Multiculturalism Is Chaos

[Rise]

Well I’m in Brittany just now and it doesn’t seem chaotic, in spite of being a mix of French and Celtic cultures.

It's debateable how multicultural Brittany really is, because Breton as a language is almost dead.

Language barriers usually are a symptom of true divisions in culture (true divisions like views on morality, law, family structure, spiritual truth, social contracts, individual and collective purpose, etc). Because walls in communication prevent the free exchange and flow of ideas which lead to homogenization of two cultures into one (either by both cultures being changed, or by one culture integrating itself with another).

Conversely, language integration between two people groups is usually a sign that they have also integrated in other significant ways so that the chance of serious conflict is greatly reduced.

A lot of people mistakenly think multiculturalism is defined by relatively meaningless surface level trappings like "we eat this dish" or "we celebrate this festival once a year" or "we practice this particular style of music occasionally".

No, real culture deals with beliefs about how family and society ought to structure itself and how individuals ought to behave. And you usually can't have significant disagreements about these things without it leading to conflict in society.

Sometimes you can avoid conflict by segregating the two communities apart so that they can both live their conflicting livestyles side by side. But this almost always results in a lack of shared identity, which means there is no sense of family or national bond together. Which is why a lot of times historically when a nation comes under stress it ends up being divided into many smaller nations along differing cultural lines. That shows that they didn't have strong enough cultural bonds with the other areas to see them as part of their family and nation.

Would you say Brittany has significant differences with the rest of France with regards to the important issues of society and culture? I'd suspect not as much as you think.
Do they even have enough sense of being culturally separate from France that they would welcome being given the chance for independence from France? I don't know, but I suspect if so it's not pronounced enough to result in a significant push for it. Especially compared with other people groups and regions around Europe who are in a much more severe cultural clash where one group is actively seeking independence from the others, or at least has a history of trying to do so.

You'll see this truth played out in just about any example around the world historically.

Where you see two significantly different cultures living together you often have conflict.
And when you see a reduction in conflict it's because integration has taken place.

Or, in the case where overt conflict is avoided, you end up with segregated cultures that are allowed to practice their significant differences but still have some kind of shared agreement with the other groups. But this ultimately isn't historically a long lasting recipe for stability. Because ultimately when stress comes to the collective the individual parts don't have a sense of shared culture and bonding that holds them together. Instead they are more likely to fracture into their individual parts. The only way they could come together in unity under the pressure is if they made the choice that the benefits of solidarity are more important to them than cultural protection, so they are willing to integrate in order to obtain that unity. You do see examples of this happening historically to varying degrees. But then you're really just talking about a process of integration to erase cultural divisions. And if two people groups don't want to undergo that process in order to achieve greater unity then historically they are vulnerable to simply splitting apart.

Quebec is a more modern example were they are constantly wishing they could break away from the rest of Canada. They never fully integrated culturally with the rest of Canada. That's part of why they so jealously guard their language. To guard ones language is an essential part of guard ones cultural identity which makes them set apart from others.
If you no longer care about guarding the supremacy of your language then it's likely a good sign you don't care that much about guarding your culture from outside influence and change.

The reverse is also true when US citizens make a big deal about retaining english as the national language and not allowing our country to become bi-lingual. It's really an effort to preserve the cultural unity we enjoy, to not let that become fractured over time.

 

[oldbadger]

Language barriers usually are a symptom of true divisions in culture (true divisions like views on morality, law, family structure, spiritual truth, social contracts.......

Rubbish...... Morality? Spiritual truth? Where did you get that idea from?
Cosmopolitan societies are coloured with many languages, usually with a common one, but where I live product information leaflets are usually printed in about twenty languages.
You need to keep and protect all North American languages...they are part of the country's history. And since the US was populated from scores and scores of countries then you should preserve that as well.

Conversely, language integration between two people groups is usually a sign that they have also integrated in other significant ways .......

It's good to have a common langauge but not at the expense of all the others.
Where I live regional dialects, accents and languages are all supported in services like our news, road signs, legal documents etc.
And translators are available for thousands of languages.

The reverse is also true when US citizens make a big deal about retaining english as the national language and not allowing our country to become bi-lingual. It's really an effort to preserve the cultural unity we enjoy, to not let that become fractured over time.

You don't enjoy cultural, spiritual, moral unity ..... And speaking English hasn't helped bond anything, has it. ?

But if you givev respect to everyone as they are then that can help all of you to bond on diversity.

 

[Rise]

I was under the impression that civil war was fought over morals or political difference, between people of the same culture

A difference in morals and ideas about how society should be structure is a difference in culture by definition.
Point to any civil war and you'll probably find conflicting culture, or a lack of shared culture, at the heart of it.

