is r2 racist or discrimating religions

[Xharry005x]

thought i throw this into the mix hahahaha



in u.k and certain christain areas of the world the word easter means alot to christain ppl as its the rebirth of jesus from death to rebirth

but cadburys ave removed the word easter from their easter egg boxes as it offends certain religions

will r2 be doing the same as the easter bunnie is offending certain religions lmao and the word easter egg in their events

[Meikura001]

I stopped reading at the first few lines of each response since I know the rest had to be boring. And I thought I was bad when I make long speeches about something.

[AdaJames]

I think most people won't accept what they have to say because they are proven to be f-tards with a helping of drooling imbecility. If Stephen Hawkin speaks of psychics being real, I'd certainly sit up and take notice.

[Alsatia01]

I actually didn't bother readiing his filth. What was he talking about with psychics. Don't tell me he is saying only certain ethnicities can be psychics because, you know, it would be appropriating someone else's culture if you were born psychic and you are of another ethnicity

Lol. Basically they believe in psychics but "most people won't accept anything they have to say" about them. It's kind of weird/sad honestly, compared to all the other weird/outlandish things they were saying, I didn't even bat much of an an eye.

It was just like.... yup.... saw that coming.

[AdaJames]

I actually didn't bother readiing his filth. What was he talking about with psychics. Don't tell me he is saying only certain ethnicities can be psychics because, you know, it would be appropriating someone else's culture if you were born psychic and you are of another ethnicity

[Alsatia01]

Lol! He is worse than a troll. A troll doesn't actually believe in what he says. He just wants to get a rise out of people.

This guy actually believe in the stuff he spews. Unfortunately, he has proven to be uneducated, ignorant, dumb and downright moronic in that he does not even know basic phrases and take offense at inconsequential things. That makes any conclusion he uses to be highly suspect and most to be downright idiotic.

Taking offense at the phrase "the genepool needs a bit of chlorine" as advocating genetic purity (implied of a certain ethnicity) is laughable. His head would probably explode when he finds out about the Darwin Awards!

Oh shush Ada, everyone knows psychics are real.

[AdaJames]

Lol! He is worse than a troll. A troll doesn't actually believe in what he says. He just wants to get a rise out of people.

This guy actually believe in the stuff he spews. Unfortunately, he has proven to be uneducated, ignorant, dumb and downright moronic in that he does not even know basic phrases and take offense at inconsequential things. That makes any conclusion he uses to be highly suspect and most to be downright idiotic.

Taking offense at the phrase "the genepool needs a bit of chlorine" as advocating genetic purity (implied of a certain ethnicity) is laughable. His head would probably explode when he finds out about the Darwin Awards!

[Alsatia01]

Holy <expletive>! Someone sure knows how to pull all the stops. Are you that eager to try and instill into people the origins of such to include race into all of this? God save us all!! *sarcasm intended*

Look, I celebrate a holiday because it's what it is: a holiday! I don't need to get technical about it. I just celebrate it. What part of that you do not <expletive>in' understand? You can spew things that will make Wikipedia look like a single web page in comparison, until you're blue in the face, and until the world ends, but that won't mean that the majority is going to buy into the <minor expletive> you are giving.

Just do the rest of the forum a favor and just quit while you're ahead (if that's what you want to call it, then so be it). Different people/cultures are going to celebrate a holiday the way they will see fit, and they don't need someone like you to tell them they can't just because it's reserved for another. I am not Jewish, but I celebrate Hanukkah. Big <expletive>in' deal. What you going to do? Sue me just because I am not Jewish? I wish to see you try as I will tell you to take a "hike" if I haven't tell you to <expletive> off first.

So give that diatribe a rest; and plus, we're almost a month late and you're still trolling with such nonsense.

+1

I'm writing this message because R2 has minimum character quotas.

[Meikura001]

Holy <expletive>! Someone sure knows how to pull all the stops. Are you that eager to try and instill into people the origins of such to include race into all of this? God save us all!! *sarcasm intended*

Look, I celebrate a holiday because it's what it is: a holiday! I don't need to get technical about it. I just celebrate it. What part of that you do not <expletive>in' understand? You can spew things that will make Wikipedia look like a single web page in comparison, until you're blue in the face, and until the world ends, but that won't mean that the majority is going to buy into the <minor expletive> you are giving.

