Can anyone tell us about examples of when Multiculturalism has worked well? - 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 ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#14910442
Oxymandias wrote:@One Degree

Personally I think that polycentric law is the way to go. If we had polycentric law in the Middle East we probably won't have as much problems as we do now.


That was a new term for me so I had to go to Wikipedia. Based upon a cursory reading, it could be either good or bad based upon how it was utilized. For example, if it was used for international business to be judged by it’s own laws, I have serious concerns.
#14910450
Oxymandias wrote:@One Degree

http://www.tomwbell.com/writings/JurisPoly.html

Read this instead. It goes much more in-depth than Wikipedia.

Thanks for the link. I like the idea, but the operation sounds questionable. Namely it relies upon the individuals ability to pay. Our current system is already distorted by this, so this causes me to reject his view. He also seems to rely too much on retaining precedent, which is understandable considering his audience.
I do fully support ostracism and expulsion as needed punishment we currently neglect.
I would favor incorporating some of his ‘vision’ with greater local self determination under statist law.
#14910458
@One Degree

I agree for the most part. The biggest concern is paying since, based on the article, the only way to even access a different legal system is by paying for a lawyer specific to that legal system or paying to see a court which adopts such legal system. This lowers a citizens autonomy and freedom. To fix this, I propose a "legal voucher" system instead. The basic idea is that the government would give a voucher to citizens who want to employ a lawyer or see a case at a court with this voucher covering the full cost for the employment of the lawyer along with the court fees (in contrast with school vouchers). If this doesn't work we can always make lawyers civil servants and lend out their services for free. These civil servants will only be payed when they win a case and there will be waiting lists for the more better reputed lawyers.

That's what I had in mind while reading the article. Polycentric law would be chaos by itself. It would be better off under a common law with this common law being vague and interpretative.
#14910484
Good morning everyone [it's morning for me here].

I see that nobody replied to my post that the definition of Multiculturalism provided is too broad to be useful in the discussion.

1] To include preserving cultural identity in with preserving your culture just muddies the water.
2] And assuming that the nation is still unified after a million new residents have been allowed in is just stupid. [How many of us have watched shows like "Law and Order" and seen the lawyer object saying "he is assuming facts that are not in evidence"? Where in this thread is the evidence that European nations are now still unified enough to make multiculturalism work?]
3] Several people here stated that multiculturalism *requires* that all the cultures included be close enough to each other for it to work.
4] And yet nobody here has ever asserted that western culture (aka European culture) and Islamic culture are close enough to each other for it to work.
5] If #3 is assumed to be true, then the key next question to discuss is "Are European and Islamic cultures close enough to each other for them to be able to form a unified nation". Yet nobody wants to have this discussion. I'm going to guess it is because they realize that it will come down to what different people accept as self-evident facts. And, that disagreeing on the facts will result in accusations of racism, bigotry, and white supremacy. This discussion will not result in a reasoned argument on the evidence of how the different cultures really think, i.e. just what are the elements of the cultures that make them different.


A note to the lurkers and moderators ---
A person who has been at a given forum for a long time can easily call someone a liar and/or a white supremacist while avoiding saying it directly in those exact words. We all can read between the lines when such charges are being made.

In a thread, I said in 2 places in that thread that I am a Progressive American and then in that same thread someone said I was a trolling right wing extremist. That seems like calling me a lair. And yes I have not gone back and reread the thread to get his exact words. That is how I read it at the time.

A note to those who refuse to tolerate racism, etc. ---
It seems to me that you really need to rethink your position at least as it pertains to people you interact with on an internet forum site dedicated to reasoned discussions. Your culture says you must not tolerate racism, etc. Fine. I get that as it relates to real life. And I get it that real life does include things you see on mass media. But, how many people are you protecting by your shotgun attacks on people you disagree with here on this site? Why can't you assume that the lurkers are smart enough to see racism when you point it out politely. Why do you have to go all "I will not tolerate that kind of drivel in any place in my life"?
. . Why can't you see that other people can disagree with you on a few 'facts' without being evil? You demand that all the people who live in Europe tolerate Islamic culture being brought into their nation and into their city. Why can't you tolerate a little disagreement on the 'facts' so that those 'facts' can be discussed here in this small site?
#14910495
Steve_American wrote:Good morning everyone [it's morning for me here].

