Kaiserschmarrn wrote:If no culture is objectively superior or inferior to any other culture, then they must be all equal, no?
Not at all.
We can objectively show how two countries differ, by measuring things like the number of people who lack access to clean water or doctors per capita.
At the same time, we introduce our own cultural biases by determining, for example, which questions to ask. When we ask about doctors per capita, we are expressing a bias supporting access to health care, which is a cultural trait.
Of course, the bias expresses itself in many ways. I should not have to tell you how the bias of a researcher can influence even the most rigourous study.
Cheap shot and bad example. This is a universal moral standard. There is no culture or society which doesn't frown upon its children being murdered indiscriminately or doesn't punish the perpetrator.
We can use a different example, if you prefer.
----------------
Sivad wrote:This is a joke, right?
I often approach our dialogues with humour.
To begin with, I'm talking about epistemic rationality, that article is conflating epistemic and instrumental rationality. With epistemic rationality, background assumptions are just as subject to the same objective, universal standards as any of the beliefs or behaviors predicated upon those assumptions. The discovery of the objective, universal principles of rational reason was what allowed Western culture to escape ethnocentrism. All cultures that embrace rationality will eventually converge on core rational principles like civil rights and equality, secularism, democracy, skepticism, etc.
But even instrumental rationality is objective and universal, there's always an objectively best, or most efficient way of achieving any goal, and epistemic rationality determines which goals are the most rational to pursue.
The wikipedia article you cited as some kind of authority, again lol , only offers a very superficial analysis . You should maybe delve into it a little deeper before spouting off. Start with critical thinking, it's the set of clear, objective, universal rules for rationality.
I would say that the portion of the Wikipedia article I quoted not only does not look at the difference between epistemic rationality and instrumental rationality, but also does not look at the differences between the different types of rationality that are each unique to philosophy, economics, sociology, psychology, evolutionary biology, game theory and political science. But the use of background assumptions is common to all of these, including epistemic rationality.
And while these assumptions may also be subject to critical assessment, they are not, by definition, since they are assumptions. And it would be impossible to actually critically assess all these assumptions anyway.
Even if we
assume, as you do, that objective, universal principles of rational reason exist, and also
assume that epistemic rationality is capable of discovering these objective, universal principles of rational reason, such a pursuit would still be subject to the same subjective biases and assumptions that have influenced every other human project ever.
Speaking of humour, I found your ethnocentric boast (about how western cultures have superseded ethnocentrism through objective, universal principles of rational reason) to be amusing.
——————————
Political Interest wrote:I don't understand what this statement means. It may be the case that by experiencing MC he understands it's weaknesses.
Then I have experienced its strengths and my opinion should be just as valid as his.
How have either of you benefited from multiculturalism?
@Decky put it more bluntly than I, but he was essentially correct in that we (@Albert and I) both had more economic opportunities in Toronto, in the private market and in terms of government benefits.
But this is the very point of the issue. Multiculturalism is working in Canada because people there are fundamentally liberal minded. It is a Western English and French speaking country. And New Zealand is very similar, liberal and English speaking. Both countries are also very wealthy with lots of land. And multiculturalism is not yet as advanced as it could be in either of them. Both are still fundamentally European based societies.
Well, other than the economic argument, I have seen no evidence that Anglo countries or liberal countries or large countries fare better than others in terms of successful multiculturalism.
Toronto may be wonderful and a nice place to live but try living in London. It's multicultural and it is hardly an ideal city.
Well, Toronto is
more multicultural and it is a great place to live. If the argument is that cities will suffer as they get more multicultural, then Toronto should be worse than London. It is not.
What is possible in Canada may not be possible everywhere. The UK is a fundamentally dangerous and violent place. It has never been a very stable or cohesive society. Introducing multiculturalism only makes it worse.
I believe that Canadian multiculturalism, as it presently stands, only works because of high economic prosperity and plenty of land.
I have no reason to believe that population density has any impact on the success or failure of multiculturalism.
As I said before, it works under certain conditions. Canada has a lot of land, the people are well off and Canada is hardly multicultural in the most advanced sense.
Places like Toronto are far more multicultural than the UK or anywhere else in the developed world.
—————————
Conscript wrote:The short answer is no, there isn't. There are no examples of multicultural democracies in history. It's a recipe for decreased pluralism, state growth, and centralization.
Please note that at least one example of a successful multicultural democracy was mentioned in the OP.
——————————
Steve_American wrote:Well, Pants-of-dog is still not man enough to admit he was wrong.
I wonder what the adjective for a male who is not man enough to admit faults is? Wimp isn't right and neither is sissy.
Too bad he can't admit faults.
First let me remind all the Lurkers and guests that the 2 sides are talking past each other in this thread. One side uses Multiculturalism as like the Irich in America celebrate St. Patrick's Day every year, and the other side uses the word to mean what I called XYZMC, that is where 2 plus cultures live in the same nation and have significant differences in the laws they live under.
. . The 1st side uses Canada as an example, but Fr.Canadians are not that much different from the other Canadians.
. . OTOH, Canada has been more open recently and I really have no idea what the new situation is there with respect to other ethnic immigrants.
. . The same sort of thing goes for Louisiana. The Fr. American elements there are maybe not that different from the rest of Americans. The laws are maybe not that much different. For example in France IIRC, once you are charged with a crime it is up to you to prove you are innocent. I may be wrong, but I don't think this is true in Louisiana. If it is true there, then America is an example of XYZMC that is working [sort of well. I add this because I'm appalled by recent actions by the President, etc.]
Can you give an example of multiculturalism so that we can all be clear on what exactly you mean by multiculturalism?
When I asked you to define multiculturalism, you described legal pluralism. I then gave examples of that working.
You are now confused, and you think I am arguing that these are examples of the sort of multiculturalism that involves the Irish in the USA. I am not, since we are using your definition and not the commonly accepted one.
So, Pants-of-dog, an example of European Muslim Immigrants working to have their own set of laws in the use of Sharia Law in UK and elsewhere. So far it appears to be voluntary, but their desire to bring their laws into Europe is clearly seen here.
Please note that you have not presented any evidence to support this claim.
You really should thank @Sivad for doing your work for you. He posted an article from the Telegraph.
Please note that these “courts” are basically just another voluntary arbitration system. These already exist in many ways and for many reasons. Some are religious, others are not.
So, this shows us two things:
1. It is no more coercive than any other voluntary arbitration system and only works if both parties consent to the system.
2. It looks like another example of multiculturalism as you have defined it. Since the UK seems just as successful as always, it seems to answer your OP question.
. . There are also many videos of or about so called no go areas in a few European nations. These videos are evidence even if you reject them as biased. If you label them as "fake news" then you are just rejecting the evidence without studying it. These videos are evidence of some Muslims in Europe working to live under their own laws because if the police can't go into neighborhoods then clearly the police can't enforce the normal national laws there.
Please provide evidence for your claim that there are no go zones in Europe. Thank you.