a) glorify their ancestors' actions, and b) complain that the incoming and already-local-but-growing Latino populations won't learn English.
*shrug* What such people do is of little relevance to me. Please address my arguments, rather than talking about a hypothetical "someone" who thinks "something".
You then calling my point irrelevant sounds a lot like trying to justify your own intellectual laziness
No - I'm merely pointing out that these wonderful native tribes of yours also didn't allow foreigners to vote, so the question of whether or not we allow non-English speakers to vote in OUR elections has nothing to do with them. You could even say that their actions further reinforce my point, although I wouldn't take that tack, personally.
Even assuming you mean navigation as opposed to GPS, the Polynesians managed the vast Pacific for thousands of years prior to 1492, while Europeans couldn't manage the Atlantic with any certainty.
Good on ya for acknowledging that I may not have been referring to GPS, because I certainly wasn't. Boo on you for claiming that the Polynesians managed to navigate anything whatsoever better than Europeans. What I WAS referring to were the concepts of longitude and latitude, and astral navigation - something that neither the American Indians nor the Polynesians ever managed to master.
I'm going to ignore your blather about the steam engine, etc, since the timelines are close, and the Indians wouldn't have figured it out even if we gave them another 2,000 years (steam requires decent metallurgy, and the indians weren't even close). You're missing the forest for the trees. But I do find it funny that you lump ALL the native people of both North and South America into one group, and then talk about their accomplishments as if they were one homogeneous organism. Sorry, but that doesn't fly. I don't give a flying fuck what the Incas did when we're discussing North America, just like I wouldn't give a shit what the Ojibwa did if we were discussing South America. You're jumping all over the map in order to try and justify your little fantasy, and it's really quite sad. Stop flailing and stick to one topic and one area if you want to try and have a real discussion. Otherwise, don't bother.
If by "healthy" you mean the crap that's marketed as "organic", then you have the situation completely reversed. Marking your food "organic" is the newest way to make ass-loads of money without making any significant changes to the way you do business.
Yeah, I'm sure a couple dozen kids spending a few hours a week in a small, undersupplied shop with maybe a few usable machines per class can build and maintain 5000+ desks for each school district.
You have to admit that the above is an intentional strawman. There is no possible way that you could honestly have thought that the suggestion was for one school to make furniture for an entire district. So the question is, what is it that makes the idea offensive enough to you that you would be willing to engage in intentional trolling?
I was watching a National Geographic show the other day about some public schools in Pakistan where they don't have desks, chairs, or even a freaking building. Kids sit on their butts in a brickyard with no shelter, and the school has a single blackboard.
You know, granted, I've never been a teacher in a public school, but when I was a military instructor I always found that teaching outdoors worked better than anything else. I had a classroom with computers and a projector and powerpoint slides coming out of my ass, but just taking them outside seemed to get much better focus from the students, and their marks went up accordingly.
Don't get me wrong - I love technology, and sometimes you certainly DO need a high-tech environment to teach certain subjects. But maybe we've gone a bit overboard. Why in the world should geography be taught indoors? Or English, for that matter? I'm fairly certain that Shakespeare didn't come up with his ideas by spending 8 hours a day sitting in a room, staring at a blackboard or a screen, so why should his works be studied in that environment?
No, I'm not calling you a hypocrite, unless that's a mantle you desire. What I'm calling hypocritical is the situation of anglophones in the US, descendants of folks who very actively and aggressively quelled any other language, complaining about folks not speaking English in reference to the growing Latino population, who at least are being less actively oppressive about their choice of language.
That's just as bad. Just because you shift the target from one person to an entire population doesn't mean that you get to ignore the fact that NONE of the people you're calling "hypocritical" were alive during the entirety of the timespan on which you're commenting.
The Salish people and the Iroquois Confederation both come to mind as at least partial refutations of this hypothesis.
Honestly, I don't feel like checking, because it's irrelevant anyway. Show me a time when they let the white man cast a vote with them, and we'll talk.
European tech was perhaps not quite as far ahead of the tech in the Americas as you seem to think
lol. Now I know you're trolling:) Yeah, the American Indians, who lived on this continent for almost 15,000 years yet were unable to achieve the technological level of Egypt circa 2,000 BC, were REEEEALLLY close to the people who built globe-traversing ships, steam engines, gunpowder, telescopes, a system for determining your position anywhere on the planet, and science-based medicine. Honestly. Nobody is stupid enough to believe that. Obvious troll is obvious.
