It Will get better IF after the 2024 elections the GOP will be left with a minority in both the houses, Congress and senate. At that point it will be only on the democrats to pass legislations, notwithstanding eventual characters like Sinema and Manchin.
Quod erat demonstrandum (as it was demonstrable) you completely ignored me showing you Biden kept the same policies of the orange cheeto in place when he arrived in the white house as well as the fact that the biggest thief of common resources are huge corporations and not poor immigrants coming to America in search of a better life.
Keep talking about being stuck in echo chambers for everyone else without reflecting about yourself as it is a standard for brainless people, I’m sure you’ll fit right in the crowd who will vote for the biggest threat to the democratic world next November.
The poor and desolate are not such due to Biden “Open Immigration policy” (lmao, Biden has been continuing the same policies put in place by his predecessor as you can see here) but rather by the continued steal of resources put forward by commercial entities which have used the events of these past years to ramp-up the prices of their goods and services well beyond the natural increase rate caused by the same events (see point 2 of the paragraph “Ways to fight inflation” in the report at this link for reference).
Of course I know the play book you operate on. You will ignore it or claim the sources are bias continuing to live in your own echo chamber.
Mean while the poor and desolate continue to get screwed over by interest groups and this capitalist-centred society.
Would you have preferred my favourite term “you mogrel gun-loving crackheads”? Because I can totally use it if you like
Lmao, you people care so much about your neighbours that you aren’t even able to ask your Congress to pass sensible laws regulating the distribution of firearms among the civilian population.
As an older meme used to say “bitch, please”
I’m really sorry to bother but the link provided does not work for me, I also tried to use the way back machine but it seems no one has saved a clear copy of the page so far… Have you another link to a non-paywalled version of the article to share by chance? Thank you for your help in any case!!
Once more if heritage didn’t naturally inherently change then there wouldn’t be anything to fight. Heritage changes.
You’re still talking about culture while referring yourself to heritage, how thick can you be?
And because if enough people change course in culture and society adopts that heritage will change. If heritage didn’t change then conservatives wouldn’t need to give a shit about culture or society changing because heritage would stay the same.
That heritage will not change, it will disappear little by little while culture change around it. I notice that you didn’t reply to my comment about the southern American heritage, do you think it has changed from the '800 or is it still the same racist construct it was 200 years ago?
I am better. I am considering the general case.
Keep telling you that, you might start believing it
My heritage says I ought to be going to church every sunday. I don’t. Still get along great with the family and everyone at church.
You haven’t considered that the culture around you has slightly changed from the past I see. That’s because you don’t understand the difference between heritage and culture and this is also the reason why we are having this conversation, but you are too prideful to accept my definitions and challenging them while also refusing to give your own. Scared of being proven wrong?
The definition that you came up with has elements that no other definition has and which are counter to the usage of the concept of heritage by the entire rest of the world. That is the major reason why your definition lacks merit.
Please prove this point, don’t just put it there without evidence to corroborate it
Your definition is like defining weather as only being when its raining and claiming that the weather never changes.
My definition is like differentiating between weather and climate. They seem similar but if I state that “the weather hasn’t changed because yesterday was raining and today it’s raining too” is a correct statement. If, on the other hand, I’d say that “the climate hasn’t changed because yesterday was raining and today it’s raining too” I’d be wrong since climate is not related to a single couple of days but to a much larger time scale
when you are too stubborn to back down after saying something embarrassingly wrong you will run into that.
So we can assume that people talking about the same points over and over again without giving any merits to their beliefs are the cultured ones? I start to understand how you ended up being so lackluster in your debating skills
Weather is only when its raining and weather never changes.
You are confusing weather and climate like you confuse heritage and culture. A not very bright example from a not very bright mind, what else is there to say?
I’ll return to this conversation whenever you will feel like providing me with your definitions, until then I’m talking to a wall which cannot see its being made of bricks as the worst possible argument for a debate.
Have a good one in the meantime 👋🏼👋🏼
Oopsie you just admitted that heritage changes.