I have noticed a lot of people have an incomplete idea of what "culture" actually is. Culture is not just the kind of food you eat.

Culture is how you think about the world which influences how you think society should be structured and how human interactions should take place.

Look at the US civil war: There was an irreconcilable cultural difference between the north and south about what the proper way to structure society, government, and economics was. Even though in a lot of ways they shared language and some aspects of culture. Culturally they were absolutely not the same on many fundamental and key areas. From an identity standpoint the south also saw themselves as citizens of their state more than they saw themselves as citizens of the nation. This is representative of how deep the cultural divides and lack of cultural integration was at that time.

Or the Russian communist revolution, which was a type of civil war. You had conflicting ideas about the fundamental core tenets of how society and government and economics should be structured. They could not be reconciled. One side was going to have to surrender their ideas.

Politics is often called "civil war by other means". Because the same process of warring over culture takes place. It just takes place in a manner and forum that is meant to avoid physical violence as the means of settling our cultural disputes. But successfully avoiding physical violence in the US system depends on all parties involved agreeing to honor the rules of the game as it was established, so that they can feel safe honoring the results of the electoral process. When one side wants to start ignoring the constitutional protections of the other side, then you're on the path to physical conflict. Things like election fraud and silencing political speech of certain groups makes violent conflict inevitable by making legitimate peaceful conflict impossible.

I live in france in a village with a celtic name that translates as 'good valley'. Celtic, not Iberian. There are people who live here from every corner of the world. Several times a year we will get together and put on a meal for pensioners, the meal will be designed around one of the cultures represented by the villagers.

The fact that you think multiculturalism is defined by different food dishes is a demonstration of what I was just saying. Which is that people today have a very incomplete and warped idea of what multiculturalism really is. They completely ignore the issues of substance with regards to conflicting cultures, and only focus on irrelevant trappings like what kind of clothes do you wear or what kind of food do you eat.

That's not real multi-culturalism. Food is not culture. Culture is your view of how the world is and how it should be. Differences in food can be an expression of a difference in culture, but food by itself isn't culture.

Culture definition:
The arts, beliefs, customs, institutions, and other products of human work and thought considered as a unit, especially with regard to a particular time or social group.

Too many people stop at "art" and think that is all there is to culture. They don't talk about beliefs, customs, or institutions. Which is far more substantial and meaningful.
People don't usually fight over culturally differences in art the way they fight over differences in beliefs and institutions.

Furthermore, food differences can linger long after true cultural differences have been erased. The continued presence of differences in food don't necessarily mean there is a continued difference in culture (with regards to things of real importance and significance).

The opposite can also be true: The acceptance and integration of other culture's food into your own doesn't necessarily mean you've integrated any of their significant cultural differences into your own culture. It shows that there is a contact and communication point upon which ideas are successfully flowing from one culture to another, but that doesn't automatically mean they've adopted anything more than your love of a particular dish. In most cases, adopting a love for a particular type of food doesn't require changing any of your beliefs, customs, or institutions.

 

[ChristineM]

The fact that you think multiculturalism is defined by different food dishes is a demonstration of what I was just saying

I gave an example of why the op is not representative of the real world and you are defining my whole outlook on it

 

[Rise]

Rubbish...... Morality? Spiritual truth? Where did you get that idea from?

Logical fallacy, Ad Hominem or Appeal to Mockery.

Calling an idea "rubbish" doesn't disprove an idea.

You'd need to give actual reasons why you think it's wrong.

Cosmopolitan societies are coloured with many languages, usually with a common one, but where I live product information leaflets are usually printed in about twenty languages.

Your statement is not relevant to disproving any point I made.

In fact, if you have a common language then that represents language integration has taken place.

When no language integration has taken place then you end up with segregated societies divided by their different languages.

The majority of Quebec still doesn't have a common language with the rest of Canada. They speak only French. The amount speaking english is increasing as time goes on, but the historical segregation and lack of a common language would have fueled that lack of unity of culture that led to Quebec repeatedly trying to leave the rest of Canada.

You need to keep and protect all North American languages...they are part of the country's history. And since the US was populated from scores and scores of countries then you should preserve that as well.

You have no arguments in support of your conclusion. You're just stating a conclusion as though it's true without giving a valid reason why you think it's true.

You can't give any reason why we "need" to preserve the practice of all ancestral languages as part of everyday life.

Saying "because it's a part of history" isn't a reason.

It's a statement of fact that it's a part of history, but that's not a reason why we "need" to continue practicing that aspect of history for eternity without change.