Just do the rest of the forum a favor and just quit while you're ahead (if that's what you want to call it, then so be it). Different people/cultures are going to celebrate a holiday the way they will see fit, and they don't need someone like you to tell them they can't just because it's reserved for another. I am not Jewish, but I celebrate Hanukkah. Big <expletive>in' deal. What you going to do? Sue me just because I am not Jewish? I wish to see you try as I will tell you to take a "hike" if I haven't tell you to <expletive> off first.

So give that diatribe a rest; and plus, we're almost a month late and you're still trolling with such nonsense.

[Alsatia01]

It would not be hard to prove. Its called "class" action, and its already precedent. A great deal of anti-discriminatory litigation uses the methodology of class creation for that purpose.

Citation.

I don't need to explain the correlations. Your straw man argumentation tendency has gone into overdrive, the connection is obvious to anyone.

The more you use the term straw-man, the more trouble I have beliving you know what it means.

If you assert something as true, provide evidence for it. Something you seem to have an inability to do.

your out of your mind, how can you make that ridiculous assertion? ***?

As powered by google - Population Control
the practice of artificially altering the size of any population.

In other words, genocide, euthanasia, placing restrictions on birth, reducing the number of medical facilities so the infant mortality rate increases.... being against these is 'ridiculous'?

You still haven't explained why you think population controls should be utilized, it's what you believe.

Nothing in the article suggests the French court made any ruling in that regard on the rights of any Mixe and nor would they have had any jurisdiction to do so, this was the copyright infringement case between two design companies, the mixe themselves were not a party to that ruling..but yes I realized that could be a logically construed implication from the ruling.

It's not logically construed. That's what the law is; entities cannot profit from this historical symbol. If there was such a thing as a collective group of the Mixe, and they petitioned the French government to gain official rights over the symbol, they might get it. But that hasn't happened yet.

Already its besides the point of my usage here..I posted this to show you a clear example of how cultural appropriation is already a subject of litigation, and already being upheld by courts and government entities(Oaxaca State) as a cause for action.

It's a bad example at best. Maybe if the French court ruled it belonged to the Mixe, or if Mexico's declaration of support to the UNESCO definition was legally binding, you might have a decent example. But these are just symbolic gestures at best.

The more important implication of the French Court's ruling to our debate here is that the court recognized the Mixe as a distinct cultural establishment with intellectual property, something you've claimed is impossible or improbable in a cultural context.

They actually didn't do that. They recognized that it probably originated in Mixe (and therefore probably belonged to them), but they did not grant the Mixe ownership over the symbol. Them saying it belonged to the Mixe, was not legally binding.

The designs were too old to be copyrighted by any individual a typical and well known feature of copyright law.

Exactly.

Also, even as only a precedent I'm not sure the ruling precludes anyone from making money off of the design.

For right now it does. As I stated before, the Mixe might be able to petition for ownership, but that hasn't happened yet.

According to the articles The court did affirm that the design BELONGS to that culture so its possible a class group of those people identified with that culture could sue someone in that court's jurisdiction for selling the products based on the design without permission/agreement with someone representing that class group.

That part of the decision was not legally binding. It does not belong to them, not yet at least.

thats clearly indisputable.

It's still disputable, even if courts or nations rule a certain way.

I'm not saying I would necessarily still argue against it, I'm saying a courts ruling isn't the end-all.

these symbols are not the same. They have mathematical/geometric similarities,probably some even have similar symbology if there is any but aesthetically they are at least as different as snowflakes. A swastika may be essentially an X but an X is not essentially a swastika.

That's why I used the word - 'derive'

As powered by google - base a concept on a logical extension or modification of (another concept).

It's going to largely be a tossup, or matter of opinion what any given person believes. I believe the Mixe symbol could have just as easily been derived from Catholic symbology (since they were influenced by Catholicism at the time), as made up entirely on it's own independantly. The courts made no legally binding decision either way. Plagarism cases are extremely difficult to litigate; and sometimes even after a ruling, the courts can be arguably wrong.

