Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This digresses from the subject a bit; but I was struck by something in your argument. It seems to me that while you go on about equal opportunity and equality, that our federal government - while perhaps well-intentioned - has done just the opposite in imposing what we all know as quotas. That is, the fed government mandates to state governments that they must admit X percentage of minority students to their law school or whatever. So, while you talk about a social contract, it is really governmental mandate and control. If the argument is, "Well, this is to cure past ills, or to ensure that things are fair going forward; then, at what point are the tables balanced? And who decides they are balanced? And, by what formula or criteria, is it decided that things are fair and equal? That is not a social contract, but arbitrary social engineering.
Yeah, it's the government's intent, but doesn't really work well because so many Americans have resisted multiculturalism in our society (because of past ills, personal preference, clinging to racialist or elitist ideologies, etc.). With every government design on opening up equal opportunity or equality before the law there's a backlash among Americans who prefer the status quo. In short, there are too many Americans who resist the whole social contract thing because government has attempted to apply it as a means toward social justice (which will never occur in any society) and many Americans want to enjoy a privileged status that their forebears had.
But the basic points I've been trying to make is that if Americans don't accept the multicultural aspects of our society, then what's the recourse? Ethnic cleansing? Mass deportations of "undesireables"? marginalization of those unwanted or deemed unworthy to participate in our society as full citizens? I mean, it's not like all of these "other" cultures are going to pack up their bags and go somewhere else...so locking them out of the system seems like a recipe for disaster. Locking the "others" out of the system will only perpetuate the "culture wars" that have been raging in the U.S. since the ratification of the Constitution.
The American experiment was not one of "democracy" as so many poorly trained public school (and private school) teachers assert. The American experiment is a multicultural society because America always has been multicultural. Even going back to colonial times, it wasn't just England that sent over their debtors and dregs of society to the American continent...virtually all European "nations" sent over their vagabonds, undesireables, debtors, rapscallions, and religious fanatics. Not only that, but some European nations even went to Africa and sent over captives to these shores. America has always been mulitcultural and while this has always been the case, there have always been Americans who wanted to reserve the plentitude of this land and the opportunities guaranteed by this political system to only the privileged few.
The above is my point. The multicultural aspects of our society are not going to end (we are after all a nation of immigrants) so trying to lock people out of full and equal participation in this society will only result in a failure of the American experiment.
And if that doesn't convince anyone (well actually no one visits message board forums to be convinced of anything), then think of it from a practical standpoint. To continue American imperialism abroad, Americans must enable interest groups of citizens and/or minorities to full access to the American system so we can build more effective armies of people who can work together to conquer and/or police the world (or at the very least to protect us from all of the armies that are trying to come over here to occupy us).
Sarcasm aside, Americans need to learn to work together. So if you don't like Tyrone or Esmerelda or Ivan or Ira, and their repective cultural beliefs and practices, so what? They're Americans too and they have constitutional guarantees to participate in the system. Americans should realize this instead of complaining about their existence. They aren't going anywhere.
You may be on to something here. Her rhetoric has been awfully vicious recently. Maybe Nancy ought to speak with her abotu toning down her rhetoric. You, kinder and gentler.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale
Congresspeople make laws for local school districts?
I did not know that.
That's sort of like saying that the murder rate in maxine waters district is twice the national average, so it must be her fault.
most of the federal government's departments should be axed (or cut to an oversight/regulatory role rather than operational), including education, energy, transportation and more.
most of the federal government's departments should be axed (or cut to an oversight/regulatory role rather than operational), including education, energy, transportation and more.
I agree. The Federal government should gut the military too! I mean that really sucks up a lot of money and it's a means of control.
It sounds to me then, based on your more recent post, that you prefer a society in which ethnics are cleansed from the population...or at the very least are marginalized. I find that viewpoint not only unconstitutional and a violation of social contract theory, but downright repugnant as well.
Who are you to say that certain people are to be locked out of opportunity and should be treated before the law in an arbitrary manner? What if the power structure were to deem you and your social group the ones destined for marginalization? In your view, that's preferred.
It sounds to me, based on your post quoted above, that you are the one advocating arbitrary government power. Based on your post, you don't accept the very principle of social contract theory because it costs too much.
up until now i have conducted myself in a civil manner and i don't see why you take it upon yourself to put words in my mouth and make serious accusations. how you came to that conclusion is quite worrying after all it is you who unwittingly does the bidding for those who'd love to do some ethnic cleansing!
you are a very confused individual. i don't like the indoctrination of public schools. i think they teach very little relevant information. i think we'd all be far better off if instead of one size fits all we had 50 states doing different things to educate our kids. i stated that the evil of FORCED segregation was replaced by the evil of FORCED integration. i have explained that i believe that multicuturalism works best when it isn't FORCED. the operative word in case you hadn't guessed was FORCE. i believe that power should be spread out far and wide instead of concentrated in one place. from all of this you have come to the conclusion that i am adolf hitler incarnate! very confused indeed.
neverthelss if you can't have a serious discussion with someone without alleging that i'm a neonazi ready to put your race to the slaughter, then there really isn't much point in debating with you any further
The scientific community is not a requirement in the scientific method. That is called consensus and it has no place or relevance in that method.
I asked you not of opinion, but of a factual representation.
Again, does evolution adhere to the scientific method?
Go on, please explain how it does.
Let's put it this way. There is more evidence for Evolution than there is for the existence of atoms or gravity. That is right. We still aren't quite sure what causes matter to be attracted to matter.
While we have seen bacteria and other simple organisms evolve before our very eyes in the laboratory. We can clearly see how modern lifeforms evolved through fossil records. We see evidence of evolution with vestigial and near vestigial organs in existing animals (including humans). We have gained even more evidence of evolution taking place through analysis of DNA that proves that animals that were grouped together (like humans and apes) are indeed closely related and the DNA evidence follows extremely closely with previous hypothesis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbird82
What claims did I make? I stated from my understanding the scientific community as a whole supported the idea that evolutionary biology conforms to the scientific method.
Technically, no.
Consensus means little in regards to fact. Scientific consensus has been proven wrong before. Sometimes even with dissenting scientists being ridiculed by some members of the majority.
However, consensus is usually a good indicator on whether or not they have a point. If 98% of scientists in a qualified field state that they believe X is the most accurate explanation, then it is pretty safe to say that X has some merit.
But like I have said in previous Evolution debates, I don't believe in Evolution because the majority of scientists do, I believe in it because it is far better explanation and there is far, far more evidence to support it than Creationism ever has. Creationism merely was the explanation when very little evidence or theory existed. It was just a default theory, but now we have the evidence and understanding that supports the validity of Evolution.
You obviously did not bother to read through the earlier thread where I lend my thoughts on the elimination of the Dept. of Education.
I wouldn't have been so quick to be judgmental from just gleaning information from a few words in my post.
everytime i repond to a thread i must research the posters previous threads and posts to establish their position? really?
judging by other responses to your op, it seems i was not the only person who was taken by the suggestion that bachmann was nuts for wanting to abolish the dept. nevertheless from what you are 'suggesting' here ( i don't have the time to search your previous posts) we're on the same side of this argument ie we want to see the back of the dept of ed? if that's the case i've got less time to argue with someone on the same side of the debate. we have dragons to slay, not each other
you mean the republican party would be wallace now!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