The fact is that's not how history works. Look at any major nation today and every one of them was formed by unifying smaller groups into larger groups. Which always required cultural and language assimilation at some point in order to achieve larger unity. It might have happened dozens of years ago, hundreds of years ago, or even thousands, but the fact remains that at some point it happened.

It's good to have a common langauge but not at the expense of all the others.

There's three problems with your statement:

1. It's a fallacy of "Irelevant Conclusion". The truth of falseness of your statement is irrelevant to what you are trying to disprove.
Because the fact is that, as I pointed out, having a common language means you have already undergone a process of language integration. Which is part of undergoing cultural integration.

2. It's a fallacy of "Argument by Assertion".
Merely asserting that it's bad to let a common language crowd out other languages doesn't make your statement true just because you assert it is.
You haven't given any specific reason why we should believe it's bad to let that happen.

3. Your claim is wrong from a historical and practical angle. It's based on the false assumption that you can have a common language without it eventually pushing out other languages. But we have no historical or practical reason to believe your premise is true. Historically we see that is not true. Common languages inevitably push out non-common languages - because functionally it isn't practical once the non-common language ceases to be necessary.

Understanding why common languages push out non-common languages, once the common language reaches critical mass, requires a Biblical understanding of why different languages even exist.

God created the division of languages at the tower of Babel specifically to prevent people from being culturally unified in order to prevent them from being unified around evil. If evil corrupted one people group then it would be very difficult for them to corrupt the people groups around them because they are disconnected from them in communication.

Therefore, the purpose of language is to divide people and prevent cultural unification.

Which is why historically you just cannot point to an example of cultural unification happening without the wall of language barriers also coming down.

Logically, if it's true that God instituted language barriers to prevent cultural unity, then you wouldn't expect to see cultural unity as long as language barriers remain.

Where I live regional dialects, accents and languages are all supported in services like our news, road signs, legal documents etc.
And translators are available for thousands of languages.

Pointing to bilingual services doesn't disprove anything I said, for a few reasons:

1. You're ignoring the fact that having a common language means language integration has already happened.

2. Bilingual publications are also another type of linguistic and cultural integration. It's just a less effective form of it.

In order to unify around a larger common thing, like the national government, you must make that government capable of communicating to every smaller group. That's a step towards cultural integration, as opposed to other cases in history where little effort is made to bridge the communication gap directly between the rulers and the ruled in order to make them feel integrated and feel like they have a voice in the collective system.

3. You're also ignoring the fact that bilingual services doesn't necessary mean you have a strongly unified society. Which means said society could still be vulnerable to fracturing under pressure and dividing into different groups.

Quebec being an example of that. Official bilingualism and wide support for it didn't stop the French minority of Quebec from feeling like they would be better off being independent.

There's more to cultural differences than language. But jealously guarding your language against integration is probably usually a sign that you're resisting cultural integration in other ways.

You don't enjoy cultural, spiritual, moral unity .....

Logical fallacy, "Strawman" and "Red Herring".

Liking or disliking unity has no relevance to any argument or point I made, but is a distraction from the points being argued.

It's also a strawman because you're trying to claim I said things that I never did.

And speaking English hasn't helped bond anything, has it. ?

Says who?
By what measure and standard?
What country are you even talking about?

Your statement doesn't mean anything because you're not being specific enough about what you're claiming.

But if you givev respect to everyone as they are then that can help all of you to bond on diversity.

Your statement is not relevant to disproving anything I said.

Giving "respect" to someone is a separate topic from cultural integration.

You can "respect" someone without integrating with them.

But a society by definition requires cultural integration. Otherwise there is no common point of unity to make you a society by definition.

The fact is that you do already have a culturally integrated society. You have common laws, morality, customs, institutions, etc.

If you didn't have some of those things already in common then you would cease to exist as a society. You'd have anarchy which would result in peoples of like cultural congregating together to form new societies around shared values out of the rubble of the previous system.

Your diversity has nothing to do with what has bound you together as a society. You're ignoring all the things you do culturally share with those people which make you society not collapse. You are taking those things for granted.

 

[Rise]

I gave an example of why the op is not representative of the real world and you are defining my whole outlook on it

Your response doesn't make any sense as it's not clear what you are trying to dispute about anything I said.

What you posted showed that you did not understand what culture is or how it's defined.

The fact that you think "culture" is different from "morals or political differences" was one example of why you didn't understand what the definition of culture is.

The fact that you think where you live represents "the real world" of multi-culturalism, and then cite your different foods as an example of multi-culturalism, again shows that you don't understand what defines true culture.

 

[exchemist]

It's debateable how multicultural Brittany really is, because Breton as a language is almost dead.

