Countries that believe their culture is superior to others

[Ailchu]

AND NOW TO YOUR SUBJECT

How you seperate a good family member from a bad family member?
Do you believe that your family is inferior or superior to your eyes, when comes to other families?
DOes your family has also to do with genetics?

i don't look at my family i look at every individual seperatly. we have our strengths, we also have our weaknesses, and we certainly aren't all the same.

IMIGRATION IS LIKE ADOPTION by A STATE-FAMILY

and as such act. everybody must see it.
but it is family that decides how many new members can afford to accept.

and whats the criteria for beeing part of that family? genetics?

as for your question

I would provide you 2 cases of USA history, cause today we are all living in America, and maybe my culture is unknown to you.

is Mel Gibson's acting role, a racist or a Nazi in the movie?
could he be an ethnocentric ?

Was he a nihilist? was he a racist? an ethnocentric that he loved his Genes and culture so much, that he dare to challenge authorities, for equal rights, and not an inferior genes race.
<strong>

is the idea of the american state based on an ethnic genetic identity? would be new to me.

and what has Luther King to do with this? he was for equality nothing more, nothing less.

did you try to answer my question here? well you didn't because you still couldn't say how you seperate good from bad ethnocentrism that is connected to genetics.

 

[Ailchu]

Honestly, I don't see the issue here.

Imo there are standards out there against which one can measure individuals and cultures, and culture is formed not just by environment but by genetics.

Obviously, my list may be different than someone else's, but I think my list is better, more fair and more humane, but also practical.

Let's look at it in terms of individuals. Some individuals are more intelligent than others, some more athletic, some more talented in music or art. They are "superior" in some ways to other individuals and "inferior" in others, and if they're honest with themselves they know where they rank. I'm mentioning things which imo can be measured or tested because there are grey areas we still don't know how to test or are too subjective, like attractiveness.

I don't see anything inherently immoral in acknowledging any of this as an individual, and acknowledging that much of it is owed to genetics, at least as much as to individual application and effort, traits which also have a genetic base. It also keeps you humble and grateful. The only immorality arises if you treat others as less than you, do not treat them with the respect and concern they deserve as fellow human beings, because you possess certain traits which are superior to theirs.

The same applies to cultures. I have a definite set standards by which I judge whether a culture is "better" than another one, and so do committed leftists like Ailchu even if they won't admit it. I'm pretty sure if he were honest with himself and others he'd admit that a culture which doesn't abuse LG etc. people or people of a different "color" or "religion" is "superior" to those which do.

So do I for what it's worth. I have a whole series of standards. No culture meets all of those standards, and that includes both of mine. They are superior in some things, inferior in others or just middling.

That doesn't mean that I don't "prefer" certain cultures, prefer living in certain cultures, because I do. That's because of the weight I put on certain cultural traits, and not only because I was born and partly raised in one culture and have spent decades in my adopted culture. So, I accept the "flaws" in both my cultures, would wish to see them ameliorated, but the "good" far outweighs the "bad". I could never live in certain cultures even if they were "objectively" wealthy, granted human rights etc.

I'm a humanist and I judge all things by that standard, but I also understand what is necessary for a society to function as optimally and efficiently as possible. Those are the bedrock, and all judgments flow from that.

My standards and my preferences are my own and I'm entitled to them. When you deny me that right you're implicitly saying your standards, your "ideal" culture is superior to mine, whether you see that or acknowledge it or not, so it's total hypocrisy.

I repeat, however, I'm not entitled to treat people from another culture in an inhumane or even just disrespectful way.

Also, it's obvious that each human being from a certain culture is not going to be identical to every other human being from that culture and must be judged as an individual.

As for this open borders nonsense, whether its supporters recognize or admit it or not, the outcome would have to be planetary government. That's anathema.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Power accumulates in government, and the bigger the government, the more people it controls, the more intense the control, the more oppression for everyone who lives within the sphere of that government.

