Range_This11

Logic breaker: War.

What are you, high? Did you even read his post? His point was that we force certain beliefs and practices on our children, because we believe they're for the best. Religion is no different. What would you do if your child decided he didn't want to learn English? Would you tell him it was okay, and that he didn't have to? I doubt it. Teaching someone to read a language that will help you every day of your life is not on the same level as making them learn about your religion. God damnit you guys. How often did you hear this at the elementary level: "Now students, when you go home to do your multiplication tables tonight, make sure you question the fundamental elements of mathematics and why 3x5=15. The same applies for your analysis of Gertrude Chandler Warner's The Boxcar Children." Never. Ever. That is because children have not developed the cognitive abilities to do so and you must know the rules before you can appropriately break them as you see fit. As a child you may be taught to question the teaching abilities or methods of your teacher as I was, but you do not question the basics of English or Math skills. That is my point. I'm not commenting whatsoever on the repercussions of being convinced that God is real for your entire childhood.

You've completely missed the point. Every child is indoctrinated in something, but once they reach the age where they have developed analytical skills, they can choose freely whether or not to believe in it. Teaching a child to read in English and teaching them the history of America is indoctrination just the same as religion is. The only difference is that you've only deemed public education as morally acceptable. That is the point I am trying to make. Feel free to research moderate Christians in your free time, I'm not doing your homework for you :P All I know is that there are many denominations and they all take different approaches towards interpreting the Bible.

Skeptic, I think you're misconstruing indoctrination slightly, and in some parts wholly. The average Christian is very likely to question at some point or another the tenets of their particular denomination. (Side note here, not all denominations believe the same thing--especially when it comes to questions of morality and ethics--and lumping them all into the same category demonstrates your lack of knowledge of the intricacies of each denomination) There are no doubt some Christians who completely believe every single word of the Bible and follow it orthodoxically. Those are called fundamentalists. I think the biggest point you're overlooking here is the difference between indoctrination and self-indoctrination. We are all granted with free will, that is something even the Bible recognizes. It is then a matter of individual choice whether or not a person believes wholly, partially, or not at all the doctrine of their religion. A child may be taught religion, much like that child is taught basic reading and math skills, but there is absolutely zero chance that he or she will not encounter moments of doubt or uncertainty pertaining to his or her religion. As I said, it is the individual's choice to remain indoctrinated or to follow yet question simultaneously. By the way, I in no way agree with religion, but I do agree with the concept of cultural relativity, and you should too. So long as the "high wall" Thomas Jefferson wanted placed between religion and the state is the goal of our society, I think people should be free to teach their children whatever they want. It is their loss--in my opinion--if they choose to limit their intellectual capability by not questioning the things they are taught, even those to which they hold fast and dear.

The problem with morality is that in order to define something as 'good,' you must first have a point to reference 'good' to. In other words, you cannot have something that is good without also having something that is bad. It's severely limiting. Then you have to ask: from which source do we derive moral authority? People of religion sometimes refer to their sacred texts, others look to nature, but we have no single source of moral authority in this world--at least not one that we can agree on. Instead, we rely on law. In America (and many other parts of the world), our conception of what is right/wrong or good/bad is displayed in our laws. Again there is a problem here. Conceptually, law is a wonderful idea--people are given a written code of what is acceptable to do and what is not--but it is only the consequences of our actions that influence our decisions, not simply because an action is morally right or wrong. Law is a very inefficient way of enforcing morality.

I'll take heated, healthy debate any day. It's better than reading the essentially mindless posts on the Today thread.

That's the point! Fitzgerald is trying to accurately portray the social environment of post-WW1 America. They often referred to themselves as the Lost Generation (a term coined by Ernest Hemingway). These people had seen so much destruction, devastation, and death that they thought faith in humanity was a hopeless cause and found solace in decadent and shallow activities.

Everyone here is an established cultural critic, I thought you were aware? No need to back up any arguments with evidence.

I found this picture of you on the internet. Yeah except he killed me too by crashing into me, so not as glorious as that makes it look haha. The L96 is pretty legitimate, I am glad I unlocked it but I'm thinking of switching to the Support class. My PPM is going down from sniping.

It gets better at the end. Keep reading. Gatsby was good, but the rest of Fitzgerald's work is far too emotionally indecisive, much like him. I started reading One-Dimensional Man by Herbert Marcuse. A very thoughtful critique of modern industrial society.

Ethnicity alone is not but when it becomes intertwined with culture it becomes part of the larger picture. Obviously there is no universal set of traits for an ethnic group, that I know, but when culture, geographical placement, and ethnicity are all combined (as they are in America), they forge the core of a person's identity.