Language barriers usually are a symptom of true divisions in culture (true divisions like views on morality, law, family structure, spiritual truth, social contracts, individual and collective purpose, etc). Because walls in communication prevent the free exchange and flow of ideas which lead to homogenization of two cultures into one (either by both cultures being changed, or by one culture integrating itself with another).

Conversely, language integration between two people groups is usually a sign that they have also integrated in other significant ways so that the chance of serious conflict is greatly reduced.

A lot of people mistakenly think multiculturalism is defined by relatively meaningless surface level trappings like "we eat this dish" or "we celebrate this festival once a year" or "we practice this particular style of music occasionally".

No, real culture deals with beliefs about how family and society ought to structure itself and how individuals ought to behave. And you usually can't have significant disagreements about these things without it leading to conflict in society.

Sometimes you can avoid conflict by segregating the two communities apart so that they can both live their conflicting livestyles side by side. But this almost always results in a lack of shared identity, which means there is no sense of family or national bond together. Which is why a lot of times historically when a nation comes under stress it ends up being divided into many smaller nations along differing cultural lines. That shows that they didn't have strong enough cultural bonds with the other areas to see them as part of their family and nation.

Would you say Brittany has significant differences with the rest of France with regards to the important issues of society and culture? I'd suspect not as much as you think.
Do they even have enough sense of being culturally separate from France that they would welcome being given the chance for independence from France? I don't know, but I suspect if so it's not pronounced enough to result in a significant push for it. Especially compared with other people groups and regions around Europe who are in a much more severe cultural clash where one group is actively seeking independence from the others, or at least has a history of trying to do so.

You'll see this truth played out in just about any example around the world historically.

Where you see two significantly different cultures living together you often have conflict.
And when you see a reduction in conflict it's because integration has taken place.

Or, in the case where overt conflict is avoided, you end up with segregated cultures that are allowed to practice their significant differences but still have some kind of shared agreement with the other groups. But this ultimately isn't historically a long lasting recipe for stability. Because ultimately when stress comes to the collective the individual parts don't have a sense of shared culture and bonding that holds them together. Instead they are more likely to fracture into their individual parts. The only way they could come together in unity under the pressure is if they made the choice that the benefits of solidarity are more important to them than cultural protection, so they are willing to integrate in order to obtain that unity. You do see examples of this happening historically to varying degrees. But then you're really just talking about a process of integration to erase cultural divisions. And if two people groups don't want to undergo that process in order to achieve greater unity then historically they are vulnerable to simply splitting apart.

Quebec is a more modern example were they are constantly wishing they could break away from the rest of Canada. They never fully integrated culturally with the rest of Canada. That's part of why they so jealously guard their language. To guard ones language is an essential part of guard ones cultural identity which makes them set apart from others.
If you no longer care about guarding the supremacy of your language then it's likely a good sign you don't care that much about guarding your culture from outside influence and change.

The reverse is also true when US citizens make a big deal about retaining english as the national language and not allowing our country to become bi-lingual. It's really an effort to preserve the cultural unity we enjoy, to not let that become fractured over time.

The effort to preserve Breton is a sign that there are at least two identities if not two cultures and the Bretons want to keep it that way. Same with Welsh. But there is no sign of "chaos".

Nor will there be when Spanish becomes the second language of the USA, as I'm sure one day it will.

 

[Rise]

The effort to preserve Breton is a sign that there are at least two identities if not two cultures and the Bretons want to keep it that way. Same with Welsh. But there is no sign of "chaos".

You're ignoring the key point I made about degrees of difference.

You can't demonstrate that Brittany represents significantly different cultures living under one political entity.

As far as all the issues of significance go (like morals, values, etc) the Bretons of Brittany may not be much different than their neighbors. They might not even be significantly different at all. So there's not much opportunity for conflict.

That's why you don't see chaos. Because true multicuralism isn't in practice there.

Wanting to keep a sense of cultural distinction is all well and good, but practically it doesn't mean anything if the only thing you're trying to preserve are some foods, art, or meaningless rituals.

The reason you see increased chaos in areas of France, Britain, or Sweden that have high rates of muslim migration is because they are having migration without integration. You are bringing people in who then try to set up sharia law enclaves and refuse to allow the native police into their communities.

They are trying to set up an alternative culture and society, which is incompatible with their host country. It won't work. Eventually one of them is going to have to integrate with the other. But, then again, it isn't suppose to work. Some of them think when their numbers increase they will be able to physically force the rest of their host country to adopt their culture. They don't intend to just live side by side as separate isolated cultures forever.