Personal failings aside, Thomas Jefferson was correct: the least government is the best government; the least number of bureaucrats in your system, the better. They stifle creativity and ultimately will impose oppression; it's happened in every government in history. That's one of the many reasons I've always opposed the European Union. It's one of the reasons I have so much respect for the American founders; a federalist system, a republican democracy, is the best available option up to this point. We chip away the rights of the smaller members at our peril.

I absolutely do not believe that a country which has husbanded its resources relatively wisely, managed a relatively good living for most of its people, works toward providing certain human freedoms to its citizens is obliged to let every member of every failed state in the world into its borders to strain its resources and make worse the lives of its own citizens. A government has an obligation to its citizens.

you need to look at individuals exactly. but you should do this with migrants and natives in the same way.

i would also ask you the same question how do you seperate good from bad ethnocentrism when you connect it with genetics. didn't you yourself make the thread about german turks in germany and how they are not recognized as germans by the other germans and how badly people from for example near east are treated there?

"The same applies to cultures. I have a definite set standards by which I judge whether a culture is "better" than another one, and so do committed leftists like Ailchu even if they won't admit it. I'm pretty sure if he were honest with himself and others he'd admit that a culture which doesn't abuse LG etc. people or people of a different "color" or "religion" is "superior" to those which do. "

as i already said multiple times, i don't think it is bad to look at your culture and say that it's better than others at least in certain aspects.

as for the open borders discussion, not specific to your post i don't get why we even got to this again. i and i think noone else has said anything about opening borders here. but you get insulted as "open borders idiot". i guess because questioned ratchet_fans opinion that pride of the own "race" should have an influence.

it is also said that people should be proud of who they are. ok sure then tell me people, should germans or swiss which some of you probably don't like that much be proud of their "race" or just have individual pride if necessary?

 

[Angela]

you need to look at individuals exactly. but you should do this with migrants and natives in the same way.

i would also ask you the same question how do you seperate good from bad ethnocentrism when you connect it with genetics. didn't you yourself make the thread about german turks in germany and how they are not recognized as germans by the other germans and how badly people from for example near east are treated there?

"The same applies to cultures. I have a definite set standards by which I judge whether a culture is "better" than another one, and so do committed leftists like Ailchu even if they won't admit it. I'm pretty sure if he were honest with himself and others he'd admit that a culture which doesn't abuse LG etc. people or people of a different "color" or "religion" is "superior" to those which do. "

as i already said multiple times, i don't think it is bad to look at your culture and say that it's better than others at least in certain aspects.

as for the open borders discussion, not specific to your post i don't get why we even got to this again. i and i think noone else has said anything about opening borders here. but you get insulted as "open borders idiot". i guess because questioned ratchet_fans opinion that pride of the own "race" should have an influence.

it is also said that people should be proud of who they are. ok sure then tell me people, should germans or swiss which some of you probably don't like that much be proud of their "race" or just have individual pride if necessary?

Ailchu, I already addressed your first bolded statement. The measure is how you ACT, as an individual and as a society, toward people who are, in your opinion, either "inferior" in some way, or just different in some way from yourself genetically and/or culturally. Germany, like France, like many other countries, admitted people of different ethnicity into its borders. Having done that they must not mistreat these people. Those people must have equal rights before the law. That's how I see it and have always seen it. If they were admitted under a temporary visa, they can only stay for the stated time, might not have the exact same rights, but still can't be abused. Humanism is always the standard.

There are many things of which Germans can be proud. There are also a lot of things of which they should be massively ashamed. How they balance that in their own minds is their business.

How other people see their culture and history is their business.

 

[Yetos]

i don't look at my family i look at every individual seperatly. we have our strengths, we also have our weaknesses, and we certainly aren't all the same.



and whats the criteria for beeing part of that family? genetics?



is the idea of the american state based on an ethnic genetic identity? would be new to me.

and what has Luther King to do with this? he was for equality nothing more, nothing less.

did you try to answer my question here? well you didn't because you still couldn't say how you seperate good from bad ethnocentrism that is connected to genetics.

that is what you not want see,

BUT I SEE ETHNOCENTRICs HERE THAT WERE NOT NAZI OR FASISTS OR ANTISEMETIC OR STALISTISTS

M Luther King , different genes, of that a settler patriot, but ethnocentric with his race and culture, asking the correct equality, of same rights and justice.