You don't, give it up..these symbols are not the same. Please refine your sense of art/aesthetic. A child could tell the difference between these patterns and distinguish them from one another, never knowing their mathematical values.

You obviously don't know what the word derive means. I didn't say they were exactly the same.

I don't see how I have the burden of proof when you are the one refuting my original claims with an outlandish assertion that it "CAN'T" be done

My point, was that you didn't provide evidence for your origal claims. Not enough or decent evidence to support the assertions, at least.

I gave in and provided you with an example of cultural property and you came back with items that couldn't even be mistaken for facsimiles of the design.

One bad example, that didn't really prove any of your claims. Do you have any others, or is this the one example you could find out of millions of litigations?

Btw the only set of rights currently in development that I know of that are coming to be held as self evident are the ones commonly known as "human rights." Most others are considered granted by policies/constitutions, and subject to due process.

Human rights are granted by policies/constitutions, and subject to due process as well.

So I must take it that you limit the concept of "hurt" to the physical acts of violence or tort. Thankfully courts and lawmakers everywhere disagree with your oversimplification of potential damages.

Straw-man. I never said physical acts, nor did I imply it.

You have to demonstrate how culturally appropriating something demonstrably harms those cultures or peoples of those cultures.

I'm saying, you have not shown evidence to that effect.

well congratulations you finally found a way of directly calling me an idiot for yourself..sort've.

Is that your way of telling me you believe in actual psychics? Incredible.

Anyway, this is an argumentative and hollow character assassination attempt, you have no basis for forming the opinion that "noone"(of any consequence) takes me seriously or that this is a reason why.

I meant that on the context of these forums.

And yes, that is probably an influencing reason why. You believe in some very outlandish things that have no factual basis, or at the very least, no evidentiary support.

I guess in that case you too are a bigot after all.

I'm a bigot for believing you're wacko for believing in psychics. Lol sure.

[R27377783]

They can't. Not without walking up to people and talking to them, or looking up records about them. Cultures generally do not come up socially, and there generally is no reason for them to do so. Saying an aspect of a culture is being bastardized, being made fun of, or being appropriated is just your opinion. Maybe you could argue that an entire culture is being demonstrably hurt by those actions, but good luck proving that.

It would not be hard to prove. Its called "class" action, and its already precedent. A great deal of anti-discriminatory litigation uses the methodology of class creation for that purpose. Your uninformed or delusional to think that this kind of wrongdoing is impossible/impractical to redress. I don't see how you can claim culture is not being discussed..but the only reason the topic of culture doesn't come up MORE often is because the concept is largely confused with the "race" concept. Surely you're not arguing that "race" is not a hot topic though.

That's a very odd way of saying you don't know the first thing about me.

This is just argumentative. I know at least one thing about you..you're argumentative for its own sake, at least with me.

Please explain why 'those who have the responsibility to govern and maintain order', need to make use of population classification. Specifically, in the context of cataloging the populations culture, or cultural beliefs. Sounds like political correctness on steroids.

I don't need to explain the correlations. Your straw man argumentation tendency has gone into overdrive, the connection is obvious to anyone.

Population control is largely irrelevant at the moment, but will most likely be more useful as the global population expands.

your out of your mind, how can you make that ridiculous assertion? ***?

Which is exactly what the french court ruled, when they stated that the design could not be copyrighted by either of those two companies. Do you understand, that the result of this ruling, means that even people whom are of the Mixe cannot copyright it, right?

Nothing in the article suggests the French court made any ruling in that regard on the rights of any Mixe and nor would they have had any jurisdiction to do so, this was the copyright infringement case between two design companies, the mixe themselves were not a party to that ruling..but yes I realized that could be a logically construed implication from the ruling. Already its besides the point of my usage here..I posted this to show you a clear example of how cultural appropriation is already a subject of litigation, and already being upheld by courts and government entities(Oaxaca State) as a cause for action. The more important implication of the French Court's ruling to our debate here is that the court recognized the Mixe as a distinct cultural establishment with intellectual property, something you've claimed is impossible or improbable in a cultural context. The designs were too old to be copyrighted by any individual a typical and well known feature of copyright law. Its partly the reason I've often used/appropriated the first color photo in history as a profile pic, noone can claim I've infringed on them.