Once more, culture changes, heritage does not exactly because people FIGHT against the natural order of “everything flows” to keep their heritage the same as it always has been
When ol’ Leo painted the Mona Lisa and it became part of italian heritage it didn’t destroy the otherwise identical heritage that previously existed just minus that painting. Things are added to heritage and things fade from heritage.
You are still confusing heritage with culture: Mona Lisa is art and it fits in my definition of culture. Still no valid example of heritage changing over time, just another example of you failing to understand my definitions
They wouldn’t have to put effort into it if heritage couldn’t change like you claim. That they put effort into it should be a huge hint to you how flawed your made up definition and terrible understanding of heritage is.
Conservatives are out to stop the changes in culture and society (culture war much?), they are using heritage as an excuse to explain why culture and society shouldn’t change
If they are not cast out of their group then their relationship hasn’t ended. You are yet again ignoring all other cases that show your definition is wrong with that if.
You accuse me of using conditionals in my replies but you are no better. I have countless examples of people casted out of their social circles for having messed with their heritages, do you have one single example of people messing with their group heritages without suffering any backlash? If yes please provide them
No I’m pointing out that you are narrowing your examples and trying to ignore that your examples are a subset of all cases and if you consider all cases then your definition falls apart. The weather never changes for example last saturday it was raining.
An example is a single case by definition. Do you want a more general one? Then explain to me why all religions call those who want to change their heritages heretics and have them expelled from their rankings if not dead. If they are lucky they will go on to create a new heritage, separated from the original one(see Martin Luther), if they are not they are put at the stake and burned (see Giordano Bruno)
It might be that you are not capable of considering this on large enough scales of time and population. That individual’s severance of their heritage will impact the collective heritage of their family, and to a small degree their society, going forward. If enough people make that change collectively the heritage of that society will change.
That’s how culture wins on heritage, by cancelling it and substituting itself to it. Laws such as the civil rights act in America have helped minorities to find more rights for themselves but, even still today, the American heritage prevent many people from engaging with said minorities in a respectful way. Luckily we do have a set of laws nowadays which help us punishing these persons because culture has changed. In the meantime the southern American heritage is still as racist as it was in the '800
It doesn’t matter what they did
Oh no, it does. Expecially for those poor children and their families
that doesn’t change that they were saying the same things you are saying.
No they were not. They were out to change these children’s Inuit heritage with their Christian one. I am trying to eliminate heritage for everyone and to substitute it with culture
You’re definition is made up.
My definition is mine by definition (sic), I already told you that. Challenge me on the merit of my definitions: take them, analyse them and provide me with logical reasons why they are false.
Until them stop repeating that my definitions are not the correct ones, I already gave them to you to prove you that heritage is considered as something passed down to old generations to the future ones. My caveat is that this something will not be changed by the receiving generation to keep it “as it always was” and to pass it to the next generation unchanged.
While you’re at it maybe try providing definitions for heritage and culture yourself. I could show you what substantial criticism is in real time if you were so kind to assume yourself at my level and not at an higher one
You don’t want to be like goebbels do you?
No, and that’s why I’m using different examples throughout our discussion. This and also the fact that repeating myself over and over again makes me bored
Heritage can change. Your protip was bullshit. Your definition is garbo. You are too proud to back down from the dumb things you said.
Heritage can’t change. You aren’t able to provide any single fact or example to support your points. Your debate capabilities are garbo.
Arranging re-enactments and commemorations doesn’t mean that they have the stance that opposes the reality that heritage changes
Maybe not but it does prove that people who believe in heritage will go out of their way to keep it alive and unchanged as much as possible.
Because if heritage can’t change then there is nothing to preserve. It will always be there. If heritage can’t change then who is their opposition?
Progressives, who usually try to eliminate heritage by moving society to a new set of standards via legislation
which means there are groups without strong connections. So try entering that group. Is heritage immutable there?
It is but for a smaller proportion of the group. We see this among “white people” where a huge chunk of this crowd is moving towards culture while leaving its heritage behind. This has caused a huge stir in its most conservative representatives who are now fighting against this trend with all their forces (the so called war on the “woke agenda”). If heritage is naturally inclined to evolve can you explain all the efforts put up by conservative voices to avoid this natural process?
