A question for social conservatives in the West - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

Traditional 'common sense' values and duty to the state.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14861408
Victoribus Spolia wrote:@Pants-of-dog,

If you call making a long list of denials a debate, there sure, you are far superior at make negative assertions without evidence....but if you want to have a real debate I am sure we can set it up someday on a topic that I really care to debate. We can have opening and closing statements, a cross-examination section, the whole deal. Then we will see who is a superior debater my friend.

I am likewise trained in construction and machining FYI. You have gained some amount of respect in my eyes for that. Not that it matters to you what I think.


...and yet you wrote several paragraphs telling me what you think of me.

Actually the wikipedia article has been edited since our last exchange because the map was changed in the introductory section in your favor from Huntington's map to Llosa's map. What a coincidence, you wouldn't happen to be a Wikipedia contributor now would you?

Likewise, the Huntington map still exists on the article, but now only in the "other views" which is a different version to what was in the introductory section last time we spoke.


Who cares? Regardless of who changed it, Huntington’s partisan definition is already part of the discussion, due to the influence of his “clash of civilisations” hypothesis.

How does this have anything to do with the facts as given?

Not that I care, my point is that there are scholars who affirm this position, that define the western world to the exclusion of Latin America. You have unilaterally denied that such a position is valid and asked for evidence that Latin America is not part of the west.


And I pointed out that Latin America has western religion, language, history, political systems, and social mores. I believe you did too.

I have provided scholarly examples of those who deny Latin America status as a western collect. This map represents my position, generally speaking.

Image


And I already discussed Huntington’s map, and why it based on US foreign policy needs and not things like shared history, religion, language, culture, philosophy, etc.

And you actually cited only two things: the wiki article and another piece by some guy who also claims it is part of the west but is wondering if it will ally with the US or Europe in the ongoing war on terror.

That is sufficient, now if you disagree, than why Latin America should be considered part of the west ought to be the subject of our debate as both views have scholarly support. At which point, the merits of either your argument or mine ought to be weighed based on the soundness of our premises and conclusions via the laws of reason, for who supports which view is ultimately irrelevant.

Now regarding my "criteria of inclusion" my criteria was stated earlier in this thread and does not include language, so I don't know where you got that, but rather was stated as the combination of Nordo-Germanic expansionism, Judeo-Christian Religious Morality, and Greco-Roman Legal and Philosophical conceptions, with the ethnic character being of those that lived as regional majorities in Europe at the time of their conversion in the middle-ages. I also stated that such an identity was a historical manifested self-identification, which would imply, that self-denial of inclusion in the west would qualify one for not being in the West.


Why Nordo-Germanic expansionism and not expansionism of all western countries? This seems arbitrary. You would then have to exclude Quebec from western civilisation.

And yet again, I need to point out that Latinos do include themsleves in the west.

Furthermore, my critique of Latin America being included in the west was stated as being a "tough call" for me, so this isn't a dogmatic issue for me as I care more about the sub-category of the Anglo-Sphere, but my argument against Latin America was multi-pronged and I will restate my reasons for you in response to this:

1. What I stated was more specific than you are assuming. For instance, I never discounted Latin America on the grounds that it was a former western colony. This should be clear by the fact that I do consider the United States, Canada, and Australia as part of the west.

What I argued is that post-colonial thought has permeated the self-identification of Latin Americans. Thus, even though Canadians were under the dominion of England, they do not consider themselves the subaltern because white Canadians have not culturally appropriated the post-colonial conception of oppressor colonist v. oppressed subaltern which distinguished indigenous peoples from their colonial invaders.

South America has been much different along this strain, men like Che Guevara and Fidel Castro joined with other men such Marcus Garvey, Ho Chi Minh, and philosophers such Jean-Paul Satre in developing joint efforts at forming an anti-western intellectual coalition on behalf of indigenous peoples in their respective nations.


