Male Privilege

I don't necessarily care if you share my vision or not, and to be honest: I don't expect you to because here's the definition of derailing:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/derail

" To come or bring to a sudden halt" So tell me, my "friend", in what way did I derail the topic? In other words, when did I bring it to a sudden halt? I only expanded the conversation to include similar factors, discussions and effects.

The fact that others have also made this absurd charge implies to me the American Education failure. Its not possible for several of my generational peers to engage in a conversation from Point A to Point B. Its only possible for many of them apparently to stay on Point A and rehash it ad nauseam.

You see, the conversational transition is no different from the transition from addition to subtraction to multiplication.

The only way I could derail this conversation is to bring something that cannot be logically linked to the discussion, and feminism and its effects can quite easily be linked.

And the facts haven't been proven false, they've been politically shut down. Do you want to know what also was politically shut down? Tobacco Warnings. Is there a link between Tobacco smoking and Lung Cancer? Absolutely. Do people know this? No, but with that little stamp on the side of the cigarette carton, companies can proclaim they're warning consumers(even though they wouldn't care to look at the
side of a 6 inch carton box)

Also, your version of being objective also speaks of Liberalism. Your idea of being objective is me outright submitting to the other person's argument. This fourm is virtually an academic setting and in academic debates you'll be very surprised with the tone of most debates.

When I proclaim Feminism to be self sabotaging, when I proclaim that Feminists who adhere to it are akin to drug addicts who can't even see what they're doing to themselves, let the record be known that there are a few vocal voices(one of whom I posted earlier) who actually agree.

Furthermore, in calling Loli and Gal Feminists, it's a tag that they wear with pride. By golly, Loli still believes they're defending some unknown right. In fact, women today are more disadvantaged than ever(Of course, by their own doing)

And Gizgal believes quite hilariously that men are privileged.

In closing, you were completely and utterly wrong in your attacks on me. I never derailed the conversation, because I didn't link male privilege with anything of irrelevance. If we speak of male privilege, of course we must speak of female privilege which of course leads to feminism, and their after effects.

And the manner with which I referred to our participants, isn't your concern. It's theirs. And they seem to hold their positions with as much vigor. If they feel the need to complain, I surely hope they will let me know.

First, I will just clarify some of your assumptions:
- I am not from USA.
- English is not my mother tongue.

Second, language is not a static thing that never changes and it varies from one country to another. In my language, "derail" refers to "change the direction of something" and it does not need to be abruptly like "being unrelated", the change can be subtle.

You might be right that due to context in another language (eg English) maybe is not the best word, but as I said, in this context in my mother tongue "derail" is the right word for it. The discussion is going away from the main topic, just have a look at these unrelated posts of what you, me, they, we are saying. Again, in my opinion, bringing up the topic of abortion and breast cancer is derailing the main topic which was (I say "was" because I am no longer sure if still is) "Male Privileges". If you don't agree with me it is okay, but that does not mean I have a very low or poor education. That statement of yours is another careless attack, this time against me, trying to prove me wrong because of my education, which you assumed it was American in first place, and to be honest I do not understand why.

The fact that you do not care about what other are saying and think about the topic is another proof of you believing you are the only one right here. Discussion are not one side based, you have to acknowledge what the other side is saying, you can agree or not, but you cannot not care about it because if you do then the discussion is pointless.



See? This is another proof of you being on a defensive stance. I was not attacking you, I was giving my opinion about your opinion, which as I said "I do not share it and in my opinion is wrong" because you "do not present your opinion as a possibility, but as an universal truth". I do not have any problems saying "Ok, I was wrong" when I am wrong, I think I said it a few times before in my previous posts and that is because I consider I do not hold absolute truth and that I might be wrong in what I think about a specific topic. Again, this post and the following ones (I am sure there will be more) it is derailing the topic, since we are not talking about the topic "Male Privileges" or anything related to it.

Regarding Loli and Giz being feminism, being proud of it and you "pointing it" out, again, I am sorry, but I do not agree with you. In my opinion, you are carelessly attacking them and labelling them in a bad way, being feminism is not a bad thing if you know where the line is drawn. Giz may not know where it is (and I might be wrong), but as far as I have read Loli, at least it seems she knows where it is. Anyway, that does not make them bad or anything, it is just another way of seeing things and thinking, which must be always respected, if you do not do it, then there is no point in continue with a "discussion", which in truth is just free attacks against to the different posters when they do not agree you. I do care about how you refer to them, or any other poster, since I cannot withstand people who freely attack others or tries it. For instance, you succeed with Giz, but failed with Loli. If you have paid attention, I strongly disagree with Giz opinio, but that does not give me right to do the what you are doing and saying.

