Racist Mormon Mommy blogger-ughhh

[rongo]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Ps:  the primary incoherent elements are her claims that segregating races will result in peaceful, non corrupted countries while recognizing that historically such segregated communities were full of violence and corruption. 

Contradictory claims result in an incoherent argument. 

So, would you say from this that communisim is an incoherent argument? 

I would say that communism is a lot of things --- none of them good. It has a terrible track record for not working according to theory, and the excuse is always because they never did it right. But if they only would do it right, then . . .

But, I wouldn't say those who passionately believe in communism are "incoherent." They are simplistic, naive, willfully blind --- all of those. But, their arguments are coherent --- especially within the assumptions of Marxism.

I see your insistence on labeling Stacy_L in a similar way. You could replace "segregating races/segregated communities" with "communism" above, and communism has the same track record problems that systemic racism and segregation do. But I wouldn't say that either are incoherent philosophies or theories.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Nobis, you assume that culture is static.  A culture is never static, but is always responding to all of the influences from each member.  I see no need to think that a country may actually have "a" culture; do you see that as bad or negative?  To me it is naive to assume that every nation must forfeit their culture in order to make immigrants welcome.  That is just turning reality upside down to fit some form of knee-jerk reaction for social engineering that the Left has pushed for the last 40 years.  

What I see so healthy about the influx of Hispanic peoples is that they add to our culture; I like the simple fact that they know how to celebrate and enjoy life.  Americans have lost that, imo, and hopefully we can regain it.  

Yes, I think the citizens of a country should be able to communciate with one another.  If you are going to be a citizen of the USA or if you are going to move here then learn the language.  No, I don't believe it is the responsibility of the government to teach children in their mother tongue.  Teach in English.  Just as I was always taught the best way to learn a foreign language was to abandon English and only use the language you desire to speak, it remains the best way for immigrants also.  I have no problem with the concept of having free English classes for adults who need to learn to speak in order to obtain better jobs, but more importantly to communciate with their neighbors.

Cinco de Mayo has become a quasi holiday everywhere in the US and has been for many decades.  This is part of the influence of our immigrants and a reflection that our culture - the evil, bad, old, white, US culture - is not static, but absorbs traditions from our people.  However, we should never demand or promote that the evil whiteys, Europeans, and everyone else that has been a member of this country for over 200 years, forfeit their US culture.  I reject the idea that our culture is somehow bad or negative.  It is ours and we should be proud of it because it has created a nation that so many other people obvsiouly want to come here.

Who said that culture is uniform throughout the USA?  I have no said it - in fact, it is interesting how so many of you jump to exaggerated conclusions that I have not stated nor supported.  It is as if everyone is terrified of being called a racist, Islamaphobe, Latinophobe, or whatever else causes us to be terrified of stating that we have a culture of value and if people want to come here then "be" American.  If immigrants want to come here and make this nation like the nation they come from then stay in your home nation.  We have something to offer and we welcome you here, but not on our knees while beating ourselves over the head for actually having a culture and speaking English. 

You seemed to have missed the point of his post. You are making arguments against positions he has not claimed. 

Perhaps you should reread it. 

"Nobis, you assume that culture is static."

[BlueDreams]

23 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

It does not appear we have said anything in conflict.  At no point have I advocated that immigrants must abandon their culture.  What I have advocated is that they must adapt to the culture of this nation.  What is the problem with that?  You have talked about being one, but you seem to think that everyone can be an island and remain "one".  That simply does not work.

The problem is the assertion of "must." Must assumes pressure of force that I don't care for. I'm more of a live and let live and learn together. It also leads to something closer of a one way street in the dissimination of culture. I'm not a fan of that. 

No, far from it. Individuality does not assume island living. What I've suggested is allowing for differences, including differing languages, to come together into one greater whole. And then acknowledge that what it means to BE American is more complicated and less singular in culture than what I see you suggesting. 

Edited March 31, 2017 by BlueDreams

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

So, would you say from this that communisim is an incoherent argument? 

I would say that communism is a lot of things --- none of them good. It has a terrible track record for not working according to theory, and the excuse is always because they never did it right. But if they only would do it right, then . . .

But, I wouldn't say those who passionately believe in communism are "incoherent." They are simplistic, naive, willfully blind --- all of those. But, their arguments are coherent --- especially within the assumptions of Marxism.

I see your insistence on labeling Stacy_L in a similar way. You could replace "segregating races/segregated communities" with "communism" above, and communism has the same track record problems that systemic racism and segregation do. But I wouldn't say that either are incoherent philosophies or theories.