Anti-colonialism is not anti-western, much like being against racism is not the same as being anti-white. Castro and Guevara were communists, after all, which is also a western ideology. Nor is anti-colonialism solely about protecting indigenous peoples. Since western countries can have a colonial relationship with other western nations, anti-colonialism can also be about protecting western countries form other western countries.

The common theme in post-colonialism is the distinction between "Us" and "Them," in the identification. Caribbean and South American thinkers began viewing the west, the white-Christian-patriarchy, as the cause of the problems and South American thinkers joined with Vietnamese and Central African figures in this ideology. Communist revolutions in these regions were an attempt to liberate themselves from the west, not such much to liberate the proletariat as in European Marxist movements.


No, this is a complete mischaracterisation of socialist struggles in Latin America. It is not about identity or us versus them white Christians. It is about a reaction to neo-imperial and neo-colonial interventions by the US and Europe targeting Latin America for its wealth, and using anti-colonial strains of Marxism as part of said reaction. Your analysis completely ignores these material and historical conditions.

My point is that this makes such regions non-western because they have formulated their own cultural identity. language and cultural influence alone does not make one western, for if that were the case, much of Africa would be said to be part of the west, but that is not the case.


Canada and the USA have also formulated cultural identities separate from Europe, and are part of western civilisation.

Also, it is more than just language and cultural influences. It is also history, religion, political and legal systems, and social mores.

2. Another point I made in disqualifying Latin America is economic outcomes in spite of resource-availability. Latin America on the whole has failed to lift itself from third world status in the way the west has for a long time. To me this is symptomatic of non-western attitudes towards equity, infrastructure, and the environment which permeate Latin America. Latin American political and economic attitudes are strikingly similar to those of central Africa and this seems to indicate they share more in common civilizationally than Latin America does with, lets say, Spain and Portugal. Once again, a big part of this is the desire on the part of Latin Americans to "go there own way" and formulate their own identity.


And now you are completely ignoring the history of colonialism, imperialism, and their modern counterparts and their impact on Latin America. As usual, you are ignoring historical facts and looking solely at unverifable wishy washy feelings type stuff like “attitudes”

3. Lastly, the reasoning for the above seems to be explained partly by ethnicity and genetics. Aside from the very pure-bred upper class Spanish ethnics still ruling much of Latin America, most Latin Americans are Mestizos, Native Americans, or Black/Multi-Racial. This is VERY UNLIKE the majorities in Canada and the United States. The Americans descended from settlers in the U.S. and Canada are ethnically very similar to Europeans after centuries of separation and thus being proud of inclusion with Europeans as an identity is quite easy. This cannot be said of Latin Americans. For, where in the United States and Canada natives were displaced, in Latin America they were integrated and native blood represents the majority of Latin American ethnics.

Hence, per my definition of European peoples in western civilization, it cannot really be said that Latin Americans ethnically represent peoples who held regional majorities during the time of their conversion in the middle ages.


So genetics now define culture? Lol. Black US citizens are now not part of western civilisation either. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Thus for Latin Americans, the Spanish are not REALLY their people in the sense that a white guy in Massachusetts will often be able to say of the English or Germans that settled his hometown. Thus, Latin Americans are prone to see their identity as unique and are susceptible to post-colonial propaganda. The fact that higher class Latin Americans are less likely to be mixed or Mestizo stems from the fact that Roman Catholicism placed greater emphasis on caste and the stifling of class mobility, while also being more open to miscegenation than Protestantism which is more nationalistic and less universalistic in outlook theologically., but ultimately it is how Latin Americans view themselves that has made them different and why I LEAN TOWARDS not including them in the west as my position.

Image


Yes, the class system (another aspect of western civilisation) is quite strong in Latin America. Funny how in this regard, Latin America is much closer to its European roots than North America.

To be frank, I am just going to completely dismiss your very wordy way of saying that only white people are western.

