Do Liberals believe in Multiculturalism or Integration? - Page 8 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Modern liberalism. Civil rights and liberties, State responsibility to the people (welfare).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14778728
"Pants-of-dog"]I doubt it. Please provide evidence for this claim.

You first. You know we are both stating opinions and can probably both find links to back them up. :hmm:


Stopping immigration does nothing for global population.

I see no signs of global population being controlled and therefore believe each country must protect their own resources from being over exploited due to excess population in their own country. Solving problems globally seldom works. You need to start closer to home.

Which do you think works better? Integration or multiculturalism? Do you see them as being mutually exclusive?

I believe there is a need for both and no they are not mutually exclusive. I do believe groups who want to live separately should be allowed as much freedom as possible without forcing interaction, but also not putting up roadblocks. Integration serves the best long term interests for a community, but a community must be ready for it. It is not something that can be legislated and achieve the desired results. To further clarify; two separate cultures living next to one another only divided by a street is not a desirable condition. Integration would be more desirable. Separate cultures living two miles apart might be better off maintaining their own culture.
#14778733
One Degree wrote:You first. You know we are both stating opinions and can probably both find links to back them up. :hmm:


No, it is not an opinion. It is a verifiable claim that exists regardless of our feelings about it.


I see no signs of global population being controlled and therefore believe each country must protect their own resources from being over exploited due to excess population in their own country. Solving problems globally seldom works. You need to start closer to home.


I thought you lived in the US.

In the US, resource use is not about population, but about how much use there is per capita. 10 US residents use way more resources and pollute far more than 10 Mexicans.

Not to mention the US propensity for going abroad to take the resources of others.

I believe there is a need for both and no they are not mutually exclusive. I do believe groups who want to live separately should be allowed as much freedom as possible without forcing interaction, but also not putting up roadblocks. Integration serves the best long term interests for a community, but a community must be ready for it. It is not something that can be legislated and achieve the desired results. To further clarify; two separate cultures living next to one another only divided by a street is not a desirable condition. Integration would be more desirable. Separate cultures living two miles apart might be better off maintaining their own culture.


This does not seem like a cohesive and purposeful policy. It seems more like a laundry list of what you want.

How are you going to deal with the continued immigration from the developing world, and the fact that it will increase for the foreseeable future?
#14778734
"Pants-of-dog"]No, it is not an opinion. It is a verifiable claim that exists regardless of our feelings about it.

Then you should not hesitate to supply this proof.



I thought you lived in the US.

I do.

In the US, resource use is not about population, but about how much use there is per capita. 10 US residents use way more resources and pollute far more than 10 Mexicans.

Not to mention the US propensity for going abroad to take the resources of others.

All the more reason to reduce our population and maintain our resources despite what the rest of the world chooses to do. I would like to see the US reduced to a 100 million and this would gradually happen without immigration.


This does not seem like a cohesive and purposeful policy. It seems more like a laundry list of what you want.

Local autonomy. I believe different people have different requirements. A cohesive and purposeful policy is a highfalutin' way of saying we will make all of you the same.
How are you going to deal with the continued immigration from the developing world, and the fact that it will increase for the foreseeable future?

I already said I support a net zero immigration policy, or at least much closer than we are now.
#14778735
One Degree wrote:Then you should not hesitate to supply this proof.


You mean "evidence" and not proof. And I provided evidence in the form of logic: those with more experience about a given subject will have greater knowldeg about said subject.

All the more reason to reduce our population and maintain our resources despite what the rest of the world chooses to do. I would like to see the US reduced to a 100 million and this would gradually happen without immigration.


Would it not make more sense to stop polluting, wasting, and attacking other countries?

This way, you can reduce the problems associated with your population resource use instead of hoping you can magically stop immigration.

....
I already said I support a net zero immigration policy, or at least much closer than we are now.


That does not answer my question as to how you plan to deal with the fact that immigration will continue or increase for the foreseeable future.

Unless you are arguing that you will be kicking people out of the US at the same rate.
#14778755
"Pants-of-dog"]You mean "evidence" and not proof. And I provided evidence in the form of logic: those with more experience about a given subject will have greater knowldeg about said subject.

We often need to step back from a problem before we can see it clearly. I have now provided equal evidence.


Would it not make more sense to stop polluting, wasting, and attacking other countries?

This way, you can reduce the problems associated with your population resource use instead of hoping you can magically stop immigration.

Much easier to reduce immigration than to convince people to give up what they already have.
We also need an affluent society to promote science.

That does not answer my question as to how you plan to deal with the fact that immigration will continue or increase for the foreseeable future.

Unless you are arguing that you will be kicking people out of the US at the same rate.

Net zero immigration means you only allow in as many that leave. There are already groups promoting this in the US.
#14778757
One Degree wrote:We often need to step back from a problem before we can see it clearly. I have now provided equal evidence.


You have not provided any evidence as far as I can tell.

Also, you seem to make mistakes with the quote function.

Much easier to reduce immigration than to convince people to give up what they already have.
We also need an affluent society to promote science.


No, it is not easier to reduce immigration. Unless you think the incredibly expensive wall will actually do anything except bolster the ladder industry.

Also affluent des not mean wasteful and belligerent.

Net zero immigration means you only allow in as many that leave. There are already groups promoting this in the US.


Anyone who read my previous post would know that I am already aware of the definition. What you have not explained is how it will work.
#14778761
Pants-of-dog wrote:You have not provided any evidence as far as I can tell.

Also, you seem to make mistakes with the quote function.



No, it is not easier to reduce immigration. Unless you think the incredibly expensive wall will actually do anything except bolster the ladder industry.

Also affluent des not mean wasteful and belligerent.



