Where is the world going?

There's already a zombie outbreak @LivingCorpse except that they can't swim and are afraid to fly.

 

Just finish reading this thread and several news report about Paris attack. I understand that many people are angry, but I'm just sad. very sad

 

At this point in time I'm too angry to feel sad if I'm going to be honest.

 

@Nyanko- this is what I'm talking about - http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:xy0022 , sorry, I wasn't clear enough. (I like cats, but even cats must live).

@Simon, I belive that multiculturalism and.. Isn't the problem, one of the problems is the fact that those aspects are used for personal gains/political gains. It remindes me of the concept of ,,free city" from novels and stuff. Am I wrong if I dare to say that, caring to much about differences is one of the problems? For example, in his post yukkuri oniisan wrote something about the concept of loli sama. In one of my status post I've saied that I don't like that tag, that doesn' t mean that I'm not open enough to talk about it or with those who agree with an aspect of the notion. If you don't understand, ask. I've wrote what I dislike, nothing more.

@about the rush to weaponize ones state- someone saied that this rush to compare who has a longer stick is borned from fear, from the possibility of inferiority on a certain plane or in a negociation.

@Evilnemesis7-there's a limit to proxying, in the end the conflict is still there, only that another do your work for you, at your orders and act in your name.

@Mousa4 - I've got in a fight with my best friend on the topic of discrimination. I saied something like this: ,,ok, and if I say that I don't like someone because they are muslims, just because of that fact, for example, but I treat them as I treat everyone else, then, can that be called discrimination?" well, I've tried in vain. Later, my other friend told me that the sole fact that I say ,,I don't like... As a whole" means that I offer them the reason to feel offended. In the end, in a discussion isn't needed to adopt a position, to fight to the end for your belifes, you discuss, you try to understand, you are open to suggestions, to facts, to opinions. That's what I try to do. I've had two colegues who were muslims from Turkmenistan, they were ok, I could talk with them and there weren't problems.

@Yukkuri Oniisan - yes, war needs reason, a just cause because you need to obtain support and you need a pretext to win the civilians, the public support and for the morale of the army. . war is a pretext for interests, under this word are reunited diffErent belifes and interests. I say that LMS is a pretty interesting novel. That show some reasons.

- you can exchange resources but some want monopoly. In Desolate era is described an war for resources, in World of cultivation is showed a monopoly on goods that still have a distribution of goods for others and so on.

-if you want resources give something for them, something that the other part needs or want. I like those novels who show aspects of commerce, reform and so on.

-if religion is used as a justification of war, I think that, if you want to avoid conflict, first of all, you need tolerance, then acceptance of differences, then, in the end, to be at that level where you don't care about those differences and fight, if you really have to fight, on an intelectual plane, with ideas for ideas, and that intelectual fight is for the sake of personal improvement.

-lump of self-contradiction? Well, I am. On this aspect I can be described, on the first tought as an hypocrite. But I don't think that I can be called that. I tend to discuss a subject from an objective point of view and an subjective one, with examples and particular aspects. I don't belive in receipes, only in specific solutions. Not some universal cr...

- that dissociation is a mean but, unfortunately, that's forgoten, you have to begin from somewhere. People do discriminate because to discriminate means to observe the diffrences. The problem is, what do you do with those diffrences?

- international law..those international organizations lack An represive sistem, they can's apply too many sanctions because they don't have and because there are some principles, one of them is that you don't interfere as a state with the suveranity of another state.

- I've wrote too much, anyone can correct me. I've wrote just what I think at this moment on some aspects.

 

@cdlevit I agree with most of what you said, I have no problem when people of different cultures or faiths live together, my main problem is the outrage culture and the political aspects that stop debates from happening.

 

well, in my previous post, I wanted to write more. I know cases where, in universities, where law's studied, teachers don't even bother doing their work, cutting clases and explanations.. So, no wonder that the students aren't capable to develop themselves and gain insights and knowledge. Shame on this teachers.

 

Multiculturalism denotes a degree of tolerance. The question is how big or hpw wide that toleration would be.
If religion A forbid B, should we accept that? If ethnicity C demands a D should we accept that? If local region E had a custom of F should we accept that? Etc.
This is important since for a culture an acceptable action maybe something a taboo for another culture.
Quoting Souma from A Realist Kingdom Reform:
Different place, different goods; different people, different taste; so differwnt cultures, different norms.
What I hate is everyone is yelling multiculturalism or globalism, but they didn't make it clear what they want, a new culture that incorporayes many things from its constituent culture or just a lazy term to say "everyone is free ro do what they want"?
Should we tolerate a group that was clearly hostile to us or hold our value at contempt and didnt want to integrate with us? Should we accept just the things that is convenient for us? Should we reject everything that cross the line for us? I think not everything would be acceptable. Even the simpleat example: shoes in the house.
In western nation its normal to wear shoes inside the home, in my house if you do this I will chase you out.
How will a multiculturalist approach this? This is just about shoes, but what about marriage? Education? Lamguage? Religion? Cuisine? Moral Norms? And other small facets of culture? How much deviation from 'normal' that can we tolerate? How much someone can be 'different' from you that you can tolerate?
But please note that values change as time passes. So what we think is bad could be considered good in the future and vice versa. And monolithic culture is a myth, culture is different amongst subgroups, cliques, families and evem individuals.

 

I like your example about shoes. Everything starts with individual differences and it could lead to tension. Yeah, monolithic culture is a myth and everyone who believes it are no different from a genocidal maniac.