Does everyone really KNOW that? It seems to me that too many people have started actually thinking these categorizations are religions, and they all start to paint people in those groups as being part of a religion, forcing those types who do not wish to be associated with the "foaming fothers" out there to begin a new group... of which the foaming frothers will eventually join the new group, and so goes the never-ending groups and labels.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, sometimes people approach it like they would a duck.

Sure. But the moment you find it out it is not a part of the duck family, perhaps you should try to learn more about it first before classifying it.

It is not the belief system itself that merits it being called a 'secular religion'. It is the reaction of people that believe in said belief system when that belief system is threatened that qualifies it as a 'secular religion' in some people's minds.

But can't the same thing be said for all beliefs? Doesn't Clyde also feel attacked and react accordingly? That doesn't mean it is OK to say that Clyde has a religious belief system, particularly as he's said he's Atheist.

I mean, that is all that an actual religion is anyway. A belief system is a religion because somewhere, somewhen, someone thought it was.

Again, that's far too broad of an observation and definition. Just because someone calls it such, doesn't make it so. A religion centers around a higher power, transcending that power to supernatural status, and dictates how all people should live their lives, and shun those who don't live the same way (originally, anyway).

A belief system does not require a higher power, does not require dictation, does not require shunning others. A belief system is quite personal, and may or may not conform with other popular belief systems, or may have a population of one.

And yes, I fully expect you to point out how, for example, Atheism has Science as their higher power (a claim I've heard so many times before), or perhaps progressivism has their higher power equivalents. Again, just because you can see a pattern, doesn't make your classification correct. Perhaps some of the foaming and frothing is caused by the irksomeness of such an assertion?

Give up - anyone know a good monastery?

Perhaps on Iceland?
https://translate.google.se/translate?sl=is&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fasatru.is%2F&edit-text=

Nah... Chris, this one looks more... fun...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scourmont_Abbey
Their ale is quite good.

HeHehE back to "civilization" But...
A problem though the language is French where trappist monks makes beer.
Are you up to it? Its very much easier with Dutch:)

Es99...

That you don't understand those who do not agree with you 'Belief System' (Secular Religion), and therefore must be....

See, this is where you lose me.

What Belief System do you think I have?

Is to This Atheist to Left/Right Wing Ideology: The same, as the response, from Religious Persons, to this Atheist to Religion.

I don't understand this sentence.

You, and other Ideologues, as Religious Believers, will never understand.

What sort of ideology do you think I adhere to? I'd love to know what little box you've put me in.

The above is a General Truism. More specifically...

The above makes no sense because I didn't understand your so called "truism"

Acknowledging A Problem, is not the same as agreeing with a Solution, nor the Foundation of a Solution.

Do you get this stuff out of a chinese fortune cookie and string together randomly? It sounds lovely, but doesn't seem to have any connection to anything we are discussing.

To use an extreme example. Not agreeing with Marxism, as a Solution to Capitalism, doesn't mean one believes in Fascism.

Agree?

This I get and agree with! Yay! Just like me defending Muslims doesn't make a Muslim. Or defending innocent Palestinians doesn't make me a terrorist or a Nazi sympathiser. See? It works both ways. When something is wrong I point out it is wrong.

Not agreeing with Left Wing Solutions, nor the Foundations of their Beliefs, doesn't mean one agrees with Right Wing Solutions, nor the Foundations of their Beliefs .

Agree?

That doesn't really follow because there is no one set of Left wing or right wing beliefs, its more a way of viewing the world and how you like to deal with problems. So I call myself Left Wing because I believe in group responsibility for those less fortunate than ourselves. I don't believe that poor people brought it upon themselves by being lazy. I don't think we should hate people because of their colour, gender or sexual orientation. I believe in social responsibility and that we are all in this together.

Right wing beliefs focus more in the individual and their rights, they tend to be more judgemental and exhibit knee jerk simplistic solutions to problems.

So perhaps you need to re-think what Left-Wing actually means before you repudiate so quickly. Communism was an idea that was created as a solution to the very real problem of feudalism and the totalitarianism of the Monarchy. Its implementation was flawed for many reasons, and perhaps the theory needs some tweaking, but to write something off as evil when the premise was far from it, is a very shallow, knee jerk, simplistic solution. To fail to understand and deal with the root causes of terrorism is shallow, knee jerk and simplistic. For anyone in the rest to refuse to recognise the part we have played in screwing up the middle east is shallow, knee jerk and simplistic.

Every time I try to dig a little deeper into the causes of things, you start to yell "evil" "vile" "Left-wing unthinking" like a small child covering their ears with their hands and screaming "la la la"

---

Reality Internet Personality

I mean, that is all that an actual religion is anyway. A belief system is a religion because somewhere, somewhen, someone thought it was.

