N_Fiddledog wrote:
ScottMayers wrote:
My background is to philosophy and logic. While I know speaking from particulars to the general is what adds value and clarity, when you DO speak with specifics, it tends to be interpreted that you have some particular bias to some extreme.
I think I get it. You seem to be saying you're against something but you can't tell us exactly what that is or what you would like to see done about it. Apparently, you see clarity as being the enemy of your argument - whatever that might be. You seem to be worried that if you get pinned down on the specifics of what you're talking about it will hurt your argument by revealing bias.
But how persuasive are you hoping to be if nobody knows exactly what you're talking about?
There's an irony to all this. If you don't spell out specifically what you're talking about and the generalities you do speak of are too vague to make sense of, all that's left to the reader is a suspicion of some sort of bias.
It's like, '
What's he hiding then?'
What YOU are trying to do is demand that I give you some personal motive to grant you reason to attack that rather than deal with the logical argument at hand.
The Logic of this thread is about why "Diversity
TM" is or is not good as it is being forced upon us in Canada. The logic of this is faulty because it treats the GENERAL problems as due to SPECIFIC causes unique to one's cultures rather than due to differences of economic powers alone. There will always be
a smaller plurality of the wealthy being more represented by 'culture' as their will be a collective
set of pluralities of the poor being represented in some alternative 'culture
s'. But 'culture' is not the cause of the problems but rather the EXCUSE to justify conserving one's power from being lost by the major plurality of those at the top of teh pyramid scheme of life and to justify repairing ones' conditions OF those cultural pluralities most represented by the ones on the bottom of that pyramid.
Lack of cultural diversity is NOT the actual CAUSES of the problems but the EXCUSES to make political laws to discriminate FOR or AGAINST specific people based on those who LIKE some cultures over others. Also, through time, the arrogance of the cultural supremacists everywhere IN the larger groups will evolutionarily weed out those in those economic classes that are not clearly of one cult or another.
What you want NOT to do is to solve the real problems. You want to TRADE (if you lack) or CONSERVE (if you have) the cultures of your own preferences with the economic controls. By making laws concerning culture, the extremes of the cultures who BELIEVE in their supremacy or others' inferiority take precedence in the power struggle of WHO gets the bigger pieces of the pie. The 'who' is never the individual who suffers but to those with the power to lobby as cults. The cults have the PASSION that favors their arrogance in contrast to those without 'identity'.
I have clearly enunciated the problem here. I do not require disproving EACH particular culture's claims for their proof of biases for themselves or against others. For this same kind of reasoning, I don't need to read each Scripture of EACH culture's religion and disprove each claim to prove they are faulty. I can use simpler '
general' argument, like that you cannot trust any book's validity simply because it
claims to be 'true' testimonies of their Supreme Beings.
CKA Uber 
![[boxing]](./images/smilies/box2.gif "boxing")