It's actually not unlike various violent leftwing groups are trying to do in the USA right now: To set up cultural enclaves separate from the US laws around then, not letting the police in. Even though these are richer white kids in most cases, they have become culturally alienated by media and school indoctrination to adopt a different culture from that which their grandparents had. Likewise; they intend to gain in numbers and overtake the US culture with their own. A fantasy, sure. But that doesn't mean they aren't trying. They don't intend to merely co-exist next to traditional America. And they don't want to integrate into traditional America.

Nor will there be when Spanish becomes the second language of the USA, as I'm sure one day it will.

Your claim is disproven because the premise you based on your claim on was just disproven.

Your disproven claim was the idea that Bretons were an example of true multi-culturalism, and since they weren't a problem then it shouldn't be a problem anywhere else either.

But as I pointed out; Bretons don't represent a true multi-cultural entity without Brittany, or even France as a whole. They are vastly more culturally similar than they are different. And how they are different seems to confine itself to things that aren't really that significant, and thus don't need to be fought over.

Go point to a muslim enclave in Paris if you want to talk about real multiculturalism and it's effects on a society.

The fact that the Bretons aren't even preserving their language further invalidates your attempt to compare it to mass mexican/central american immigration to the USA which would result in a bilingual society due to lack of sufficient cultural integration.

 

[exchemist]

You're ignoring the key point I made about degrees of difference.

You can't demonstrate that Brittany represents significantly different cultures living under one political entity.

As far as all the issues of significance go (like morals, values, etc) the Bretons of Brittany may not be much different than their neighbors. They might not even be significantly different at all. So there's not much opportunity for conflict.

That's why you don't see chaos. Because true multicuralism isn't in practice there.

Wanting to keep a sense of cultural distinction is all well and good, but practically it doesn't mean anything if the only thing you're trying to preserve are some foods, art, or meaningless rituals.

The reason you see increased chaos in areas of France, Britain, or Sweden that have high rates of muslim migration is because they are having migration without integration. You are bringing people in who then try to set up sharia law enclaves and refuse to allow the native police into their communities.

They are trying to set up an alternative culture and society, which is incompatible with their host country. It won't work. Eventually one of them is going to have to integrate with the other. But, then again, it isn't suppose to work. Some of them think when their numbers increase they will be able to physically force the rest of their host country to adopt their culture. They don't intend to just live side by side as separate isolated cultures forever.

It's actually not unlike various violent leftwing groups are trying to do in the USA right now: To set up cultural enclaves separate from the US laws around then, not letting the police in. Even though these are richer white kids in most cases, they have become culturally alienated by media and school indoctrination to adopt a different culture from that which their grandparents had. Likewise; they intend to gain in numbers and overtake the US culture with their own. A fantasy, sure. But that doesn't mean they aren't trying. They don't intend to merely co-exist next to traditional America. And they don't want to integrate into traditional America.



Your claim is disproven because the premise you based on your claim on was just disproven.

Your disproven claim was the idea that Bretons were an example of true multi-culturalism, and since they weren't a problem then it shouldn't be a problem anywhere else either.

But as I pointed out; Bretons don't represent a true multi-cultural entity without Brittany, or even France as a whole. They are vastly more culturally similar than they are different. And how they are different seems to confine itself to things that aren't really that significant, and thus don't need to be fought over.

Go point to a muslim enclave in Paris if you want to talk about real multiculturalism and it's effects on a society.

The fact that the Bretons aren't even preserving their language further invalidates your attempt to compare it to mass mexican/central american immigration to the USA which would result in a bilingual society due to lack of sufficient cultural integration.

OK, let's take an example: Stamford Hill in North London. This area is packed full of Jews, kosher butchers, men in funny hats with ringlets, women in wigs, the works. I went for a walk there one Saturday and it was quite a spectacle for a gentile like me from South London. But chaos? Not that I could see. Everyone, Jewish and gentile, seemed to be at ease with one another and get on perfectly happily.

 

[ChristineM]

Your response doesn't make any sense as it's not clear what you are trying to dispute about anything I said.

What you posted showed that you did not understand what culture is or how it's defined.

The fact that you think "culture" is different from "morals or political differences" was one example of why you didn't understand what the definition of culture is.

The fact that you think where you live represents "the real world" of multi-culturalism, and then cite your different foods as an example of multi-culturalism, again shows that you don't understand what defines true culture.

What i posted was an example, if you don't understand that and so have made up your mind on incomplete data then so be it. How sad

 

[Rise]

What i posted was an example,

And I gave you many specific reasons why your example was invalid, not even being a genuine example of multi-culturalism.

You haven't tried to dispute any of the reasons I gave for that.

if you don't understand that and so have made up your mind on incomplete data then so be it.