In conclusion, you are constantly attacking others to try prove them wrong and reinforce your believes. You do not care about other opinions, so there is no point in continue this "discussion". The discussion derailed to unrelated topics, such as "breast cancer", "abortion" and "personal attacks". However, you are right in one thing, my knowledge of other languages (in this case English) is still not enough good compared to my first language.

Here's a novel concept, just because someone disagrees with someone or something doesn't mean they hate it. I know that's a difficult concept in these contentious years as politics has become increasingly polarized and everyone is battening down the hatches.

Feminists such as yourself rail against "privileges" which most of the time is a stand in for white, heterosexual, male, privilege. Such privileges that are only enforced by society, if they even exist at all. However, these individuals who shake their fists towards this evil cabal of "The Patriarchy" demand that we (heterosexual, white males or males in general) give up our perceived privileges. Those individuals are then able to enjoy the rewards of legally mandated privileges for their particular minority (Gender, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, etc). Privileges that are engrained in our laws that have as their final enforcement, killing. Any other form of enforcement such as a fine or restriction of action is backed up by killing. Let's say a business owner doesn't want to hire individuals of a particular minority for whatever reason. The company will either be forced to hire the individual, grant them special privileges and protections because they were initially discriminated against or be fined harshly for their hiring practices. If the business owner refuses to cooperate, they will be arrested for violating this arbitrary law and if they resist further he will be shot and probably killed. This is obviously an extreme example as it most likely will never go that far. Either the "discriminated" individual will suck it up and go find a job somewhere else or the business owner would cave the moment the government sent them a stiffly worded letter.

At least my "privileges" are not enforced at the point of a gun.

Firstly, an apology is due about my assumptions of your nationality. That's me forgetting that this in many ways is a universal and international site and thereby forum(Where we gather for 'reasons' other than debate. This is just a nice little perk to have when we aren't wanking off). So I was wrong there.

Secondly, in America or at least among high level scholars and intellectuals, topics are not one linear in principle. That's typically a high school setting(Because a teenager can't even pay attention in class, let alone having the comprehension to understand the depth of a conversation).

Here's a little chart for you:

Male Privileges> Female Privileges>Feminism> The effects of Feminism on society.

We did not deviate from the main topic, we expanded on it. And eventually we do find ourselves coming back to the main point. If the conversation seems to have changed, it's as I said before: We've beaten the original point(Male Privileges) to death. There is no such thing, when you find that FPOD and Lustful Angel agree fundamentally on at least that, you know pretty well that the debate has been significantly lost.

Now tell me, is there any purpose in us repeating, and constantly pointing out that in 2013, there aren't any "Male Privileges". To the contrary, the effects of 1969 have been negative on the U.S. Economy, particularly the Main Street Economy(IE: Average working American citizens). Wall Street's getting off quite fine with the added production and thereby pay of women.

So, if as they proclaim they were held in suffrage by the men due the one worker system, they are now most surely held in suffrage by banks and corporations. They will argue that these high ranking positions are held by "men"(Which is true)

But by the average man? By the blue collar husband? No, by quite literally the top 1%(Let's say about 100 men. America has a population of 300 million Americans. The population is roughly split, slightly leaning to females so lets say there are
146 million Male citizens. Of those 146 million. Only 100(One Hundred) can be said to be economically "discriminating" against them.

My mother most recently pointed out the costs of Day Care, etc. These costs can only rise due to the static expectation of higher incomes in two household families.

But let's be clear: They aren't even discriminating against women, their practices are "ethically lawful". That is to say, the current main street ecoeconomic system was gamed to their advantage. How can one prove that the increasing prices are due
primarily to women in the work force?

Furthermore, proving it would utterly damper the Feminist movement, in fact it'd be the death kneel. It was as if the prior generations only thought of the money and self interest and wasn't listening to their husband's complaints about long working hours, taxation and the ever annoying higher up boss.


Yeah, they're now learning those complaints weren't "small". Infact, they're much bigger now thanks to this dynamic. I don't want to make feminists out to be the economic version of what Jews were for the Nazis, but damn. Can you imagine if we had kept the one worker system?

The demand is likely lesser on gas and transportation(due to women staying primarily at home or working primarily half time hours). This means gas prices have
dropped dramatically. If you can imagine, without the advent of disgusting open sexuality(promoted by Margret Sanger, among other radicals) many of them wouldn't be single mothers today! Food prices would drop, so would day care, ETC.


When some feminist activists ask for "flexible working hours", in reality this would be returning back to females occupying part time jobs(Only with much higher pay.) Now, this makes a lot more sense. Females would get economic opportunity but the vultures of wall street couldn't possibly exploit it. It would be all the more apparent, and all the more unfair considering the female works a half time job(even if more than properly compensated for it) as compared to the male.