Again, that's far too broad of an observation and definition. Just because someone calls it such, doesn't make it so. A religion centers around a higher power, transcending that power to supernatural status, and dictates how all people should live their lives, and shun those who don't live the same way (originally, anyway).

A belief system does not require a higher power, does not require dictation, does not require shunning others. A belief system is quite personal, and may or may not conform with other popular belief systems, or may have a population of one.

And yes, I fully expect you to point out how, for example, Atheism has Science as their higher power (a claim I've heard so many times before), or perhaps progressivism has their higher power equivalents. Again, just because you can see a pattern, doesn't make your classification correct. Perhaps some of the foaming and frothing is caused by the irksomeness of such an assertion?

You are in murky water, OzzFan...

That is a rather... restricted opinion of what religion is.

Not all religion HAVE a 'supernatural higher power' as such. One such nontheistic religion I know of has existed for about 2500 years, and has about 500 million adherents world wide.

Of your two remaining criteria, dictating how people should live their lives, and providing some sort of consequence for not doing so (shunning, ridicule, punishment (including death)) fit a WIDE variety of other sorts of belief systems.

Objectively, there is little, if any, difference between a wide variety of secular belief systems and religion.

Es99...

I do understand that Secular Believers, as Religious Believers, will never understand.

That after awhile will Post, as you do

"la la la"

.
Or similar Response.

Sorry to burst your 'Belief Bubble'.

Perhaps I should change, and treat Secular Believers, as I treat Religious Believers:

With compassion, understanding, and sympathy, regarding their Beliefs.

You see Clyde, right here is my problem with with your posts. Grammer structure exists to facilitate understanding. I honestly struggle trying to understand you because of your sentence structure. You obviously don't wish to take that on board, and that's your choice, but then you can't complain when people misunderstand you.

---

Reality Internet Personality

I mean, that is all that an actual religion is anyway. A belief system is a religion because somewhere, somewhen, someone thought it was.

Again, that's far too broad of an observation and definition. Just because someone calls it such, doesn't make it so. A religion centers around a higher power, transcending that power to supernatural status, and dictates how all people should live their lives, and shun those who don't live the same way (originally, anyway).

A belief system does not require a higher power, does not require dictation, does not require shunning others. A belief system is quite personal, and may or may not conform with other popular belief systems, or may have a population of one.

And yes, I fully expect you to point out how, for example, Atheism has Science as their higher power (a claim I've heard so many times before), or perhaps progressivism has their higher power equivalents. Again, just because you can see a pattern, doesn't make your classification correct. Perhaps some of the foaming and frothing is caused by the irksomeness of such an assertion?

You are in murky water, OzzFan...

That is a rather... restricted opinion of what religion is.

Not at all. Religion isn't meant to be a wide-encompassing term. It is the fluidity of the English language that has allowed people to change the meaning to something less restricted. Further, calling any belief system a secular religion only waters down the meaning even more.

Not all religion HAVE a 'supernatural higher power' as such. One such nontheistic religion I know of has existed for about 2500 years, and has about 500 million adherents world wide.

I am only aware of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism as the primary three non-theistic religions. Jainism only has about 5 million followers. Hinduism has been around for about 3,700 years.

I deduce you're referring to Buddhism. The problem with your assertion is that Buddhism still believes in a higher plane of existence, Nirvana. Nirvana is defined in the Hindu religion as one's union with Brahman, the divine ground of existence. That certainly qualifies as being a higher power with supernatural properties. Not all higher powers are deities.

Of your two remaining criteria, dictating how people should live their lives, and providing some sort of consequence for not doing so (shunning, ridicule, punishment (including death)) fit a WIDE variety of other sorts of belief systems.

Objectively, there is little, if any, difference between a wide variety of secular belief systems and religion.

Again, that you can see a similar pattern, doesn't mean it properly fits the classification. I have already laid out my reasoning as to why not.

The falsity in the arguments here is the assumption that racism is strictly a White vs Black thing.

When Clyde wrote

Which Americans don't like Black People?

Asian Americans? White Hispanic Americans? Polynesian Americans? White Muslims Americans? Jewish Americans? Buddhist Americans? Hindu Americans? White Atheist Americans? White European Americans? ...?

ALL the above. Some of the above?

He missed a very important point. In all of those groups you will find some people who do not like members of one or more of other groups, simply because "they ain't like me". You will also find Afro-Americans who don't like members of some of the above groups for exactly the same and for no other reason.

