107 thoughts on “Sign Saga Continued

  1. Leila

    I posted an explanation of stuff grape leaves but for some reason it didn’t show up.

  2. Leila

    Eek. Stuffed I meant.

  3. Emma

    I’m not playing today, Moon-howler. I forced myself to my exercise class this morning, and I have sworn I will not succumb to it…..

  4. Censored bybvbl

    Is Heba’s still around? It might have stuffed grape leaves.

  5. Elena

    Wow, I go away for three days and we can all agree that stuffed grape leaves rock!!!

    So much to address regarding diversity, religion, individual rights, group rights, etc but everyone has made such great comments that I’ll have to really put my thinking cap on to catch up!

  6. Michael

    Interesting, I think some people finally “got it”. Time to move on.

  7. Michael

    I think in this entire thread, we have discovered two different social concepts.

    1. Every individual in the world needs to belong to a “group” in order to advocate political concepts and laws that only benefit their own gender, race, ethnic, religious group. Whites should group into white groups, blacks into black groups, browns into brown groups, reds into red groups and yellows into yellow groups, and then advocate for special laws and privileges that benefit only that group, unless that group is a majority group and it tries to pass “majority” rules of law that benefit only that majority group. It is OK for any minority group to claim the majority is oppressive, because the “majority laws” are not the “minorities laws”. We can then have “white laws” and “black laws” and “brown laws” and “red laws” and “yellow laws” and “female laws” and “male laws” and “christian laws” and “muslim laws” and “hindu laws”, etc, etc. We will then all live separate and apart socially, ethnically, culturally, linguistically, legally and be a very prosperous “diversity” culture, that never disagrees or hates enough to have conflict or war or borders.

    This is the socials engineers naive dream of world peace.

    2. We can all merge and “integrate” our cultures under a common national constitution and social construct of individual freedoms,and unite and integrate diverse laws under common law, accepting all languages, religions, and laws into a common law, common culture, common language, common religion and social laws applied equally to all as “individuals”. We can do as our constitution guides, create “one out of many”, instead of “many out of many”, and put the rights of the individuals and application of laws only on the “individual”. Our founding fathers separated “state” and “religion” for a reason, our bill of rights grants “individual rights” and not “group rights” based on gender, ethnic group, race, or religion for a reason.

    The founding fathers knew that “factionist” groups aligned along religious, ethnic, racial, and gender “rights” when applied differently and un-equally to each based on religion association, gender association, ethnic association and racial association would lead to oppression and conflict by any of these groups that gained numerical superiority. Therefore regardless of numbers, apply all laws the same and not based on what gender, race, religion or ethnic group you associate and self-segregate into in order to gain dominant political power over all other groups, genders, races, or religions not like your own.

    I think that is the fundamental difference in opinion on the arguments of this thread.

    I personally chose “integration” over “diversity” and “common law” over “diverse law” any day, regardless if you understand what I am explaining to you or not.” We all seem to have a problem with “selective hearing”.

    Some of you I think “got it” however as I read the threads, and that is encouraging.

Comments are closed.