I see that nobody replied to my post that the definition of Multiculturalism provided is too broad to be useful in the discussion.

1] To include preserving cultural identity in with preserving your culture just muddies the water.


I have no idea what this means.

2] And assuming that the nation is still unified after a million new residents have been allowed in is just stupid. [How many of us have watched shows like "Law and Order" and seen the lawyer object saying "he is assuming facts that are not in evidence"? Where in this thread is the evidence that European nations are now still unified enough to make multiculturalism work?]


The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

If you are claiming that European countries are not unified enough to make multiculturalism work, it is up,to you to provide evidence to support that claim.

3] Several people here stated that multiculturalism *requires* that all the cultures included be close enough to each other for it to work.


I understand why people think this, but I am not sure it is true. The Irish and the French are culturally close to the English, and they were violent enemies until very recently.

You should ask these people for evidence of this.

4] And yet nobody here has ever asserted that western culture (aka European culture) and Islamic culture are close enough to each other for it to work.


Please note that there is no single European culture, just as there is no single Islamic culture.

I bet many European cultures share :any similarities with many Muslim cultures.

5] If #3 is assumed to be true, then the key next question to discuss is "Are European and Islamic cultures close enough to each other for them to be able to form a unified nation". Yet nobody wants to have this discussion. I'm going to guess it is because they realize that it will come down to what different people accept as self-evident facts. And, that disagreeing on the facts will result in accusations of racism, bigotry, and white supremacy. This discussion will not result in a reasoned argument on the evidence of how the different cultures really think, i.e. just what are the elements of the cultures that make them different.


Since that whole conversation would rest on the incorrect assumption that there is a single European culture and a single Islamic culture, the conversation would be pointless.

A note to the lurkers and moderators ---
A person who has been at a given forum for a long time can easily call someone a liar and/or a white supremacist while avoiding saying it directly in those exact words. We all can read between the lines when such charges are being made.

In a thread, I said in 2 places in that thread that I am a Progressive American and then in that same thread someone said I was a trolling right wing extremist. That seems like calling me a lair. And yes I have not gone back and reread the thread to get his exact words. That is how I read it at the time.


:lol:

A note to those who refuse to tolerate racism, etc. ---
It seems to me that you really need to rethink your position at least as it pertains to people you interact with on an internet forum site dedicated to reasoned discussions. Your culture says you must not tolerate racism, etc. Fine. I get that as it relates to real life. And I get it that real life does include things you see on mass media. But, how many people are you protecting by your shotgun attacks on people you disagree with here on this site? Why can't you assume that the lurkers are smart enough to see racism when you point it out politely. Why do you have to go all "I will not tolerate that kind of drivel in any place in my life"?
. . Why can't you see that other people can disagree with you on a few 'facts' without being evil? You demand that all the people who live in Europe tolerate Islamic culture being brought into their nation and into their city. Why can't you tolerate a little disagreement on the 'facts' so that those 'facts' can be discussed here in this small site?


No one is censoring you or refusing to discuss anything with you. No one is calling you a racist.

You are free to discuss your “alternative facts”, like the incorrect claim about no go zones. However, you must also expect people to disagree with those facts or ask you to show those facts are true using evidence.
#14910520
This forum is for discussion and debate, not to cater to your hurt feelings because of some perceived slight. Grow up a bit and answer the rational and logical questions that Pants of Dog posted. You can't simply refuse to talk about the topic because people don't agree with you.

