Multi-culturalism boon or bane?

[Comic Book Guy]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Sometimes the funneh is only in my head. /facepalm

I meant that he was tap dancing (avoiding the argument). Hence emulating the slang phrase jesus tap dancing christ.

Ah, ta.

Well, to quote Ghandi, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians". Anyone whose values are such that they can be sardonic about established humanitarian atrocities, yet pontificate about abortion, cannot be taken seriously on matters of ethics. That ancient Palestinian Jesus Christ didn't care much for people who held double standards.

[inked]

Originally Posted by Comic Book Guy

Are you addressing me with this non-sequiter about abortion, a vague passage about Hitler (N-word? What? Do mean Nietzsche, who died a good 30 years before the Nazis came to power?) and economic life in Palestine?

It's funny that moralising about "vulnerable members" is immediately followed by a witless sneer about a humanitarian crisis in the Middle-East. If the "writer" is belittling the undisputed suffering of people of Gaza, which includes children who have been lucky enough to be born, then that raises the question: is he/her aware of this hypocrisy?

No.
Nietsche.
Yes.
Et vice versa (so you got the point of my address to Jonathan)
That was my question.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Isn't that the modus operandi of media worldwide, to favour the reporting of humanitarian crises over humanitarian triumphs?
But maybe there's a point in that, since it's the crises we all want (and need) to rectify.

I'd be more inclined to think it's just the old adage that bad news sells. People are more eager to hear about **** hitting the fan than about the resolution of the situation. The media as a whole are not out to make an ethical difference; they are out to make a living, same as anyone else, and they report the things that people are more interested in hearing.

[inked]

Interesting article on cross-cultural impacts on middle class America ...

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/the-u.s.-middle-class-is-being-wiped-out-here%27s-the-stats-to-prove-it-520657.html?tickers=^DJI,^GSPC,SPY,MCD,WMT,XRT,DIA

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by inked

Indeed, without the scientific evidence that life in truth begins at fertilization, on might be justified in considering that life is legally defined. But since even the most illiterate might learn from pictures that life begins at fertilization (witness the elephants, dogs, and cats, to name a few seen on the Discovery Channel or Animal Planet), it is indefensible to slaughter the unborn in the name of "rights".

How exactly do we get from the 'is' that life begins at conception to the 'ought' that we should not allow abortion?

We learn a lot of things from the Discovery Channel- that rape can be an
effective way for a male to spread his genes; that stepmothers and stepfathers should kill their mate's other offspring in order to maximize their reproductive potential; that females should bite the heads off their mates to increase their ardour....

Whom, exactly, has such a right, if the mother's life is not in immediate danger? Why, the biggest, strongest, and most wielding of power - a la Voldemort

first time I've heard a scared 15-year-old compared to Voldemort.

(the contemporary representation of that N word German philosopher of power who gave us, via the Third Reich, Hitler).

Except that we don't know what N would have thought about abortion, contraception etc.

“Everything in woman is a riddle, and everything in woman has one solution—that is pregnancy."

Since he was strongly opposed to feminism, believed in the superiority of the male, and was a worshipper of "Life", he might have shared the belief of others anti-feminists that female reproduction should be controlled by males- certainly not a decision to be made by such an inferior creature on her own behalf.


Hitler, of course, was strongy pro-life: one of the first actions of the Nazis was to roll back the minor gains women had made under the Weimar Republic and strengthen the laws against abortion. In fact, displaying a consistency in their beliefs sadly lacking in modern pro-lifers, the Nazis made procuring an abortion a capital crime in Germany in 1943. None of this wishy-washy "7th degree homicide" for them.

Let's see, who else was pro-life? Oh, that's right, Joe Stalin. Abortion had been legalized in 1920; Stalin ordered it banned in 1936. Joe and Adolf both knew the proper role of women was to produce children, and both introduced Motherhood awards, with Gold Stars going out to those women who produced more than ten.

The common thread these pro-lifers shared was the belief that women were not autonomous individuals with the right to make their own decisions about their own bodies, but vehicles for other purposes- "sacred vessels" was Hitler's term- and whose reproductive systems were therefore to be controlled by the State.

One might say that the way a society treats its most vulnerable members is a measure of its civilization. But that leaves most of the Western world prostrate in its alleged defense of "rights" and reveals it to be solely materialistic.

I, too, believe in the welfare state and the right of poor people to guaranteed accesss to health care.

[inked]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/wo...tain.html?_r=1

NHS decentralization to ............ save money?

[Draken]

Originally Posted by inked

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/wo...tain.html?_r=1

NHS decentralization to ............ save money?

