Ethnic exclusion

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by prozak, Oct 5, 2002.

  1. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,225
    Don't be afraid

    What is so hard about telling us your ideas for peaceful ethnic exclusion and the processes that will accomplish it?
    Which ones do you find so problematic?
    Yeah ... that's the problem with continually responding to someone with as little to go on as you do. It's not like there's anything new or of tremendous merit to respond to.

    Of course, if you provide a model of how you think peaceful ethnic exclusion can be accomplished, we can move on to discussing the merits of those plans.

    However, I well understand how complex a problem it is. It's a hard thing to describe. So take your time and conquer your fears.

    Don't be afraid, Prozak. The thing is that I want you to put out a few options for us to read through.

    You can start by showing me one successful exclusion or forced segregation.

    And then you can continue by showing what lessons we can learn.

    And you can go further by asserting how those lessons apply to your ideas for accomplishing ethnic exclusion peacefully.

    And then you will be pretty close to having asserted a model, anyway.

    It's not that difficult. Well, finding successful exclusions and segregations will prove a headache, but don't be afraid to put some effort into it for once.

    thanx,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. prozak Banned Banned

    Messages:
    782
    Re: Don't be afraid

    If you're afraid to provide a model specification, I'm not going to step up and provide a "theoretical model" which can then be criticized on the basis of its conformity to an expected spec. Either put up, or shut up.

    Second, there's no new content in your post, which I take to mean you accept my previous points.

    Third, I asked a question regarding peaceful ethnic exclusion, which is in itself a working model for the concept - you're simply attempting to divert attention from the issue itself, in hopes of finding an issue to criticize.

    Are there any _experienced_ debaters here?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. prozak Banned Banned

    Messages:
    782
    So no distraction occurs, here was the original question I posed:

    "Why not allow ethnic exclusionism as occurred in Germany, if done peacefully?

    There's no rule that says every ethnic group has to be in every country.

    Thoughts?"
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. John MacNeil Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    345
    Teri 2?

    I'm suprised to learn that most of the immigrants to Australia have learned Australian. What is that Aboriginal language like to speak?

    Because exclusionism is racism, prozak. That makes people who support exclusionism racists. People are racists by one of two means, A) they were brought up that way, in which case it is not entirely their fault, or, B) they are not intellectually able to mold their character conscientiously, and therefore possess an inferior quality humanism.

    If all the races remained segregated, the ones with the most advantages would become ever more racist proportional to their standard of living increasing faster than the standard of living of the less advantaged races.
     
  8. MRC_Hans Skeptic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    835

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Good one, heheh.

    OK, when are you gonna move then?

    What's the rule that says your ethnic group has to be in the country you are in now?

    Hans
     
  9. prozak Banned Banned

    Messages:
    782
    The notion of "country" in the new world is flexible.

    What makes you think that any other ethnic group should be in the country in which I am now?
     
  10. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390
    i agree there is no rule.
    there is also no rule that every rock group has to be in every country.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    why dont you elaborate on the peaceful manner in which you expel minorities
    from a country. do you escort them to the border? airport? create a ghetto surrounded by a fence? assume you encounter resistence, what is your course of action? how do you deal with mixed ethnicities? interacial couples?

    it is obvious to all that when a proposal is put forward, one has at least a rudimentary idea on its implemention. i want to hear yours.
     
  11. prozak Banned Banned

    Messages:
    782
    I asked a question; I didn't put forth a proposal.

    I agree about the rule of rock bands. Metal bands are a different story

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390
    look

    elaborate on how this can be done and then i will decide if i will allow it
    dont get bogged down in semantics. you introduced an idea in form of a question.
     
  13. prozak Banned Banned

    Messages:
    782
    First, I asked a question; the idea has already been introduced through negative attitudes toward it in other threads

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Second, what would most commonly be debated - method - is not part of the plan, but of the republic which would implement it.
     
  14. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390
    so you would have me roam the forums looking for this idea? sorry,not gonna
    do it

    well give me your thoughts, any candidates come to mind? you slippery little devil

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. MRC_Hans Skeptic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    835
    I dont know which ethnic group you belong to or which country you are in, but YOU express the need for ethnic cleansing, so evidently there must be more then one ethnic group where you are, otherwise you would not be concerned with this.

    You ask for a peaceful way of ethnic cleansing. This implies that those that must move must do so voluntarily, with no force or threat of force applied.

    Since YOU are the one fearing that YOUR culture will loose by being diluted with other ethnic groups, it seems evident that YOU must also, if neccessary, be ready to pack up and move to a place where YOUR culture can be kept clean, right?

    --- Or are you just looking for a PC way of chasing all those "wrong" people out of YOUR neighborhood? :bugeye:

    Hans
     
  16. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,225
    Wow, I actually remembered I had this post going on ....

