Is Diversity and Multiculturalism a Good or Bad Thing?

[Bakery Hill]

4. And yet several areas of the world say otherwise, good job screwing up your argument.

The reactionary pseudo-science of racial theory sometimes placed Arabs in the Caucasoid bracket and sometimes didn't. This is the basis of your ostensibly anti-racist argument.

[Dejanic]

NHA was earlier arguing that Arabs are White in a debate with someone else; the quotation chain will show this.

Yes, they tend to be more on the brown side (which makes sense given they have tons of sun and Europeans generally don't). Features wise, they're not really that different.

There's no such thing as "White features".

No one considers Arabs white, no one. You need to let this go. Not that it particularly matters anyway because race is a social construct and the "White race" is the most apparent social construct out of all the races so hampering on about these old racial theories is really pointless; but within the parameters of the social construct of "Whiteness" then Arabs are generally not considered white.

[Oil exporting People]

1. You're one to talk. I had to specially tailor a response for you and you still didn't fucking understand.

Whatever helps you sleep at night dude; honestly, you're starting to worry me with several of your actions.

2. I'm sorry, but when did humans stop being animals? It seems that I've missed that memo...

When did animals other than Humans gain sentience? Even ignoring that, where in my original post or your own were "BIOLOGICAL LIVING ENTITIES" other than Humans get mentioned?

3. Then I repeat: You should try to specify from now on.

It's not my fault you are unable to conduct yourself as an adult would; to date, you've ragequit once, have devolved your debating into repeatedly citing a youtube video, and now playing the semantics game. Given that, I shouldn't be surprised you are unable to utilize context in a manner consistent with the age group of this site, and to that end I do apologize for assuming too much of you.

4. And yet several areas of the world say otherwise, good job screwing up your argument.

And yet, the only two that matter, European areas and those of the Arab World, do not view it as such; if you want to devolve everything into relativism, then debating this becomes entirely pointless, but it doesn't make you right.

[Salus Maior]

Yes, they tend to be more on the brown side (which makes sense given they have tons of sun and Europeans generally don't). Features wise, they're not really that different.

There's no such thing as "White features".

No one considers Arabs white, no one. You need to let this go. Not that it particularly matters anyway because race is a social construct and the "White race" is the most apparent social construct out of all the races so hampering on about these old racial theories is really pointless; but within the parameters of the social construct of "Whiteness" then Arabs are generally not considered white.

Feel free to find where I called Arabs "white". Or considered being "white" to be better.

You're jumping at nothing.

[New haven america]

1a. Oh the hypocrisy...

1.The main "argument" you've been using is "you don't have an argument" which in itself prevents actual argument because it results in meta-conversations, it's a self fulfilling prophecy.

1b. I'd love to have a reasonable debate or conversation with you, however, it seems you aren't able to stop acting smug or acting like you're right and everyone else who doesn't fully agree with you is below you (In which then you randomly latch onto threads in order to harass people). Fix that and people might be more willing to interact with you.

2a.You've seen me argue a point civilly, coherently and in detail with Oil exporting people here, who is by all means far to the right of me. I generally have no problems interacting with other people on NSG.2b. If you interpret my criticism of your horrible excuses for argument that damage the anti-racist cause as harassment I apologise, but to be frank this is why this forum exists.

2. Then a bit of sincere advice: Don't use the mods as weapons or threaten mod action (Unless you're the OP or are in control of an RP thread), they don't like it and will most likely give you redtext as well.

3.I don't think that particularly advice is relevant to this situation but thank you anyway.

1. The only thing you've provided in this thread towards me is: "lel, stupid libertard, thinks he can actually write good." If you want to have a conversation or debate, give me a bloody topic to talk about or don't. (Also, I'm not liberal, or do I have to get Bender back in here)

2a. For as long as I've seen you on this site, you've only spouted vitriol towards what I (And a few others) have said, even before I actually really debated with you. 2b. And you're doing exactly what I said you do, I'm not even gonna pretend to be surprised. I'm willing to be civil with you if you stop or at least lighten up the smug "I'm above you" act.