They really weren't thinking and they don't think about their revolution. Reactionary in its premise, degrading in its core. Feminism is a big bust.

Now, with respect to your country you may have different ideas on what an attack constitutes. But you're really the first(and only person) who has had much of a problem in this particular thread. And that is because I didn't attack Loli nor Gal as individuals.

I attacked their position(More accurately, in the form of court this would be called cross examination). Also, you took excessive liberties in your translation of what I was saying to you: I was saying I didn't care for what YOU were saying to me, never once did I say I didn't care for what Loli or gal had to say.

Just that they(and by extension Modern Feminism) is very illogical, if it wasn't illogical when their revolution began(They had some finer points certainly. But as I prove in this post, they should've focused primarily on these points. Our social ecological economic system would be better for it. Feminism's outreach went too far, destroying both genders in the process.)

If anything, you should have a beef with Loli if you want to pertain to this pointless crusade of yours. She said that my comparison of feminists(as a self degrading and totally destructive group) to mutilation made me a "Poor, degenerative being."

If you'll notice, I never went on the defensive to her words or even so much as cared for them. In American political debate, such extremes(especially from a group whose core actions need ever more defense because they surely cannot be logically justified) have always been taken.


My calling out the immaturity of the group(as well as the immaturity of the participants arguments) is a very small, very small offense in the texture of American debate. I'm sure FPOD would agree that I've conducted myself rather properly in the context of our nation's often heated debating platform.

If, it's to be proclaimed wrong to not be so high keen on their beliefs as feminists, then do know(as they've exclaimed) that they're not so highly keen(and they probably never will be) on modern society.

You also got a lesson in American Corruption. There really aren't that many true charities in this country, even the most "benefic" corporation has a corrupt slime ball who focuses on the money.

Warnings to the public health about safety? Hah. What of the "Swine Flu" epidemic? Where the ratio from vaccine to patient was that there were several times more vaccines than actual patients.

Propaganda, for the purpose of drugging the people for god knows's what purpose. And this kind of thing? Is common among Western business titans.

This is so location specific as well. I may be a white male but I've done some traveling around the world, and while being a white male has certain advantages in maybe europe, or north america, it is very different in china, or japan or africa. It's night and day to the benifits that you recieve.

Illegal immigrants are not getting jobs legal citizens want. They are mostly doing farm work, which pays is labor intensive, pays little, and has long hours. And in states that enact strict anti illegal-immigration polices those jobs are left unfilled. And i also found this article, which shows Arizona's strict polices have hurt its economy.

Also, since you are staunchly pro-life, do you support deporting all children of illegal immigrants even if they have lived here basically all their lives?Because if so, i think there is a contradiction their.



I grew up with both my parents worked, and it worked out fine.



Im pretty sure the worst punishment the business owner in your hypothetical example would get is prison time. And are you saying a business owner should be able to discriminate against a minority in their hiring practices without any legal consequences?

Also, the supreme court ruled racial quotas unconstitutiona, so a individual would have to prove they were discriminated solely because of their race and not lack of appropriate qualifications.Which goes back to my question about whether you feel a business owner should be legally able to discriminate based on race

You have absolutely no right to talk about illegal immigration considering you are an illegal immigrant. There is not a single person outside of africa that is not an illegal immigrant.

I'm guessing you live in north american and even if you want to count native americans as truely native even thought they came across the land bridge from asia, your forfathers didn't land with visa's and passports to show the natives.

People are humans, humans are from earth. People who believe in countries and races, don't have a place to live on this planet.

Its not a contradiction, it is the responsibility of the parent to take care of the child. If a parent cannot take care of a child, she shouldn't have one. The likes of Margret Sanger(and other radicals) would like to burden the U.S. Economy with their idea of "Sexual Freedom."

Also, we have to be careful when people speak economically of "downturns"(IE:Lowering House prices), many of these people are still caught in the false economic dynamic that your House is an asset, that it provides net worth.

http://www.nation.co.ke/Features/saturday/Your-home-is-not-an-asset/-/1216/1674726/-/dxmad6/-/index.html

It's also noted that the reason most Americans have struggled in the farming industry is the move to a technological economy. Soon, even the illegals won't have this job anymore and instead computer operated machinery(think those moving hands) will do the trick.

Not only that but illegal hiring also pushes out these very LEGAL Americans

http://www.fairus.org/issue/illegal-aliens-taking-u-s-jobs





Before or after the Second Great Recession? Even during the Great Recession of the 80's, I bet gas barely topped at around $1.50. Food prices similarly were tame compared to what they are today. A pair of T Bone steaks can cost up to $15 bucks in your local supermarket!