No, it's more that you argue on the one hand that only English speakers should be allowed to vote, and on the other, that people should learn the language of the country they're in.
Um, no, I said that they shouldn't expect to get a vote if they can't speak the language. Which reminds me: do the Navajo have tribal elections? I know that the Ojibwe here in Canada do, and I don't get to vote in those.
Europeans didn't do a great job adapting to the local customs, preferring instead to overwhelm them; now that Latino culture appears to be doing the same thing to some extent, the anglophone descendants of these Europeans cry foul, which stinks of hypocrisy.
That is, in a word, "idiotic". If you're going to call me a hypocrite because of something someone did a couple hundred years ago, you're clearly a couple sandwiches short of a full picnic. Nor is there any comparison between the two situations, since we're talking about voting in a liberal democracy - a concept with which the American Indians were completely unacquainted. Not to mention that they also had multiple languages, dozens of different competing tribes, tribal warfare on a semi-regular basis, and nothing even approaching an actual nation.
So what is it, exactly, that you think the settlers should have done? Cast off all modern tools and clothing, thrown on a pair of moccasins and a loincloth, learned the language of whichever tribe happened to be dominant in their area, and joined them in killing other Indians? Wonderful idea. Why progress when we can regress, right?
Meanwhile, the Navajo have been here much longer; I see no ethical reason to disenfranchise monolingual members of the tribe simply because they haven't deigned to learn the language of yet another invader.
Here's one way. We know it's happened with various other species - assuming these "monkeys" of yours weren't too big, this method would fork quite well for them.
There are also some pretty hefty privacy issues with retinal scanning, since it can be used to diagnose a number of diseases and conditions - AIDS, syphilis, a number of other STD's, malaria, chicken pox, hereditary diseases like lymphoma and anemia, and even pregnancy.
Citation? Because I'm pretty sure that's wrong. AFAIK those conditions do cause changes in the iris, but I've never seen any evidence to suggest that you can diagnose them using an iris scan.
(You do not speak Navajo, so you should not talk.)
Yes, because the Navajo tribe founded the US, wrote it's constitution, and set out it's laws. Except for Ben Franklin, of course. He was Cree.
And on the flip side, I give you various signs at Teabag rallies...
Honestly, I'd be open to a decent argument for taking away their vote.
On the other hand, your current example just plain sucks. You can't seriously be claiming that simple spelling mistakes are in any way equivalent to a complete inability to communicate in a given language. That's like arguing that calling the fire department to come put out a candle is completely rational since people call them to put out house fires on a regular basis.
There is real concern that children are getting injured by carrying more book weight than is physically appropriate for them. Having the ability to carry an entire library in a tablet is a huge advance.
Yep. Take it a step further. Why should the lil darling have to exert himself and take risks, when he could be lying on the couch munching on some cheetos and doing distance-learning instead? I say we get rid of schools entirely - it'll be WAY safer.
On the other hand, folks who read something a little substantial would probably care. A lot. I can almost see someone advertising Glenn Beck and Palin to a Chomsky or Satre reader.
Yes, but can you give us examples of something "substantial"?
Wow, you must live in a pretty shitty place. I'm sorry to hear that. In the city I'm currently in, it's all the other stores which have the problems you describe. I don't think I've ever seen a Wal-Mart anywhere that comes close to that level of unprofessionalism.
Wal-Mart rocks. I shop there every chance I get. Even get my oil-change and basic car maintenance there, and they do a better job than the privately-owned shop I used to go to. Wal-Mart is one American export that I'm glad to have!
Crime and punishment aren't based on a rational analysis of data - they're based on biological imperatives and emotions. We feel that being lenient with someone a few times is warranted, because everyone makes mistakes. We know that repeat offenders are unlikely to modify their behavior. So we pick a number that seems fair, and go with it. If you've got a better process, please, do share.
Do you know what a straw man argument is? Because you use it.
Yes, I do, and no, I don't, respectively.
You stated that the Americans are unable to "understand that not everybody wants to be American". In the context of your narrative, the implied suggestion is that Americans wanted the Vietnamese to become Americans - otherwise that entire sentence makes no sense, and doesn't fit into the rest of the argument. Now, you can try to backpedal, if you want, and make all sorts of excuses, but nothing you say will turn my statement into a "straw man argument".