I sniped a guy out of a heli today. Kharg Island, CQ...he was on top of the building at D, I was way up in the hills sniping. I started cracking off rounds at him just to mess with him since it was close to the end of the game--I'm using the MK11 by the way. So he takes off, rotates towards me so he's coming at me head on. I wait until he gets closer, line up where I think he'd be in the cockpit and fire the first shot. Head shot and I killed him. I bet he was so pissed off :lol:

As I said before, ethnicity and culture are the two most vital aspects to a person's identity--and like it or not, they are here to stay. They are not shallow features in the least. This is simply an opportunity to celebrate the heritage of a very important group of people and, as I have shown earlier, many different ethnic groups have months or weeks dedicated to recognizing their heritage and contributions to the development of the United States. Whether you see it as an opportunity to celebrate differences and build unity or as a discriminatory event that elevates one ethnic group over another is totally up to you. My opinion on the matter is quite clear.

I think a statistical career is much more impressive than a few wins in the postseason. Both are impressive, but I think consistency over a season is a much harder feat to achieve.

I think there's a big difference between saying "I'm proud to be Caucasian" and " Caucasians are a superior ethnic group." The same applies for any other ethnicity. While you may not have a choice of which part of the globe or which ethnic group you are born into, pride in one's heritage is something that brings people together culturally; and culture is a very powerful rallying point. Culture and ethnicity are two crucial parts of a person's identity. We all define ourselves and our realities by the things we experience, for instance, a shared culture or ethnicity--and by nature, we group ourselves and identify with people who share similar cultural or ethnic traits.

Not even close. Eli is a great quarterback (that stings as a Packer fan, but I will admit it), but his success largely comes during the postseason. It depends on whether or not you define a great quarterback as someone who plays when it counts most or who can play consistently over the course of a 17 week season. Eli is a great playoff quarterback, but Peyton puts up much higher and more consistent numbers.

At what point does it become a stifling of black pop culture expression? At least indirectly. Forcing people to become integrated tells them that the previous culture they had--whether or not it is based on ethnicity--is something that is not okay. I would rather there be a vibrant, culturally heterogeneous society in which the many different ethnic groups are able to express their culture on their own terms. Culture and ethnicity are very intertwined in the United States. Eliminating that relationship is not only impossible, but threatening to the cultural autonomy of any given ethnic group. Of course BET doesn't represent the culture of all backs, anyone who thinks that or uses it as a launching point for an argument is misinformed.

Right, I mean Chappelle's Show was wildly popular and Comedy Central features nowhere near the same programming that BET does.

I don't even know if BET is totally run by black people anymore. I can't imagine that would even be possible or legal. I was commenting on the origins of it. Mostly they show sitcoms, comedy, and movies--things like that. The occasional talk show. Typically the main characters or hosts are black.

The concept surrounding the entire network is that--at least originally--it was run from the ground up by blacks. In the television industry, many of the executives, directors, and writers were predominantly white. That, I assume, has changed since its inception. A big portion of its inspiration comes from the television show Soul Train (the creator actually just died within the last week) which was one of the first shows to be run completely in the control of blacks.

Sounds like something the government could fund, but I doubt that would go over so well in this political environment.

Source This is some very exciting news for the planet if it is indeed successful!

I suppose I am. However I don't really see the feasibility of it. We already have a lot of networks that appeal to whites: PBS, CSPAN, Speed Network, Nat Geo. Not that only white people are interested in the programming on those networks or that programming is designed to appeal to whites, but I think it is safe to say many whites gravitate towards those networks. :shock:

Just a side note here, I've heard many times that affirmative action typically benefits white women more than any other group of people. I don't have any sources on this so don't hold me to it. As far as BET, I think it is a great thing. It's an outlet for cultural expression that is designed by blacks, overseen at almost every level by blacks, and packaged uniquely for black viewers. Same goes for pride parades. I think they're great. If someone wants to develop something like that for whites, more power to them. I have no problem with any cultural or ethnic group celebrating their identity in the public sphere. Hell, I even watch BET for the stand up comedians.

I don't doubt you are well educated and informed on the history--also not narcissistic nor a cretin. But there are many people who are ill informed by choice or lack of exposure. Like I said, having Black History Month will create tension and dissonance because there are and always will be differences between ethnic groups. Ignoring them won't make them go away and neither will dedicating a month to their study. Perhaps I'm too utopian, but I look at it as an opportunity to learn more about the history of a very unique group of people. Maybe that's why I've landed in the history field and love it so much. There is no one that knows the entire history of anything, so having an opportunity to learn more or even become reacquainted with a topic is good to me. Interpretations change over time, events are viewed differently than they were even twenty years ago. The people, places, and time period do not change, but how we view them is always different. There are a number of different months that are used to recognize different ethnic groups: (a full list can be found here) Hispanic Heritage Month Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month American Indian Heritage Month Irish-American Heritage Month (issued yearly by the President, but not set it stone--has been since 1991) Women's History Month