Did you even read the court ruling? Remember when I said the U.S. Supreme Court has become politicized and essentially worthless? Reading this ruling affirmed that. The TLDR version is that not that it was wrong to make a judgment based on race, but to declare you made that judgment. You can still use "Affirmative Action" to
put "Minority workers" into significant positions, just don't be stupid enough to let the candidate know he's being passed over because he's white, male, etc.


Because, how else can the candidate suggest he was being discriminated due to his race? The only way he could even vaguely make the case is if the place of employment is clearly biased towards a certain race or ethnic group.

I know, like Black Colleges, the Black Congressional Caucus, ETC. Or even the NAACP. Is there a White person on their board?

Racial Bias exists, not due to "discrimination" but due to the natural tendency for social groups to get together. It's usually in these social groups that exhibit ironically the most peace.

With the sad exception of African Americans:

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2013/02/06/african-american-dressed-in-kkk-hood-on-street-corner-sparks-controversy-in-philadelphia/

While I highlighted the situation as it pertains to African Americans, we already know that Latinos are quickly taking advantage of the system as well, with La Raza across the Mexican/California Border.

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2013/02/texas-student-punished-for-not-reciting-pledge-to-mexican-flag-2589570.html

And our politicians idea of reform is to allow illegal immigration to become legal(A new Dream Act if you will), so long as vague promises about border protection are made.

I believe in proper legal immigration channels and making those channels easier to access, thereby curbing illegal immigration. I believe said efforts would be mitigated by "forgiving" 11 million criminals.

And as far as the problems relating to some of the social issues surrounding minorities. I plan to make a post about my political and national beliefs on "diversity"




So you just advocated for genocide of the entire human population(Because everyone lives in a country(even despotic second and third world ones), everyone believes in their country and sadly yes:

Race does in fact exist, it is a part of our biological and genetic makeup. We can claim to be separate all we want, but our families also share the same biological, genetic make up. And share the same social values and beliefs of our ancestors before us.

Does it have to be a social factor in our decision making? No and Yes. We'd like to believe we have individual value, but that value differs from person to person, born in utterly different social structures.

An African American for example might be a very intelligent young man, but the generation of "men" before him have made his road quite difficult among employers. Hell, even this intelligence could possibly be a facade(Hence when on an interview
they ask you to 'dress professionally')

The only way for our individual value to stand out irregardless of race would be to be among others of our same races. OR, for all races to share the same values.

Generally, we'd like to believe that we do: To be happy, successful, etc. But our differing political viewpoints, our differing social lives indicates a reality far different from a liberal's imagination.

These differences are real, exist and will continue to influence our lives. Not because of some biased or evil dogma, but because its a logical survival mechanism.

You have asbolutely no understanding what it means to be human. Do you know who albert einstien is? Likely you do because he is the most famous scientist, which if you know anything about him, you'd know that he believed like john lennon in a world without borders or countries, a world where people don't see race but see humans.

Nationalism and partiortism is a corruption of the mind and a disease of the human race. I live in a country because I am forced to be divided from my fellow human beings by corrupt ideas around the world on how the world should work.

I do not believe in my country because I am not an idiot. I believe in humanity, I believe in the human species, in homosapiens. I believe that one day I will be able to travel to america without a passport, to travel anywhere in europe, china, africa, anywhere, even to other planets without needed to register myself as an individual of a segregated social hierachy but to appear as a human with basic human freedoms.

This is why you are wrong. I am a human and it is my right as a human to be able to travel where I want and live where I want. It is people like you that prevent such rights from happening.

I'm guessing you're an american, and if that is true and you claim to have the same values as your ancestors, then you are really misguided. Because we all know what the slogan of american has always been. America: Home the brave, land of the free.

And there is no freedom when humans are unable to travel.

Such a world is illogical, I don't know of what nationality that you came from but I can assure you, you learned things from your parents, who in turn learned from their parents and the generations learned from their peers.

Get it? This social structure has been the basis of Humanity since the dawn of its origins. If I'm to draw it so painfully obvious to you, birds build nests in the trees. Ants have their colonies, bees live in bee hives.

A world without nations and borders, is a world where a singular identity doesn't in fact exist. The singular can only be created by the individual, collectivism failed and always has failed.

One might call a country collective, but that's only true insofar as it's neighbors. The individual relates to the neighbors and as such, feels a sense of brotherhood(or sisterhood) among his or her peers.

True collectivism, lies in Marxist principles, such as the ones you describe where there's no borders, where nationality is a "disease".

Tell me, should humans live outside of the house? That is to say, should we somehow make a living out on the street in a similar fashion to roaming animals such as the tiger in the desert?