3. It'sfor future reference, I or anyone else could've reported you for saying you'd get mods in here. Hell, that last sentence taken out of context could be questionable on my part, tbh. They don't mess around with stuff like that, so be careful on announcing the mod's wrath.

[Dejanic]

There's no such thing as "White features".

No one considers Arabs white, no one. You need to let this go. Not that it particularly matters anyway because race is a social construct and the "White race" is the most apparent social construct out of all the races so hampering on about these old racial theories is really pointless; but within the parameters of the social construct of "Whiteness" then Arabs are generally not considered white.

Feel free to find where I called Arabs "white". Or considered being "white" to be better.

You're jumping at nothing.

What's your opinion then? You obviously have one or you wouldn't of gotten involved in the quote chain.

I didn't say you considered whites to be better.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

3.It's for future reference, I or anyone else could've reported you for saying you'd get mods in here. Hell, that last sentence taken out of context could be questionable on my part, tbh. They don't mess around with stuff like that, so be careful on announcing the mod's wrath.

He didn't say that tho.

Much like your selective tone reading of my posts earlier and finding it rather useful to put a hit piece on me in the thread, you're ignoring the context and tone of his message to bash at him.

It's cute the first few times, but after a while it's boring as fuck. It's not our fault you have problems understanding our tone and instead accuse us of being manchildren, which is far more telling about you, than it is about us.

[New haven america]

You're the one who threw a temper tantrum.

For anyone interested: Soldi makes a blanket statement, I say that said statement wasn't true, and Soldi looses his fucking shit over nothing.

1.I didn't lose my shit. 2.Your fault if you don't like my aggressive debating when it's aimed back at you.

1. Yes you really did.
2. I wasn't aggressively debating with you though, I was staying mostly calm around you, there was absolutely no need for that and it was completely uncalled for. I was acting more aggressive with Ethel though, and I admit that, but that's because he did that for most of the thread, even to people who agreed with him.

Now, I'm not turning this into a thread jack, either go to the FCC thread, or TG me, but I'm not doing this here.

[Salus Maior]

Feel free to find where I called Arabs "white". Or considered being "white" to be better.

You're jumping at nothing.

What's your opinion then? You obviously have one or you wouldn't of gotten involved in the quote chain.

I didn't say you considered whites to be better.

My opinion is that race doesn't matter. 'Whiteness" doesn't matter, nor does any other color or mixing thereof.

Culture, however, does tend to matter when it comes to national unity.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

1.I didn't lose my shit. 2.Your fault if you don't like my aggressive debating when it's aimed back at you.

1. Yes you really did.
2. I wasn't aggressively debating with you though, I was staying mostly calm around you, there was absolutely no need for that and it was completely uncalled for. I was acting more aggressive with Ethel though, and I admit that, but that's because he did that for most of the thread, even to people who agreed with him.

Now, I'm not turning this into a thread jack, either go to the FCC thread, or TG me, but I'm not doing this here.

If you can't handle the heat, I recommend you don't try to act agro like the rest of us. Just a word of advice, before you start calling me a manchild again, since apparently that's your go-to when shit hits the fan and sprays back at your face.

[Dejanic]

What's your opinion then? You obviously have one or you wouldn't of gotten involved in the quote chain.

I didn't say you considered whites to be better.

My opinion is that race doesn't matter. 'Whiteness" doesn't matter, nor does any other color or mixing thereof.

Culture, however, does tend to matter when it comes to national unity.

Like that's great and all, but saying that race "doesn't matter" doesn't mean that it doesn't exist socially, and all the problems that are associated with race won't go away just because we say "whiteness doesn't matter" because it still exists. Your response to OEP mentioning NHA's beliefs concerning Arabs and "Whiteness" was literally "yes" followed by a tangent on how we have the same features apparently, so you're lying a bit if you're claiming it doesn't matter (to yourself).

[Bakery Hill]

1.The main "argument" you've been using is "you don't have an argument" which in itself prevents actual argument because it results in meta-conversations, it's a self fulfilling prophecy.