Depends on what is being used to defend communism. If contradictory premises are used, then it would be illogical. If the individual jumps from one position to a contradictory one depending on what argument she is challenging, then her argument is inconsistent.  If it is also meaningless, then I would use the term incoherent.  

I have heard incoherent arguments for belief in the Gospel. I am not going to pretend something is logical, etc. just to be civil. 

Ps. She was the one who made both claims. She was defending against another criticism by pointing out all human communities have engaged in violence, iirc. I am not saying her argument is incoherent because it is not historically accurate. 

PPS:  her argument is incoherent.  If I was careless and said she was incoherent,  which is not precisely what I meant, please point that out and I will correct it when I am not on the phone

Edited March 31, 2017 by Calm

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Depends on what is being used to defend communism. If contradictory premises are used, then it would be illogical. If the individual jumps from one position to a contradictory one depending on what argument she is challenging, then her argument is inconsistent.  If it is also meaningless, then I would use the term incoherent.  

I have heard incoherent arguments for belief in the Gospel. I am not going to pretend something is logical, etc. just to be civil. 

I guess this is where we differ. To me, many things that aren't logical aren't incoherent because they aren't logical to me.

[Storm Rider]

12 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

The problem is the assertion of "must." Must assumes pressure of force that I don't care for. I'm more of a live and let live and learn together. It also leads to something closer of a one way street in the dissimination of culture. I'm not a fan of that. 

No, far from it. Individuality does not assume island living. What I've suggested is allowing for differences, including differing languages, to come together into one greater whole. And then acknowledge that what it means to BE American is more complicated and less singular in culture than what I see you suggesting. 

Explain how we come together into a greater whole when the diverse peoples cannot communciate with one another, please.

[Storm Rider]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

You seemed to have missed the point of his post. You are making arguments against positions he has not claimed. 

Perhaps you should reread it. 

"Nobis, you assume that culture is static."

Nope, did you read his and mine both?  Read his first paragraph and tell me how he does not assume that US culture is static and is not influenced by all of the ingredients exerted upon it.  At no point do I advocate that immigrants must abandon their culture.  However, to have a stable, strong whole immigrants must "join" the community that is already here.

[BlueDreams]

4 hours ago, rongo said:

I think something that is being overlooked is that what I, and others, see as a rise in violence and intimidation from the left is less-organized than the "usual suspects" that are brought up on the right. That is, some here are naming historical organized right-wing violent groups and pointing to numerically less-numerous analogous groups on the left and arguing: ergo, violence is much more a problem of the right than of the left. Organized, historical groups are only one part of the problem, and the rising part with momentum is people with enough contempt and dismissal of their ideological opponents that violence, intimidation, and refusal to accept legitimacy are snowballing. We see some of that here with admittedly non-violent/non-extreme people, who are declaring some views to be incoherent and beyond the pale --- not even to be considered, countenanced, and responded to. 

..........

The violence and intimidation from the left is not generally organized (or loosely organized), but is increasingly manifesting itself. It seems to me to be a manifestation of frustration (and disbelief) at the election results. I was as stunned as everyone that Trump beat Clinton (I voted for McMullin. Trump is reprehensible, and Clinton is corrupt), and this frustration and disbelief has led to normally reasonable people to take on the eY of extremists. And, while I don't like a lot of the movement that swept Trump into power, I recognize the underpinnings and causes of that (people who likewise felt frustrated and betrayed by the system and the Republican party in particular). I think many on the left are still in denial that an election could have had the results that happened, and they are tempted to refuse to legitimize the results. This naturally leads to the temptation to regard disrespect, contempt, blatant rejection of the 1st Ammendment, and even violent protest as viable and acceptable. 

Less-organized or not, it would be counted on the listing. There isn't a "usual" suspects list. And when it comes to disorderly violence or intimidation, either side does not have to be organized. I honesty do not fully get what you're saying. You're giving me basic sense or feeling of a trend without much data to back it up. I don't want a sense of violence or intimidation. I want numbers and actual data, however imperfect. If I base in on feelings, I know my own would state something similar to what you've said but in reverse. Because, for me, the bigger threat to my sense of self are galvanized right-wing loonies. But that doesn't give me much. 

As a person on the left, I will state that what I see happening looks like i'm somewhere in the middle of a fun house....but the more creepy end with weird clowns and disturbed people.....and they're running our country. There is definitely a surreal feeling to it. But it also goes beyond that. Unfortunately, i feel this goes too much into politics and I don't want to break board rules and focus on this part of it. 
 