You seem, if I may say so, to have a minor anger management problem. Using terms like "moron" does not strengthen your assertions; you clearly think name calling is an argument.
No, I clearly think you're a moron; I've explained why your argument is shit.
Naw. The Russian front was important, but not necessarily because the Germans took such a beating there. The diversion of resources was enough to give the allies a chance at winning. If the invasion of Russia had gone more easily, the war might have stretched out longer and the allies might have suffered more casualties, but the end result would have been the same.
Of course, given the time-lines involved, the first nuke might have ended up being used over Berlin.
Probably you'll be able to find towns in California, New Mexico or Texas where "your fellow citizens" will speak Spanish more than English...
Largely because they have massive populations of illegal immigrants, which makes the question of voting irrelevant. Regardless, even if we accept the idea that there is a town out there where 95% of the population is composed entirely of full US-citizens who all happen to speak the same language while simultaneously not speaking English, the best that you could argue for is that their municipal elections be conducted in a language other than English. I might even agree with that. However, when we're speaking about federal elections, a city doesn't mean much.
will you remember by then, Mr. Englishspokenman your words about having no business to vote?
Well, first of all, jackass, I'm an immigrant myself. Within 5 months of immigrating, I was speaking English fluently. By the time I got my citizenship, I had the highest English marks in my high-school class. Since I'm Canadian, I also took the time to learn some basic French, and am currently working on developing those skills further, even though there's no requirement for me to speak both official languages. So yeah, if 90% of my nation decided tomorrow that our official language should be Chinese, I'd bury my nose in a "Chinese for Dummies" book that evening, and stick with it until I sounded like a native of Beijing. But I suppose that's too much for you to wrap your head around, so feel free to just write me off as some racist redneck who doesn't want Dem Taco-Munching Sombrero-Wearing Mexi-can'ts voting in his God-fearing country.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I know. Last time that happened, all of my students melted. I guess I should have paid attention to the Wizard of Oz.
a) glorify their ancestors' actions, and b) complain that the incoming and already-local-but-growing Latino populations won't learn English.
*shrug* What such people do is of little relevance to me. Please address my arguments, rather than talking about a hypothetical "someone" who thinks "something".
You then calling my point irrelevant sounds a lot like trying to justify your own intellectual laziness
No - I'm merely pointing out that these wonderful native tribes of yours also didn't allow foreigners to vote, so the question of whether or not we allow non-English speakers to vote in OUR elections has nothing to do with them. You could even say that their actions further reinforce my point, although I wouldn't take that tack, personally.
Even assuming you mean navigation as opposed to GPS, the Polynesians managed the vast Pacific for thousands of years prior to 1492, while Europeans couldn't manage the Atlantic with any certainty.
Good on ya for acknowledging that I may not have been referring to GPS, because I certainly wasn't. Boo on you for claiming that the Polynesians managed to navigate anything whatsoever better than Europeans. What I WAS referring to were the concepts of longitude and latitude, and astral navigation - something that neither the American Indians nor the Polynesians ever managed to master.
I'm going to ignore your blather about the steam engine, etc, since the timelines are close, and the Indians wouldn't have figured it out even if we gave them another 2,000 years (steam requires decent metallurgy, and the indians weren't even close). You're missing the forest for the trees. But I do find it funny that you lump ALL the native people of both North and South America into one group, and then talk about their accomplishments as if they were one homogeneous organism. Sorry, but that doesn't fly. I don't give a flying fuck what the Incas did when we're discussing North America, just like I wouldn't give a shit what the Ojibwa did if we were discussing South America. You're jumping all over the map in order to try and justify your little fantasy, and it's really quite sad. Stop flailing and stick to one topic and one area if you want to try and have a real discussion. Otherwise, don't bother.
If by "healthy" you mean the crap that's marketed as "organic", then you have the situation completely reversed. Marking your food "organic" is the newest way to make ass-loads of money without making any significant changes to the way you do business.
Yeah, I'm sure a couple dozen kids spending a few hours a week in a small, undersupplied shop with maybe a few usable machines per class can build and maintain 5000+ desks for each school district.
You have to admit that the above is an intentional strawman. There is no possible way that you could honestly have thought that the suggestion was for one school to make furniture for an entire district. So the question is, what is it that makes the idea offensive enough to you that you would be willing to engage in intentional trolling?
I was watching a National Geographic show the other day about some public schools in Pakistan where they don't have desks, chairs, or even a freaking building. Kids sit on their butts in a brickyard with no shelter, and the school has a single blackboard.