One counter example of heritage changing means that you are wrong. And I’ve repeatedly shown that your examples are not universal
Yet you fail to provide me with this example which would destroy my view while also taking a W because you showed me that the specific examples I used are not universal
Also even your example doesn’t make sense because regardless of the reaction of the extended family the married couple’s family unit’s heritage has changed and if they have children those children will have a blend of the two heritages.
That’s not how heritage works: if these two people are casted out of their group they have ended their relationship with their heritages. They will have created a new heritage, related to just their family, but the old ones will remain unchanged in their original groups. So there’s no evolution in the original heritage as you can see
Yes, yes I am criticizing the substance of your definition.
No you are not
I am repeatedly telling you that your definition is wrong because you are repeatedly insisting that it is right.
That’s what you are doing by simply discarding my examples of application in real life of my definition. That’s not a substantial criticism but a straw man attack
See this is an example of what I’m talking about. Provide an example of something changing but oh yeah let me add the condition that in the example the thing is unscathed.
It’s called a paradox and it’s my way to show you that your reasoning has no logic ground
Just by existing you have a heritage. If you disregard all elements of that heritage, well that would mean that heritage can change which is a contradiction yet again, and replace it with “culture” then that becomes heritage.
If I disregard aspects of my heritage it doesn’t mean that my heritage has changed, it means that I, personally and alone, have moved away from my heritage to a more logical place. My heritage will remain unchanged and brought forward by those being part of my group, tribe or family who accept it’s tenants
And like I was pointing out that’s the exact same thing that the people running those boarding schools were saying.
Nope, beside trying to impose their heritage they were forcing themselves on defenceless children while taking advantage of their positions of power. May I add that these revolting facts were carried out by participants to another heritage, the catholic one in this specific case?
I might eventually give you my definition after being as round about as you were. Guess we’ll see.
Oh thank you for you kind consideration my master
Heritage can change. You’ve proven it yourself. Your protip was bullshit. Your definition is garbo.
Repeating the same phrase over and over again won’t turn it’s contents into reality, despite all that Goebbels said about that
Heritage does change. It has to. Think about it for even a minute and that becomes obvious.
Many historical groups arranging re-enactment events and commemorations, conservative political parties and religious groups would like to dissent with you about your stance. But I’m sure their opinions don’t count in your books
If someone from a family of one heritage marries someone from another heritage then the heritage for that lineage going forward has changed.
That’s absolutely not the case. Try entering a social group with a strong connection to its heritage (such as for example a southern Italian family) and you’ll see that you are faced with two options: assimilate or be cast out from the group
That’s what I’m doing. In your definition you added a nonsense bit about heritage never changing.
No, you are not. You’re just repeating that my definitions are wrong without any supporting evidence. I’ve given you countless examples of heritage being unchanging and set in time while you refuse this without providing any reason or example. I refute your idea of heritage being a mutating concept and will continue to do so until you won’t provide me with a compelling example of an heritage which was changed from within and survived unscathed
Most importantly for you, if heritage is immutable and can’t change then your whole deal about getting rid of the bad parts is impossible. Its a direct contradiction.
That’s exactly why I am for the destitution of heritages in favour of cultures
No shit I want to get rid of the bad aspects and get rid of the good ones. And because culture and heritage are not what you say they are that is possible to do.
I already showed you that heritage cannot be changed from within, to make it change you have to act from outside with specific legislations. Also I’d suggest you to review what you wrote here because I think you made some mistakes in exposing what you want to do
depends, are you going to sexually abuse them and murder them? Not like it would do any good since their heritage can’t change.
No, I’m not. I’d have them supported by the state through specialized workers and institutions until a certified foster family can be found and then I’d have them moved in with this family to cancel and overwrite their heritage by giving them a modern culture. Oh no, I ear you say, you want to strip poor children of their heritage. Yes, I do. Their heritage is the cause of a unmeasurable amount of problems both locally and internationally, erasing it would only improve the lives of everyone involve.