You have not given a single reason to support your claim that my conclusion would supposedly be wrong because it's based on incomplete data.

Merely asserting it doesn't make it true. You need to be able to give logical reasons and facts to back up your assertion.

How sad

Logical fallacy, Ad Hominem.
Unable to provide an actual argument to dispute what I said, you're trying to distract from that with personal attacks.

 

[ChristineM]

And I gave you many specific reasons why your example was invalid, not even being a genuine example of multi-culturalism.

You haven't tried to dispute any of the reasons I gave for that.



You have not given a single reason to support your claim that my conclusion would supposedly be wrong because it's based on incomplete data.

Merely asserting it doesn't make it true. You need to be able to give logical reasons and facts to back up your assertion.


Logical fallacy, Ad Hominem.
Unable to provide an actual argument to dispute what I said, you're trying to distract from that with personal attacks.

The example was not invalid, it was an example so get over it

 

[Rise]

OK, let's take an example: Stamford Hill in North London.

An example of what, exactly?
You have to specify what you think your example is trying to prove, otherwise your example has no purpose.

This area is packed full of Jews, kosher butchers, men in funny hats with ringlets, women in wigs, the works. I went for a walk there one Saturday and it was quite a spectacle for a gentile like me from South London. But chaos? Not that I could see. Everyone, Jewish and gentile, seemed to be at ease with one another and get on perfectly happily.

What specific claim of mine do you think you are disproving with your statement?

That people who dress "funny" and eat differently can live near you and it doesn't result in chaos?

I never said people dressing differently and eating differently from you would result in "chaos".

You would be engaging in a type of strawman argument. Arguing against something I never said.

You're again confusing irrelevant cultural differences with substantive cultural differences.

Which emphasizes the point I made earlier about how many in the west have been indoctrinated with a false idea of what "culture" is defined by. Being led to falsely believe that different cultures are defined by largely irrelevant differences like clothing, food, art, etc. Ignoring the substantive differences of culture like morals, government, law, purpose, family, individual and collective expectations, etc. Things which, at some point, are fundamentally incompatible with each other and therefore will eventually (history shows us) result in either conflict to physically force conformity, a breaking away to independence, or segregation within a larger society. The later two don't make for a stronger more stable society. And the first one is something we have decided has happened too much in history and we want to avoid it happening again.

 

[Rise]

The example was not invalid, it was an example so get over it

Logical fallacy, "argument by assertion".
Merely asserting that your argument was valid doesn't make it so just because you assert it is so.

You would need to demonstrate why any of my arguments which showed your example is invalid were in error before you could claim your example was valid.

 

[ChristineM]

Logical fallacy, "argument by assertion".
Merely asserting that your argument was valid doesn't make it so just because you assert it is so.

You would need to demonstrate why any of my arguments which showed your example is invalid were in error before you could claim your example was valid.

You are making the claim my statement is wrong so prove it wrong.

 

[Rise]

You are making the claim my statement is wrong so prove it wrong.

I gladly already did that. I'll post it again below for you.

The onus is now on you to attempt to offer a counter argument to the arguments I presented which refuted your original claim.

If you can't do that, or aren't willing to, then you don't get to continue asserting your claim is true. You don't counter an argument by merely repeating your claim and insisting it's true without valid arguments to back up why you think your claim is true.

I was under the impression that civil war was fought over morals or political difference, between people of the same culture

A difference in morals and ideas about how society should be structure is a difference in culture by definition.
Point to any civil war and you'll probably find conflicting culture, or a lack of shared culture, at the heart of it.

I have noticed a lot of people have an incomplete idea of what "culture" actually is. Culture is not just the kind of food you eat.

Culture is how you think about the world which influences how you think society should be structured and how human interactions should take place.

Look at the US civil war: There was an irreconcilable cultural difference between the north and south about what the proper way to structure society, government, and economics was. Even though in a lot of ways they shared language and some aspects of culture. Culturally they were absolutely not the same on many fundamental and key areas. From an identity standpoint the south also saw themselves as citizens of their state more than they saw themselves as citizens of the nation. This is representative of how deep the cultural divides and lack of cultural integration was at that time.

Or the Russian communist revolution, which was a type of civil war. You had conflicting ideas about the fundamental core tenets of how society and government and economics should be structured. They could not be reconciled. One side was going to have to surrender their ideas.

