Not responding to points is different to responding to points in a fallacious manner. If there hasn't been any reasoning at all, it can't be an error in reasoning
Claiming that evolutionary theory is based off assumptions is a molehill on its own. However you are factually wrong that evolutionary is incompatible with symbiosis. And this is due to you clearly misunderstanding symbiotic relationships.
But in my case, my understanding is based upon factual evidence and is supported by evolutionary theory.
Your understanding is not and is therefore unsupported by evolutionary theory. That's all there is to it.
If you wish to make a honest attempt at arguing against evolutionary theory, you should actually attempt to understand what evolutionary theory states instead of forming a sock puppet of bad science from creationist literature and claiming that evolutionary theory supports this bad science.
Oh don't get me wrong. This isn't an argument for evolution. This is simply an explanation as to why your understanding of mutualistic evolution is wrong.
From this, you can either go "Hmmm, my understanding of mutualistic evolution is wrong. Perhaps I should seek out more accurate and different sources of knowledge if these websites which I assumed to be true have misled me" or "Well my understanding of mutualistic evolution is wrong. But that doesn't mean evolution is right".
It wasn't an argument, it was an explanation. If I were interested in arguing this point with you I'd just jam "Arguments from incredulity or probability are not valid forms of argument" down your throat and call it a day.
Relationships need not necessarily start with the mouth. For example, the relationship may begun as one of tolerance, where the smaller fish were too fast and too small to be worth catching by the larger fish. And hence the larger fish evolves to tolerate smaller fish, perhaps only attempting to catch them in desperate situations. At the same time, larger fish can provide meals in the form of the remnants of a hunt, so over time the smaller fish has evolved to follow the larger fish.
Note though that neither relationship is dependent on the other having specific traits in particular. It's irrelevant to the larger fish species whether or not the smaller fish species follows them. Nor is the smaller fish species dependent on the shark ignoring them as whether or not they expend energy to run away, it's still beneficial for the easy meals.
The crocodile and the plover bird relationship appears to be a myth. There has been little recorded evidence of this relationship actually existing.
Predatory nature of what? You're generalizing multiple species of fish. Not all cleaner fish eat remnants left on teeth, nor are they all of the same size or predated upon by the same species of fish. In the same vein, not all fish with teeth have the same diet or tolerate other fish in their mouths
The birds and the alligator proposed symbiotic relationship seems to be a myth
The idea that the toothed fish necessarily would have to develop an evolutionary mutation at the same time is false. I gave one example below. That is, the ancestors of the toothed fish may have darted in and out of fish mouths to retrieve food in addition to regular sources of food. And this can be seen as a precursor of behaviour that allows for routinely relying on fish mouths as a main source of food. This does not depend on the toothed fish to stop its predatory behaviour. At the same time, teethed fish may not have even been interested in wasting energy chasing after small and and quick fish, and this does not depend on the cleaner fish to eat food around the mouths of teethed fish.
The ancestors of cleaner fish did not rely upon the teeth of other fish to get food. Nor did the ancestors of toothed fish have teeth such that they require regular cleaning by other fish.
It just so happens that members of the toothed fish, when their teeth are clean, survive for longer, and members of the cleaner fish, when they have additional food sources, also survive for longer. However it does not mean that either species are immediately dependent on each other. It might be the case that ancestor cleaner fish darted in and out of other fish mouths to retrieve food. It might be the case that toothed fish had a set lifespan associated with the degradation of teeth that was entirely sufficiently to allow time for reproduction, with the development of teeth allowing for the fish to take advantage of a specific niche. However it just so happens when two fish of either species co-operated with each other, both lived longer. Now just multiply this over millions of interactions over millions of years
And what I've said bar the specific algae-lichen relationship holds true for all such relationships. This is why evolution is so robust. It is consistent for all organisms.
It's the way he's using it. He keeps using the noun form of the word instead of the adjective. ie "bias vote" instead of "biased vote", "bias mind" instead of "biased mind". It's somewhat nitpicky, but on the otherhand, if you're never called out on your mistakes you're doomed to repeat them.
Oh, in that case your understanding is fatally flawed. Algae did not evolve such that they can only survive with lichen. In my postulated scenario on the development of the symbiotic relationship between algae-lichen, I made no mention of the algae having any specific traits that forced it to become dependant on the lichen, only the lichen benefitting slightly from having trapped algae within a porous body. It is likely the scenario that the vast majority of the same species of algae floated on by.