That's a very odd way of saying you don't know the first thing about me. My stance would have essentially been, anyone can make money from the design. The courts however decided to take it in the opposite direction, and say no one can make money from it. A stance I don't really have a problem with, the end result is largely the same.

Its not the same. Also, even as only a precedent I'm not sure the ruling precludes anyone from making money off of the design. It definitely precludes anyone from SUING someone else for making money off of the design..you can't copyright the design..thats all the court said as far as commerce is concerned...just going from the report(I didn't read the ruling and if its in French I probably wont.) According to the articles The court did affirm that the design BELONGS to that culture so its possible a class group of those people identified with that culture could sue someone in that court's jurisdiction for selling the products based on the design without permission/agreement with someone representing that class group.

Is it? This is the symbol that is supposedly being appropriated. Purportedly being 600 years old and originating in Oaxaca Mexico, by the Mixe tribe.

thats clearly indisputable.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]161684[/ATTACH]

These however, are symbols that I found from one google search. There are different variants ranging from Buddhist, Egyptian, Latin, Greek, Serbian, and Catholic peoples and cultures all around the world, and they are all older than 600 years.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]161685[/ATTACH]

these symbols are not the same. They have mathematical/geometric similarities,probably some even have similar symbology if there is any but aesthetically they are at least as different as snowflakes. A swastika may be essentially an X but an X is not essentially a swastika.

I can't believe I have to explain why having two overlapping X's is not that unique, and could easily be derived from a number of other examples, or just made up on its own independently.

You don't, give it up..these symbols are not the same. Please refine your sense of art/aesthetic. A child could tell the difference between these patterns and distinguish them from one another, never knowing their mathematical values.

Don't try to turn this around. You have the burden of proof. You are asserting you can ascertain someones history, ethnicity, culture, and social 'class' simply by looking at them.

I don't see how I have the burden of proof when you are the one refuting my original claims with an outlandish assertion that it "CAN'T" be done, and you also claimed to be able to prove your assertion, I said I wasn't interested in your proofs because they are so far gone to me, but my attitude doesn't preclude you from making your case if you want to, I don't own this forum. I gave in and provided you with an example of cultural property and you came back with items that couldn't even be mistaken for facsimiles of the design.
I think the case is closed.

[QUOTE=Alsatia01;1520836]I'm saying you have no basis for that assertion. Provide what 'abilities' you have at your disposal to ascertain those details, by looking at any given person on the globe.[QUOTE] I don't see why you insist on developing my position for me, I never made that claim, so I do not have to defend its assertion..you are creating an introducing a parameter "by looking at any given person on the globe" that I do not support. I never even said the process of positive cultural identification of an individual could actually be that simple. Although I agree that it could be. There are many cultures to identify with and some of them only require make-up and fashion.

[QUOTE=Alsatia01;1520836] I would have to disagree with you there. For example, saying some politically incorrect in many western nations in particular, would be social suicide. However, it does not by any means,mean you no longer have freedom of speech. Rights do not ever 'cease' to be rights. That's what makes them rights.[QUOTE] Whatever utopia you claim to live in where rights aren't granted by the jurisdiction and prominently determined by social acceptability...god luck with that..I'm not sure whether or not I'd want to live there. Btw the only set of rights currently in development that I know of that are coming to be held as self evident are the ones commonly known as "human rights." Most others are considered granted by policies/constitutions, and subject to due process.



[QUOTE=Alsatia01;1520836]I think all of those are madness, including an 'accurate' usage of the cultures in question. I have this extreme view people should be free to do largely, whatever they want, as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process.[QUOTE] So I must take it that you limit the concept of "hurt" to the physical acts of violence or tort. Thankfully courts and lawmakers everywhere disagree with your oversimplification of potential damages.


[QUOTE=Alsatia01;1520836]Really, you believe in psychics? This is why no one takes you seriously.

