Posted on 01/03/2005 4:03:12 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
Gee, I thought it was the Rockefeller Institute and the Carnegie Endowment.
The actual objective of Leftism is to convince the Prey that they have no inborn right to defend themselves against the Predators. It is a Predator con-game designed to freeze resistance
The solution is to not play their game. To me, "good" is that which (in my opinion, based on reason, according to the best data I may have available) promotes the long-term survival and happiness of myself, my family, my descendants, and my friends. Evil is that which puts that long-term survival at risk.
Once you have that as the firm foundation of your value system, it's hard to get confused or conned.
Multiculturalism is a fiction that tries to argue that multiple units pulling apart is stronger than one unit pulling together. It's an attempt to equate failed cultures with successful ones, and to abolish the concept of normalcy.
It's also a handy Marxist dialectical tool. It slices, dices, and makes julienne fries like a snap! And it's a top-notch engine coolant.
Outstanding! How refreshing to hear a rational understanding of values. However, you should know that many folks on this forum disagree with you.
That reminds me of that Al Gore speech that began (paraphrasing) "E pluribus unum--from one many."
They were upset with W's "uncertainty avoidance" and "intolerance of ambiguity." He had said, "I know what I believe and I believe what I believe is right," and "Look, my job isn't to nuance."
Multiculturalism would call that attitude "Ethnocentric."
That's cool. I don't mind. My viewpoint does not depend on anybody else agreeing with me. Somebody else might convince me to change an evaluation of whether something is good or evil thru rational argument and pointing out additional data. I won't care, however, if somebody chooses to disagree with me.
Continuing on what I said in the previous post, I will label a culture as “better” or “worse” than some other culture, on the basis of which culture seems like it will better promote the long-term happiness and prosperity of those I care about. I will not care about anybody’s arguments that my position is relative to my class. I will reply “damn right it is”. Currently, the best culture around seems to be American middle-class culture, although I prefer how things were before the 60’s
The usual fallacy on this forum is that there are absolute or objective values which are independent of any person.
Supporting multiculturalism means supporting the EU
The Nobel Prize now supports multiculturalism
The majority of politicians support multiculturalism
The majority of professional sportsmen/women support multiculturalism
The majority of the media support multiculturalism, with the BBC leading the pack
Unions generally support multiculturalism
The environmentalists support multiculturalism
The Queen of England supports Multiculturalism
Hillary Clinton supports multiculturalism
An abbreviation of multiculturalism is PC
“Walkers Wrong Colour” is an example of multiculturalism
The attack on Christmas is an example of multiculturalism
A generous welfare system supports multiculturalism
Schools are at the forefront of serenading the message of multiculturalism
Multiculturalism is attempting to rewrite history
If you don’t believe in multiculturalism you are intolerant and possibly racist
Censorship is a tool of multiculturalism
Countries with which I don’t associate multiculturalism include Japan, Korea, and Saudi Arabia.
Good post.
Western values are better, and superior, to non-western values.
Well since theres no such thing as right or wrong, You bet I agreed, I kept my damn mouth shut and nodded.
Great article! If all values are relative then so are regimes and ideologies. Multiculturalism, which supposedly favours democracy and tolerance, wants to elevate democracy to an untouchable universal status, but really can't make that claim if it believes everything is relative. Like most systems of thought it needs/wants to make a claim to a universal. It's the great irrational bandwagon that started with Nietzsche's critique of culture and which has recently gained speed in North America via Marxist/postmodern thought. That there are no trans historical values (eg. religious values) leads to a cultural nihilism and, possibly, the collapse of democracy through a demagogue or dictator (eg. Hitler and the Wiemar Republic). But to say something like this to an educator, especially in Canada, is a crime. Educators are paid by the state and they tow the line with the best of them -- my experience at teachers college.
I don't think your professor was trying to tell you that there is no such thing as right and wrong. He was trying to explain rather the nature of right and wrong.
My professor told me that right and wrong was an opinion. That there is no right or wrong. That in some countries killing is right.
By the way, I then asked about Nazi Germany.
The following Teddy Roosevelt quotes can be found in Edmund Morris, The Rise Of Theodore Roosevelt Modern Library 2001)
"There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism...The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin...would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities."
(Speech, New York, 1915)
http://www.presidentlincoln.com/Quote4.html
Then your professor was right.
That there is no right or wrong.
Then your professor was wrong.
That in some countries killing is right.
Then your professor was making an understatement. I don't know of any countries where killing is NEVER right. Maybe Nepal? Of course most Americans believe in rightful killing. I do. I'm suprised that you don't.
By the way, I then asked about Nazi Germany.
What did you ask, and what was your professor's reply?
Whether my professor was right or wrong is relative. In some cultures she would be right and in others she would be wrong.
Only in the sense of a moral judgement. As matter of correctly identifying concepts, it is not relative.
For example: 1+1=2 is right independent of what you think about it. However, the value you place on that fact is entirely a matter for your own judgement.
A moral statement is a statement of values. A value is a measure of worth by its possessor. Valuing is an essential act of human consciousness and therefore is quite real. Valuing cannot, however, be separated from a valuer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.