2a.You've seen me argue a point civilly, coherently and in detail with Oil exporting people here, who is by all means far to the right of me. I generally have no problems interacting with other people on NSG.2b. If you interpret my criticism of your horrible excuses for argument that damage the anti-racist cause as harassment I apologise, but to be frank this is why this forum exists.


3.I don't think that particularly advice is relevant to this situation but thank you anyway.

1. The only thing you've provided in this thread towards me is: "lel, stupid libertard, thinks he can actually write good." If you want to have a conversation or debate, give me a bloody topic to talk about or don't. (Also, I'm not liberal, or do I have to get Bender back in here)

I've criticised you're position three times on my count, albeit in a light-hearted rather than academic way, and you refused to defend your position. I'll restate my previous statement if you missed it.

4. And yet several areas of the world say otherwise, good job screwing up your argument.

The reactionary pseudo-science of racial theory sometimes placed Arabs in the Caucasoid bracket and sometimes didn't. This is the basis of your ostensibly anti-racist argument.

2a. For as long as I've seen you on this site, you've only spouted vitriol towards what I (And a few others) have said, even before I actually really debated with you. 2b. And you're doing exactly what I said you do, I'm not even gonna pretend to be surprised. I'm willing to be civil with you if you stop or at least lighten up the smug "I'm above you" act.

I'm willing to argue this point. I've argued it with others on this thread and I've attempted to argue it with you, in this thread and in others I've had very few complaints, much less about my "vitriol" which is really a bit of a joke. And as Soldati pointed out, please don't be so sensitive as to balk when your own more aggressive style of argument is given back to you.

3. It'sfor future reference, I or anyone else could've reported you for saying you'd get mods in here. Hell, that last sentence taken out of context could be questionable on my part, tbh. They don't mess around with stuff like that, so be careful on announcing the mod's wrath.

I did not say I'd get the mods in here. I expressly said that I wouldn't get the mods in here. I appreciate you being so careful but I don't see the need for it.

[Salus Maior]

My opinion is that race doesn't matter. 'Whiteness" doesn't matter, nor does any other color or mixing thereof.

Culture, however, does tend to matter when it comes to national unity.

Like that's great and all, but saying that race "doesn't matter" doesn't mean that it doesn't exist socially, and all the problems that are associated with race won't go away just because we say "whiteness doesn't matter" because it still exists. Your response to OEP mentioning NHA's beliefs concerning Arabs and "Whiteness" was literally "yes" followed by a tangent on how we have the same features apparently, so you're lying a bit if you're claiming it doesn't matter (to yourself).

Me pointing out that Arab "features" are similar to European is my attempt to show how silly it is to point out "BUT THEY'RE NOT WHITE", set up some kind of barrier between us and them based on some poorly defined idea of color identification. The only real difference between us physically is that one is tanner than the other (although plenty of Southern Europeans also tend to be very tan, and could even pass for Middle Eastern if they tried, and likewise I've seen some Arabs/Middle Eastern people also have fairly lighter skin and could pass for Mediterranean Euros if they tried).

I'm merely making some physical observations. "Yes, Arabs aren't white [usually, in skin color] but their features aren't that different". I'm not putting any importance behind whether their features are similar, or even that having 'white' features matters at all. You're making those jumps yourself.

I understand your sentiment, and I understand that race is seen as a very real, important thing still to many people. And the thing is, being hyper-racially-aware just puts fuel on the fire, solidifies the idea that "Oh no, we're different and your deserve more/less because of what genes you were born with". I do my best to not be that way.

[Bakery Hill]

Like that's great and all, but saying that race "doesn't matter" doesn't mean that it doesn't exist socially, and all the problems that are associated with race won't go away just because we say "whiteness doesn't matter" because it still exists. Your response to OEP mentioning NHA's beliefs concerning Arabs and "Whiteness" was literally "yes" followed by a tangent on how we have the same features apparently, so you're lying a bit if you're claiming it doesn't matter (to yourself).