See my signature...
#14910522
With all due respect Godstud,
Both Zam ad Pants-of-dog have said what I am arguing is white supremacist [W-S] bullshit. And then Pants had the gall to claim "No one is calling you a racist". No, he just said I just think like one. [All W-S are a racist, right?]

It isn't "some perceived slight". Not to me.

What he said in that last post is so far off base* I see no reason to forgive and forget and respond to that person.

I hope others will take up the slack.


.* . I replaced the stronger language with this to avoid being warned or edited, etc.
#14910527
Steve_American wrote:With all due respect Godstud,
Both Zam ad Pants-of-dog have said what I am arguing is white supremacist [W-S] bullshit.

? Let's be clear, I don't recall dignifying your crappy racial supremacist statements as an argument. I do recall labeling it as inconsistent, warmed over, Muslim bashing. You won't talk to POD, so any argument there comes from him and not from you. So there isn't really any argument - is there. Typically you offer more falsehoods, not facts.

And then Pants had the gall to claim "No one is calling you a racist". No, he just said I just think like one.

Every once in a while POD gets something right, it's a statistical anomaly.

It isn't "some perceived slight". Not to me.

So? What is it then?

Image

What he said in that last post is so far off base* I see no reason to forgive and forget and respond to that person.

Yet you think people should respond to your whacko BS?

I hope others will take up the slack.

It sounds like what you want is a shill ... not a lot of those around here.

Zam :smokin:

.* . I replaced the stronger language with this to avoid being warned or edited, etc.

I'm not really surprised that you're repressing. It's characteristic of passive/aggressive manifestos.
#14910542
Steve_American wrote:Well Zam,
You just doubled down on your attack on me.
So, I'll add you to the list.
I'm sure that you will never miss anything just because I will not reply to you again, since you already hate me.


They call everyone racist because they have been taught everything is about race. It is infuriating single minded propaganda, but good luck getting them to see it. It is typical of any ‘revolutionary’ movement. Their followers must be motivated by emotion rather than reason. Reasonable people are not going to march in the streets for you. You need the young and the naive to promote propaganda. Yelling ‘racist’ is as far as they prefer their followers go for fear of reason defeating them.
#14910556
Steve_American wrote:With all due respect Godstud,
Both Zam ad Pants-of-dog have said what I am arguing is white supremacist [W-S] bullshit. And then Pants had the gall to claim "No one is calling you a racist". No, he just said I just think like one. [All W-S are a racist, right?]

It isn't "some perceived slight". Not to me.

What he said in that last post is so far off base* I see no reason to forgive and forget and respond to that person.

I hope others will take up the slack.


.* . I replaced the stronger language with this to avoid being warned or edited, etc.


Please continue to not reply to my posts. As it stands, it looks like I am replying to your arguments by disproving them, and you are unable or unwilling to refute my posts. I literally win.

This is actually an attempt to shut down discussions. You accuse others of calling you racist, and then use this as an excuse to avoid discussion, which then shuts down debate. Please note that you have not made a single actual argument since my last post.

So, multiculturalism is not legal pluralism.

But even if it was, we see that legal pluralism has also worked.

The next step would be to look at historical examples of multiculturalism and legal pluralism, and determine which factors cause these to not work.

I would bet that the main reason why they work or do not work is economic.
#14910574
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please continue to not reply to my posts. As it stands, it looks like I am replying to your arguments by disproving them, and you are unable or unwilling to refute my posts. I literally win.

A definitive victory by default !

The next step would be to look at historical examples of multiculturalism and legal pluralism, and determine which factors cause these to not work.

A legitimate proposal ... unfortunately it doesn't involve Muslim Bashing so I don't expect it's going to happen.

Zam 8)
#14916946
Zamuel wrote:
By Zamuel - 01 May 2018 23:15 Posts between 2000 and 4000
Pants-of-dog wrote:
Please continue to not reply to my posts. As it stands, it looks like I am replying to your arguments by disproving them, and you are unable or unwilling to refute my posts. I literally win.

