SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: geode00 who wrote (201641)9/6/2006 6:48:50 PM
From: Ichy Smith  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
I'm saying that democracy is a process and that results are something else entirely. Israel wants to stay predominantly Jewish which is like saying that Britain wants to stay predominantly white.

I think that Israel wants the right to practise Judaism, and to survive. Of course there is the possibility that they could invite more Christians to Israel and allow Muslims to immigrate only as long as the balance was 40% Muslim.

Your analogy is about democracy being a process is like saying that Utah which is mostly Mormon has the right to declare all other religions are illegal. Since it is a democratic process, and is in complete accordance with Muslim Practice, why couldn't Israel simply enshrine Judaism as law, appoint a military or religious governing council as Iran, and outlaw Islam. That would be the same democracy as iran.



To: geode00 who wrote (201641)9/6/2006 7:08:26 PM
From: Maurice Winn  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
Oh Geode, you are such a hypocrite. Women have always been racists. They carefully inspect the males on offer and accept only those who have DNA which is a worthy carrier of their DNA.

The rest are tossed into the dustbin of history. Mercilessly, often cruelly, rejected with broken hearts [and often emptied wallets]. There isn't even any affirmative action as a consolation prize.

Which is fortunate of course, or we'd still look pretty much like chimps and I wouldn't be able to click away on a computer in cyberspace.

Women [who have invented almost nothing in all of evolutionary history] chose the good DNA [more or less and the blunders were dealt with during the challenges of life and selection for the subsequent generation]. Those winning blokes went on to invent fire, the wheel, the spear, the flour mill, the bicycle, the Segway, the CDMA-powered phragmented photon Globalstar cyberphone, not to mention the noocular bomb.

DNA is a perfectly good reason to deny somebody immigration. In fact, gene chip arrays should be at all application locations and if the bung DNA shows up, they should be rejected. If the good stuff shows up, they should get a free ticket and free house in the land of their dreams.

"White" isn't what Britain wants, it's "civilized". White is only a measure of melanin content, which is a function of sun exposure of ancestors. It is not causal in any way of civilized or uncivilized behaviour, though there is good correlation.

Racists have rights. If it's their property, they should decide the use of it. They should be able to reject anyone they like for any reason.
<Why do you want to protect the rights of racists?>

You don't think women should have to mate with just any old Tom, Dick, or Harry who shows up do you? That's ridiculous.

Mqurice

PS: I've just noticed a fault in my reasoning. Women have invented something. They invented humans since women did the DNA selection to produce humans out of chimps. That's a pretty good invention I'll admit. But they haven't done many bloke-like inventions. Of course blokes had a hand in it as they invented gadgets to kill competing males, so the females wouldn't be able to choose them, which is unfair really, and not allowed in inter-corporate rivalry, though I think it crosses minds sometimes.

Nevertheless, the blokes who were smarter and could invent the best war techniques could get their DNA propagated.

So, really, it was both women and men who invented humans.