IT IS OBVIOUS THAT STILL DENY TO SEE AN ETHNOCENTRIC WITH DIFFERENT GENES, who believed that his genes and culture are not inferior, in MLK
or you still believe that an ethnocentric patriot is a Nazi etc

I am unique, you are unique, our genes are unique, we must think that we are superiors, but also equals against law and rights. other wise we are doomed.
same is our culture,
EU when created, knew about that, and that is why has so many cutlures, and supports the cultural pluralism, BUT INSIDE THE BOARDER OF EACH CULTURE.

 

[Ailchu]

Ailchu, I already addressed your first bolded statement. The measure is how you ACT, as an individual and as a society, toward people who are, in your opinion, either "inferior" in some way, or just different in some way from yourself genetically and/or culturally.

so if i understand you right, ethnocentrism tied to genetics is ok as long it happens in private, and does not manifest itself in real actions because everyone must be treated equal no matter how you judge them? then we could still say that it's actually bad and only acceptable because it's invisible.

Germany, like France, like many other countries, admitted people of different ethnicity into its borders. Having done that they must not mistreat these people. Those people must have equal rights before the law. That's how I see it and have always seen it.

the people who migrated to germany or france should be treated equally independant of their ancestry, but should it be different with people who want to migrate there?
if a part of the german or french society was never for allowing migrants to enter because of ethnic reasons why should they treat these people equally? why should they supress their ethnocentrism or racism? why would you judge them if ethnocentrism even with a genetic basis is not bad but only certain actions driven by it and these actions are only bad because those people were allowed to enter by different less ethnocentric people?

what would you say to what Jovialis said?
"Like I said, if you try to socially engineer morality on an unwilling populace, you tend to get a complete backlash. Moreover, even liberals agree that tribalism is inherent in human nature, so you are insisting they subscribe unwillingly to something that is technically unnatural."

There are many things of which Germans can be proud. There are also a lot of things of which they should be massively ashamed. How they balance that in their own minds is their business.

How other people see their culture and history is their business.

but how would you see it if a german said that he is proud of his race because it's better than yours in some way? in the end it's their business sure. in the end it's just individual opinions anyway also among germans. would also be no different if i asked you if italians should feel proud because every italian has a different opinion.

 

[Angela]

You're basically saying that you want to criminalize "thought"!

Imo, that's abhorrent and nothing approaching it should be allowed in any civilized society.

Unfortunately, that's what I see as one of the "hallmarks" of the "progressive left" in this country.

Not only should every human being have the right to "think" whatever they like, they should have the right to say whatever they like so long as they do not incite violence or the mistreatment of other people, or the taking away of their legal rights. A government guarantee of free speech, like the freedom of religion is essential.

On the other hand, you can't, as was done in many places, give people of a different ethnicity, as just one example, fewer rights in terms of "opportunity". Notice I said opportunity, not results. You should have the same opportunities, but no one can or should guarantee equal results.

What I see happening all around me is people trying to punish, take away the livelihood, of anyone whom in their subjective judgment has hurt their feelings.

Do you think I would advocate for some racist Pole being put in prison or not allowed to buy a house or get a job because he insulted Italians? I've got tougher skin than that. Attack their facts, their theories, show how idiotic they are, how not to be trusted. Keep the government out of it. It has too much power already.

Making ethnic "jokes" used to be quite acceptable in American society. That's fine. However, nothing says you have to sit in silence; I never let one slide. Insult my people, Italian or American, and trust me, I always had ten things I could say for their every one, and more eloquently and vituperatively. People soon learn to keep a civil tongue in their mouths. Of course, they're also then on my list. Think I'll go to them next time I have a job to get done, someone to hire for a service? Let the market handle it. It takes care of a lot of things. The government has no business meting out consequences for people's hurt feelings.