Just to ease this discussion, can you please give your definition of heritage? Only to understand what you mean when talking about this subject because you are criticizing me for my definition without providing any supporting evidence to your rebuttals. Maybe if you’d explain what you mean with heritage I could show you where you are wrong at the heart of the issue
Culture and heritage do change over time
Culture change, heritage doesn’t. Heritage is the story of a people, of a tribe, of a family. You can’t change history on a whim.
Also, I gave you my personal definitions after providing you the official ones. If you want to criticize something direct your criticism to the substance of my definitions, don’t discard them as the not correct ones. We know they’re not the official definitions, I already gave you that and you asked for my own, now you gotta work with them.
Why would you enjoy participating in infant genital mutilation?
I wouldn’t, that’s why I want to stop it
That doesn’t mean that some people don’t build walls based on that but you assertion that its the only outcome is nonsense.
Never in my discussion I stated that it just builds wall, I am stating that it it is used as an excuse to build walls, which is way different
The different type of culture that exists in scientific fields is insufficient to operate as an entire societal culture. Even if we were to take your answer seriously as soon as you apply whatever science culture you think is best it will be saddled with heritage because heritage inherently happens by existing and having subsequent generations.
The usefulness of a culture in operating a society was not your question. You asked me to provide example if culture without heritage and I replied with “any modern scientific field” because that are (I hope we can agree on this) cultures which do not have heritage as their histories started in the second half of the 19th century, when we were first able to seriously study physics and chemistry at an atomic level thanks to technological advancements never seen before in human history
Do you know what xenophobia means?
Yes I do, I gave you the definition in my previous reply
Despising people because of their heritage or for simply having heritage
That’s not what xenophobia means
I want to erase the bad aspects and keep the good ones.
Do you agree with this desire or not?
One last simple question: Do you agree with the idea of removing children from houses where the mafia is seen as an honourable way of living?
Ok, let’s give you the definitions you so much need.
Heritage: a set of social constructs and ideals created through a subjective belief system by past generations and implemented in the social fabric of a people despite the lack of evidence for its usefulness in providing better living conditions to the people being subjected to these customs. Those ideals are untouchable and cannot be changed through time to preserve the society which has created them (synonyms can be tradition, custom, superstition)
Culture: a set of knowledges and skills created through a rigorous study of a determined subject passed through generations via a learning system which does not require a blind acceptance of its foundamentals and whose practical use can be used to create new customs or products aimed at improving the living conditions of all people. These knowledges and skills are updated through the passing of time to accomodate new findings and results derived from the study of actual results obtained from the application of said knowledges and skills (synonyms can be science, philosophy, arts)
Hope you are happy now
I didn’t say that society doesn’t apply pressure I said it’s a matter of the degree of the pressure.
Ok so if a society has a light pressure applied to enforce an abhorrent custom such as infant genital mutilation you would be ok with that?
Please provide an example of a culture without heritage
Any modern scientific field
You are because you added that question to change the target being despised.
I stated from the very beginning that I despise many aspects of the Italian heritage I am a part of but, even if I didn’t do so, should I state that now does that make me a xenophobe towards my own people? Can one be xenophobe when refusing it’s own traditions? According to the word itself no (xeno = other, different - phobia = fear, refusal) but I’m sure you will find a way to twist yourself out from this conundrum
"If two peoples with different heritages meet what do you think happen? " When I met my Sihk neighbor we had a short but pleasant chat. I wave to him when I see him on walks in the neighborhood.
If two peoples with different heritages meet what do you think happen? Will their heritages be used as a basis for cooperation or do you think they will be used to keep a well defined differentiation between the two peoples? And if the second hypothesis is the correct one (as it is, if not please show me an example of heritage inclusive of different customs from its own) how can you not see heritage building walls around a population?
I’m glad you have a good relationship with your neighbour but this was not my question (as per usual. Please reply to the questions following the one you replied to with a personal experience unrelated to the theme of the discussion
I’m pretty sure that despising heritage is pretty solid grounds for the label of xenophobia. Honestly.