Give me your reasons why you think they should be included and we will have an actual debate, since that is what you claim to really want right? However if you respond with single sentences simply positing that you disagree, well then, I will know you have no intention to debate and I will not longer respond to you.


Latin America shares language, religion, history, legal and political systems, class systems, social mores, and other attributes with other western nations. Just as much as, and in some cases more than, North America.

Latinos also self identify as western.
#14861448
@Victoribus Spolia

1. I stated that only the Crusaders felt united not that the Crusaders were the only ones who knew about the Crusades

2. That is simply not how widescale religious conversions work especially during that period of time. It would even be a stretch to say that the capital become the converted king's religion and it would be more likely that such a king would be overthrown, especially during Medieval times. Medieval kingdoms were not centralized nation states as you see today and influenced their territories based on placing those allied with the king as governors of such territories, sometimes kingdoms didn't even change those who were in power at all. Therefore, not only would the king have to convert (otherwise you just get a Christian Roman Empire situation), but all of those in power would also have to convert. And then that is not promising widescale conversions. That requires cultural, not political change. You can simply take a look at 18th to 19th century Europe or the Middle East to see the issues many former kingdoms had with attempting centralization, a famous example is Spain and Italy.

3. I am aware, that was just an exaggeration on my part however it wasn't conquered by the Turks until 4 centuries later and even after it was conquered it still famously retained high amounts of autonomy therefore it shouldn't have changed much culturally for 4 centuries and 3 more centuries. Anyways that wasn't my main point (which is above it), it was just a small nitpick I had.

4. Then exactly what are those specifications? If it is simply religious then does that mean that if you're a European atheist than you are not a "westerner" and does that notion fit in with the widely conceived notion of what the West is (which you have said is the most important part)?

5. What is your definition then?

6. I honestly am not in the mood to debate. I just had one small shower thought that I may expand into a full post and I just decided to follow it. However that is not to say I don't enjoy debating with you, just that I didn't intend to debate with you.
#14861621
blackjack21 wrote: we do not have confidence our society will survive.


It's a bit ludicrous to be worried about that when we're at the tail end of the span of homo sapien. Conservatives have not yet realized just how badly they've lost the war.
#14862679
Pants-of-dog wrote:So genetics now define culture? Lol. Black US citizens are now not part of western civilisation either.


Good question, what do you think the relationship is? Do you think genetic race plays any part in cultural development, and if so, should we include blacks as part of western civilization? I am very curious about your position on this as I am studying this matter in depth anyway.

Pants-of-dog wrote:To be frank, I am just going to completely dismiss your very wordy way of saying that only white people are western.


Why should that be dismissed?

Oxymandias wrote:If it is simply religious then does that mean that if you're a European atheist than you are not a "westerner" and does that notion fit in with the widely conceived notion of what the West is (which you have said is the most important part)?


Well, there is a difference between how the west is defined as regards it essence as historically manifested (which must include latin Christianity) and those who dwell and are influenced by the western worldview but are no longer part of that civilization. Atheists in someway must qualify for this in someway, there is a sense in which they have rejected the western worldview, or atleast part of it. Remember, civilizations decline and fall even if the human element does not go "literally" extinct. If there is no Christianity in the west, at all, it would be hard to say that such a culture was still western civilization as it came into existence in the medieval period. So very good point to bring up.

Oxymandias wrote:. I honestly am not in the mood to debate. I just had one small shower thought that I may expand into a full post and I just decided to follow it. However that is not to say I don't enjoy debating with you, just that I didn't intend to debate with you.


Thats fine. Good talking to you as always.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Latinos also self identify as western.


Sources?

Sivad wrote:..and Jesus ain't coming back.


Yes, He is.
#14862753
Well, there is a difference between how the west is defined as regards it essence as historically manifested (which must include latin Christianity) and those who dwell and are influenced by the western worldview but are no longer part of that civilization.


Wait. What?