Politics is often called "civil war by other means". Because the same process of warring over culture takes place. It just takes place in a manner and forum that is meant to avoid physical violence as the means of settling our cultural disputes. But successfully avoiding physical violence in the US system depends on all parties involved agreeing to honor the rules of the game as it was established, so that they can feel safe honoring the results of the electoral process. When one side wants to start ignoring the constitutional protections of the other side, then you're on the path to physical conflict. Things like election fraud and silencing political speech of certain groups makes violent conflict inevitable by making legitimate peaceful conflict impossible.

I live in france in a village with a celtic name that translates as 'good valley'. Celtic, not Iberian. There are people who live here from every corner of the world. Several times a year we will get together and put on a meal for pensioners, the meal will be designed around one of the cultures represented by the villagers.

The fact that you think multiculturalism is defined by different food dishes is a demonstration of what I was just saying. Which is that people today have a very incomplete and warped idea of what multiculturalism really is. They completely ignore the issues of substance with regards to conflicting cultures, and only focus on irrelevant trappings like what kind of clothes do you wear or what kind of food do you eat.

That's not real multi-culturalism. Food is not culture. Culture is your view of how the world is and how it should be. Differences in food can be an expression of a difference in culture, but food by itself isn't culture.

Culture definition:
The arts, beliefs, customs, institutions, and other products of human work and thought considered as a unit, especially with regard to a particular time or social group.

Too many people stop at "art" and think that is all there is to culture. They don't talk about beliefs, customs, or institutions. Which is far more substantial and meaningful.
People don't usually fight over culturally differences in art the way they fight over differences in beliefs and institutions.

Furthermore, food differences can linger long after true cultural differences have been erased. The continued presence of differences in food don't necessarily mean there is a continued difference in culture (with regards to things of real importance and significance).

The opposite can also be true: The acceptance and integration of other culture's food into your own doesn't necessarily mean you've integrated any of their significant cultural differences into your own culture. It shows that there is a contact and communication point upon which ideas are successfully flowing from one culture to another, but that doesn't automatically mean they've adopted anything more than your love of a particular dish. In most cases, adopting a love for a particular type of food doesn't require changing any of your beliefs, customs, or institutions.

What i posted was an example,

And I gave you many specific reasons why your example was invalid, not even being a genuine example of multi-culturalism.

You haven't tried to dispute any of the reasons I gave for that.

if you don't understand that and so have made up your mind on incomplete data then so be it.

You have not given a single reason to support your claim that my conclusion would supposedly be wrong because it's based on incomplete data.

Merely asserting it doesn't make it true. You need to be able to give logical reasons and facts to back up your assertion.

How sad

Logical fallacy, Ad Hominem.
Unable to provide an actual argument to dispute what I said, you're trying to distract from that with personal attacks.

 

[exchemist]

An example of what, exactly?
You have to specify what you think your example is trying to prove, otherwise your example has no purpose.



What specific claim of mine do you think you are disproving with your statement?

That people who dress "funny" and eat differently can live near you and it doesn't result in chaos?

I never said people dressing differently and eating differently from you would result in "chaos".

You would be engaging in a type of strawman argument. Arguing against something I never said.

You're again confusing irrelevant cultural differences with substantive cultural differences.

Which emphasizes the point I made earlier about how many in the west have been indoctrinated with a false idea of what "culture" is defined by. Being led to falsely believe that different cultures are defined by largely irrelevant differences like clothing, food, art, etc. Ignoring the substantive differences of culture like morals, government, law, purpose, family, individual and collective expectations, etc.

You proposed an example of a different culture embedded in a Western one, viz a muslim area within Paris. Since neither you nor I knows much about that example (I would guess), I am proposing an alternative for your consideration.

But I am interested that you say the difference between Jewish culture and British culture is "irrelevant cultural difference", whereas presumably you think the difference between Parisian culture and muslim culture is "substantive".

On what grounds do you make this distinction?

 

[Rise]

But I am interested that you say the difference between Jewish culture and British culture is "irrelevant cultural difference",

You probably misunderstood what I was saying.
I never said there was no relevant differences between Jewish culture in Britain and gentile British culture.

I said that the fact that you focused so much on describing things like clothing and food as evidence of that difference shows the problem with how you approach thinking about this issue.

Those aren't substantive differences by themselves.

You can't measure the compatibility of two cultures by looking at things like that.

Which makes your comparison null unless you can furnish some substantive cultural ways that the Jewish community of your area is different from the British community for consideration.

Chances are you take for granted just how much you actually have in common with them when it comes to substantive issues, when compared with other cultures around the world or other cultures historically.

whereas presumably you think the difference between Parisian culture and muslim culture is "substantive".

On what grounds do you make this distinction?

i24NEWS

I don't think you would try to dispute that sharia law is incompatible with western democratic institutions as found in France. You cannot by definition institute sharia law without doing away with many of the foundations of French society, with regards to morals, law, government, individual freedom, etc.