Quote

 

What blows me away is people like Calm digging in and insisting that, for example, Stacy-L's statements about homogenous homelands are indeed incoherent because attaining this isn't feasible and is extremely naive. But this is true of how the political extremes view all of their opponents views on the economy, social policy, you name it. This existence of different and incompatible world views, and what is viewed as being unrealistic, simplistic, and naive doesn't make the other views incoherent, and it seems to me like using labels like this is an attempt to stop the discussion, poison the well, marginalize. In other words, the embodiment of the ad hominem fallacy. 

 

 

 

I get both sides. But lets take this to an even greater extreme. Let's say hypothetically someone believes that they can get people to really fly like a bird, by hypothetically building wings like that on the Avengers. After all, science fiction has sometimes been right about the future. And then they start insisting that we should dump money into research for this endeavor. They hold rallies, make posts, and insiste people are discriminating against them for not taking their bird-man idea more seriously. That we're denying our true potential as people if we don't live up to a deep-seated desire as humans to fly. Each time someone points out really large gaping holes in their thought processes, they double down or evade the point and focus again on the deep need people have to fly and that we would be so better off if we could. At some point, ya might start calling this a little incoherent because it flies in the face of really really basic facts. Like the basic structure of earth's atmosphere and human physical dynamics.  Would you find the assertion and push baffling, maybe a little incomprensible, unfathomable, or illogical? I would, particularly if they were past the age of 18....all of which can be synonymous with incomprehensible. One of the definitions of incomprehensible is "(of an ideology, policy, or system) internally inconsistent; illogical." All of what is being presented flies in the face of some really really basic logical fallacies and basic problems for implementation. Oh, and the fact that the vast majority of the populations in these "homelands" don't actually want what they're selling. And that's before we get to the parts that are very obviously implicitly racist....and yet they're insisting they're not REALLY racist.  Or just avoiding facts that run counter and evading questionings. 

It's not much of a stretch, honestly.

This doesn't mean there isn't any thought or methodology or pattern in deduction for these ideas. But I've seen methodology and thought pattern to abuse. To manipulation. To personality disorders. To my anxiety when I'm getting PMS-ish. It doesn't mean that just because there's a pattern and a thought process that that process takes some huge flying leaps in logic and assumptions to get to the end thought. And with Stacy-L and Ayla they're both taking some major flying leaps.

 

An aside to the aside:

Quote

Just for fun: here is a USA Today clipping I sent home in a mission letter. Next to an article about Bo Gritz (excommunicated former presidential candidate who took his following and started a compound in Montana) was an article about a terrorist shooting in Tasmania. I gerrymandered the clipping to make it look like the picture of Gritz was part of the headline article about the shooting. They were unrelated.   -- yeah...i think that's a little too before my times.....so I'll do that chuckle where you don't really get it but you feel like laughing is kinda what, hopefully, is expected  

 

With luv,

BD

Edited March 31, 2017 by BlueDreams

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

I see no need to think that a country may actually have "a" culture; do you see that as bad or negative?  To me it is naive to assume that every nation must forfeit their culture in order to make immigrants welcome.

These statements appear contradictory to me.  If you don't think a country has "a" culture, then how could a country forfeit its culture?  Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but I thought your position was that immigrants need to assimilate to American culture.  If that's the case, then there has to be "a" culture for them to assimilate to.

Quote

What I see so healthy about the influx of Hispanic peoples is that they add to our culture; I like the simple fact that they know how to celebrate and enjoy life.  Americans have lost that, imo, and hopefully we can regain it. 

I agree; however, culture is the way that people celebrate and enjoy life, not just the fact that they do.  The influence of Hispanic culture would be specific cultural practices that are uniquely Hispanic.

Quote

Yes, I think the citizens of a country should be able to communciate with one another.  If you are going to be a citizen of the USA or if you are going to move here then learn the language.  No, I don't believe it is the responsibility of the government to teach children in their mother tongue.  Teach in English.  Just as I was always taught the best way to learn a foreign language was to abandon English and only use the language you desire to speak, it remains the best way for immigrants also.  I have no problem with the concept of having free English classes for adults who need to learn to speak in order to obtain better jobs, but more importantly to communciate with their neighbors.

Yet in New Mexico English AND Spanish are both official languages, so by law (for example) notices home to parents from school must be in both languages.  And, as I pointed out in my post, most people in my town speak Spanish.  If you moved to my town, would you learn Spanish (an official language!) so you could communicate with people?  Spanish was being spoken here long before English...  Would you assimilate to our culture, or would you assume we have to assimilate to yours?