Even if one despises aspects of his own heritage? Who is fiddling with definitions now? I stated multiple times that heritages can have positive aspects among themselves but that, in total, they are more an hindrance than a positive for the improvement of the human condition. I want to erase the bad aspects and keep the good ones. If this makes me a xenophobe (it doesn’t, but you don’t seem to mind) then I am guilty as charged.
I stated multiple times that heritages can have positive aspects among themselves but that, in total, they are more an hindrance than a positive for the improvement of the human condition. I want to erase the bad aspects and keep the good ones. If this makes me a xenophobe (it doesn’t, but you don’t seem to mind) then I am guilty as charged.
Again with your selective quote, please read the whole of my replies and quote them in their entirety.
If, of those three questions, one could be called THE question it would be the primary first question on which the others are based. When I dismissed the question on which the others relied for context for being both disgusting and dumb the others get dismissed as well.
What do you think the “correctly” stated among parentheses stand for? Maybe that I do agree with your stance? And that the following questions were a hypothetical I threw yourself to make you understand that there is no objective ground onto which one can establish where a state can and cannot intervene in the private life of its citizens and that these boundaries are drew according to the current moral status of society at large. Which may vary wildly between different societies. But you seem to have major issues in understanding hypothetical (and also practical) questions so I don’t see how we can continue this conversation.
You ask me to provide you with my personal definition of heritage and culture after a discussion spanning multiple messages over where I extensively defined heritage and culture. Were you reading the contents of my messages? At this point I think not, or at least I think you have a serious issue with basic reading and understanding skills.
Neither culture nor heritage force you to do that. The made up definition that you didn’t write down includes that but not the real one
You even recognize I gave you my definitions in our past exchanges a few lines later while also discarding the well known and established social pressure or peer pressure influence like it’s nothing because you decided so. Try living a lifestyle challenging the social status quo in your area and then come back telling us how good and nicely you were treated by the people living around you. (This is an hypothetical request, please don’t go around challenging other people belief systems)
Some cultures will apply much more pressure to adhere to a heritage strictly. Some won’t.
Please provide me an example of a culture which does not apply peer pressure to enforce its heritage on the people living inside it.
Nothing in the definition that you copied addresses how heritage only builds walls or has never been used for the betterment of society so it doesn’t encapsulate anything.
If two peoples with different heritages meet what do you think happen? Will their heritages be used as a basis for cooperation or do you think they will be used to keep a well defined differentiation between the two people? And if the second hypothesis is the correct one (as it is, if not please show me an example of heritage inclusive of different customs from its own) how can you not see heritage building walls around a population?
I’m pretty sure that despising heritage is pretty solid grounds for the label of xenophobia. Honestly.
Even if one despises aspects of his own heritage? Who is fiddling with definitions now? I stated multiple times that heritages can have positive aspects among themselves but that, in total, they are more an hindrance than a positive for the improvement of the human condition. I want to erase the bad aspects and keep the good ones. If this makes me a xenophobe (it doesn’t, but you don’t seem to mind) then I am guilty as charged.
I quoted your question directly and pointed out how out of line it was.
Yet I showed you with a direct quote of my question that you “forgot” to add the second part of my question and now you are telling me it’s me who cuts quotes for my own convenience? Amazing
I don’t know that including your own demographic as exhibiting the same behavior makes it an ok outlook.
If you were having an honest conversation you would understand that despising heritage’s and customs has nothing to do with race hatred or xenophobia. Also you might even be capable of providing me with the answers to the questions I addressed you. Maybe
Give the dictionary definition of heritage as it would appear if you wrote it.
From the Merriam Webster dictionary:
I think it encapsulate quite well the definition I have been giving so far. As I have stated multiple times heritage is nothing to be proud of. If something forces you to behave or believe a certain way just because you were born at a specific time in a specific region feeling proud about it is the most idiotic and pointless feeling one may harbor. Be proud of YOUR accomplishments and of YOUR deeds in this life, don’t mindlessly cling to ideals from the past to have guidelines in your life but break them and use them to mold your own path.