Me pointing out that Arab "features" are similar to European is my attempt to show how silly it is to point out "BUT THEY'RE NOT WHITE". The only real difference between us physically is that one is tanner than the other (although plenty of Southern Europeans also tend to be very tan, and could even pass for Middle Eastern if they tried, and likewise I've seen some Arabs/Middle Eastern people also have fairly lighter skin and could pass for Mediterranean Euros if they tried).

I'm merely making some physical observations. "Yes, Arabs aren't white [usually, in skin color] but their features aren't that different". I'm not putting any importance behind whether their features are similar, or even that having 'white' features matters at all. You're making those jumps yourself.

I understand your sentiment, and I understand that race is seen as a very real, important thing still to many people. And the thing is, being hyper-racially-aware just puts fuel on the fire. I do my best to not be that way.

Yes, whiteness is a social construct based on culture, geographical proximity and physical appearance. Applying whiteness to groups which have not been placed within it, based on the nuances of physical appearance across groups or archaic 19th century racial theory, is certainly an extremely poor anti-racist argument, and that's the root of this discussion.

[New haven america]

1. You're one to talk. I had to specially tailor a response for you and you still didn't fucking understand.

1.Whatever helps you sleep at night dude; honestly, you're starting to worry me with several of your actions.

2. I'm sorry, but when did humans stop being animals? It seems that I've missed that memo...

2.When did animals other than Humans gain sentience? Even ignoring that, where in my original post or your own were "BIOLOGICAL LIVING ENTITIES" other than Humans get mentioned?

3. Then I repeat: You should try to specify from now on.

3.It's not my fault you are unable to conduct yourself as an adult would

4. And yet several areas of the world say otherwise, good job screwing up your argument.

4.And yet, the only two that matter, European areas and those of the Arab World, do not view it as such; if you want to devolve everything into relativism, then debating this becomes entirely pointless, but it doesn't make you right.

1. Not my fault you apparently have trouble reading.
2. That doesn't matter, You were talking about animals: Humans. To which I proceeded to answer the biologically accepted answer of what Race is.
3. This, coming from someone with the inability to read my very clear points.

The arguments you were using was like testing recent contact Native American's alcohol tolerance and using it to explain drinking problems in Europe and Asia. Of course the Native American's would produce negative results, they don't have the experience with alcohol that Europeans and Asians do. That is a flawed test and argument because they don't match up. Now, take the Native's and alcohol, and replace that with Europe and immigration or diversity. Then take Europe and Asia, and replace it with diverse countries. It's a flawed argument because one doesn't have any of the experience of the other. That's my point.

Yet somehow, shomehow, you've twisted my point into "We should add more diversity into the mix!" NO! No, no, no. That is not my point. My point was that: That logic is flawed because the test subjects (Historically homogenous nations) don't match up to historically diverse nations when handling this issue.

I said that 3 bloody times, and yet you didn't get it then, so I doubt you're going to get it now. So what's the point if you're never going to listen?

4. But they aren't the only ones who matter though.

[Dejanic]

Like that's great and all, but saying that race "doesn't matter" doesn't mean that it doesn't exist socially, and all the problems that are associated with race won't go away just because we say "whiteness doesn't matter" because it still exists. Your response to OEP mentioning NHA's beliefs concerning Arabs and "Whiteness" was literally "yes" followed by a tangent on how we have the same features apparently, so you're lying a bit if you're claiming it doesn't matter (to yourself).

Me pointing out that Arab "features" are similar to European is my attempt to show how silly it is to point out "BUT THEY'RE NOT WHITE", set up some kind of barrier between us and them based on some poorly defined idea of color identification. The only real difference between us physically is that one is tanner than the other (although plenty of Southern Europeans also tend to be very tan, and could even pass for Middle Eastern if they tried, and likewise I've seen some Arabs/Middle Eastern people also have fairly lighter skin and could pass for Mediterranean Euros if they tried).

I'm merely making some physical observations. "Yes, Arabs aren't white [usually, in skin color] but their features aren't that different". I'm not putting any importance behind whether their features are similar, or even that having 'white' features matters at all. You're making those jumps yourself.

