Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Argus

Ethnic diversity harms a country's social cohesion

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Scott Mayers said:

Unfortunately, then you contribute to the problem and assure that it cannot be resolved. I don't share your 'pride'. I was adopted at birth and was treated by them as somehow distinct as though my genetic roots are still something that makes me who I am. And yet to the culture(s) that I am supposedly related to genetically (Natural genetic family), I also don't share. So if you don't belong either to some cult of genetic nor environmental heritage, are we the ones required to be forced to associate to some 'pride' outside of our individualism? Your homage to some historical group should be personal and not imposed upon others, including your own children, as far as I'm concerned. THAT would solve the problems. But neither you nor those immigrants from distinctly different similar faith in 'pride' and authority over your own or others is equal in arrogance. You presume something 'superior' (that 'good pride') about who you are that you think others should share MINUS any possible negative ones. 

If you can at least begin to see the logical problem, then we could try to find the next steps is acting for change. Some HAVE drawn the line. These are those who simply and overtly assert their distinct status and demands they be privileged with exception to others in an authoritative way. 

Homo Sapiens Sapiens.  Apex Predator Male.  White Anglo Saxon Protestant.  British North American.  God bless America.  God save the Queen.

I draw that line.    Somebody wants to cross it, to back me into a corner? 

Bad idea.  Consider yourself warned.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Having pride in your heritage is not part of the problem. Having pride in your heritage doesn't mean that no other group should have pride in their heritage.

But what about laws, say, that demand outsiders embrace some ideal you believe is defining of Canadians, like many who assert us as being "Christian"? What about how our system is NOT mono-linguistic? Given we have a unique binary linguistic formal system, this automatically assures our system's definition is biased to a favoritism IN LAW (the Constitution, for instance) because it isn't ALL languages. I'm against a system that defines its constitution as favorable in law to any 'culture' specifically. It is counter to the intended ideal of the American's first Amendment that was to isolate special non-universal cultural/religious beliefs from being imposed upon individuals ....because any posited stance of a governing body for some religioun or culture begs a negative stance to expression of anything negative towards that protected cult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Having pride in your heritage is not part of the problem. Having pride in your heritage doesn't mean that no other group should have pride in their heritage.

If you are superior, you are superior.  I didn't spend 22 years making myself superior to the average man, just to surrender my heritage to a buncha f*ckin' commies.

Superiority comes from being prepared to kill and die for your principles and heritage, the leftist bourgeoisie best just stick to their knitting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

Yes, IF you accept the stereotypes though, then you have to accept the negative ones in equal measure, is what I am saying.

Yeah, and I am saying that makes no sense whatsover and is completely false. It is totally possible to accept some stereotypes and reject others, this you have to accept all the stereotypes line you are peddling is pure nonsense.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Homo Sapiens Sapiens.  Apex Predator Male.  White Anglo Saxon Protestant.  British North American.  God bless America.  God save the Queen.

I draw that line.    Somebody wants to cross it, to back me into a corner? 

Bad idea.  Consider yourself warned.

 

I was born on this Earth too buddy. And that I happen to have been born here doesn't require that I owe some allegiance to some cult you have special pride in. You are only proving WHY there is a problem at all: if you hold 'pride' of your own when it is absolutely unable to be PROVEN universal by the nature of its religiousity, then you don't have a competent rationale that you can hope to appeal to others of a different opinion than your own outside of FORCE itself. And if force is alright, then so too is it normal for both the outsiders entering our country to carry with them their own discriminating beliefs but for the Aboriginals too to rise up against those who arrogantly take exception of their own prior immigrating families of the past who caused them such grief of their own progeny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Scott Mayers said:

I was born on this Earth too buddy. And that I happen to have been born here doesn't require that I owe some allegiance to some cult you have special pride in.

You can have allegiance to whatever you please, but so can i. 

I am prepared to kill and die for mine.   I am prepared to make war on those who would demand that I surrender my allegiance.

If somebody wants to go there, on their heads be it, I'm not backing down, just letting you know where the red line is, so you don't wander over it by mistake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Yeah, and I am saying that makes no sense whatsover and is completely false. It is totally possible to accept some stereotypes and reject others.

It is acceptable for YOU to accept or dismiss whatever stereotypes you want. But it is not up to you to demand that I accept your beliefs as MINE. You'd be imposing your own if you argue that the immigrants can come but must adopt to YOUR PARTICULAR narrative of what some 'we' are here in Canada, when I disagree with your perception also born here. I don't owe allegiance to anything by your perception of who we are as though we ARE of one kind of belief by nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

 I don't owe allegiance to anything by your perception of who we are as though we ARE of one kind of belief by nature.