On the other hand here is the definition of culture
As you can see it has many meanings but, to me, culture is definition N° 2 (a: enlightenment and excellence of taste acquired by intellectual and aesthetic training / b: acquaintance with and taste in fine arts, humanities, and broad aspects of science as distinguished from vocational and technical skills) and 5 (the act of developing the intellectual and moral faculties especially by education) just because linking something as useful and sacred as culture to heritage is a real insult to real culture to me
How can you (correctly) say that what the Canadian government did with its Inuit population was wrong but, at the same time, also state that social services need to exist? Who draw the line between what is acceptable and enforceable and what is not? You?.
This was my question, don’t cut a citation where it’s convenient to you
“Never said otherwise, just that heritage is not something you get from your race, but from your culture.” That was enough to set you off to the point that you said culture never did anything positive for humanity?
Yes it was since confusing culture with heritage is quite a misconception in my view. Again, culture is something humans use to create bridges between different groups and societies, heritage is what keep us apart by building walls among different people. You still continue to focus on my observations about aspects of foreign customs but are unable to consider the same type of observations I made about my own Italian heritage. To me it would seem that you are trying to find xenophobia where there is none and it’s becoming quite amusing I must admit. Almost as much as receiving a single answer where there were multiple questions asked.
The line would fall between providing social services and taking children to abuse.
Ah yes, a general answer to a general question. In my previous post I made quite specific references to actual situations which were handled or would need to be handled by the Italian government, yet you are unable to provide me with a response to any of these questions.
You are very slowly rediscovering the fundamentals of society, government, and civilization.
And you are slowly discovering that laws and governments should evolve to adapt to our modern society, yet our politicians tend to keep the status quo unchanged because… Heritage!! Things were always like this in the past and were fine and dandy until these sjw arrived and ruined the fun for everybody (/s, I’m interpreting the main reason given to keep the status quo as it has always been).
Now that we have established what culture and heritage are as defined from my point of view can you please give me an example of heritage being anything but counterproductive to the development and improvement of the human race?
Let’s see if you can answer more than one, comfortable question at a time
Again usually means that there was a first time. The conversation as started in this post didn’t have the context that you just said it did.
Never said otherwise, just that heritage is not something you get from your race, but from your culture
That’s where the false correlation between heritage and colture started for me
To clarify when you said “Give me a proof about the results of your method and I can consider its benefits towards the common good” was that the impersonal your or was it addressing me?
I was referring to the hypothetical person enforcing a custom or a cultural aspect of his heritage on someone else. What I meant is that if you want to have a requirement of your culture to be enforced on the general population you have to prove somehow that it will improve the quality of life for everyone or you need to shut up. Classical example: the Christian faith does not allow for any contraceptive and, in their view, abstinence is the only way to avoid unwanted pregnancies and STDs. Numerous studies have proven this approach to be the worst imaginable so why is a religious organization having so much influence on people left alone and allowed to predicate their false truth when we have seen first hand the harm it can cause to a population (I think, for example, about all the damages they did in Africa by not allowing people to use condoms during sex. How many people died by AIDS or by childbirth for this foolish stance?)
the spectrum of options between providing social services in any capacity to physically and sexually abusing children forcibly separated from their parents and even killing them is so wide that your question doesn’t deserve an answer.
I never stated that this spectrum was narrow, I can see how wide it is. My question was, in this spectrum, where would you draw a line between what is acceptable and what is not? And, most importantly, who should enforce this arbitrary limit? Again, if it were for me anyone being found to be associated with a mafia family should loose his or hers parental rights and their children should be adopted by a civilized family for a better upbringing and for their own good. The Italian state does not agree with me tho so children of mafiosi are left into their original families where they are thought that the evil state has brought their daddy/mommy away for no good reason (nevermind they killed someone, if they did he had it surely coming and he deserved it, in their view) and the mafia epidemic still goes on stronger than ever. Who is right and who is wrong between me and the state in this case?