If you don't mean the whole.... mind reading/super natural type of thing, you might want to find a new label for what you're talking about.

If you do mean the whole mind reading thing..... you're an idiot. [QUOTE] well congratulations you finally found a way of directly calling me an idiot for yourself..sort've. Well played. Anyway, this is an argumentative and hollow character assassination attempt, you have no basis for forming the opinion that "noone"(of any consequence) takes me seriously or that this is a reason why. Its quite preposterous for you to make that claim even based on any responses to my replies in this forum because this conversation is the first time the subject of psychic has even come up in my posts. And so far you are the only person who has reacted to it..therefore unless they themselves are "psychic" no one could have known this about me or used it to form their opinion of my statements. You would have been better off saying this is why noone SHOULD take me seriously if, for whatever reasons, you believe that to be a valid cause for disregarding the some total of my rationales. I guess in that case you too are a bigot after all. There is no accurate one shot definition of psychic the term is an ambiguity, and I think its still irrelevant to any of my points and most of this conversation. Again I used the term facetiously to round out my statement to avoid making it an absolute. But I kind've hope your right, perhaps knowing this about me will reduce the number of closed minded bigots who even bother to open my posts, that'd be nice. I kind've dislike reading what they have to say when I post about something. Maybe if I claim to BE psychic it will cause them(and you?) to click away FOR GOOD! Do you think? Thank you for your time, and good luck floating your imperialistic ideals on an increasingly socially conscientious world.

[AdaJames]

Meh. That was a bit of a copycat anyway. They should have one that says: Elijah did it first!

[Xharry005x]

this was about the word easter on easter egg boxes from cadburys which the word is taken off to not offend muslims and other religious groups

thios is now april they should realy close the thread now

[Alsatia01]

Saying that culture can't be determined or associated with persons is asinine,

They can't. Not without walking up to people and talking to them, or looking up records about them. Cultures generally do not come up socially, and there generally is no reason for them to do so. Saying an aspect of a culture is being bastardized, being made fun of, or being appropriated is just your opinion. Maybe you could argue that an entire culture is being demonstrably hurt by those actions, but good luck proving that.

and hardly worth a retort but I'll try one last time since you have lived on the moon all your life and not among humans

You go ahead and sacrilege, disrespect,and

Long live your imperialism.

That's a very odd way of saying you don't know the first thing about me.

although I'm wasn't trying to imply that I personally want to do this, Generally referring to those who have the responsibility to govern and maintain order, the ones in whose hands the question ultimately falls on in the course of this kind of debate, but still I'll ask the rhetorical: why wouldn't I? and do you honestly believe you currently live in a worldwhere those interests aren't fully explored every day?

Please explain why 'those who have the responsibility to govern and maintain order', need to make use of population classification. Specifically, in the context of cataloging the populations culture, or cultural beliefs. Sounds like political correctness on steroids.

Population control is largely irrelevant at the moment, but will most likely be more useful as the global population expands.

This little gem also contains evidence of the litigation you seem to believe is impossible,

The results of said litigation are essentially, exactly what I said they should be. When you asked me -

I'd like you to tell me who the hell else would someones culture "belong to" if not the people who "belong" to that culture?

I said -

Essentially, no one, and everyone.

Which is exactly what the french court ruled, when they stated that the design could not be copyrighted by either of those two companies. Do you understand, that the result of this ruling, means that even people whom are of the Mixe cannot copyright it, right?

My stance would have essentially been, anyone can make money from the design. The courts however decided to take it in the opposite direction, and say no one can make money from it. A stance I don't really have a problem with, the end result is largely the same.

Mexico's decision also made sure that their decision to protect their cultural heritage wasn't legally binding. A decision presumably made-well in the hopes of it not backfiring.

I suppose we have a difference of opinion. You believe it is somehow insulting to wear an article of clothing, and I don't.

and also represents an example of the kind of cultural appropriation that I find truly objectionable and comparatively more worthy of serious consideration than the kind that I typically learn about in the media (some artist wearing an iconic but otherwise common piece of attire onstage that obviously they or their management purchased or manufactured themselves.)

Is it? This is the symbol that is supposedly being appropriated. Purportedly being 600 years old and originating in Oaxaca Mexico, by the Mixe tribe.