Plus, you're responding to me using a false assumption. I never said "ethnocentrism" is bad. You want to believe your people are superior? Go ahead. In the marketplace of ideas there will be many people to question it.

Don't Europeans have the equivalent of this "saying":sticks and stones can break my bones but words will never hurt me. Well, unless the words are an incitement to riot or the attempt to take away other people's rights under, for example our Bill of Rights. That's been the standard in American jurisprudence for a long time; what frightens me is that young people indoctrinated by the "progressives" in this country don't seem to believe in it. There was a time when the American Civil Liberties Union, full of American lawyers, joined legal efforts to allow Neo Nazis to march in a heavily Jewish area in the Midwest. That organization is now a travesty of itself.

 

[Maciamo]

I found an article that gives an overview of patriotism, a closely related feeling to that of 'feeling superior to other countries'.

Where people really love their countries

 

[Ailchu]

You're basically saying that you want to criminalize "thought"!

Imo, that's abhorrent and nothing approaching it should be allowed in any civilized society.

Unfortunately, that's what I see as one of the "hallmarks" of the "progressive left" in this country.

Not only should every human being have the right to "think" whatever they like, they should have the right to say whatever they like so long as they do not incite violence or the mistreatment of other people, or the taking away of their legal rights. A government guarantee of free speech, like the freedom of religion is essential.

On the other hand, you can't, as was done in many places, give people of a different ethnicity, as just one example, fewer rights in terms of "opportunity". Notice I said opportunity, not results. You should have the same opportunities, but no one can or should guarantee equal results.

What I see happening all around me is people trying to punish, take away the livelihood, of anyone whom in their subjective judgment has hurt their feelings.

Do you think I would advocate for some racist Pole being put in prison or not allowed to buy a house or get a job because he insulted Italians? I've got tougher skin than that. Attack their facts, their theories, show how idiotic they are, how not to be trusted. Keep the government out of it. It has too much power already.

Making ethnic "jokes" used to be quite acceptable in American society. That's fine. However, nothing says you have to sit in silence; I never let one slide. Insult my people, Italian or American, and trust me, I always had ten things I could say for their every one, and more eloquently and vituperatively. People soon learn to keep a civil tongue in their mouths. Of course, they're also then on my list. Think I'll go to them next time I have a job to get done, someone to hire for a service? Let the market handle it. It takes care of a lot of things. The government has no business meting out consequences for people's hurt feelings.

Plus, you're responding to me using a false assumption. I never said "ethnocentrism" is bad. You want to believe your people are superior? Go ahead. In the marketplace of ideas there will be many people to question it.

Don't Europeans have the equivalent of this "saying":sticks and stones can break my bones but words will never hurt me. Well, unless the words are an incitement to riot or the attempt to take away other people's rights under, for example our Bill of Rights. That's been the standard in American jurisprudence for a long time; what frightens me is that young people indoctrinated by the "progressives" in this country don't seem to believe in it. There was a time when the American Civil Liberties Union, full of American lawyers, joined legal efforts to allow Neo Nazis to march in a heavily Jewish area in the Midwest. That organization is now a travesty of itself.

i just think that it is not only the "backlash" that is bad but the mindset behind it. of course some people think both of them are good. if you think the mindset isn't bad then then i wonder why the backlash, the effect, should be something bad. those 2 things are not seperatable in practice. if someone thinks his ethnicity is defined by genetics and it's better than the others then that is his opinion and i certainly don't criminalize it. however do you really believe that a person who thinks this way will treat migrants completely equal just because they were allowed by others with a different mindset, to enter the country, so now he feels some kind of obligation?

isn't one of the sentences you often hear from the british far right "we were never asked"?

as for my false assumption, my assumption was that you think ethnocentrism is good or at least not bad. but when you say that it is bad how migrants in a country have no feeling of belonging or they are not allowed to enter clubs because they have a different ancestry eventhough they are culturally assimilated then how can you consider that ethnocentrism based on ancestry is not the source of the problem?