I understand your sentiment, and I understand that race is seen as a very real, important thing still to many people. And the thing is, being hyper-racially-aware just puts fuel on the fire. I do my best to not be that way.

Arabs don't have "White features" (once again, no such thing as White features since most "Whites" have nothing in common physically) you're actually appropriating the Arabs and you don't even realise it. Pointing out that Arabs are Asiatic/Semitic isn't creating a "barrier" it's pointing out they're of a different continental heritage and socially are of a different "race", by trying to claim that Arabs are "the same" as Whites you're completely disregarding the Arabic identity and are appropriating them as Whites. You're literally being racist unintentionally. Race is stupid, but claiming other races as "White" isn't the correct way to go about this.

I understand that you don't feel there's importance behind this, and I'm not saying you are a racist, but unintentionally you're projecting a very white-centrist assimilationist identity. And I'm sorry but anyone who doesn't have severe eyesight problems can see Arabs and Southern Europeans look nothing alike, and the few groups of Southern Europeans who sometimes resemble groups of Northern Arabs often have significant amounts of Arabic admixture (Sicillians). My dad is basically the same colour as a Northern Arab, but his facial features are completely different. You might as well claim that Aborigines from Australasia, South Indians and Africans are the same "race" because they're all very dark skinned!

[Bakery Hill]

The arguments you were using was like testing recent contact Native American's alcohol tolerance and using it to explain drinking problems in Europe and Asia. Of course the Native American's would produce negative results, they don't have the experience with alcohol that Europeans and Asians do.

That is far more a social problem than a genetic one. There's lightweights and there's heavyweights but a vast number of colonised societies across the world don't typically drink themselves half to death because they're not quite as good as holding their liquor. Again the problem is you're using right wing rationale to argue right wing arguments.

[Dejanic]

I don't for the life of me remember which country it was but there's one in East Asia where the vast majority of its citizens were lactose intolerant (something like 95 percent) and after the government introduced mandatory milk in schools the percentage went down significantly over the following decades as it wasn't something that was inherently "racial" and thus unable to be changed, it was based on peoples ancestors not consuming dairy and lactose intolerance naturally being passed down.

[Salus Maior]

Me pointing out that Arab "features" are similar to European is my attempt to show how silly it is to point out "BUT THEY'RE NOT WHITE", set up some kind of barrier between us and them based on some poorly defined idea of color identification. The only real difference between us physically is that one is tanner than the other (although plenty of Southern Europeans also tend to be very tan, and could even pass for Middle Eastern if they tried, and likewise I've seen some Arabs/Middle Eastern people also have fairly lighter skin and could pass for Mediterranean Euros if they tried).

I'm merely making some physical observations. "Yes, Arabs aren't white [usually, in skin color] but their features aren't that different". I'm not putting any importance behind whether their features are similar, or even that having 'white' features matters at all. You're making those jumps yourself.

I understand your sentiment, and I understand that race is seen as a very real, important thing still to many people. And the thing is, being hyper-racially-aware just puts fuel on the fire. I do my best to not be that way.

Arabs don't have "White features" (once again, no such thing as White features since most "Whites" have nothing in common physically) you're actually appropriating the Arabs and you don't even realise it. Pointing out that Arabs are Asiatic/Semitic isn't creating a "barrier" it's pointing out they're of a different continental heritage and socially are of a different "race", by trying to claim that Arabs are "the same" as Whites you're completely disregarding the Arabic identity and are appropriating them as Whites. You're literally being racist unintentionally. Race is stupid, but claiming other races as "White" isn't the correct way to go about this.

Oh brother.

I don't believe in the idea of "cultural appropriation", at least not as its commonly thrown around. I know that Arabs are Semitic, I know their cultural identity is largely different and significant in its own way. And again, I wasn't calling Arabs white. I'm saying that there are Arabs who don't look like what is thought of as the stereotypical Arab, and look similar to some Europeans and vise-versa. I'm saying this to drive the point that looks really don't matter, cultural identity is what matters.