These however, are symbols that I found from one google search. There are different variants ranging from Buddhist, Egyptian, Latin, Greek, Serbian, and Catholic peoples and cultures all around the world, and they are all older than 600 years.



I can't believe I have to explain why having two overlapping X's is not that unique, and could easily be derived from a number of other examples, or just made up on its own independently.

I don't know if I worded it ambiguously but What I was saying is that if your thesis is true and cultures are distinct but not very much then appropriation would not occur very often at all,because it would be a redundancy.

Exactly.

I'm using conjecture. Your thesis is incorrect. There is are a vast number of distinctions between a vast number of cultural realities, with the contemporaries included that number isclimbing exponentially, and many of these new kinds of cultural nuances are actually attributable to individuals still living today or only recently deceased.

That's a funny way of not providing any evidence for your assertion. Example.

Okay I'll be argumentative too, I won't make an assertion but just will point out that you have no way of knowing what abilities I have at my disposal,

Don't try to turn this around. You have the burden of proof. You are asserting you can ascertain someones history, ethnicity, culture, and social 'class' simply by looking at them.

I'm saying you have no basis for that assertion. Provide what 'abilities' you have at your disposal to ascertain those details, by looking at any given person on the globe.

I don't know what artifacts or customs you are referring to where the authorship is totally lost to time or assimilation, but I assure you that: as an absolute statement, you are dead wrong.

You tell me, it was your example.

there are only temporaneous distinctions between the concepts. When a civilized nation decides something is not considered socially acceptable its only matter of time before it ceases to remain a right or privilege.

I would have to disagree with you there. For example, saying some politically incorrect in many western nations in particular, would be social suicide. However, it does not by any means,mean you no longer have freedom of speech. Rights do not ever 'cease' to be rights. That's what makes them rights.

I'll also add that the "accurate" usage of the cultures in question would be of the greatest priority to me, and that in some examples (not necessarily the Navaho way), some level of hereditary link could be an essential element of the practices in order to maintain the accuracy of the usage.

I think all of those are madness, including an 'accurate' usage of the cultures in question. I have this extreme view people should be free to do largely, whatever they want, as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process.

This is probably where our opinions will diverge, you believe that appropriating someone else's culture actively harms them or their culture. And I have yet to see evidence of that.

I do. It happens often actually, its a broad term, most people won't acknowledge any part of it, and I can't define exactly what causes it but thats not on our topic really I was being facetious again.

Really, you believe in psychics? This is why no one takes you seriously.

If you don't mean the whole.... mind reading/super natural type of thing, you might want to find a new label for what you're talking about.

If you do mean the whole mind reading thing..... you're an idiot.

Well I'm not exactly referring to a the kind of people who particularly make much effort to be on the "right" side of an argument. These types tend to be more interested in being on the "winning" side of an argument.

Sounds very Hitler-esque.

Oh, look at that, I almost invoked Godwin's law. It's a good thing I didn't mean you.

Yes I usually consider myself to be "human." when I agree with the word.

.... what else would you consider yourself to be......

I'm ALMOST curious to know what kind of chimera you may have imagined me to be by now, but I like to assume you probably haven't given this much thought, since its irrelevant anyway..isn't it?

You're right, I have given it no thought, because I don't care. Ideas stand or fall on their own.

[R27377783]

[QUOTE=Alsatia01;1520750]

Even though I knew you were just being argumentative for argument's sake, I guess I just thought you'd come up with a valid argument. Saying that culture can't be determined or associated with persons is asinine, and hardly worth a retort but I'll try one last time since you have lived on the moon all your life and not among humans who thrive on a variety of cultures, nearly all of which have specific origins, and some in deed are traceble, while still more of them don't generally seem to have a need to have a smoking gun origin point to be regarded as sacred. You don't have to take anything I am typing seriously you've proven that. You go ahead and sacrilege, disrespect,and exploit people and their cultures at your whims and at your own risk, theres nothing I would do to try and stop you and at this point I wouldn't even try to reason with you. Long live your imperialism.