We have the fortune in our ecosystem at this day and age to have homes that are relatively secure. Depending on the climate and natural weather disasters pending of course. But if an animal could comprehend human affairs, and compare it to the simplicity of how they live in the exact same ecosystem I know what they'd be asking:

"What the fuck is up with Humans?" And I still can't answer why we'd destroy our OWN perfectly workable ecosystem which is copied from animals to plants.

Don't pay your taxes, get a letter saying "pay your taxes" plus a fine. Don't pay the fine, you'll receive a court summons. If you don't show up you'll be tried In Absentia which doesn't matter because you'll be found guilty and sent to prison. If you resist being sent to prison the local law enforcement will arrive to take you to prison. If you resist further they will call in a S.W.A.T. team to arrest you. If you continue to resist they will shoot you.

It's a basic argument about the state. Any law has killing as it's final enforcement. Now, I did clearly state that it probably wouldn't go that far as the business owner would probably cave the moment he received the threat of legal action against him. However, it is very much possible for the sequence of events I listed above to occur resulting in someones death.



Yes, the business is private property belonging to an single individual and is not distinguishable from a person's home. As I can discriminate against who may enter my yard, home, car, etc then the same should apply to my business as they are all private property. By supporting such an "anti-discrimination" law, you are in essence supporting a death threat against myself or any business owner as per the steps highlighted above.

With that being said, do I believe that such individuals should not be allowed to get away unscathed? No, I do not. Let's say that Chik-Fil-A held a policy that discriminated against homosexuals from working there or even buying their food. I wouldn't spend my money there because I believe discrimination is asinine and immoral. Any company that puts more emphasis on race,sex,creed,etc over qualifications isn't a business I'd support. I do the same for some local restaurants that forbid guns on the premises or display signs for political candidates or groups that I do not support. However, I am not so self-righteous that I think death threats from the government should be used against them.



To this, I reply with Ricci v. DeStefano. A group of white firefighters presented the U.S. Supreme Court with a case that challenged conventional notions of bigotry. They argued that the city of New Haven, Conn., discriminated against them in 2003 when it threw out a test that white firefighters passed at a 50% greater rate than blacks. Because performance on the test was the basis for promotion, none of the blacks in the department would have advanced had the city accepted the results.

To avoid discriminating against black firefighters, New Haven discarded the test. By making that move, however, the city prevented the white firefighters eligible for promotion from advancing to captain and lieutenant rank.

That is an externality of such discrimination laws, qualified people are not properly promoted or rewarded because people fear lawsuits.

Nothing you say here makes any sense.

I am canadian, but moreso, I am a human. I learned this partly from my parents who and my grandparents who did not always believe this. They learn and their opinions change. If your logic would be true, then I would have to trace my roots, and being that my fathers side is nothing but racist americans, I would be a slave owning, indian killing, white supremist. But that is not the case. You are not what your parents believe, you are what you believe. You later state that globalizing would destroy individuality but the opposite would be true.

Everyone would have a singular identity more than you can claim. Because unlike what you failed to prove. I would not be judged as a canadian, or an american, or british, or chinese, or african or whatever nation I came from, I would be judged as a human, I would be judged by who I am not where I'm from.

You are a person would be solely responsible for your appearence to the world. I would not be consided some white male canadian, and any stereotypes that go along with it, I would be considered, as my account name shows, Jacob.

There should be no collective, because a collective implies ownership and ownership is exactly what a country is. Your botherhood and sisterhood feeling should not imply just to your neighbours and immediate family, that is ignorant. That is claiming that believe those people are more important than all humans. Why is it that you can't feel a sense of connection with all humans.

Our ecosystem is not copies of animals and plants. What if I want to live a life where I travel all the time, should I be afraid of it? Should I be limited to doing so? Should I be forced to spent millions of dollars getting tied up in legal fees and be afraid for my life that people might kill me should I travel?

Our ecosystem is broken, humans are the only species on the planet that destroys the natural environment for our own needs. Birds live in nests, bees live in bee hives but you don't see birds chopping down trees and clearing whole rain forests to live, now do you?

Your whole outview on life is flawed here. And you are contradicting yourself.

You are defending a position of close mindedness. You want to restrict my freedoms for no just reason.

It's prominent to mention community but each community has a structure to it, it always has leaders, when communities get together they eventually become states, and states become countries. Government is a representation of the base community. And what your community is saying is that I am not welcome there without paperwork, money, similar beliefs, specific education, sworn loyalty to it's leaders.

So instead of celebrating the individual, we are destroying it by labeling it, documenting it, and forcing it to meet criteria. That is not freedom.


Edit:

So I do have to ask you something or a series of things.

How great would it be to have free high speed internet, how great would it be to be able to go to the food market and not pay a penny for the food you eat. How great would it be to take the bus for free to and from work, or to be able to drive around in a car without opening your wallet for gas money. How amazing would be be to go spend a month in rome to see all the sites without spending money. How about taking a road trip from the most southern point of south american to the north pole?