[Dejanic]

Arabs don't have "White features" (once again, no such thing as White features since most "Whites" have nothing in common physically) you're actually appropriating the Arabs and you don't even realise it. Pointing out that Arabs are Asiatic/Semitic isn't creating a "barrier" it's pointing out they're of a different continental heritage and socially are of a different "race", by trying to claim that Arabs are "the same" as Whites you're completely disregarding the Arabic identity and are appropriating them as Whites. You're literally being racist unintentionally. Race is stupid, but claiming other races as "White" isn't the correct way to go about this.

Oh brother.

I don't believe in the idea of "cultural appropriation", at least not as its commonly thrown around. I know that Arabs are Semitic, I know their cultural identity is largely different and significant in its own way. And again, I wasn't calling Arabs white. I'm saying that there are Arabs who don't look like what is thought of as the stereotypical Arab, and look similar to some Europeans and vise-versa. I'm saying this to drive the point that looks really don't matter, cultural identity is what matters.

Excluding very specific examples like the USA (and even that's debatable with the whole WASP/AA divide) physical and cultural identity are almost always intrinsically linked. You're not going to find many if any cultures on Earth that that historically haven't been based around some sort of shared ethnic/racial identity. It's going to be difficult to support one and oppose the other.

Biggest problem with "multiculturalism" is that whilst it does one good thing and aims to avoid discrimination, it still aims to facilitate multiple different cultures that will overwhelmingly be based around race/ethnicity, and whilst such things are still seen as important or relevant racism will always exist.

[New haven america]

1. The only thing you've provided in this thread towards me is: "lel, stupid libertard, thinks he can actually write good." If you want to have a conversation or debate, give me a bloody topic to talk about or don't. (Also, I'm not liberal, or do I have to get Bender back in here)

1.I've criticised you're position three times on my count, albeit in a light-hearted rather than academic way, and you refused to defend your position. I'll restate my previous statement if you missed it.

The reactionary pseudo-science of racial theory sometimes placed Arabs in the Caucasoid bracket and sometimes didn't. This is the basis of your ostensibly anti-racist argument.

2a. For as long as I've seen you on this site, you've only spouted vitriol towards what I (And a few others) have said, even before I actually really debated with you. 2b. And you're doing exactly what I said you do, I'm not even gonna pretend to be surprised. I'm willing to be civil with you if you stop or at least lighten up the smug "I'm above you" act.

2a.I'm willing to argue this point. I've argued it with others on this thread and I've attempted to argue it with you, in this thread and in others I've had very few complaints, much less about my "vitriol" which is really a bit of a joke. 2b.And as Soldati pointed out, 2c.please don't be so sensitive as to balk when your own more aggressive style of argument is given back to you.

1a. Because you're still on my ignore list so I don't see that stuff unless I want to, and 1b. Because most of those weren't lighthearted, it was more smug/I'm better than you and trying to bring up things that really didn't apply.

2a. No, you've argued with others and acted all "You are nothing but beneath me" towards me in this very thread (And towards others elsewhere, but I'm pretty sure most are CTE...). There's a massive and distinct difference with how you acted around OeP and me for example, it's not difficult to see the difference from the moment you started. 2b. You mean the person who threw a tantrum? 2c. Well, I'm not sensitive and I actually tend to be rather calm towards most. However, if someone is acting calm or respectful towards another, and said another starts screaming and being ultra aggressive towards the person, the calm person probably won't want to interact with the other now, would they? As that response wasn't appropriate to the behavior and is pretty alienating.

My invitation still remains open.

[New haven america]

1. Yes you really did.
2. I wasn't aggressively debating with you though, I was staying mostly calm around you, there was absolutely no need for that and it was completely uncalled for. I was acting more aggressive with Ethel though, and I admit that, but that's because he did that for most of the thread, even to people who agreed with him.

Now, I'm not turning this into a thread jack, either go to the FCC thread, or TG me, but I'm not doing this here.

If you can't handle the heat, I recommend you don't try to act agro like the rest of us. Just a word of advice, before you start calling me a manchild again, since apparently that's your go-to when shit hits the fan and sprays back at your face.