    The specification is simple: Create a model describing ethnic exclusion that can be carried out peacefully.

    The rest is entirely up to your free intellect.

    It's a simple specification, which derives from your own position in this topic:
    If ethnic exclusion can be accomplished peacefully, as you assert, I would hope you could provide some sketch of the model that would accomplish that. I'm not asking you to be Max Weber or Karl Marx. I'm asking you for a basic thumbnail sketch of how you would accomplish ethnic exclusion peacefully. We can fill in the details or debate the gaps as necessary.

    So perhaps you can get around to providing that model sometime before we're all turned to dust.
    There wasn't anything new to respond to. Point it out if you like.
    That's like a demolition crew saying, "The building falling down is in itself a working model for the concept." Well? Are they going to use cranes? Bulldozers? Dynamite?
    There are many here who would be happy to give you lessons if you were to show any willingness.

    It seems that many people don't think ethnic exclusion can be carried out peacefully. That's the first hitch you're running into. Secondly, how long do you think diversity can be maintained? Is it good enough to keep genetic diversity just until the end of your foreseeable life? Or is it better to plan down the road? NASA's projection of 200 will still require new genetic material from time to time, unless, of course, you can project the end of that process. But since nature can create inbreeding over generations by necessity of human placement and economy, it is fair to consider how long that original 200 can hold out. To extrapolate, then, well into the future, there will come a day when everyone in a grouping shares common enough genes to cause problems. After all, there is no new genetic material coming into the pool. And cataclysm is more likely to reduce the population than increase it.

    Now, to look at your original question, the reasons why not are various:

    • "Peacefully" ... would you like to establish what counts as "peacefully"?
    • What authority will create this condition?
    • Who gets what, and how are those priorities decided?

    Consider: I live in the pacific northwestern United States. This area happens to be, for natural resources, one of the best in the world. Underneath Seattle, for instance, is great farmland. The scenery is superb, and the weather, while a little wet and chilly for parts of the year, certainly beats the LA heat, or the African droughts. It's the kind of real estate that, if put up for grabs, everyone would want. There's very few poisonous critters in the western half of Washington and Oregon, and earthquakes are the biggest natural cataclysm you face; in my lifetime, we've had relatively few.

    So who gets it? The Scandanavians? (Seattle has heavy Norwegian and Swedish influence.) The Brits? (Seattle has its share of British and Irish.) The Germans (Seattle has a lot of Lutherans.) The indigenous tribes? (It was theirs before it was ours.)

    Who gets the Australian coast? Who gets Ireland?

    What is the basis for restricting the liberty to live where one chooses in such a fashion?

    Who gets the Alaskan tundra? How about the Sahara?

    Who gets to live over the oil in this or that country, or region of the world?

    There are reasons that ethnic exclusionism is generally regarded as separate from peace. I would hope you would be ready to address the implications of that which you have put forward.

    In the meantime, I can steal from someone peacefully. Why not allow that?

    As to what I am guessing your point is: The reason we don't allow ethnic exclusionism, even if done peacefully, is that it is stupid. "Ethnicity" is a label, a mere classification we use to identify someone based on a set of traits. In the end, we're all human beings, and as with all broad and shiny political ideas, "peaceful ethnic exclusionism" does not account for human nature. Sure, we're all adults (not--there are children in the world) but maturity does not imply the acceptance of any bonehead idea that comes along.

    Why not allow "peaceful ethnic exclusionism"?

    • Sure, why not? I have a problem discussing the merits of something that won't work. When we see a proposition of how to make it work, then we can start discussing the implications of that proposition. But if you are afraid to put your mind to any test, that's fine. Just don't expect me or anyone else to respect the position.

    After all, we could examine why "benevolent dictatorships" aren't around. After all, if it could be done benevolently and peacefully ....

    • Ethnic exclusionism has the effect of killing passion, making life boring. It makes children ugly and offers justification to those who would seek to establish supremacy based on ethnic "qualities". Ne'er before in the history of the world has such segregation offered benefit to human beings.

    How deep of specifications do you want? A model representing a healthy human result, harmony among peoples, proper apportionment of lands and wealth (after all, it will all have to be uprooted in some way or another), and full ethnic exclusion. You may wish to account for various clans within various ethnicities that just can't seem to get along, as well.

    By the way ... how will you prevent future generations from getting bored with the homogeny and "coloring it up" a little for a change of scenery? What kind of philosophical base can maintain an exclusionary society beyond the lifespan of its founders?

    These are all things you could choose to discuss instead of hiding behind your paucity of ideas. The problem with hiding behind a lack, Prozak, is that you're hiding behind, essentially, nothing.

    I would ask you to flesh it out, but you haven't even given a skeletal sketch of what you're talking about with "peaceful" ethnic exclusion.