Are you somehow arguing that this thing we loosely refer to as "Western Civilization" is inextricably tied to an orthodox Christian view? And that there are somehow people who do not "belong" to western civilization because they do not embrace "Latin Chritsianity"?

Because you said:

Atheists in someway must qualify for this in someway, there is a sense in which they have rejected the western worldview, or atleast part of it.


The same could be said for those who rejected absolute monarchy, the subservience of women or slavery. Both were accepted by what you call "Latin Christianity".

So when the pilgrims came to the colonies they rejected both Roman Catholicism and Anglican Christianity. What of them? How are they different from Atheists?

Every member of a civilization defines it. Civilization is not a snap-shot. It is a process. Atheists are as much members of Western Civilization as much as I am. I am a practicing Christian. That may make me typical but it does not make me 'more'.
#14862800
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Good question, what do you think the relationship is? Do you think genetic race plays any part in cultural development, and if so, should we include blacks as part of western civilization? I am very curious about your position on this as I am studying this matter in depth anyway.


You already assume the answer as part of your defintion of “western”. It seems odd to also claim that you are studying this in an objective manner.

Why should that be dismissed?


Because it is obvious that black individuals and communities in the US are western.

Sources?


Since you originally made the claim that we do not, this is an obvious attempt to shift the burden of proof.

I will assume that you are doing so becuase you have no evidence for your claim.

If you really wanted to analyse it correctly, you would have to start by recognising that Latin America is host to a whole swathe of different cultures. Like North America, it has always been multicultural since the arrival of Europeans.

The indigenous cultures are obviously not western, but the settler cultures invariaby are.

Anyway, since you disregarded my points concerning Latin America’s western religions, social mores, legal and government systems, ideologies, economic systems, history, and class systems, I will assume that you agree that this makes the settler cultures in Latin America just as western as the US or Canada.

Also, I assume you agree about how colonialism and imoerialism have negatively impacted the region so that it lags behind economically today. And you also agree that this same colonialism inspired Latin American people to develop an anti-colonialism spectrum of different Marxist ideologies.
#14862872
Drlee wrote:Are you somehow arguing that this thing we loosely refer to as "Western Civilization" is inextricably tied to an orthodox Christian view? And that there are somehow people who do not "belong" to western civilization because they do not embrace "Latin Chritsianity"?


Correct.

Drlee wrote:The same could be said for those who rejected absolute monarchy, the subservience of women or slavery. Both were accepted by what you call "Latin Christianity".


Correct, and I approve of the political subordination of women, the allowance of certain forms of slavery, and I do hold to a semi-absolute monarchy. I assume you brought these up to argue from part-to-whole via negative implication, but if you just take a glance of my views as I list on my profile I think you will find that I am quite immune.

Drlee wrote:So when the pilgrims came to the colonies they rejected both Roman Catholicism and Anglican Christianity. What of them? How are they different from Atheists?


When I say "Latin Christianity" I am not referring to Roman Catholicism, but to pro-filioque western Christianity and Augustinian monegism as defining characterisitic in contradistinction from the Eastern Orthodox tradition, Alexandrian (monophysite), and Antiochian (Nestorian) traditions of thought. Protestantism and Roman Catholicism would broadly be considered part of the "Latin Tradition" but certain bodies are more or less consistent with that thought.

Drlee wrote:Every member of a civilization defines it. Civilization is not a snap-shot. It is a process. Atheists are as much members of Western Civilization as much as I am. I am a practicing Christian. That may make me typical but it does not make me 'more'.


Good to meet you brother, I am a bible-believing confessional Lutheran with episcopal sympathies and a former Calvinist.

I understand your point that civilizations grow and progress, that is not my point of disagreement, my point of disagreement is that every civilization has internal characteristics that contributed to its creation and development and are essential to its worldview, western Christianity is one of these essential characteristics along with greco-roman legal and philosophical concepts and nordo-germanic expansive energy, and I do believe there is some ethnic element (to what extent I am still thinking through). If any of these characteristics is abandoned wholesale on a collective basis, the civilization ceases. Civilizations do cease and almost always do without the people actually going extinct.

