(06-18-2011, 06:45 PM)FireIceTalon Wrote: There are several things wrong with this post. The essay its difficult for YOU to swallow because I question American traditions and norms that few people would have the balls to question. But I don't suffer from blind patriotism, I call things as they are regardless of the response people will have. If people are to hate me for it, I say oh well. I should have mentioned in that paper that most Americans do not accept eccentric viewpoints very well. John Stuart Mill would have been proud.
Since you do not seem to have registered the several large anvils that have been dropped on this topic so far, let me make it abundantly clear for you: I AM NOT AN AMERICAN. Whatever ridiculous, ad hominem, specious reasoning you have attached to this obviously false premise, you can officially rubbish (as they say here in ENGLAND) because it's bollocks (as they also say here in ENGLAND). Sorry. (As they say in my home country, CANADA.)
Quote: Im not trying to argue ANYTHING in this paper.
Well, at least that much was clear.
Quote:Also, I did very little quoting of Rawls' because that was part of the instructions for the assignment, quoting the theorist was to be kept to an absolute minimum.
There's a difference between *quoting* the theorist, and *using* them. One involves blocks of text, the other, ideas.
Quote:When we were fighting for our independence from England, was the control they had over us not a form of terrorism?
No. Next question?
Quote:And it is well documented that England was an empire that seek to colonize the world (the reasons are irrelevant), and that was THEIR Manifest Destiny.
No. I study Uruguay, a country that offered, on at least three separate occasions, to be made a British colony. I have seen the documents. The Foreign Office threw their request in the garbage each time. Whatever you might say about British colonialism (and I am deeply critical), it is vastly more complex than your stereotype. This was not an attempt to colonize the entire world, and the reasons are absolutely relevant. How can you understand anything political without some idea of motive?
Quote:Maybe you don't consider this imperialism, but I don't see why its difficult to argue that it is.
You said IN NAME OF. That means that the actions were being taken while invoking the name of imperialism. This is precisely what the US does NOT do. Even if they are an empire, they make no reference to it. Read my frickin' argument, it's right there.
Quote:Yes, Brazil and South Africa are more unequal than America in terms of economic inequality, but my statement was referring to the advanced/industrialized democracies of the world (which I could have made more clear perhaps, but nevertheless), of which the US has some of the largest and most distinguished disparity in social class and income.
Being unclear and being wrong is not the same thing. If you meant "advanced, industrialized democracies" then you should have said so. If I said "I am the richest man in the world" and meant "I am the richest man in the world in this room," then I would, at best, be a very unclear writer - which, if I recall correctly, was the whole point of this absurd exercise.
Even so, you're *still* technically wrong - Singapore is worse.
Quote:Social darwinism coming before or after capitalism is irrelevant. The principles of capitalism is based on what the very meaning of social darwinism is -- survival of the fittest -- and you cannot sit here with a straight face and tell me that is not true.
I will sit here, with a straight face, and tell you that this is not true. While I agree that competition within a free market leads to the elimination of structures, practices, and processes that are economically inefficient, it has absolutely nothing to do with the *survival and reproduction of individuals*, which is the level on which evolution (in its natural or Social Darwinist forms) acts. Indeed, if one looks at the world today, who is reproducing, and increasingly surviving, with the greatest frequency? People with low incomes. How on earth does that square with Social Darwinism? Or do you merely equate Social Darwinism with any competitive system, rendering your argument basically tautologous?
Quote:Im aware the US has more than two political parties, I even stated it in my paper but you obviously missed the point I was making entirely. Which was that only two parties have any real or substantial political power (this is not even up for debate considering both parties have dominated politics for 150 years or so, also stated in my paper) to represent the will of 310 million+ people.
Had Ralph Nader and the greens not taken roughly 2.75% of the vote in the 2000 election, Al Gore would have almost certainly been elected president. Power is not just winning elections, but influencing their results, as anyone with the smallest inkling of European politics can tell you. The US has a monolithic system dominated by two parties, but by and large, this is the result of peoples' choices. When other parties are defeated, is it their lack of access to funds? Or the unpopularity of their platforms and candidates? Surely some of both, but even in the most diverse countries, voters still display something at least resembling the left-right split in the US. This is a generalized phenomenon. There is no great mass of popular opinion waiting to rally behind a radical party, only a whole lot of people with a whole lot of different opinions.
-Jester