Oh absolutely yes. You went from your protip of culture has never been for the betterment of society to oh sure plenty of times it has been but thats a different type of culture.
Again, you entered a conversation where my previous interlocutor used the terms “heritage” and “culture” interchangeably so I adapted myself to that register. Once you entered the discussion asking me what I meant I gave you an explanation. Culture is whatever helps humanity to progress, anything which keeps humanity frozen in its place has to be discarded for our own good.
what method are you talking about? What are you strawmaning here? Because I didn’t advocate any method.
Social sciences are a good place to start but also psychology and neurosciences can help in this sense. If we wanted I reckon it could be possible to find a reliable evaluation method to determine the impact of specific customs against societal safety. As a start I’d say eliminating all those customs harmful to anyone, expecially children, should be banned. No more genital mutilation, child slavery or exploitation, lack of education, food, water… Do you think you can agree with me on this? If not, why? Are customs more important than children’ safety and comfort?
Nor am I talking about social services as a whole, a pretty big leap on your part there
Again, mine was an exaggeration to your concept. How can you (correctly) say that what the Canadian government did with its Inuit population was wrong but, at the same time, also state that social services need to exist? Who draw the line between what is acceptable and enforceable and what is not? You?
You seem to think that because a culture can contain any negative elements that suddenly all cultures everywhere are bad.
Absolutely not, I want to cancel and forget the bad aspects of every culture while maintaining the good ones. As an Italian I gave you one example of a custom we had to eliminate through specific laws because our society was unable to leave it behind by improving naturally. I want to replicate the same for other cultures too while still helping Italian and all other cultures improving by eliminating other negative aspects of theirs, like (for Italians) finding shortcuts to work less, being always ready to screw your neighbour if this means any kind of gain for yourself, the fucking mafia and the constant judgment only a deeply Christian society can experience. Is this a bad thing? If yes please, tell me why
Gymbo actually made me lol in a pub. Loved it
Really walking back on that culture is fucking evil and has never done anything good stance eh?
Absolutely not, I’m giving you a better definition of what “culture” means to me through your questions, that’s how a discussion goes usually. My stance about the majority of aspects related to “culture” being bad for mankind is the same from the beginning of this conversation.
Not everything is up to the state" thats not the point. The point is that states have in the past done exactly what you are praising. Taking children away from their families to strip all elements of culture away from them so they could integrate into “civilized” society.
Ok, let’s follow your logic and eliminate social services then. What right has the state to determine how a parent or a tutor should educate his child?
You do understand that there are objectively harmful"cultural aspects " that we want to eliminate for the common good?? Mafia is a plague in Italy (and in the world nowadays) and I’d be more than happy if the Italian state would require mafiosi to lose their paternal rights and would help their children find a place in a more civilized family. We would have less mafiosi in a very short time.
Until the 60es in Sicily, Italy, was legal for a man to murder his wife and her lover should he had found them having a sexual intercourse. The state had to issue a law to end this practice because society (even Sicilian women) was unable to abandon this farce of a misogynistic culture. Was this a wrong decision?
In the same way I don’t want Chinese people living in Italy and, at the same time, continuing being enslaved by their compatriots as they were in China. I don’t want families living their life according to the most extreme interpretation of shari’a. There are plenty of antisocial norms disguised as culture, is it really that hard to say that we do not want them in our society??
You sound exactly like xenophobe bigots. Those foreigners don’t fit in. They are different and that is bad, they should be more like us. Conform! Though they will never really belong here.
I’m not talking about any race or culture in particular, I’m not a xenophobe, if you want to classify me you can call me a customs hater. I hate doing things a certain way “because we have always did it like that”, without any supporting evidence about the outcome of your actions. Give me a proof about the results of your method and I can consider its benefits towards the common good
I am a “regular” flyer and a stoner and I never fail to bring with me a sample of devil’s lettuce when I’m leaving for extended period of time and never once I’ve had any issue bringing my hazardous material with me.
One time I even embarked with a small firework in my wallet I forgot I placed there after a party and none bat an eye.
Security level: top (not gun)