That atheists share in western civilization in some sense is not denied, but their abandonment of one of its historically defining factors is a sign of social decay and ideological decline in that civilization and their identity as "western" is somewhat more qualified in comparison to the devout Presbyterian.

Oxymandias wrote:So in your view, Christianity is the thing tying the West together and that atheists are at least Western due to being culturally Christian? That seems very similar to the worldviews of several pan-Islamists or religious pan-Arabists.


Probably so. I do not deny some agreements between two groups that share some theological commonalities on a basic level.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You already assume the answer as part of your defintion of “western”. It seems odd to also claim that you are studying this in an objective manner.


Yes, I posited my current definitions in the discussion, but that does not mean I am not curious of your position and am willing to modify my own definitions as thus presented if I find your arguments convincing. I think this is quite objective, and as you claim to want to debate and discuss, here is your opportunity. Answer my question.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Because it is obvious that black individuals and communities in the US are western.


Why is it obvious? Are you implying no demographic difference in behavior at all? How would you account for such anyway, i'm just curious....

Pants-of-dog wrote:Since you originally made the claim that we do not, this is an obvious attempt to shift the burden of proof.


I am not shifting the burden of proof, I gave my reasons as to why I am not personally inclined to include Latin america with western civilization, but you have argued quite boldly the positive claim that Latinos do self-identify as western, I am just asking you to support this. This has no bearing on my reasoning so it is a separate issue. You made a positive claim and such requires evidence to be believed, I am free to dismiss it otherwise.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If you really wanted to analyse it correctly, you would have to start by recognising that Latin America is host to a whole swathe of different cultures. Like North America, it has always been multicultural since the arrival of Europeans.


But the distinction is clear, the U.S. is a primarily white nation and the various ethnic groups have remained fairly distinct racially-speaking. Neither of these facts is true of Latin America, thus there is huge demographic gap between the "settler" peoples, which are undoubtedly western, and the peoples of latin america as they are today. There is a difference here.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Anyway, since you disregarded my points concerning Latin America’s western religions, social mores, legal and government systems, ideologies, economic systems, history, and class systems, I will assume that you agree that this makes the settler cultures in Latin America just as western as the US or Canada.


Who would deny this? That the settlers of both regions were western is not my contention.....is that what you thought? Are you envisioning my position as denying the Spanish and Portuguese as western? If so, i will be forced to question your powers of reading comprehension.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Also, I assume you agree about how colonialism and imoerialism have negatively impacted the region so that it lags behind economically today. And you also agree that this same colonialism inspired Latin American people to develop an anti-colonialism spectrum of different Marxist ideologies.


Hmmmm, I do not necessarily think colonialism is a bad thing (which is a separate issue), but I am curious, why did colonialism as such have the effect it did in Latin America by prompting Marxist reaction (as it similarly did in Vietnam and Central Africa), but did not have this sort of reaction in the United States and Canada, which were likewise colonized peoples?
#14862886
This isn't strictly related but I was thinking earlier that liberalism and conservatism in the west used to be two branches of the same ideology. I'm not sure this is true anymore, they increasingly look like completely different ideologies.

The idea that conservatism is a fundamentally "rear guard" action (and therefore bad) is tied fundamentally to the idea of progressivism, or the idea that the future is always better than the past. If one doesn't believe this to be true, being a conservative is not necessarily a rear guard action because there is no rear.
#14862896
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Yes, I posited my current definitions in the discussion, but that does not mean I am not curious of your position and am willing to modify my own definitions as thus presented if I find your arguments convincing. I think this is quite objective, and as you claim to want to debate and discuss, here is your opportunity. Answer my question.

Why is it obvious? Are you implying no demographic difference in behavior at all? How would you account for such anyway, i'm just curious....


Why should any demographic difference in behaviour mean that they are not part of western civilisation?