Why would you wish to do either of those things?

although I'm wasn't trying to imply that I personally want to do this, Generally referring to those who have the responsibility to govern and maintain order, the ones in whose hands the question ultimately falls on in the course of this kind of debate, but still I'll ask the rhetorical: why wouldn't I? and do you honestly believe you currently live in a world where those interests aren't fully explored every day? I might need to know what your taking, in case I need some.

Why would you wish to do either of those things? You are stating aspects of a culture belong solely to that culture, I'm saying you have no basis to support that assertion.

I don't know how you arrive at the conclusion that I have no basis, its an argument I literally declined to indulge because its so self evident..but maybe you need another example, for whatever reasons, you ignored the first. This little gem also contains evidence of the litigation you seem to believe is impossible, and also represents an example of the kind of cultural appropriation that I find truly objectionable and comparatively more worthy of serious consideration than the kind that I typically learn about in the media (some artist wearing an iconic but otherwise common piece of attire onstage that obviously they or their management purchased or manufactured themselves.) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0b25c9183afc4 Or maybe I've missed your point and you need to explain the basis of YOUR assertion since YOURS(that culture cannot be determined or clearly defined or assigned to populations or individuals) is more likely the more divergent one. Though like I said I'm not very interested in the basis of your assertion because I find its conclusion outright ludicrous but I invite you (although you don't need my ascent in any case) to share your findings for the sake of any others reading who might be interested.

It seems like you're saying, that it is acceptable for someone to appropriate something from another culture, as long as its similar enough to their own culture. And that the real problem occurs whenever people who have no similarities, appropriate something.

No, THATS what YOU seem to be saying..I don't know if I worded it ambiguously but What I was saying is that if your thesis is true and cultures are distinct but not very much then appropriation would not occur very often at all, because it would be a redundancy. I'm using conjecture. Your thesis is incorrect. There is are a vast number of distinctions between a vast number of cultural realities, with the contemporaries included that number is climbing exponentially, and many of these new kinds of cultural nuances are actually attributable to individuals still living today or only recently deceased.

The problem, is that you have no ability to ascertain what someomes culture is, and therefore no basis to assert they shouldn't be able to use it.

Okay I'll be argumentative too, I won't make an assertion but just will point out that you have no way of knowing what abilities I have at my disposal, therefore your saying this authoritatively suggests that you believe that in general or absolutely: cultural identity cannot be definitely assigned to a person,individual or group of persons therefore I say you are either being very naive,facetious,just plain ignorant or doing your imperialistic thing and marginalizing people from their rights to claim association with cultural identities. Separate the people from their heritages and what they hold sacred without their consent, isn't that it? This a primary reason that people object to and it is imo the ultimate form of cultural appropriation.

What I'm saying is, you can't take a single instance of a culture, assert its authorship, and then complain when other people use it. You cannot definitively say that they are indeed the author, and you have no ability to ascertain the cultures of the people who are appropriating it.

I don't know what artifacts or customs you are referring to where the authorship is totally lost to time or assimilation, but I assure you that: as an absolute statement, you are dead wrong.

People who are not respected generally do not get treated with respect, and you do not treat people with respect whom you do not respect.

Yes you do, its called rule of law. I concede though respect is such a subjective term what you call respect and what I call respect may be two different things. I tend to put these things into context of lawfulness because without that context it hardly bears discussing in anarchic terms every individual decides their own course and moral compass there'd be no need for discourse on such matters.

People who are not respected generally do not get treated with respect, and you do not treat people with respect whom you do not respect. I see what you're saying, but you don't have a right to either of those, at least where I live. I'm talking about rights here, not what's socially acceptable for a modern, civilized nation.

there are only temporaneous distinctions between the concepts. When a civilized nation decides something is not considered socially acceptable its only matter of time before it ceases to remain a right or privilege.

Cultural relativism essentially boils down to, "It's their culture, so they can do whatever they want if it's part of their culture."