Just the standard cycle of managing a large service provider. Every few years people point out a layer of beaurocracy that can be cut by putting finances in the control of local experts "on the ground", in this case GPs. A few years later people will point out the wastefulness of GPs who spend most of their time managing budgets and attending meetings, coupled with (at some point) a few examples of poor financial control (it seems a constant source of wonder to policy-makers that expert practitioners choose that route pretty much to avoid being accountants: very few have the inclination and/or ability to fulfill such a role). And so in maybe ten years' time it will be decided that what is needed is a dedicated layer of supporting professionals who will free up the GPs to do their job and reverse the inefficiencies that followed that 2010 decision... etc etc.

Nobody is ever happy at paying a large bill, of course, and people will always want to find ways of reducing it. Ultimately, though, a nation having universal health care is a bit like a house having running water. You can argue forever about what bathroom suite is best and what's the most cost-efficient way to heat the water. And people without one can tell themselves how clever they are to not have to pay plumbing costs. But in the end it's one of those things that differentiates civilised from uncivilised.

No idea what this has to do with multi-culturalism, mind.

[The Gaffer]

Long time, no see. How goes it, Draken?

Got to agree with you re: the Tories' plans for the NHS. Making clinicians into managers is bloody idiotic if you ask me. GPs will just have to re-create the commissioning functions of PCTs from the ground up, probably by hiring the same people who have just been laid off (at great expense).

Of course the real agenda is to bugger the NHS from the inside. It is all about increasing the level of private sector involvement, i.e. opportunities for the Tories' cronies to line their pockets.

This has already been shown not to work. When you take away the structural distortions in favour of the private sector (e.g. Independent Treatment Centres being able to select the uncomplicated patients knowing that the NHS providers will take up the [more costly] slack), you find out that the NHS is doing it far more efficiently.

I don't know who is more retarded: them for suggesting it or us for believing that they gave a toss about the NHS for long enough to (nearly) vote them in.

[Draken]

Alright Gaffer. Yeah, not so bad, cheers. Still dipping into this place every now and then. As with the the latest bright ideas in politics, nothing much changes!

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by inked

I strongly suspect that the programmatic destruction of in utero whales or seals would be met with a different response. As long as it's only in utero humans is there a "semantic" discussion.

I'll start a "semantic" discussion right now by saying that while destroying in utero whales would be a big no-no, the hunting of sperm whales should be okay because sperm = gametes ≠ zygotes and only after a sperm has merged with an egg to form a zygote, can it be considered a new living organism

Thumbs up for Ahab

[inked]

Hey, what's up with Britons protesting other cultures now?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-sto...5875-22438167/

[The Gaffer]

Reported for racism.

[Tessar]

I'm not sure that I entirely agree that this is racist, but I am rather puzzled by your comment, Inked. I assume you meant it as sarcasm but I am having some difficulty spotting what exactly you are remarking on. You might want to expound on what you are actually referring to.

[GrayMouser]

I suspect what he means is that since some people in Britain support setting up of Sharia courts for voluntary arbitration on some civil issues, therefore all Britons support stoning of women in Iran.

You know, the same thing as since some Americans, e.g. the Texas Republican Party, support imprisoning homosexuals for sodomy, what's up with Americans protesting the hanging of gays in Iran, or their proposed execution in Uganda?


(Though I suspect that there are many more Americans who support executing gays than there are Britons who support stoning adulterers . IIRC there were many American churches supporting the anti-gay laws in Uganda until the publicity got too hot.)

Or since some Americans, e.g. Sarah Palin's church in Wasilla, support the work of witch-finders in Africa, therefore all Americans support murdering African children for the crime of witchcraft.

Though again, there have been American churches who supported Christian witch-hunters in Africa until the media came calling.

[The Gaffer]

Well that's not how I see it.

What I see is someone who just posts link after link to stories about barbarism in other cultures, Islam specifically. In a thread supposedly about multiculturalism.

Seems pretty racist - or at the very least, xenophobic.

[Rían]

A slight change of direction - Has anyone here heard of the terms TCK and ATCK, and are there any here?

(TCK - third culture kids , ATCK - adult third culture kids)

I've been re-looking thru some books on the subject just to try to understand my husband better - I think I need to try to honor and understand that part of him better.

[inked]

ah, the French! Why wait until they are married off at 5, 6, 7, or 8...

just do it!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10799539

And, please note, this is THE BBC.

i really don't have to twist it or make it up, do I?

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by inked

ah, the French! Why wait until they are married off at 5, 6, 7, or 8...

just do it!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10799539

And, please note, this is THE BBC.

i really don't have to twist it or make it up, do I?

Have to agree with the Gaffer.

Shouldn't the title be changed to "Xenophobic Racist Rants" ?

It would seem to fit the typical post so much better.

[Rían]

???

She's a sick woman, but what does that have to do with the topic?


**edit - ah, I cross-posted with GreyMouser - my post refers to inked's post - GreyMouser slipped one in ahead of me! **

**he's a nice person to virtually bump into **

[Rían]

Hey, GMouser, you might know about TCKs - do you?