These types of things are all achievable with our resources. We have the capability to do all this and more but we don't. We can reduce the population of the planet by making resources easily available. It's scientifically and historically proven that people with wealth produce less children.

What it boils down to is greed, pure evil greed and if you think that there is no reason that we shouldn't be able to do these things, than you have some mental issues. By denying this you are saying that we should let people in africa who are starving die, you are saying that we should not try to cure aids, or hiv, or cancer, that we should not strive to perfect ourselves as a species but be consumed by unnecessary rules and by oppressive governments and be labeled.

It only goes to prove my point that the people who believe in ideas like this, tend to be the brightest minds on the planet, like albert eintien, stephen hawking, nokola tesla, carl sagan.

The human brain categorizes everything. When someone looks at you their brain will immediately try to fit you into a category as a biological defense mechanism. This helps our brains recall information about food, threats, etc. Even something as mundane as your accent or speech pattern will be categorized and judged. The world you speak of simply won't happen unless we biologically alter ourselves to remove this function of our brains. Let's say you're from the Maritimes and you speak to someone from another region, country, etc. You'll be pegged as "foreign" and their brains will go in defense mode to some degree or another. Even if we dissolved all nations, borders, etc people will naturally segregate themselves into communities from those who are different. Rich people prefer other rich people, middle class prefer middle class, Sunni's prefer Sunni's, Shi'ite"s prefer other Shi'ites, etc.

It's simply an evolutionary trait

In comparison to Britain, Germany and Japan's conquests, in comparison to France's era under Napoleon Bontaparte, should I list the countless others? Mao Mao in China, Stalin's Soviet Union?

And the only thing negatively on our resume is a war with Native Americans and the African slave trade?

And at that, Native American culture and rural areas are protected by U.S. Federal Law! http://www.infoplease.com/toptens/indianreservations.html

Should the U.S. Government make more of an effort? Yes, and particularly in the manner of nationalizing native Americans as American citizens. If Native Americans were nationalized, that would be productive for the Indian Reservations, which in turn would be a boost for the American Economy.

I'd rather nationalize Native Americans, then illegal immigrants.

Furthermore, never did I say that you *were* your father, I'm sure your father taught you some things that were very valuable. Even as you assimilate the various factors of knowledge into your being, you are still an individual person.



This segment here identifies your intellectual shortcomings. A man is not judged by his nationality, but his identity is forged in part by it. The community from which he(or she) was raised, brings pride to that person(or at least it should). The fact that you want to so utterly distance yourself from it(and you extend this desire of yours into a world view) shows how you dislike your nationality and thereby your own relatives.


In such a world where the base of a family, a place from which he may be born is irrelevant and inconsequential, there is nothing for the human race to stand on. In this world, an era of materialism even beyond that of what we presently see would take place.

Because there is no spiritual value without a home, without a community and without a bond to said community. Because if you believe all of humanity can bond "as humans", you utterly disregard again their individuality.

Humanity will bond when they accept their individuality, your idea is to destroy that very individuality. And there's a complete difference between tolerance and acceptance.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/acceptance

"3. Favorable reception; approval"

And here's Tolerance:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Tolerance


"a. Leeway for variation from a standard."


Do you see the utter difference from making "leeway for a variation from a standard" and favorable reception and approval?

In other words, if you could get gays and straights to see what they do have in common: IE: The love for their partners, under that common understanding comes acceptance.

But when you force straights to accept gays, just because it's their "right",disposition will eventually occur and lead to (at worst) violent opposition. For gays and straights to be recognized, the straight majority of
the people had to move in that direction(if they wanted to) on their own.



This presumes the faulty notion that a world without borders would subconsequently mean a world without stereotypes. I have some pretty disappointing news for you: Irregardless of our nationality we are humans and humans have stereotyped and will continue to stereotype.

http://www.beyondintractability.org/bi-essay/stereotypes

Note in none of the solutions, do they propose to wipe the world 'clean' of the problem of negative stereotypes. But rather, encourage the use of positive stereotypes(which generally enable us to get a glimpse into other societies) while engaging in reform.





Arguing with you is incredibly dense, you do know we have this thing called globalization right? Of course it's more than possible to connect with all humans,and many of whom will become our dear friends. But we *should anyway* try
to hold a more special bond to those of us who are closest, who've raised us and
who through the bond of a connection believe that we deserve the best of what we can give each other.

Also, in a country where there are 300 million Americans and maybe 500 hundred representatives in both chambers of government, I would ask you to please refrain from calling a country a collectivist borghive. We are not yet Soviet. Our economy hasn't been privatized.