 

[Yetos]

i just think that it is not only the "backlash" that is bad but the mindset behind it. of course some people think both of them are good. if you think the mindset isn't bad then then i wonder why the backlash, the effect, should be something bad. those 2 things are not seperatable in practice. if someone thinks his ethnicity is defined by genetics and it's better than the others then that is his opinion and i certainly don't criminalize it. however do you really believe that a person who thinks this way will treat migrants completely equal just because they were allowed by others with a different mindset, to enter the country, so now he feels some kind of obligation?

isn't one of the sentences you often hear from the british far right "we were never asked"?

as for my false assumption, my assumption was that you think ethnocentrism is good or at least not bad. but when you say that it is bad how migrants in a country have no feeling of belonging or they are not allowed to enter clubs because they have a different ancestry eventhough they are culturally assimilated then how can you consider that ethnocentrism based on ancestry is not the source of the problem?

I think all you try to do is to provide the image of the poor migrant, no matter legal or illegal, vs the fat local,

Sory I won't buy. cause I 've seen many fat, earning more fat, working for, or sell this image.


BTW
Migration has 2 categories, lets not put figs and peaches on the same basket.

1, the ones who are forced to migrate,
2, the ones who migrate by their own will

believe me, supreme majority is the second

 

[[email protected]]

What an ugly thread this is.

You can be proud of yourself, of your family, your community, or your country without being a bastard. It doesn't mean you hate or disparage some other group, but my gosh we can use our judgement to decide if A is better than B. That's how progress occurs, we decide this way is better than that. What's so hard about that?

 

[Ailchu]

Do you think I would advocate for some racist Pole being put in prison or not allowed to buy a house or get a job because he insulted Italians? I've got tougher skin than that. Attack their facts, their theories, show how idiotic they are, how not to be trusted. Keep the government out of it. It has too much power already.

let's assume they are living in poland and are discriminating italian migrants there.(though in reality there are probably few because who wants to move there?) how are you going to show them now how idiotic they are? like you say here yourself you would have to target their ideology directly and not just tell them that they shouldn't mistreat other people and be nice especially when they are living as migrants in poland. so why are you even arguing with me when i say that this ideology that makes them act racist, which is basically genetic ethnocentrism, is bs? or are you going to give them reasons to not be racist against italians in particular, while leaving out the other potential victim groups?

 

[bigsnake49]

Look as a Greek I am proud of my ancient heritage. Let's face it, classical Greece contributed mightily to the world civilization and its civilization was spread far and wide through the conquests of Alexander the Great and later the Romans. Nobody can deny that. But then there are approximately 2000 years that we basically did not contribute much. The reasons for that are many and varied and it's a conversation for another day. In the close to 200 years since our liberation in 1821 there are things that I am proud of (literature, music, dance, theater) and things that I am not proud of (infighting, corruption, blaming others for our own miseries, etc). Our national character has both very good characteristics but also bad habits that were picked up because we had to survive for a long time. All of that being said, we can only look to the past for the lessons, good and bad it can teach us. Greece and other counties including my adopted country, USA, needs to go forward and try to improve itself, its political system, its social justice, its environment, its people. It needs to create opportunities for its people to be gainfully employed at home. If it means that we leave the EU in order to protect our local industries then so be it. Globalization has hurt local business greatly and we need to recapture that. We need to draw a balance between demographic catastrophe and dilution of our culture. We don't want something like what has occurred in France to occur in Greece in which Muslim emigrants from Algeria and Morocco are isolated in ghettos. We want the immigrants to Greece to be Greeks first and Albanians or Bulgarians second. Our Muslim brothers need to understand that religion cannot be used as an excuse not to integrate with the rest of society. Religion can not be used as a means to separate us and isolate us. But given all that, as a nation, Greece and the US have an absolute right to control their borders.

 

[Angela]

What an ugly thread this is.