Also, how does this relate to your previous claim about genetics being part of the criteria for inclusion in western civilisation?

Blacks in the US have no cultural continuity with Africa, due to the transatlantic slavery trade. Thus, blacks in the US developed their subculture on North America during the colonial era and entirely within the greater cultural milieu of European settlement of North America. It is also important to note that pretty much all of its characteristics exist either as part of western white US culture, such as religion, language, legal and government systems, history, etc. or exist as a reaction to the hegemonic white culture surronding them, such as excelling in arts, sports, or fighting against oppression.

I am not shifting the burden of proof, I gave my reasons as to why I am not personally inclined to include Latin america with western civilization, but you have argued quite boldly the positive claim that Latinos do self-identify as western, I am just asking you to support this. This has no bearing on my reasoning so it is a separate issue. You made a positive claim and such requires evidence to be believed, I am free to dismiss it otherwise.


Please note that I claimed this as a response to your claim that Latinos do not self-identify as western.

This is the claim you have not supported with evidence and are now attempting to shift onto me.

But the distinction is clear, the U.S. is a primarily white nation and the various ethnic groups have remained fairly distinct racially-speaking. Neither of these facts is true of Latin America, thus there is huge demographic gap between the "settler" peoples, which are undoubtedly western, and the peoples of latin america as they are today. There is a difference here.


I am not discussing race. I am discussing culture.

Who would deny this? That the settlers of both regions were western is not my contention.....is that what you thought? Are you envisioning my position as denying the Spanish and Portuguese as western? If so, i will be forced to question your powers of reading comprehension.


If that is what you think I am saying, you are incorrect.

Obviously, Latin America’s western religions, social mores, legal and government systems, ideologies, economic systems, history, and class systems, etc. are a result of being settled by European cultures. But more importantly, there has been a continuityy of these things from Europe, through the colonial era, and into the modern era. There has been no schism nor radical shift away from these basic tenets.

Hmmmm, I do not necessarily think colonialism is a bad thing (which is a separate issue), but I am curious, why did colonialism as such have the effect it did in Latin America by prompting Marxist reaction (as it similarly did in Vietnam and Central Africa), but did not have this sort of reaction in the United States and Canada, which were likewise colonized peoples?


Different historical conditions, mostly. In the developing world, the welath leaving the colonised nation went to another country entirely. While in Canada and the US, the expropriated wealth went to the settler nation that was still within the geographical boundaries of the colonised nation.

Please note that for North America, I am describing a situation where two or more nations exist in a single country, and one is in a colonial relationship with the other.
#14862907
Pants-of-dog wrote:Also, how does this relate to your previous claim about genetics being part of the criteria for inclusion in western civilisation?


This was not a definitive claim, Like I said, how genetics relates to civilization is something I am working though, but I definitely lean towards it having some effect and I think this could help explain difference between latin america and anglo-america and why their inclusion in the west has been subject to some debate.

But you never answered my question, which was: "Do you think genetic race plays any part in cultural development..."
Pants-of-dog wrote:I am not discussing race. I am discussing culture.


But this a main point of our discussion, the relationship of race and culture and how such may or may not be pertinent to the subject of including Latin america with western civilization.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If that is what you think I am saying, you are incorrect.


Then what were you saying?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Obviously, Latin America’s western religions, social mores, legal and government systems, ideologies, economic systems, history, and class systems, etc. are a result of being settled by European cultures.


Sure, but this if this your sole criteria for determining inclusion, excluding racial factors entirely, then why not include the Congolese in Western Civilization?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Why should any demographic difference in behaviour mean that they are not part of western civilisation?


I didn't say one way or the other, I was asking you.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Please note that I claimed this as a response to your claim that Latinos do not self-identify as western.

This is the claim you have not supported with evidence and are now attempting to shift onto me.