Evidence of that cultural incompatibility is seen in the frequent muslim riots, rising crime rates, and lack of police access to muslim dominant areas.

History shows us that there's only three ways this can go:
1. They integrate with French society and abandon their desire to institute sharia law, embracing French alternatives as their own. In that case they might continue to hold to a "muslim" identity but they would choose to abandoned the parts of that identity which would have put them into conflict with their adopted nation.
2. They segregate from French society and form their own independent enclaves that operate according to sharia law, ignoring French law (which they've reportedly already been trying to do).
3. They force the rest of the country to adopt their values. Either because they become the majority of the population and abuse that majority via the French voting system to abolish the French system as it existed; or because as a minority they choose to take up arms to physically force the majority to adhere to their will.

 

[exchemist]

You probably misunderstood what I was saying.
I never said there was no relevant differences between Jewish culture in Britain and gentile British culture.

I said that the fact that you focused so much on describing things like clothing and food as evidence of that difference shows the problem with how you approach thinking about this issue.

Those aren't substantive differences by themselves.

You can't measure the compatibility of two cultures by looking at things like that.

Which makes your comparison null unless you can furnish some substantive cultural ways that the Jewish community of your area is different from the British community for consideration.

Chances are you take for granted just how much you actually have in common with them when it comes to substantive issues, when compared with other cultures around the world or other cultures historically.



i24NEWS

I don't think you would try to dispute that sharia law is incompatible with western democratic institutions as found in France. You cannot by definition institute sharia law without doing away with many of the foundations of French society, with regards to morals, law, government, individual freedom, etc.

History shows us that there's only three ways this can go:
1. They integrate with French society and abandon their desire to institute sharia law, embracing French alternatives as their own. In that case they might continue to hold to a "muslim" identity, but they would choose to abandoned the parts of that identity which would have put them into conflict with their adopted nation.
2. They segregate from French society and form their own independent enclaves that operate according to sharia law, ignoring French law (which they've reportedly already been trying to do).
3. They force the rest of the country to adopt their values. Either because they become the majority of the population and use that majority to use the French voting system to abolish itself, or because the as a minority take up arms to physically force the majority to adhere to their will.

There is no sharia law in any muslim community anywhere in Europe, and nobody proposes that there should be. As I thought, I have smoked you out as yet another anti-muslim.

This "multiculturalism" guff is really all about muslims, isn't it?

 

[Rise]

There is no sharia law in any muslim community anywhere in Europe, and nobody proposes that there should be.

Your claim is not only false, but I already disproved your claim by posting the fact that 46% of muslims in France want Sharia law.

Further disproving your claim that no one in Europe, or even the UK, wants Sharia law imposed there:

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-411f56065fd8d6ed318d9d0320bb880b.webp

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-6dc81550ef1f691738ab83486323c043.webp

SHOCK POLL: Four in ten British Muslims want some aspect of Sharia Law enforced in UK

As I thought, I have smoked you out as yet another anti-muslim.

Logical fallacy, "Ad Hominem" and "Red Herring".

Unable to refute the points I made, and unable to defend your claims on any factual or logical merits, you can only resort to baseless and unfounded accusations of bigotry.

You are trying to distract from the fact that your argument about multi-culturalism is proven wrong by introducing a false red herring about whether or not the truth is "anti-muslim" (whatever you think "anti-muslim" means).

This "multiculturalism" guff is really all about muslims, isn't it?

Your claim is demonstrably false considering I have made reference to many different examples to make my points. Even historical examples where the religion and racial makeup of the two groups is the same, yet their cultures still clashed to the point of violence.
So, no point I made about multiculturalism depends on referring only to muslims in order for my points to be true.

The fact is, however, (whether you like it or not) that the muslim situation in europe provides one of the most powerful ongoing demonstrations of culture clash related to this issue. To ignore it as part of discussing this issue would be illogical.

And to simply accuse someone of bigotry or hatred because they don't ignore it, is also illogical Ad Hominem nonsense.

Crying "bigotry" or "hate" whenever a topic you don't like comes up is a tactic by the left meant to stifle debate about topics they don't want to be debated. Because it's a debate they can't win.
You can't win the debate that says mass, unchecked, non-integrating, muslim migration into europe is a positive thing for europe on the merits of the issue, so you just decide you're going to try to not allow the issue to be debated by accusing anyone who even brings up the issue of being a bigot. It's the very definition of an Ad Hominem and/or Red Herring fallacy.

It is an inherently anti-free speech tactic meant to silence the speech of your political opposition when using violence to silence your political opposition is not socially acceptable (yet).