    I think that's the thing, Prozak. Wow us. Look around: nobody thinks you can do it. Nobody thinks you can propose a method for accomplishing peaceful ethnic exclusion. Nobody seems to see the reason to, so you'll have to sell it better, too. But if you absolutely wow us with something we've never thought of before, if you can show the benefit and even the slightest inkling of how it would be accomplished, I'm sure you would get a lot more enthusiastic debate going on.

    It's up to you.

    I, for one, would like to see a model for peaceful ethnic exclusion. Just to know one exists. Then I'll have something better to do about separatists, supremacists, and exclusionists than simply laugh at them.

    Do us all a favor, Prozak: cough up the scheme.

    thanx,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. prozak Banned Banned

    Messages:
    782
    Re: Wow, I actually remembered I had this post going on ....

    I'm glad I didn't waste any time cooking up a "specification" for one who refuses to give context to the term.

    Ethnicity = genetic history by population

    We're all human beings != we're all equal, or equally qualified in various areas

    Peaceful = without violence -or- without inappropriate violence (name a peaceful goverment; there have been none)

    My point stands. You have no credible argument against ethnic exclusion other than "convenience."
     
  18. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,225
    Oh, heaven forbid

    Are you referring to the inconvenience of wars, forced displacement, the resulting poverty and cultural collapse, and the generations of human misery that come in the wake of ethnic exclusion?

    Oh, wait ... you were talking about peaceful ethnic exclusion, something that has never before been accomplished in all the history of humanity.

    There's a peaceful ethnic exclusion?

    Too bad you couldn't put that one together coherently.

    Take a poll, Prozak. You'll find there's many good reasons to avoid ethnic exclusion. That you have no clue what you're talking about is better a reason than some.

    thanx,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. prozak Banned Banned

    Messages:
    782
    Re: Oh, heaven forbid

    "Are you referring to the inconvenience of wars, forced displacement, the resulting poverty and cultural collapse, and the generations of human misery that come in the wake of ethnic exclusion? "

    A disadvantage - especially not an exclusive one - doesn't constitute a counter argument

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    That's why I was asking if anyone here was literate in any form of debate. Since you couldn't disprove what I was saying, you resorted to insults... a common but failing tactic.
     
  20. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390
    i have the counter argument right here
     
  21. MRC_Hans Skeptic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    835
    Prozak, you are asking for debate. I asked you a perfectly valid and relevant question: If this peaceful ethnic exclusion turned out to mean that YOU were to move, would you do so peacefully?

    Now, please, answer the question.

    Hans
     
  22. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,225
    I believe in giving people every chance to explain themselves

    I'm starting to think that all you really want to do is talk about how good you are.

    Why don't you set some criteria for the counter-argument? After all, all I ever asked for was a theoretical model explaining how ethnic exclusion could be carried out peacefully, and you've directly refused to provide that for whatever reasons you imagine to be legitimate. In fact, you asked me for specifications on the theoretical model, as if exclusion and peace weren't the first two obvious criteria.

    In the meantime, the argument seems to be that ethnic exclusion is acceptable/good if carried out peacefully. The counter-argument seems to be that ethnic exclusion has never been carried out peacefully or to any real human benefit in history. As it is, then, the counterpoint indicates that "peaceful ethnic exclusion" is a bad idea largely because it is impossible. It's cake-frosting talk. As such, I'm hoping you can offer a model that shows how ethnic exclusion can be accomplished without invoking the disadvantageous conditions that frighten you beyond reasonability: the inconvenience of wars, forced displacement, the resulting poverty and cultural collapse, and the generations of human misery that come in the wake of ethnic exclusion.

    Ethnic exclusion weakens the gene pool, period. That's its first obvious reason why not. Secondly, it leaves human beings less psychologically capable of handling diverse issues. (Have you ever watched a child stare at people of different skin colors the first time? They're fascinated, and can't focus on much else but the fact that this person is so oddly-colored.) Thirdly, peaceful ethnic exclusion has never been accomplished before, so as such you're talking about pure fantasy. Like I said:

    Look around: nobody thinks you can do it. Nobody thinks you can propose a method for accomplishing peaceful ethnic exclusion. Nobody seems to see the reason to, so you'll have to sell it better, too. But if you absolutely wow us with something we've never thought of before, if you can show the benefit and even the slightest inkling of how it would be accomplished, I'm sure you would get a lot more enthusiastic debate going on.

    You should know, though, that even if we sit here screaming, "Yes" and "No" at each other, they're still counter-arguments.

    Why are you so afraid to engage your own idea? Why do you have to resort to carefully classifying ideas in order to avoid having to think about the issues you've proposed? That's becoming almost more fascinating than your stupid racism.

    thanx,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. prozak Banned Banned

    Messages:
    782
    Not relevant to the debate. You imagine your question is important, but not every question is.
     

Share This Page