And it should be noted that under an oligarchy economy, it is not the people whom make the country that dominates and plunders the general goods and services. Its those in wealth!

What does a country 'own', what is a country made up of? A collective group of individual human beings with their own individual preferences and desires.

The country owns nothing, it is the people whom own the country. This is the very foundation with which the Declaration of Independence was written.

However, there can't be a country if individual people do not identify themselves as such. But without an identity(and no, human is not an identity. Its a very vague one at best. Human, my first and last name. Seriously?) Humanity cannot survive.

And if we can't love our families, or love ourselves we cannot love the whole of humanity as you wish to do in your crusade.




Your speaking in hypothetics. And I don't even know why you should be afraid of traveling. Are you afraid of airplanes? Buy a greyhound ticket or whatever canadian transportation affords. If you are limited by your own limitations, either surpass them or live with them and adjust. But don't expect society to cater to your individual needs. Hypocritical, in the era where "Everyone can win" and everyone's needs are attempted to be held for account as much as possible.

The result, however has been a weakening of the entire structure and the idea of competition and individuality. What legal fees for flying? The passport?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120328152903AAJ72g9

It comes up to around $200 dollars. -_-, come on now. And afraid of your life? From whom? From what? The DHS? Well, FPOD and I probably share the same sentiment surrounding that corrupt organization which is Anti American in principle. But unless you're remotely connected to anyway to Al Qaeda, radical terrorists, criminals et.al I think you're going to be pretty okay.



Do you know how big a cave is? Do you know bears live in Caves? Think of our brick and stone houses as a human cave. Furthermore, do you know that there's a government agency to regulate and protect Wildlife?

http://www.fws.gov/





Coming from the man who advocates the destruction of the foundation of human society, while at the same time saying that any human who doesn't want to give up these very individual structures(America is VERY far from the only country) doesn't deserve to exist is a very scary sentiment.

Its also a very naive viewpoint. However, let me correct you for yet another time: I've never contradicted myself. Humans find value through their individuality, and tracing that back to their roots gives them something to be proud of, to stand on. Just because YOU don't want to stand on it, doesn't mean others don't.

Much the same, I support legal immmigration, yet I oppose massively immigrating immigrants. Why? Because Multiculturalism at the same time has violated the principle of individual countries and people. Selectively immigrating the most talented and the best fits to our society, is a better way to conduct our immigration business.




You know, you use the word freedoms in much the same way feminists argued that male privilege existed. Only this time, you've wrapped your warped sense of reality among the entire human population.

I don't restrict your(or anyone else's freedom) to travel, I don't have that right. Nor does the government restrict people's freedom to travel, pending those crucial things which yes, establish for a successful citizen.

Guess what? It's the same in the other 195 countries on the planet! If you want to travel freely(or as freely as possible within the limits of our current society), you would be a tourist! And there's nothing wrong with that.

Just don't apply for citizenship in the country. And this is the end of the conversation. The "debate" is non existent, your thesis is illogical. It has no biological or ethical standing and frankly it's annoying.

That's complete bullshit. And the proof against it is obvious. That proof is children. Those functions are something that are taught to us not ingrained into our system. A child does not hate someone because they are gay, or black, or jewish, or female. A child has unconditional love that is only spoiled by allowing the parents and society to ruin their perception of reality.


@lustfulangel

No amount of links you can try to justify yourself will ever prove that you are not an freedom hating greedy ignoramous. Until you break your conventions in thinking that what we have now is remotely ok, you can never understand a higher level of human thought. I don't twist what it means to be free because what we have now is not freedom. I can't travel to america whenever I want, that is not freedom.

and since you claim that america doesn't have any negative spots except for the 2 that you mention, need I point out:

War of 1812
Vietnam
Iraq
Mistreatment of japanese americans during ww2
Algeria
Mexican-american war
Libyria (an american colony)
Chilian civil war
Spanish-american war
Philippine–american War
Moro rebellion
Boxer rebellion
Caco war
Occupation of the dominican republic
Cold war


Do I need to list anything else that america was involved in which they shouldn't have been and the chaos that they have brought to the world. Or do you continue to believe that people like john lennon are idiots.

Tesla tried to bring free electicity to the world, the person who cured polio gave it away for free but people like you would are telling those people not to because you want to believe that our current social conventions are ok.

Okay, you just called a study from Yale "bullshit". Yet, you couldn't provide any evidence that the study they did was incorrect in anyway. Simply saying something is "bullshit" doesn't make it so. Anyways, I said nothing about hate. I didn't even use the word hate in my post. I merely pointed out that from an evolutionary standpoint, we categorize everything as "us" and "them". It's a survival mechanism that we developed in order for us to survive. I also pointed out how we naturally segregate ourselves into different groups which also occurs in monkeys.