Anyone who read my previous post would know that I am already aware of the definition. What you have not explained is how it will work.

So you believe the US is incapable of stopping illegal immigration? :lol: The only problem will be the Canadian border and if Canada does not cooperate then we should annex them. :D
#14778822
dsswoosh wrote:
So, by definition, do Liberals share an immigration policy with multi-cultural tendencys, or do they share an immigration policy based on integration, or do Liberals have mixed views of this within Liberalism?


Liberal policy is that people should be able to do most anything they wish unless the people are conservative and Christian.
#14778840
One Degree wrote:All the more reason to reduce our population and maintain our resources despite what the rest of the world chooses to do. I would like to see the US reduced to a 100 million and this would gradually happen without immigration.

What makes you so confident this will happen?
A few days ago you called similar predictions naive.
#14778870
AFAIK wrote:What makes you so confident this will happen?
A few days ago you called similar predictions naive.

I am not confident at all. It is highly unlikely, but is what should be done.
Are you confusing my comments about global population control and national population control?
#14778880
Know It All wrote:I don't think you fully understand debating on a forum. If our arguments rely entirely on proven fact, we may just as well google everything. The only real difference between an argument and a debate, is that one is an open forum, and hopefully the debate remains civilised. Supplying data to prove a point is fine, but it should never be something we rely on.

Now, the point of this thread is to prove, disprove, or just discuss multiculturalism and integration in a liberal context. It is my belief that many liberals believe the the two are closely linked, whereas the majority of people believe otherwise. Of course, without holding a mass poll amongst liberals, my belief can't be upheld


Yes, excuse use, we don't know how to discuss on a forum, we should spend out time doing nothing but talking about individual posters and not anything to do with the topic, and we should all just deflect like you do. Thanks for the lesson.

Come on guys, discussion forums are for trolling! Duh!
#14778928
1D wrote: I would like to see the US reduced to a 100 million and this would gradually happen without immigration.

I read the bolded statement as a prediction.
#14778956
Sampson Simpson wrote:Yes, excuse use, we don't know how to discuss on a forum, we should spend out time doing nothing but talking about individual posters and not anything to do with the topic, and we should all just deflect like you do. Thanks for the lesson.

Come on guys, discussion forums are for trolling! Duh!


Been posting on debating for many years, and one thing have learned is that when somebody runs out of reason they accuse their opponent of trolling.
#14780105
It seems to me that some of the cognitive disconnects here are due to people discussing the instances of 'multiculturalism' in different countries as if they are the same thing, eg Canada and the UK. With some I think this is a genuine mistake, with others I think it might be more disingenuous.
When we used to talk of 'integration', obviously that would take different forms depending on the locale, but with the invented word multiculturalism, it is possible to also reinvent integration as some sort of universal concept.

Earlier I posted this as a description of how 'multiculturalism' may be invented:
jakell wrote:This thread title is a good question to ask, apart from the focus on liberals which narrows it down too much.

I live in the UK and hadn't really heard of the word multiculturalism until the late 90's and a few years later it was all the rage.
Until then the only concept we had was of integration it was that or nothing. It's clear looking back, and at the present, that groups are/were staying apart and were not likely to integrate (fully), in fact it's in their interest not to.. they are not stupid. I think that the advent of the word 'multiculturalism' was an acceptance of failure on the part of TPTB and that a new concept had to be found, one that enabled groups to retain language, culture and traditions whilst living alongside each other.

IMO this was a finger-crossing exercise, wishful thinking. For this to work one needs an overriding culture that has the respect the other ones, and this culture was not allowed to express and maintain itself, in fact it was expected to die off (which it more or less has done). What we have now is the result of this wishful thinking, which is increasing tribalism.


I now want to add another observation: In the pages following this we had a number of instances where the word 'diversity' was brought out as the predictable (and elusive) Holy Grail of multiculturalism.

I think diversity is a good thing, but I think some sleight of hand is regularly used concerning that word, and again I'm going to refer to the UK as an example: IMO, just after WWII (for instance) it could be seen that the UK had a large amount of diversity (plus contradictory and oppositional elements), however it was diversity around a theme, and it is this that produced a relatively stable society.
After this comes the sleight of hand where some claim that the diversity we had wasn't sufficient (according to some hidden arbitrary standard), and therefore we needed additions which turned out to be mainly from the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent. Moving forward to the 90's-00's, with rising immigration we hear a familiar claim that we still don't have sufficient diversity.. an established manouevre that now seems able to be played out indefinitely.

I would conclude with the opinion that only a certain amount of diversity aids a society, and after that it starts to fragment it, so to continually keep playing the diversity card is an act of either ignorance or actual malevolence (I think I've mentioned 'Cultural Marxism' at some point)
#14780224
I think multiculturalism and integration are ways of dealing with ethnic diversity, rather than diversity being the goal of either of these two systems.

Ethnic diversity is not a goal, as far as I can tell, nor is anyone supporting multiculturalism or integration as a way of achieving diversity. They do not need to, as ethnic diversity will continue to increase for the foreseeable future regardless of whichever policy you use for integrating immigrants.

The reasons for this continued rise in ethnic diversity are mainly due to the economic inequality between the developed and the developing countries. Other issues such as war and clinate change are also factors.

Diversity itself can be either good or bad, and I do not believe anyone actually wants to increase diversity for the sake of diversity. Instead, it is the unforeseen result of certain historical factors, and governments in the developed world are now figuring out how to deal with it. Multiculturalism and integration are two ways of dealing with it.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

Firstly they use historic wind power numbers rat[…]

Well the first thing you can be relieved about is[…]

Yes, that is the beauty of free market capitalism[…]

The answer is simple. Stop invading, Russia. Se[…]