Even Canada demands allegiance, in fact the law can be quite strict, Canada is a monarchy, the state has broad powers to enforce allegiance.

For example you can say all day long that you will fight for Canada, but if you start saying you will fight for ISIS for example, that's actually a serious indictable offence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

It is acceptable for YOU to accept or dismiss whatever stereotypes you want. But it is not up to you to demand that I accept your beliefs as MINE. You'd be imposing your own if you argue that the immigrants can come but must adopt to YOUR PARTICULAR narrative of what some 'we' are here in Canada, when I disagree with your perception also born here. I don't owe allegiance to anything by your perception of who we are as though we ARE of one kind of belief by nature.

I didn't demand anything of you, let alone demand you accept my beliefs as yours. Nor did I demand immigrants adopt my particular narrative. 

Being proud of your heritage doesn't mean you are demanding anything from anyone. So strawman.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most immigrants I know adopt my narrative far more than native born English Canadians.

I don't know any immigrants who don't have allegiances to the state, and most of them have allegiance to the state they came from more than they do Canada.

That's mostly because they don't even get what Canada is all about with its no allegiances Multiculturalism, that just tells them that Canada is worthless other than for business.

This is why I don't see white native born Canadians treating them badly, because most Canadians are pussies and they know the immigrants ain't.

Like, where I come from, the immigrants don't take shit off of anybody, and they are organized, and they have guns, and they do kill people who cross them.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

You can have allegiance to whatever you please, but so can i. 

I am prepared to kill and die for mine.   I am prepared to make war on those who would demand that I surrender my allegiance.

If somebody wants to go there, on their heads be it, I'm not backing down, just letting you know where the red line is, so you don't wander over it by mistake

I lack any allegiance based upon religious and cultural beliefs. I am an Earthling and don't need others dictating that I must 'float' or join some particular irrational cult in order to find ground. It wouldn't work for those who believe there is something 'genetic' about one's particular cultural associations. I could join in but would require accepting some inferiority status among those presuming it there regardless. And then you'd still look down on me for not having that quality of wanting to 'kill and die' for my own selfish beliefs.

Do you think, based upon your belief in killing and dying for your selfish beliefs, that those who act in similar extremes are warranted when or where they lash out in the violences we see from the many shootings that occur by such lone individuals? 

I don't demand that you surrender your 'allegiance' in your head. But if you disagree with the immigrant to carry their own with them as well, and believe some anti-immigration POLICY should be implemented to deny these people, then should this not also be something the Natives here should also be adopting with equal 'pride' against you for being just such a similar immigrant? Are they cowards for NOT fighting back in the same vein? 

The distinction I am making is not about what you have in mind and expression but to any laws that you may believe should be imposed against an immigrant ON THE JUSTIFICATION of your own particular culltural beliefs and pride?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Scott Mayers said:

Do you think, based upon your belief in killing and dying for your selfish beliefs, that those who act in similar extremes are warranted when or where they lash out in the violences we see from the many shootings that occur by such lone individuals?

Violence of action outside the bounds of the law attacking innocent persons is against my beliefs.

My beliefs are that you can kill only in individual and collective self defense.

So I would kill those persons in the act of commission if I was able, unless they surrendered, then I would take them prisoner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

I didn't demand anything of you, let alone demand you accept my beliefs as yours. Nor did I demand immigrants adopt my particular narrative. 

Being proud of your heritage doesn't mean you are demanding anything from anyone. So strawman.

I'm arguing back and forth with you and Dougie here. I apologize ahead of time if I erred on something you differ upon his views.

I am against any specific pride being used to justify why or why  not some law or policy should be made or changed against the immigrant. For instance, if one says that they don't like the immigrant for not adopting some presumed "Christian" view, for instance, as assumed universal among us, this rationale is biased, not representative of the whole, and counter to a logical appeal to others outside of those of your own particular shared beliefs. A law made on this rationale, for instance, is equally biased as those who may come in with the same. It cancels out the force of appeal by argument here or anywhere to those not Christian (as this example instance) AND not of the particular Immigrants' personal similar religious beliefs. say, for instance, Muslim.

Edited by Scott Mayers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Scott Mayers said:

I'm arguing back and forth with you and Dougie here. I apologize ahead of time if I erred on something you differ upon his views.

I am against any specific pride being used to justify why or why  not some law or policy should be made or changed against the immigrant. For instance, if one says that they don't like the immigrant for not adopting some presumed "Christian" view, for instance, as assumed universal among us, this rationale is biased, not representative of the whole, and counter to a logical appeal to others outside of those of your own particular shared beliefs. A law made on this rationale, for instance, is equally biased as those who may come in with the same. It cancels out the force of appeal by argument here or anywhere to those not Christian (as this example instance) AND not of the particular Immigrants' personal similar religious beliefs.