You know, granted, I've never been a teacher in a public school, but when I was a military instructor I always found that teaching outdoors worked better than anything else. I had a classroom with computers and a projector and powerpoint slides coming out of my ass, but just taking them outside seemed to get much better focus from the students, and their marks went up accordingly.
Don't get me wrong - I love technology, and sometimes you certainly DO need a high-tech environment to teach certain subjects. But maybe we've gone a bit overboard. Why in the world should geography be taught indoors? Or English, for that matter? I'm fairly certain that Shakespeare didn't come up with his ideas by spending 8 hours a day sitting in a room, staring at a blackboard or a screen, so why should his works be studied in that environment?
No, I'm not calling you a hypocrite, unless that's a mantle you desire. What I'm calling hypocritical is the situation of anglophones in the US, descendants of folks who very actively and aggressively quelled any other language, complaining about folks not speaking English in reference to the growing Latino population, who at least are being less actively oppressive about their choice of language.
That's just as bad. Just because you shift the target from one person to an entire population doesn't mean that you get to ignore the fact that NONE of the people you're calling "hypocritical" were alive during the entirety of the timespan on which you're commenting.
The Salish people and the Iroquois Confederation both come to mind as at least partial refutations of this hypothesis.
Honestly, I don't feel like checking, because it's irrelevant anyway. Show me a time when they let the white man cast a vote with them, and we'll talk.
European tech was perhaps not quite as far ahead of the tech in the Americas as you seem to think
lol. Now I know you're trolling :) Yeah, the American Indians, who lived on this continent for almost 15,000 years yet were unable to achieve the technological level of Egypt circa 2,000 BC, were REEEEALLLY close to the people who built globe-traversing ships, steam engines, gunpowder, telescopes, a system for determining your position anywhere on the planet, and science-based medicine. Honestly. Nobody is stupid enough to believe that. Obvious troll is obvious.
No, it's more that you argue on the one hand that only English speakers should be allowed to vote, and on the other, that people should learn the language of the country they're in.
Um, no, I said that they shouldn't expect to get a vote if they can't speak the language. Which reminds me: do the Navajo have tribal elections? I know that the Ojibwe here in Canada do, and I don't get to vote in those.
Europeans didn't do a great job adapting to the local customs, preferring instead to overwhelm them; now that Latino culture appears to be doing the same thing to some extent, the anglophone descendants of these Europeans cry foul, which stinks of hypocrisy.
That is, in a word, "idiotic". If you're going to call me a hypocrite because of something someone did a couple hundred years ago, you're clearly a couple sandwiches short of a full picnic. Nor is there any comparison between the two situations, since we're talking about voting in a liberal democracy - a concept with which the American Indians were completely unacquainted. Not to mention that they also had multiple languages, dozens of different competing tribes, tribal warfare on a semi-regular basis, and nothing even approaching an actual nation.
So what is it, exactly, that you think the settlers should have done? Cast off all modern tools and clothing, thrown on a pair of moccasins and a loincloth, learned the language of whichever tribe happened to be dominant in their area, and joined them in killing other Indians? Wonderful idea. Why progress when we can regress, right?
Meanwhile, the Navajo have been here much longer; I see no ethical reason to disenfranchise monolingual members of the tribe simply because they haven't deigned to learn the language of yet another invader.
here's my response
Here's one way. We know it's happened with various other species - assuming these "monkeys" of yours weren't too big, this method would fork quite well for them.
lol. That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. You honestly believe that?
There are also some pretty hefty privacy issues with retinal scanning, since it can be used to diagnose a number of diseases and conditions - AIDS, syphilis, a number of other STD's, malaria, chicken pox, hereditary diseases like lymphoma and anemia, and even pregnancy.
Citation? Because I'm pretty sure that's wrong. AFAIK those conditions do cause changes in the iris, but I've never seen any evidence to suggest that you can diagnose them using an iris scan.
(You do not speak Navajo, so you should not talk.)
Yes, because the Navajo tribe founded the US, wrote it's constitution, and set out it's laws. Except for Ben Franklin, of course. He was Cree.
And on the flip side, I give you various signs at Teabag rallies ...
Honestly, I'd be open to a decent argument for taking away their vote.
On the other hand, your current example just plain sucks. You can't seriously be claiming that simple spelling mistakes are in any way equivalent to a complete inability to communicate in a given language. That's like arguing that calling the fire department to come put out a candle is completely rational since people call them to put out house fires on a regular basis.
