Re: Social Engineering (was: Different patriarchy Model)
Bob Casanova (cas@ops1.bwi.wec.com)
Thu, 12 Jan 1995 13:30:44 GMT
In article <mccombtmD29CoH.F1D@netcom.com> mccombtm@netcom.com (Todd Michel McComb) writes:
>From: mccombtm@netcom.com (Todd Michel McComb)
>Subject: Re: Social Engineering (was: Different patriarchy Model)
>Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 20:24:16 GMT
>In article <cas.384.000E6598@ops1.bwi.wec.com> Bob Casanova writes:
>>In article <mccombtmD27EI5.D0K@netcom.com> mccombtm@netcom.com (Todd Michel McComb) writes:
<snip>
>>But isn't the rationale of the US as a "melting pot" that everyone will adjust
>>to the "dominant culture" (i.e., religious and secular freedom, equality of
>>opportunity, self-reliance, etc. as ideals)? Cultural balkanization in the
>>name of some nebulous "diversity" would seem to have no advantage for anyone.
>That's certainly one point of view. However, I don't know about you, but
>I didn't sign a contract agreeing to go along blindly with the will of
>the majority in this country or move elsewhere. I was simply born here.
>Your viewpoint is perfectly valid (I happen to disagree), but it's not
>objective. That's it -- end of my instrusion in this discussion.
I think the point I was trying to make is that _no_ viewpoint is completely
objective; we are all conditioned by our culture. The dominant culture in the
US says that (among many other things) it is wrong to steal, to kill wantonly,
to corrupt the innocent. If individuals reject these, they are not entitled to
the protections embedded in the US social contract. In other words, if an
individual decides to not abide by the contract, society needn't extend the
protections which are _also_ a part of the contract. Just my opinion.
Thanks for the exchange.
>T. M. McComb WWW ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/mc/mccombtm/home.html
Bob C.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<<< Good, fast, cheap! (Pick 2) >>>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What the net needs is a good bus arbiter
|