You can be proud of yourself, of your family, your community, or your country without being a bastard. It doesn't mean you hate or disparage some other group, but my gosh we can use our judgement to decide if A is better than B. That's how progress occurs, we decide this way is better than that. What's so hard about that?

Absolutely nothing, but such a simple concept is extremely difficult for some people to grasp.

 

[Ailchu]

We want the immigrants to Greece to be Greeks first and Albanians or Bulgarians second.

for this you first have to allow those people to become fully greeks. that is not possible with ethnocentrism that looks at genetics.
i already said multiple times in this thread that i don't think that ethnocentrism is inherently wrong as long as it is seperated from genetics. how many times do i have to repeat this?

 

[Yetos]

for this you first have to allow those people to become fully greeks. that is not possible with ethnocentrism that looks at genetics.
i already said multiple times in this thread that i don't think that ethnocentrism is inherently wrong as long as it is seperated from genetics. how many times do i have to repeat this?

really no matter I understand the term ethnocentric (εθνος + κεντρικος), Ι find it hard to understand why you use it,

few words about nation, genetics, culture, etc,

when I provided the USA history, the settlers patriots and ML King, (may I remind you the 'One nation for all' or 'One Nation under God')
I did it for 2 reasons,
to answer you, that different genetics (black and white) can co-exist in one nation,
to understand that same genetics, can provide 2-3 and more nations if not connected among them.

By what I can remember you have a tie with Swiss right?
Well the modern Swiss is a creation of a Greek, the same Greek that ruled the first modern Greek state, and also assasinated by Greeks
this nation has 3 languages,

the idea of an ethnos is bigger than genetics, culture etc, and has no boarders
the idea of a state-country is limited, inside boarders.

and I suggest search the reasons of each one personal migrations.
cause some are forced to migrate with violence,
but most migrate with their own will, they want to be adopted by another state-family,

your problem and what you post here, is like inner family ties, of adoptation
A family has 3 children, and they decide to adopt 2 more,
the difference of genetics is obvious, and will never be overpassed
as also the behavour of the kids among them.
but who will continue the line of the family name and parental principals is another subject.


BTW
would you use the term Familocentric for children, in a family that has kids both adopted and born?
the term family in Greek is οικογενεια (oikos+genos meaning house of bearing, oikos is the eco- of economy, ecology etc)

 

[Ailchu]

really no matter I understand the term ethnocentric (εθνος + κεντρικος), Ι find it hard to understand why you use it,

few words about nation, genetics, culture, etc,

when I provided the USA history, the settlers patriots and ML King, (may I remind you the 'One nation for all' or 'One Nation under God')
I did it for 2 reasons,
to answer you, that different genetics (black and white) can co-exist in one nation,
to understand that same genetics, can provide 2-3 and more nations if not connected among them.

By what I can remember you have a tie with Swiss right?
Well the modern Swiss is a creation of a Greek, the same Greek that ruled the first modern Greek state, and also assasinated by Greeks
this nation has 3 languages,

the idea of an ethnos is bigger than genetics, culture etc, and has no boarders
the idea of a state-country is limited, inside boarders.

and I suggest search the reasons of each one personal migrations.
cause some are forced to migrate with violence,
but most migrate with their own will, they want to be adopted by another state-family,

your problem and what you post here, is like inner family ties, of adoptation
A family has 3 children, and they decide to adopt 2 more,
the difference of genetics is obvious, and will never be overpassed
as also the behavour of the kids among them.
but who will continue the line of the family name and parental principals is another subject.