A definitive victory by default !"
. . <snip>. .
- - - - - - - - - - - -

You claim you won a definitive victory.

You won no such thing. I just stopped talking to people who would not listen.
You seem to think that 'winning' means never changing *your* mind.
I and most people define winning' an internet exchange as "changing someone's mind" or several someone's minds.

I also got fed up with stormtroopers being able to insult me and shout me down.
Your fiend implied that I am a Nazi with that cartoon. Yet your actions seem more Nazi like than my expressed opinions.
[Note: I only stand behind what I said, not what you think I said or what you say you think I said.]
#14916987
Steve_American wrote:You claim you won a definitive victory.

No, POD claimed he had won an "apparent" victory. I clarified that as a definitive victory by default.

You won no such thing. I just stopped talking to people who would not listen.

By definition that's a "default."

You seem to think that 'winning' means never changing *your* mind.

This sounds like a Goring size ego behind a Gobbles size mouth.

Image

Why else is it that you can't make a post without a challenge to the consensual basis of language?

Zam :smokin:
#14917035
Steve_American wrote:Zamuel wrote:
By Zamuel - 01 May 2018 23:15 Posts between 2000 and 4000
Pants-of-dog wrote:
Please continue to not reply to my posts. As it stands, it looks like I am replying to your arguments by disproving them, and you are unable or unwilling to refute my posts. I literally win.

A definitive victory by default !"
. . <snip>. .
- - - - - - - - - - - -

You claim you won a definitive victory.

You won no such thing. I just stopped talking to people who would not listen.
You seem to think that 'winning' means never changing *your* mind.
I and most people define winning' an internet exchange as "changing someone's mind" or several someone's minds.

I also got fed up with stormtroopers being able to insult me and shout me down.
Your fiend implied that I am a Nazi with that cartoon. Yet your actions seem more Nazi like than my expressed opinions.
[Note: I only stand behind what I said, not what you think I said or what you say you think I said.]


If younlook in the top right corner of a post, you will see a little button with a speech balloon on it. If you hit that, you will navigate to a replynlage with that post already quoted.

This way, you can use the forum’s embedded quote function instead of doing all this formatting you use. It will also send a notification to the person you are quoting so that they know you are talking to them.
#14917339
Steve_American wrote:....

Multiculturalism is predominant looking back into history.
Sometimes it worked more, and sometimes less, well.

Take for well working for instance the medieval spread of Islam. They where at this time on the top of "Multiculturalism" and drew great advantage from it.
Or take the Habsburg Empire which was as well multicultural as successful.
You also could take the now most powerful nation US for an example, which is formed by "Multiculturalism" more than any other.

I want to ask you for a favour: Can you give an example when it didn't?
#14917346
Multiculturalism where the different cultures were separated is not the same as multiculturalism in the same city. It works only if the cultures have some separation and not forced to abandon cultural traits through common laws.
It can even work in the same city as long as they each have a semi autonomous area to retreat to. Multiculturalism is a lie where they must all agree to common laws. This requires a new culture replace all the old ones.
#14917362
Hartmut,
As I explained in a later reply, the definition of Multicultural is flawed for this discussion.
It includes both keeping your culture and keeping your cultural identity.
The word as I am using it does not include assimilation. Irish Americans keep an identity but obey all American laws. It does not include keeping your culture when it clashes with the host nation's laws.
I am the OP so I get to say what I meant.
It is my clear understanding that many Muslims in Europe want to keep their own laws. In so far as this is what is going to happen then it is not going to work. If the Muslims assimilate then it will work.

And I want to point out that I am speaking only about Europe because America has not bought the Multiculturalism thing.

Maybe Europe should bring in masses of people from Central and South America. I expect they would assimilate better.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 16

Pretty clear France will be taking a leading role […]

He is even less coherent than Alex Jones. My gu[…]

Yes, and it did not order a ceasefire. Did you ev[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

A new film has been released destroying the offici[…]