It's a White Anglo Saxon Protestant state

British Westminster Parliamentary Supremacy is a White Anglo Saxon Protestant law,

If you don't follow it, you can make yourself an enemy of the state therein.

So again, some Muslim comes here, starts propagating for ISIS in contempt of Anglo-Saxon law?

They are enemies of the state and will face the consequences, to include death if/when the state uses force

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Violence of action outside the bounds of the law attacking innocent persons is against my beliefs.

My beliefs are that you can kill only in individual and collective self defense.

So I would kill those persons in the act of commission if I was able, unless they surrendered, then I would take them prisoner.

Whew!....So the RCMP can cancel their raid on you now!! ;) 

I share the same kind of thinking in essence. But so do many if not all. The problem is where the upper limit is to what the whole represents. To many, the whole is their cultural Nationality, roots or their religion only. I'm for the individual as the only miniority and the universal or absolute wholes. So for just Canada, it would mean that I support each (individual) and every (the collective whole) Canadian. Of course, this extends to all Earthlings when not specifying merely  our country as a whole. I think of people also without connection to their cultural identity because culture to me (as with any associated religion) is just an artistic expression of the secular individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

Whew!....So the RCMP can cancel their raid on you now!! ;)

If they have a warrant I will obey the law.  If they don't have a warrant, I will tell them to go fuck themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

I share the same kind of thinking in essence. But so do many if not all. The problem is where the upper limit is to what the whole represents. To many, the whole is their cultural Nationality, roots or their religion only. I'm for the individual as the only miniority and the universal or absolute wholes. So for just Canada, it would mean that I support each (individual) and every (the collective whole) Canadian. Of course, this extends to all Earthlings when not specifying merely  our country as a whole. I think of people also without connection to their cultural identity because culture to me (as with any associated religion) is just an artistic expression of the secular individual.

When in Rome.

In America, I have more individual rights, in Canada, my rights are not protected as they are in America.

Contrary to popular Canadian sentiment, Canada is still a monarchy, Canada is still the British Crown.

Doesn't matter what people on the internet say about it, Canada is not that respectful of individual rights, the law demands fealty to the Crown in action if not declaration.

So for example, the RCMP you mentioned above, have broad leeway to trample on your individual rights on the authority of the monarch, and they often do.

In Canada to the Canadian police, I would only invoke my weak shit Canadian Charter rights, in America I would invoke my real rights endowed by the Creator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dougie93 said:

It's a White Anglo Saxon Protestant state

British Westminster Parliamentary Supremacy is a White Anglo Saxon Protestant law,

If you don't follow it, you can make yourself an enemy of the state therein.

So again, some Muslim comes here, starts propagating for ISIS in contempt of Anglo-Saxon law?

They are enemies of the state and will face the consequences, to include death if/when the state uses force

This is what I mean is your error. (as well with most regardless of which culture you believe in). You assume we owe some kind of allegiance to something cultural and religious, not secular. 'WE' are not all White Anglo Saxons, nor Protestant. (In fact, our nation is actually small 'c' catholic, not W.A.S.P. in its foundation. The Americans are more originated by that standard historically Canada is not.)

How does anything uniquely Brittish or Protestant mean anything? That is merely coincidental and arbitrary. Do you believe that if we found some other world that evolved human-like beings that they'd be  British and Protestant if they succeeded in the same kind of evolution to our present civil society?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I'll give you a practical example, I'm watching the Antifa kids getting into a riotous behavior with people, but they are very careful to stick to their rights.

And the cops do not intervene, unless somebody crosses the line, but it's actually quite chaotic, they are getting rowdy and violent, but just skirting the line.

In Canada, none of that would be tolerated, the cops would round everybody up and throw them in jail without further ado

When in Rome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

This is what I mean is your error. (as well with most regardless of which culture you believe in). You assume we owe some kind of allegiance to something cultural and religious, not secular. 'WE' are not all White Anglo Saxons, nor Protestant. (In fact, our nation is actually small 'c' catholic, not W.A.S.P. in its foundation. The Americans are more originated by that standard historically Canada is not.)

How does anything uniquely Brittish or Protestant mean anything? That is merely coincidental and arbitrary. Do you believe that if we found some other world that evolved human-like beings that they'd be  British and Protestant if they succeeded in the same kind of evolution to our present civil society?

I just follow the constitution and law as it is written.  Like you say, the RCMP need not raid me, because I am nothing if not law abiding.