Then I'd have to say..not really. I would not see culture as a license for an immoral behavior I might however see culture as a defense. Also I may also preclude myself from passing judgement if the issue was not of a universal character, but involved cultural differences. I would not impose my cultural reality on someone that does not share in that cultural reality but I might impose my moral reality on someone else if it was my authority to do so in the circumstance. The circumstance must be appropriate for me to feel justified to intervene in any case. In other words just because I feel something is wrong doesn't necessarily mean it's my position or role in the circumstance to impose my own feeling on the matter. There are circumstances where it is MORE immoral to intervene against an immoral act. So If I had to classify it I'd characterize that as the "ethical" stance.Going back to your question though I can't rally answer that in an absolutist way. It will hinge on the weight given to the influence of the culture on the intentions of those involved in any given situation, and whether or not its ethically appropriate for my opinion to effect any aspect of the situation.

IN terms of the cultural appropriation question(my answers are in parenthesis):
1) People who do not have Navaho parentage, cannot use the Navaho culture.(inaccurate-circumstantial)
2) People who do not have Navaho culture, cannot use the Navaho culture.(accurate-except for utilitarian or private use)
3) People who have Navaho culture, but do not have the Navaho ancestry, cannot use the Navaho culture (innacurate-I never said or implied this)
4) People who have Navaho parentage cannot use the Navaho culture, unless it has remained their own culture(accurate-circumstantial see #2)

I'll also add that the "accurate" usage of the cultures in question would be of the greatest priority to me, and that in some examples (not necessarily the Navaho way), some level of hereditary link could be an essential element of the practices in order to maintain the accuracy of the usage. THAT is where the difficulties you mentioned in determining who can participate would be most problematic, but not nearly as problematic as you like to suggest. I think that cultural customs that require that level of heritage are rare the ones that still exist and generally manged well enough to make lineage not much of a question mark eg cultures of royal lineage also have long standing traditional ways of determining or maintaining heredity that predate genetic science. For example I'm sure it would take more than enthusiasm and a frivolous social connection to be able to make a claim to be in line of succession into the House of Windsor, and I'm sure it would not be legally or socially acceptable to the English society to have someone claim to be their King or Queen just because the crown or a replica of it could fit their skull. Why doesn't Someone here go ahead and try to appropriate THAT publicly, I'd like to see the outcome.

[QUOTE=Alsatia01;1520750] Sometimes, not only is it not done purposefully, it's not even original. People develop things on their own, independently sometimes.[QUOTE] Very true and awesome. CA does not apply to those cases.



[QUOTE=Alsatia01;1520750]You don't actually believe some people are psychic do you?[QUOTE] I do. It happens often actually, its a broad term, most people won't acknowledge any part of it, and I can't define exactly what causes it but thats not on our topic really I was being facetious again.



[QUOTE=Alsatia01;1520750]What a great way to teach people that you're on the right side of an issue. Don't 'appropriate' things, or will beat you up, or possibly kill you.[QUOTE] Well I'm not exactly referring to a the kind of people who particularly make much effort to be on the "right" side of an argument. These types tend to be more interested in being on the "winning" side of an argument.

You seem to be saying the contrary. Your race/culture is first, but I guess you're human.

Yes I usually consider myself to be "human." when I agree with the word. I have yet to personally mention anything related to my own cultural or "racial" approximations or lacks thereof..but I guess generous extrapolation has proven to be one of your forte. I'm ALMOST curious to know what kind of chimera you may have imagined me to be by now, but I like to assume you probably haven't given this much thought, since its irrelevant anyway..isn't it? Well it almost always is imo, so I usually don't indulge. It strengthens my points and purposes when people have to decide for themselves and have to vomit their prejudices or lack thereof based entirely on my identity neutral arguments. If you really look back which I don't expect anyone too because I'd be time consuming, you'll note I almost never talk about myself or even my own distinct views. Only for the last few posts have I done any of that. For all anyone knows I could be the worst offender and supporter of deliberate CA on this forum. The only thing you can really say is that I despise the denial of its existence. I've never claimed not to be a perpetrator of it. I think maybe thats why you may have felt like I've been trolling, perhaps trolling this troll of a discussion thread...but I'm not. I believe in what I'm saying even if it means I could be hypocritical. Hypocrisy is also not illegal in the private sector I might be a staunch advocate for personal hypocrisy.