So, why is that "bullshit"? What is it about Yale's peer reviewed study that is "bullshit" to you? Is it "bullshit" because it makes you feel uncomfortable to acknowledge that something you disagree with is the result of biology rather than a social construct? Is it "bullshit" because proven biological habits built from 25 million years of evolution puts a damper on your Utopian dream?

Harvard put out a study concluding that video games lead to violence in children. I don't trust much that comes out of those "educational institutions"

And why do I need to link proof that children are open minded. Do you have children? Have you ever worked with children in a caring role or educational role?
This fact that children are uncorrupted at birth is an obvious fact that goes without saying.

And you can not prove anything with any link to biology because we still don't understand biology. Science has yet to prove subconcious thought and the human "soul". But I'm supposed to believe something from yale? I'm more likely to believe a high school research paper than someone with an indoctrinated education.


Do you even understand what that article is saying? It is saying that we are biologically racist. Do you understand how stupid that sounds?

We've been over the argument of anecdotal evidence before. I do not like repeating myself so I suggest you go back and reread my statements. Also attempting to make the argument about the person rather than the topic is a form of ad hominem which is a logical fallacy.




Children also lack a Theory of mind until the age of 4. So to say they are "uncorrupted" at birth is just silly. They aren't even self aware yet. Unless to be "corrupted" means to become exposed to stress (a physical, chemical, or emotional factor that causes bodily or mental tension).



Yeah, I stopped taking that statement seriously at "soul".



The only thing "stupid" here is how much people have stretched the definition of racism to such an obscene proportion. It's why the word itself doesn't have any meaning anymore and is an example of semantic satiation.

Racism is the belief that one race is genetically superior to another. The article in no way states anything remotely relating to belief in genetic superiority of one race over another. It states how we are naturally prejudice which means any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable. It is not wrong to be prejudice because we all have prejudices. A person can be prejudice for or against certain people, foods, animals, colors, clothing, brand names, or a myriad of other things. Kids are often prejudice against certain vegetables such as broccoli, spinach and okra to such a point that it's a trope in our society. Plus, the article discusses behavior that has been observed in primates but, I guess scientists observing something is meaningless. Might as well dismantle the large hadron collider because observation apparently means jack shit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-pc_M2qI74

Half of all children by the age of 2 can recognise themselves in a mirror. It's called the mark test. But That alone proves you wrong.

Fiery perhaps used the wrong terminology when he said "self aware", I think a better term would be "Worldly conscious". To know the world, the child must first know him/herself and then it expands outwards.

In this way, I'd say children lack a theory of mind(That is to say, a conscious understanding of the world around them) until ages 7-9(And coincidentally that coincides with puberty.)

But even with this worldwide viewpoint, we adults continue to look through the lens of the globalized world through individual perspective. "Respect" is acknowledging the individual perspective of another, collectivism tries to force this agreement among individuals without their own individual consensus(or agreement.)


For humanity to achieve a collective, it must first do so through mutual self respect and thereby understanding. In other words, a government cannot cohere individuals to "respect" another race, just because.

If Hispanics want to gain a stronger voice in America, they have to then understand and respect American culture. Which in turn, will make the American respect and understand Hispanic culture.

That said, America lacks a social identity today. We proclaim freedom, but we believe insomuch in this freedom as to restrict it based on qualifications such as "terrorism", etc. While we claim we're defending ourselves, this justification can be used at any time for any reason at all.

IE: East Germany and the Gulags.


Nationalism allows for the unity of individual people, respect for other Nationalities will lead to a union. Without Nations, people lack an individual basis from which to understand each other from.

Our ethos is what separates us from the animal kingdom, where as a Tiger is a Tiger is a Tiger. A human is NOT a human, a human is a core of feelings, attitudes, beliefs and social status.


It's here, Jacob, where I encourage you to read not only more on the esoteric concept of humanity but also the biological concept. There's certainly themes to take from both avenues of understanding the Individual Man.

But you cannot destroy the individual through the collective, that's Marxism and it was so reviled that even Nazi Germany fought a war against it.

The Cold war was fought for that same reason, and while it might not have been necessary, I can see why our leaders too feared this doctrine reaching into America.

However, just because a war is fought doesn't necessarily mean that it was fought as aggressors. Britain attacked the capital of Pennsylvania in 1812, to try to take back her colonies and to pressure us politically to pay up.

Today, Britain maintains her empire not through political force but through political coercion.(Money bribes, etc. The City is even more powerful than Wall Street.)


The fact that we have a wall street, should show the divide in American classes and why Americans as a whole do not have control over this country, much less the government.

The Founders would've never seen this country in a centralized oligarchy like that of Britain, they'd be stunned at the state of affairs today.