Quote

Cinco de Mayo has become a quasi holiday everywhere in the US and has been for many decades.  This is part of the influence of our immigrants and a reflection that our culture - the evil, bad, old, white, US culture - is not static, but absorbs traditions from our people.  However, we should never demand or promote that the evil whiteys, Europeans, and everyone else that has been a member of this country for over 200 years, forfeit their US culture.  I reject the idea that our culture is somehow bad or negative.  It is ours and we should be proud of it because it has created a nation that so many other people obvsiouly want to come here.

No one is demanding that Europeans forfeit their culture.  The reasonable request that you recognize that there are other vibrant cultures in the United States that have been here as long or longer than European culture and that you don't demand they conform to your view of American culture is not a request to abandon European culture.

Allow me to point out again that my town historically was not part of the US and in fact was a refuge for those who wanted to remain Mexican.  It was taken in a war and a land purchase.  The Mexican culture in my town is and should be the dominant culture.  Why should it be otherwise?

Quote

Who said that culture is uniform throughout the USA?  I have no said it - in fact, it is interesting how so many of you jump to exaggerated conclusions that I have not stated nor supported.  It is as if everyone is terrified of being called a racist, Islamaphobe, Latinophobe, or whatever else causes us to be terrified of stating that we have a culture of value and if people want to come here then "be" American.  If immigrants want to come here and make this nation like the nation they come from then stay in your home nation.  We have something to offer and we welcome you here, but not on our knees while beating ourselves over the head for actually having a culture and speaking English. 

Again, these two statements appear to be contradictory.  Perhaps I misunderstand -- please explain.

 

Edited March 31, 2017 by MiserereNobis

[Storm Rider]

13 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

These statements appear contradictory to me.  If you don't think a country has "a" culture, then how could a country forfeit its culture?  Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but I thought your position was that immigrants need to assimilate to American culture.  If that's the case, then there has to be "a" culture for them to assimilate to.

I agree; however, culture is the way that people celebrate and enjoy life, not just the fact that they do.  The influence of Hispanic culture would be specific cultural practices that are uniquely Hispanic.

Yet in New Mexico English AND Spanish are both official languages, so by law (for example) notices home to parents from school must be in both languages.  And, as I pointed out in my post, most people in my town speak Spanish.  If you moved to my town, would you learn Spanish (an official language!) so you could communicate with people?  Spanish was being spoken here long before English...  Would you assimilate to our culture, or would you assume we have to assimilate to yours?

No one is demanding that Europeans forfeit their culture.  The reasonable request that you recognize that there are other vibrant cultures in the United States that have been here as long or longer than European culture and that you don't demand they conform to your view of American culture is not a request to abandon European culture.

Allow me to point out again that my town historically was not part of the US and in fact was a refuge for those who wanted to remain Mexican.  It was taken in a war and a land purchase.  The Mexican culture in my town is and should be the dominant culture.  Why should it be otherwise?

Again, these two statements appear to be contradictory.  Perhaps I misunderstand -- please explain.

 

I am against a Balkanization of any culture within a nation whether that is the USA or not.  Culture is the ideas, customs, and social behavior of a people.  I think that there is an overall US or American culture, but as we travel throughout the US we see differences, permutations, etc.  That does not mean there is not an overall culture, but that there are influences relative to the influx of different influences over time.  

Let me highlight a pivotal point in your statement - "my town historically was not part of the US and in fact was a refuge for those who wanted to remain Mexican.  It was taken in a war and a land purchase.  The Mexican culture in my town is and should be the dominant culture."  No, I don't think the Mexican culture should be the dominant culture.  I see no problem with there being a strong Mexican influence, but this subculture is a part of the whole of the US - it is not a part of Mexico.  Yes, I actually think English should be spoken fluently in order that this village remains a member of the greater whole, which primarily speaks English.  Advocates of speaking English in order that people may communciate and more easily feel a part of the whole is not new and has been advocated by a great number of our nation's politicians and intellects.  It is not until the 20th century when we saw a great influx of Latinos did we see this demand that we accomodate their language needs.  The more we accomodate them the more they have not assimilated and we now have problems where many citizens cannot speak English and cannot communciate with the whole.  Instead of carrying the US flag we see them carrying the Mexican flag because that remains their primary allegiance and commitment.  

I don't see any conflict with welcoming all peoples to the nation and at the same time requiring them to speak English and to assimilate into the overall culture.  This does not negate their culture nor is it an abandonnment of their culture - it is an adaptation of US culture and enjoying the influences that their culture brings to ours.  

This is not a black and white issue - it certainly is not about being white or being a WASP.  It is about being American.  We are a people made up of almost, if not every, race upon their face of the earth.  The melting pot analogy or the tapestry analogy demonstrates that each immigrant influences the whole, but we have to be a whole.  We cannot be 190 different pieces of cloth and pretend that we have a whole.  If there is no communication there is not whole. 