Recall the parable of the butterfly [google.com]
Yeah, it's just too bad that the parable is completely wrong. If a parable is based on a lie, does that mean it's message is also a lie?
But what reason could a student have to be using both a tablet and a laptop at the same time?
Even Jean Luc Picard used his PADD and desk-console at the same time.
There is real concern that children are getting injured by carrying more book weight than is physically appropriate for them. Having the ability to carry an entire library in a tablet is a huge advance.
Yep. Take it a step further. Why should the lil darling have to exert himself and take risks, when he could be lying on the couch munching on some cheetos and doing distance-learning instead? I say we get rid of schools entirely - it'll be WAY safer.
And then Germany invaded Poland, and everything changed ...
Wow. I knew Chomski fanboys were fairly rabid, but you just go above and beyond.
Thanks for proving my point, btw.
On the other hand, folks who read something a little substantial would probably care. A lot. I can almost see someone advertising Glenn Beck and Palin to a Chomsky or Satre reader.
Yes, but can you give us examples of something "substantial"?
Wow, you must live in a pretty shitty place. I'm sorry to hear that. In the city I'm currently in, it's all the other stores which have the problems you describe. I don't think I've ever seen a Wal-Mart anywhere that comes close to that level of unprofessionalism.
Garbage. You clearly have no clue what the phrase "free trade" means. Here, educate yourself.
Wal-Mart rocks. I shop there every chance I get. Even get my oil-change and basic car maintenance there, and they do a better job than the privately-owned shop I used to go to. Wal-Mart is one American export that I'm glad to have!
What kind of data would you want, exactly?
Crime and punishment aren't based on a rational analysis of data - they're based on biological imperatives and emotions. We feel that being lenient with someone a few times is warranted, because everyone makes mistakes. We know that repeat offenders are unlikely to modify their behavior. So we pick a number that seems fair, and go with it. If you've got a better process, please, do share.
And your evidence for that is?
You're joking, right?
Do you know what a straw man argument is? Because you use it.
Yes, I do, and no, I don't, respectively.
You stated that the Americans are unable to "understand that not everybody wants to be American". In the context of your narrative, the implied suggestion is that Americans wanted the Vietnamese to become Americans - otherwise that entire sentence makes no sense, and doesn't fit into the rest of the argument. Now, you can try to backpedal, if you want, and make all sorts of excuses, but nothing you say will turn my statement into a "straw man argument".
You seem, if I may say so, to have a minor anger management problem. Using terms like "moron" does not strengthen your assertions; you clearly think name calling is an argument.
No, I clearly think you're a moron; I've explained why your argument is shit.
Naw. The Russian front was important, but not necessarily because the Germans took such a beating there. The diversion of resources was enough to give the allies a chance at winning. If the invasion of Russia had gone more easily, the war might have stretched out longer and the allies might have suffered more casualties, but the end result would have been the same.
Of course, given the time-lines involved, the first nuke might have ended up being used over Berlin.
Probably you'll be able to find towns in California, New Mexico or Texas where "your fellow citizens" will speak Spanish more than English ...
Largely because they have massive populations of illegal immigrants, which makes the question of voting irrelevant. Regardless, even if we accept the idea that there is a town out there where 95% of the population is composed entirely of full US-citizens who all happen to speak the same language while simultaneously not speaking English, the best that you could argue for is that their municipal elections be conducted in a language other than English. I might even agree with that. However, when we're speaking about federal elections, a city doesn't mean much.
will you remember by then, Mr. Englishspokenman your words about having no business to vote?
Well, first of all, jackass, I'm an immigrant myself. Within 5 months of immigrating, I was speaking English fluently. By the time I got my citizenship, I had the highest English marks in my high-school class. Since I'm Canadian, I also took the time to learn some basic French, and am currently working on developing those skills further, even though there's no requirement for me to speak both official languages. So yeah, if 90% of my nation decided tomorrow that our official language should be Chinese, I'd bury my nose in a "Chinese for Dummies" book that evening, and stick with it until I sounded like a native of Beijing. But I suppose that's too much for you to wrap your head around, so feel free to just write me off as some racist redneck who doesn't want Dem Taco-Munching Sombrero-Wearing Mexi-can'ts voting in his God-fearing country.
So not voting means you have more government in your life? ...
Wanna run that by me one more time?