No, I posited that post-colonial philosophy implies a differentiation, thus, subscribing to such amounts to self-exclusion from the west. You objected that this was ridiculous because plenty of other countries had problems with being colonized but still identified as western (like Anglo-America), but I retorted that Anglo-America has never ascribed itself to the indigenous subaltern v. western oppressor narrative because they still identified as being European (which is where race came into the conversation), and that academics on such grounds have debated whether to include Latin America in the west because of their own self-identification as a distinct culture.

You only posited, as coutner-evidence, a claim. The claim that "we latinos" identify as western. But, I can only take your word on it without proof. I can't even know that you are really a latino based on that statement since PoFo has us all anonymous. Thus, if I were to take your counter-evidence seriously, I would need to see proof thats all.

You are free to not prove your counter-claim, and I am free to dismiss it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Different historical conditions, mostly. In the developing world, the welath leaving the colonised nation went to another country entirely. While in Canada and the US, the expropriated wealth went to the settler nation that was still within the geographical boundaries of the colonised nation.

Please note that for North America, I am describing a situation where two or more nations exist in a single country, and one is in a colonial relationship with the other.


Can you demonstrate this very interesting claim via evidence?
#14862908
Hong Wu wrote:This isn't strictly related but I was thinking earlier that liberalism and conservatism in the west used to be two branches of the same ideology. I'm not sure this is true anymore, they increasingly look like completely different ideologies.

The idea that conservatism is a fundamentally "rear guard" action (and therefore bad) is tied fundamentally to the idea of progressivism, or the idea that the future is always better than the past. If one doesn't believe this to be true, being a conservative is not necessarily a rear guard action because there is no rear.


Well said. I also intend to post on a thread you started awhile ago about teleological justification in the New Right, which was very thought provoking.

Also....are you a man or a woman?

Thanks.
#14862918
Victoribus Spolia wrote:This was not a definitive claim, Like I said, how genetics relates to civilization is something I am working though, but I definitely lean towards it having some effect and I think this could help explain difference between latin america and anglo-america and why their inclusion in the west has been subject to some debate.

But you never answered my question, which was: "Do you think genetic race plays any part in cultural development..."


No, I do not think genetics plays any significant part in cultural development. Nor would it have any effect on the defintion of western civilisation if it did, because western civilisation encompases many cultures and these diverse cultures are themselves peopled by humans with genetic diversity.

But this a main point of our discussion, the relationship of race and culture and how such may or may not be pertinent to the subject of including Latin america with western civilization.


No, it is not a main point in our discussion. You just introduced it, apparently on a whim.

There is no evidence to support such an assertion, nor any logical reasoning to do so.

Then what were you saying?


I told you.

Obviously, Latin America’s western religions, social mores, legal and government systems, ideologies, economic systems, history, and class systems, etc. are a result of being settled by European cultures. But more importantly, there has been a continuityy of these things from Europe, through the colonial era, and into the modern era. There has been no schism nor radical shift away from these basic tenets.

This continued use of western religions, social mores, legal and government systems, ideologies, economic systems, history, and class systems, etc. supports the idea that Latin American settler cultures are western.

Sure, but this if this your sole criteria for determining inclusion, excluding racial factors entirely, then why not include the Congolese in Western Civilization?


Maybe it should be.

I didn't say one way or the other, I was asking you.


And I answered with a question.

No, I posited that post-colonial philosophy implies a differentiation, thus, subscribing to such amounts to self-exclusion from the west. You objected that this was ridiculous because plenty of other countries had problems with being colonized but still identified as western (like Anglo-America), but I retorted that Anglo-America has never ascribed itself to the indigenous subaltern v. western oppressor narrative because they still identified as being European (which is where race came into the conversation), and that academics on such grounds have debated whether to include Latin America in the west because of their own self-identification as a distinct culture.


And I pointed out that the the indigenous subaltern v. western oppressor narrative is not the only one. There is also the the western subaltern v. western oppressor narrative.