I see it where I live. Here there is a large community of African expatriates, we also have the Aboriginal Australians. Both groups are Black, yet they don't like each other very much at all. While there has been no violence between them there is definitely a simmering tension. In other parts of Australia you have a Polynesian vs Melanesian thing (which has erupted into violence) and a three cornered contest between various Chinese, Japanese and Korean groups. You also have regular fisticuffs between the various Slav and Croat gangs.

There are other examples I could quote, but that would just make it boring.

I believe that "distrust of those who are different" is part of the human psyche. It dates back to when our primitive ancestors were fighting for survival on the African plains and every stranger was a possible threat to the food supply or other resource.

To those who claim to be "Colour Blind", I call BS. A person's racial background is one of the first things you notice about about them. You see it while they are still on the other side of the room, well before you speak to each other.

How this is dealt with this is a sign of your (and their's) emotional maturity. It may have no effect at all on the way you react to them, but anyone who claims "they don't notice" is an out and out liar. They may not let it affect their judgement or attitude, but they do notice.

Being a "Polyglot, Multicultural, Multinational, Multiracial, etc. Country." does not mean that all the sub groups live together in perfect harmony.

T.A.

Yes I can, because it is true.

This doesn't make sense, Clyde. You can complain because its true? You can complain because your use of the English language is confusing? You can complain because people misunderstand you because your use of the English language is confusing? What are you trying to say here?

Your entire Post is just to deflect from your refusal to accept responsibly for misstating.

Again, this is what you do that drives me nuts. You make an erroneous claim about what I am or have not done, because it is erroneous I literally have no idea what you are referring to. You don't state what part of what I have said you think is a 'misstated' so not only do I have no way of clarifying, I now have no idea what we are talking about. So we are now two sentences in from your post and I am trying to decode what your message is.

Which you may, in your way, now admit you have done.

WTF does this even mean? Admit what? You have not made any statement anywhere as to what I have done apart from supposedly 'misstating' something that you wish to keep quiet about because really, I am not sure you have a point and want me to understand what your complaint is.

Just as Your Opinion regarding My Posts, in this, and other Threads (which could be considered Personally Insulting)

Clyde, if I were insulting you, you would know about it. There would be no need to read between the lines or guess.

What I have been doing for a long time is try to be polite to you. Its like someone trying to find a nice way to tell someone that their flies are undone and finally just coming out with it because the other person is incapable of understanding the hints.

, is allowed under The Rules:

My Opinion regarding Your Posts, is also allowed under The Rules.

Correct?

Its never held you back before, Clyde.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Es99 wrote:

So what benchmark do you use to judge the value or worthiness of a 'culture'?

Good question chicken stacker.

Also important is how you put that measuring stick up to a culture. How far apart are the tick marks? Is that measuring stick distorted by the culture of the person who offers it up?

As an example, suppose the person offering up the measuring stick is from a culture that values FGM more than anything else. A culture that doesn't practice FGM is going to score very low. This does not make the measuring stick invalid, just biased. No matter what measurement is proposed, it reflects the bias of the person proposing it.

Exactly. So pretending its all about culture is a nonsense. Its racism under another guise.

The Europeans wiped out the Native Americans based on the idea that somehow white European culture was superior.

Some things we all judge as horrific in our culture, such as FGM, some things in your culture I think are disgusting, such as the death penalty and drive through ATMs.

The Simonator wrote:

You have to broaden your thinking.

Celebrating 'Cultural Diversity' is Celebrating All Cultures. Not just the ones acceptable to The Left.

Correct?

Many African countries have a 'culture' of practicing FGM. Should we celebrate that?
(The correct answer is no!)

We should celebrate those cultural aspects that contribute to improving life. We should disparage and eventually eradicate those which worsen it.

Really? It is okay for one culture, say white European, to proclaim that their idea about a subject, say FGM, is superior to another culture's, say black African, idea? Sounds racist, but that isn't a surprise.

---

Really? It is okay for one culture, say white European, to proclaim that their idea about a subject, say FGM, is superior to another culture's, say black African, idea? Sounds racist, but that isn't a surprise.

I think it is a difficult line to walk and we can be in danger of condemning people because we consider their culture 'inferior' or excusing them because of their 'culture'.

I think the best way forward is to look at the consequences on people of certain cultural norms and not to be biased because some things are acceptable in our culture. There does often seem to be a blind spot and a certain defensiveness when you point out horrible things at home. It is always so easy to point the finger outside ourselves.

---

Reality Internet Personality

White European

Hmm I have heard the term White Fever.
That is Russian Vodka in Siberia. But thats in Asia.
Novosibirsk comes to mind.