BTW
would you use the term Familocentric for children, in a family that has kids both adopted and born?
the term family in Greek is οικογενεια (oikos+genos meaning house of bearing, oikos is the eco- of economy, ecology etc)

really no matter I understand the term ethnocentric (εθνος + κεντρικος), Ι find it hard to understand why you use it,

definition of ethnocentrism german wiki:
"Ethnocentrism is a primarily psychological term, but also used in a wide variety of social and political science studies, which describes the bias of an individual towards groups that are foreign to him. The phenomenon is based on the belief that one's own behavior patterns and those of the ethnic group to which one belongs are always normal, natural, good, beautiful or important. The characteristics of the ingroup are assumed as a basis for evaluation and are considered to be superior to those of outgroups. This can u. a. relate to culture, way of life, lifestyle, worldview, religion."

note: they do not list genetics because if it was part of this it would probably very quickly or immediatly be an equivalent to racism.

definition from german dictionary Duden:
"Ethnocentrism, the - form of nationalism in which one's own people (one's own nation) is seen as the center and at the same time as superior to other peoples"

note: it is not automatically racism because the concept of different genetic groups is not always part of it. but when it is then it obviously is.

that is why racism is called the "genetic or biological version of ethnocentrism" by scholars.

why i use this term? because it was mentioned by someone else i think it was Jovialis post about eastern europeans and so the discussion which has ethnocentrism as topic started. that's why.

few words about nation, genetics, culture, etc,

when I provided the USA history, the settlers patriots and ML King, (may I remind you the 'One nation for all' or 'One Nation under God')
I did it for 2 reasons,
to answer you, that different genetics (black and white) can co-exist in one nation,
to understand that same genetics, can provide 2-3 and more nations if not connected among them.

they can co exist in one nation because their ancestry does not matter for beeing an american. you are tieing beeing greek to genetics, this way you can't become greek anymore and different ancestries will forever stay non-greek.

By what I can remember you have a tie with Swiss right?
Well the modern Swiss is a creation of a Greek, the same Greek that ruled the first modern Greek state, and also assasinated by Greeks
this nation has 3 languages,

and what are you trying to tell me with that? it's 4 languages btw.

the idea of an ethnos is bigger than genetics, culture etc, and has no boarders
the idea of a state-country is limited, inside boarders.

can you explain that a bit further? what exactly does ethnicity mean for you if it has no borders and what is your ethnic group in that case?

"your problem and what you post here, is like inner family ties, of adoptation
A family has 3 children, and they decide to adopt 2 more,
the difference of genetics is obvious, and will never be overpassed
as also the behavour of the kids among them.
but who will continue the line of the family name and parental principals is another subject.

i'll just ask again and again and again and it will be useless because literally noone in this god dam thread has ever given a real answer that made sense, HOW THE **** ARE YOU GOING TO JUDGE PEOPLE WHO DISCRIMINATE MIGRANTS BECAUSE OF THOSE SUPPOSED GENETIC AND BEHAVIOURAL DIFFERENCES THAT CAN'T BE OVERPASSED ACCORDING TO YOU?!

i don't know what to say more honestly.

it was said that for example germany and france musn't discriminate people because the they were allowed to enter by the state. well the french and german state are certainly not going to discriminate migrants, there is no way they are not completely equal before the law, no idea how someone could come to a different conclusion. this is no problem anymore. it is the individuals who believe in genetic ethnocentrism and those individuals are certainly not going to say that they won't discriminate other people because the state allowed them in. this is no real answer.
it also completely leaves out the migrants who did not get a permission to stay yet who are either already in the country or who want to go there.

 

[Yetos]

hm

you have a family, and an orchand to feed your family,
and in the orchand enter many foreigners, to stay. or to hide, and to be fed.
you accept an you adopt as your own children and you feed them.
and after you see enter more an more and more, and all genetical relatives of the ones you adopt,
signaled by the ones you adopt, or just jealous, or even oportunist reasons.
what would you do as a housekeeper?

and nomatter the adoption, you see your own children having different thoughts than you do,
and you teach them, to be honest humans etc etc
but one says I have the genetical continue, etc etc, the most spoiled usually etc etc
How would you act like a father?

and in Sunday table, you see that half stay on table, and rest instead of chair and table, prefer down floor, and throw the bones to the ground.
but also you see that half are more willing to work, obey, etc etc,
and you see, and you see, etc etc,
how would manage to make them act the same way?



If you can answer these 2 questions,
then the answer to what you ask is obvious.