And I also asked for evidence that Latin American cultures self identify as distinct from western cultures, then you attempted to shift the burden of proof onto me.

You only posited, as coutner-evidence, a claim. The claim that "we latinos" identify as western. But, I can only take your word on it without proof. I can't even know that you are really a latino based on that statement since PoFo has us all anonymous. Thus, if I were to take your counter-evidence seriously, I would need to see proof thats all.


If you are going to make assertions without evidence, why should I have to provide evidence for my dismissals of said assertions?

You are free to not prove your claim, and I am free to dismiss it.

Can you demonstrate this very interesting claim via evidence?


Yes, but since I am not interested in doing so, I will not.

You previously claimed that the lack of development in Latin America is evidence of some sort of cultural disparity, which is what prompted this tangent. Feel free to provide evidence for your previous claim.
#14862921
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, but since I am not interested in doing so, I will not.


Ah yes, because you do not like it when the shoe is on the other foot. You do not like being required to source every fucking sentence you post, which is your method of bogging down a conversation. You are refusing to answer questions, are answering questions with questions, etc., this shit you always bitch about....

Therefore, I will address all of the following as such:

"since I am not interested in doing so, I will not."

Conversation over. You never wanted to have it anyway. You are a troll.
#14862925
Sure.

As long as we agree that Latin American settler cultures are a continuous extension of European cultures, that western countries can be in a colonial relationship with other western countries, and that assuming genetics are a significant criteria for inclusion into western civilisation is not supported by logic or evidence.
#14862929
No we do not agree on #1, I never denied #2, and we do not have any conclusive resolution to #3, but the debate cannot continue unless you provide evidence for your positive claims and answer questions when they are asked of you.

You may review your failings on these points in your last post and edit as necessary if you wish to proceed. Otherwise the conversation is over and I DO NOT concede any of the points. Debate is a two way street. Informal discussions such as these follow unspoken rules of mutual abiding that you have broken by refusing to do what you ask of others.

If you want to have a formal debate on these matters, where you will be constrained by the rules, let me know.
#14862932
Victoribus Spolia wrote:No we do not agree on #1,


What is incorrect about my claim?

I never denied #2, and we do not have any conclusive resolution to #3, but the debate cannot continue unless you provide evidence for your positive claims and answer questions when they are asked of you.


I think I was very clear when I completely rejected the notion of genetics being a significant factor in the development of western civilisation and western cultures.

I also pointed out that there is a complete lack of evidence to support the claim that genetics does play a significant role. Nor is there a logical argument for supporting such a claim.

There are reasons for dismissing this claim, such as the genetic diversity of the peoples who are part of western civilisation.
#14862942
Pants-of-dog wrote:What is incorrect about my claim?


I claimed we disagree and the discussion as to whether your claims are correct or not cannot be continued because of your refusal to follow the rules of discourse.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I also pointed out that there is a complete lack of evidence to support the claim that genetics does play a significant role. Nor is there a logical argument for supporting such a claim.


You have demonstrated no such thing because you have refused to produce evidence when required or answer questions when asked; therefore; the validity of any such claims under discussion cannot be further verified via this discussion until the terms set forth by the rules of discourse are satisfied.
#14862943
Victoribus Spolia wrote:I claimed we disagree and the discussion as to whether your claims are correct or not cannot be continued because of your refusal to follow the rules of discourse.


Your unsupported disagreement is noted.

You have demonstrated no such thing because you have refused to produce evidence when required or answer questions when asked; therefore; the validity of any such claims under discussion cannot be further verified via this discussion until the terms set forth by the rules of discourse are satisfied.


People can just read this thread and see that you have not supported the claim (that genetics is a significant factor in cultural development) with evidence or logic.

I'm sorry Hindsite, I laid out the facts in a wel[…]

I definitely appreciate you making a thread in spi[…]

In the video they say that what she did was again[…]

Pope Francis and His Lies

If you consider that God is timeless, omnipotent […]