That law however, is Anglo Saxon, and any catholic small c is contained to Quebec under the rule of the Queen.

Now, if you overthrow that,  you will be bringing Canada down, it will break.

If so, I'll be left with my American heritage, and guaranteed you're not bringing that down.

Would I be sad to see Canada go?  No.  I don't care about Canada anymore, I don't like Canada and I don't like Canadian culture.

But again; I'm just following what is written in Rome when in Rome.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

When in Rome.

In America, I have more individual rights, in Canada, my rights are not protected as they are in America.

Contrary to popular Canadian sentiment, Canada is still a monarchy, Canada is still the British Crown.

Doesn't matter what people on the internet say about it, Canada is not that respectful of individual rights, the law demands fealty to the Crown in action if not declaration.

So for example, the RCMP you mentioned above, have broad leeway to trample on your individual rights on the authority of the monarch, and they often do.

In Canada to the Canadian police, I would only invoke my weak shit Canadian Charter rights, in America I would invoke my real rights endowed by the Creator.

I agree about how the United States constitution favors the individual better. But they also have devolved in part. The original foundation and Amendments were NOT religious but anti-religious. The idea was to separate the means of making laws from any particular artistic interpretation, such as one's religion or cultural association. This has changed to some degree in Post-Modern times. (The "Modern" era was the period marked by science and rationalism beginning in Newton and ending approximately by WWII,.) 

I also agree that we don't have many rights on a technical level. To me this is precisely because of religious imposition in Constitutions and lawmaking. Our country is technically a type of authoritarian dictatorship (friendly and relatively weakened in actual force today). We are also a type of theocracy of select forms of religious affiliation in formation. But the particular beliefs of origins are coincidental still. That is, there is no LOGICAL connection to our foundation and to something uniquely special about some culture and/or related religious insight by the originators. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Scott Mayers said:

I agree about how the United States constitution favors the individual better. But they also have devolved in part. The original foundation and Amendments were NOT religious but anti-religious.

America is not a White Anglo Saxon Protestant country.   America is a republic. 

But Canada is not,  Canada is the British Crown, which is WASP.   North German Protestants.

America overthrew that British Crown, and in the Declaration it doesn't say God, it says Creator, because the founders were Diests, so they left it up to you who you think the  Creator is.

Under British law, God is God, and he's not a Catholic,   The Queen is the Pope of Britain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I just follow the constitution and law as it is written.  Like you say, the RCMP need not raid me, because I am nothing if not law abiding.

That law however, is Anglo Saxon, and any catholic small c is contained to Quebec under the rule of the Queen.

Now, if you overthrow that,  you will be bringing Canada down, it will break.

If so, I'll be left with my American heritage, and guaranteed you're not bringing that down.

Would I be sad to see Canada go?  No.  I don't care about Canada anymore, I don't like Canada and I don't like Canadian culture.

But again; I'm just following what is written in Rome when in Rome.

 

I have mixed links to here and the U.S. too. My preference is to the U.S. in principle to its foundations.  I think Canada is falsely interpreted as being more accepting when it is not. The U.S. just gets more notice for speaking out and being the first ones to not be afraid to make mistakes for trying to be challenging as much. But now I think we may require being more Global rather than Nationalistic as may are thinking today. 

When, precisely in Rome, btw? (pointing out that they changed in different times due to challenging what 'Rome' was defined as in earlier periods.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bear in mind, I'm not saying Canadian law is not archaic

Canadian law is absurdly archaic. 

However, if you end up in court in Canada, you will find out that they do practice  archaic British law with God and a Queen.

So what I'm saying is, in a practical sense, Canada does impose on you in ways that America does not, whether you like it or not

Because the judges here follow the archaic law here, make no mistake. 

Court in Canada is like something out of the 18th century, it's pretty strange by American standards.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

I have mixed links to here and the U.S. too. My preference is to the U.S. in principle to its foundations.  I think Canada is falsely interpreted as being more accepting when it is not.

Bingo.  Thank you.  Now we see eye to eye, Canada is an archaic police state which never outgrew the 19th century, and Canadians are passive aggressive Victorian prigs,

Americans are much more laid back, individualistic and accepting of a broad view of things.

Canadians are locked into their priggish Victorianism and they can't abide any boat rocking at all.

Particularly when it comes to speech, Americans will defend what they don't like, Canadians are knee jerk censors.

The default position in America is that you'd better have the most dire reasons to ban anything.

The default position in Canada is ban, ban, ban, ban this, ban that, ban the other thing, Canadians are want to live in a police state.

Edited by Dougie93
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...