 

[Ailchu]

hm

you have a family, and an orchand to feed your family,
and in the orchand enter many foreigners, to stay. or to hide, and to be fed.
you accept an you adopt as your own children some and you feed them.
and after you see enter more an more and more, and all genetical relatives of the ones you adopt,
signaled by the ones you adopt, or just jealous, or even oportunist reasons.
what would you do as a housekeeper?

and nomatter the adoption, you see your own children having different thoughts than you do,
and you teach them, to be honest humans etc etc
but one says I have the genetical continue, etc etc, the most spoiled usually etc etc
How would you act like a father?


If you can answer these 2 questions,
then the answer to what you ask is obvious.

if the housekeeper closes the doors for some of them in that case because there are comming too many who wouldn't need it or too many to handle, then this is the reason. if the reason is to preserve the genetics and/or the culture which he ties to genetics than this is a different reason. don't you get this difference?
i didn't understand what you tried to say in the second part about the father but i'll still try to answer. if the father is spoiling someone more just because of his genetics/ancestry then it is unfair treatment of the others based on genetics. if i was the father i would certainly not judge based on ancestry or relation to me.

now, can you answer the questions i asked you in my previous post? maybe the answer is so obvious, since you don't want to answer yourself.

and what was your point about the swiss, or that ethnic groups have no borders?

as for your third question that you added. most migrants who live in greece work, just like the others. how would i make them all act the same way? you tell me, if you connect their behaviour to genetics and think the differences can't be overpassed.

 

[Yetos]

if the housekeeper closes the doors for some of them in that case because there are comming too many who wouldn't need it or too many to handle, then this is the reason. if the reason is to preserve the genetics and/or the culture which he ties to genetics than this is a different reason. don't you get this difference?
i didn't understand what you tried to say in the second part about the father but i'll still try to answer. if the father is spoiling someone more just because of his genetics/ancestry then it is unfair treatment of the others based on genetics. if i was the father i would certainly not judge based on ancestry or relation to me.

now, can you answer the questions i asked you in my previous post? or should i take from you that you agree with discrimination of people who are not "genetically related to you" or part of what you consider to be your family? maybe the answer is so obvious, since you don't want to answer yourself.

and what was your point about the swiss, or that ethnic groups have no borders?

as for your third question that you added. most migrants who live in greece work, just like the others. how would i make them all act the same way? you tell me, if you connect their behaviour to genetics and think the differences can't be overpassed.

hm,

First as I said being proud of your nation family (genes) etc, has nothing to do with your fears, cause we all must be equal against the law, and all must have same rights (my post of ML King video)

state economy is above genetics, nobody would close the boarders for genetic reasons, or forbid intermarriage tec etc.

Now in the hypothetical case of your question, which had happened before 80 years, there is also the UN and the diplomacy networks,
but why to start an inner war or extermination??

offcourse if even a family with counted members can a brother yeld, i am the genetical carrier,
think about how many could be in a nation

a nation has no boarders, a state has

 

[Ailchu]

hm,

First as I said being proud of your nation family (genes) etc, has nothing to do with your fears, cause we all must be equal against the law, and all must have same rights (my post of ML King video)

state economy is above genetics, nobody would close the boarders for genetic reasons, or forbid intermarriage tec etc.

Now in the hypothetical case of your question, which had happened before 80 years, there is also the UN and the diplomacy networks,
but why to start an inner war or extermination??

offcourse if even a family with counted members can a brother yeld, i am the genetical carrier,
think about how many could be in a nation

a nation has no boarders, a state has

if you do not look at genetics and it plays no role for the culture that you want to preserve, why are you even arguing with me? yes we all must be equal before the law, but why are you so resistant against answering my question? you want that greece stays greek right? you tie beeing greek to genetics, right? if your answer is yes then i'm not sure if you are really not against closing borders for genetic reasons or intermarriage. if no, then you are arguing with the wrong person.

"Now in the hypothetical case of your question, which had happened before 80 years, there is also the UN and the diplomacy networks,
but why to start an inner war or extermination?? "

can you elaborate? i don't understand what you are trying to say here.