1.I didn't lose my shit. 2.Your fault if you don't like my aggressive debating when it's aimed back at you.

Now, I'm not turning this into a thread jack, either go to the FCC thread, or TG me, but I'm not doing this here.

[Salus Maior]

Excluding very specific examples like the USA (and even that's debatable with the whole WASP/AA divide) physical and cultural identity are almost always intrinsically linked. You're not going to find many if any cultures on Earth that that historically haven't been based around some sort of shared ethnic/racial identity. It's going to be difficult to support one and oppose the other.

In terms of the USA, I believe that both 'White' and African American (and insert-whatever-here-American) identities should be destroyed in favor of assimilating into a monolithic culture. A-la Rome.

Most of the great, successful Empires historically tended to be multi-racial yet promoted a single culture into which other groups would assimilate. Rome was one of these, as was China.

To be frank, I consider strong racial identity to be cancer, and one of the things primarily screwing this country over (and has been for a very long time).

[New haven america]

The arguments you were using was like testing recent contact Native American's alcohol tolerance and using it to explain drinking problems in Europe and Asia. Of course the Native American's would produce negative results, they don't have the experience with alcohol that Europeans and Asians do.

1.That is far more a social problem than a genetic one. 2.There's lightweights and there's heavyweights but a vast number of colonised societies across the world don't typically drink themselves half to death because they're not quite as good as holding their liquor.

1. That's the point, their argument towards me is that social and ethnic differences are the cause of problems and mistrust
2a. Yes, but what they were sourcing doesn't apply. Even if you're a lightweight, you still know your limits and can plan or handle situations accordingly. But if you've never experienced something, and are expected to handle yourself at a professional level, it's not going to work most of the time.

That's the problem, they used an area of the world that's not historically diverse, and tried to say that applied everywhere, when it doesn't. Now, if they used more source that included areas like: The US, Canada, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile, Singapore, China (Which is actually pretty diverse, surprisingly), etc... Then that would help their argument, but they didn't.

2b. Uh... They kinda did, look up The Canadian Whiskey Trade. It is awful.

[Bakery Hill]

1.I've criticised you're position three times on my count, albeit in a light-hearted rather than academic way, and you refused to defend your position. I'll restate my previous statement if you missed it.



2a.I'm willing to argue this point. I've argued it with others on this thread and I've attempted to argue it with you, in this thread and in others I've had very few complaints, much less about my "vitriol" which is really a bit of a joke. 2b.And as Soldati pointed out, 2c.please don't be so sensitive as to balk when your own more aggressive style of argument is given back to you.

1a. Because you're still on my ignore list so I don't see that stuff unless I want to, and 1b. Because most of those weren't lighthearted, it was more smug/I'm better than you and trying to bring up things that really didn't apply.

2a. No, you've argued with others and acted all "You are nothing but beneath me" towards me in this very thread (And towards others elsewhere, but I'm pretty sure most are CTE...). There's a massive and distinct difference with how you acted around OeP and me for example, it's not difficult to see the difference from the moment you started. 2b. You mean the person who threw a tantrum? 2c. Well, I'm not sensitive and I actually tend to be rather calm towards most. However, if someone is acting calm or respectful towards another, and said another starts screaming and being ultra aggressive towards the person, the calm person probably won't want to interact with the other now, would they? As that response wasn't appropriate to the behavior and is pretty alienating.

My invitation still remains open.

I've accepted your invitation? I've made multiple argument against you in this thread that you've now admitted you ignored? I can link these if you like? If you're worried how people think of you and how they act towards you, perhaps don't turn half the threads you contribute to into something like this. You take umbrage when people reciprocate your tone, you incessantly Molyneuxpost "that's not an argument" instead of actually confronting ideas and you turn debates on ideas into these weirdly personal meta-arguments. I've been in this exact position with your before multiple times, as have the half people present on this thread, and this naturally affects our interactions with you. If combative tones and confrontation affects you like this, it's probably a bad idea to spend so much time in a political debate forum.