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

The problem is the assertion of "must." Must assumes pressure of force that I don't care for. I'm more of a live and let live and learn together. It also leads to something closer of a one way street in the dissimination of culture. I'm not a fan of that. 

No, far from it. Individuality does not assume island living. What I've suggested is allowing for differences, including differing languages, to come together into one greater whole. And then acknowledge that what it means to BE American is more complicated and less singular in culture than what I see you suggesting. 

Blue, I find this concept of live and let live - that we owe nothing to the community and the community should just leave us alone - to be the product of hedonistic individualism.  The individual is the ultimate social creature and any demands of the community should/may be ignored.  

I appreciate social pressures when those pressures are for the better.  Satisfying the demands of the individual have consummed US society and then we actually wonder why society has so many problems.  

Blue, what is the benefit of a nation whose peoples cannot communciate with each other?  Do you see how that type of community is incredibly unstable and the end problem is dissolution and Balkanization of a nation.  

What I am suggesting is having a diverse nation, but one that celebrates the first objective - we are a single people; we are one - even while we understand that there are differences.  The primary is the whole rather than then individual.  Please do not exaggerate my position - I am not suggesting uniformity!  Far from it - the reality of our nation was that disperate peoples could unite around commonly held principles.  This dedication to creating a more perfect union was what united them.  It was imperative that each citizen could communicate with each other.  This does not mean that everyone only spoke English; to the contrary people were multilingual, which is also something I support.  (aside:  I would really like to see an educational objective of each student knowing at least two languages prior to high school graduation.)   

[BlueDreams]

15 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Blue, I find this concept of live and let live - that we owe nothing to the community and the community should just leave us alone - to be the product of hedonistic individualism.  The individual is the ultimate social creature and any demands of the community should/may be ignored.  

I don't have time to answer the rest right now. But you keep jumping past what I'm actually saying and creating a straw man. I didn't say live and let live and meant accept differences and work together to build community in those differences. At no point did I say we owe nothing to our community. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited March 31, 2017 by BlueDreams

[Calm]

5 hours ago, rongo said:

I guess this is where we differ. To me, many things that aren't logical aren't incoherent because they aren't logical to me.

I am not saying she is incoherent because she is just not logical.  I have posted several reasons, the primary one being she uses contradictory arguments; her arguments are illogical, meaningless, inconsistent, AND error filled.

Edited April 1, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Nope, did you read his and mine both?  Read his first paragraph and tell me how he does not assume that US culture is static and is not influenced by all of the ingredients exerted upon it.  At no point do I advocate that immigrants must abandon their culture.  However, to have a stable, strong whole immigrants must "join" the community that is already here.

Reading one paragraph is not a good way to understand an argument.

There is no way this sentence below implies a static culture:

"To keep the melting pot analogy alive, then we must demand that immigrants adopt some white American culture and that white Americans adopt some immigrant culture."

Edited March 31, 2017 by Calm

[Guest]

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The "why" is the motivation for what they believe, what they say, and how they act.  The "why" is very important. But we can disagree. I still like you

 

I question if there is a why, and then gave a possible reason. I guess you missed it. 

[bsjkki]

The Salt Lake Tribune had a nice article from Mormons about their favorite conference talk on culture. I had not heard this story before and found it pertinent to this thread. http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/5084444-155/mormons-recall-their-favorite-sermons-on?fullpage=1

"The doctrines of the gospel are indispensable. They are essential, but the packaging is optional. Let me share a simple example to show the difference between the doctrines of the church and the cultural packaging. Here is a bottle of Utah peaches, prepared by a Utah homemaker to feed her family during a snowy season. Hawaiian homemakers don't bottle fruit. They pick enough fruit for a few days and store it in baskets like this for their families. This basket contains a mango, bananas, a pineapple and a papaya. I bought these fruits in a supermarket in Salt Lake City, but they might have been picked by a Polynesian homemaker to feed her family in a climate where fruit ripens all year round.

"The basket and the bottle are different containers, but the content is the same: fruit for a family. Is the bottle right and the basket wrong? No, they are both right. They are containers appropriate to the culture and the needs of the people. And they are both appropriate for the content they carry, which is the fruit.

"Now, what is the fruit? Paul tells us: 'The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness [and] temperance.' In the sisterhood of Relief Society, in the brotherhood of priesthood quorums, in the reverent coming together to partake of the sacrament, the fruit of the Spirit unites us in love, joy and peace whether the Relief Society is in Taipei or Tonga, whether the priesthood quorum is in Montana or Mexico, and whether the sacrament meeting is in Fiji or the Philippines."