Also you seem to be unaware of this but the algae species that comprise the lichen are apparently found independently of lichen, so it's quite clear that algae has always been capable of living independently from lichen or other symbiotic relationships
Just FYI, biased is the adjective form you're looking for. Bias as an adjective apparently means something that is cut or folded diagonally which is probably not the meaning you are going after
Again, your understanding is slightly off. Any trait of either species that marked the beginning of a symbiotic relationship would not have needed reciprocal trait. For example in the case of algae-lichen, it might be the case that the earliest development of the relationship was a lichen that had a slightly more porous structure such that passing algae were slightly more likely to become lodged inside. In which case the lichen has a slight advantage over its competitors. However this does not require a reciprocal trait of algae, though naturally reciprocal traits have probably since developed.
Or in the scenario of the attractive neighbour, the two years of politely ignoring one another is spent with you observing her through your window while fapping, with her ignoring the fact that you do so
Your understanding of symbiotic evolution is off. The ancestors of modern species with symbiotic relationships did not depend on each other initially. The traits for such relationships were developed over thousands of years. It's likely even that the ancestors of the modern species lived in close proximity without any sort of symbiotic relationship for quite a while until the correct mutations started to become expressed.
Think of it like the relationship with an attractive neighbour. Your understanding seems to be that the neighbour moves into, you see each other and then you two immediately get married. When it's more like 2 years of politely ignoring each other, 3 years of friendship, 5 years of dating and finally marriage.
I did not speak of specifics. Just that your request for "recent" evidence is unnecessary when considering "more likely than not" in terms of racism.
For example, if my neighbour consistently shouted racist slurs throughout a period of 20 years moved away, and returned after 10 years, I would consider it more likely than not that he is still racist.
Even if the evidence brought up is old, if there is enough of it throughout the years it would show sustained racially charged behaviours that is more likely than not to have carried forward into present days.
The objective of debating isn't really to change the opponents mind, of course that could be one outcome. The point is to convince the readers that you've made a better argument towards a particular viewpoint. If you want to do the first, random autistic forum screeching suffices.
In this regard, it shouldn't matter if you think I'm "set in my leftism".
Why on earth would you use fake news to mean misleading news when you could just use misleading news to mean misleading news and fake news to mean fake news.
Just because your president is a dullard with language doesn't mean you need to fall off the cliff with him
The PRENDA act was blocked because you can't actually tell when someone is performing or wishes to perform a discriminative abortion. Realistically, there's no way to tell if such a crime is to be committed, or can be recognized. You would have to make wild guesses, largely upon the receivers race, which is extremely racist in itself.
Thus, such a law can only restrict the abortion rights of minortities. Finally, there are no studies which conclusively show that women undergo race-selective abortive procedures in the first place
I see no reason to award automatically win/loss if both sides have argued faithfully. To me, continuing to debate him in full despite the rules you yourself have set out constitutes tacit approval.
As for my vote, to be clear, I think Death23 has successfully negated the resolution by arguing that your use of term "Genetic engineering techniques" is too broad to be applicable to naturally developed organisms. And hence, they cannot be considered "Genetically modified organisms". Since these definitions were not set in the description, I think this is fair. I apologise if my RFD did not make this clear.
The document you've linked states that the objectives of the special council are to investigate any links or coordination efforts between the Russian government and people associated with the Trump campaign. And additionally, to investigate any matters that arise from what is discovered during the investigation.
This is far broader than just examining whether Trump conspired with Russia to interfere in the 2016 elections
They are not compatible. That was decided in the 1850s when the US took Texas because it was more American than Mexican. It also is decided when many in PR want to secede because of their culture. The Hispanics historically assimilate to at least some extent.
The US took Texas because it was more American than Mexican? Do you have evidence for this? Moreover how can you model current integration of culture based on the interaction of 3 states in their infancy? Undoubtedly culture has progressed from that point. I believe the Republic of Texas was vehemently for slavery. So that's certainly one example of progression of culture
Other than that, the currently integration of hispanics and their culture into typical American culture suggests that they are compatible
Why was the union an overall detriment? There was something causing the country to break apart. Something kept France united that divided Austria Hungary, 2 areas comparably big
These seem like questions better answered by a historian. And even then you may not get a satisfying answer. That said, I believe that the french royal crown lands were built up slowly over multiple centuries, and with some exception there was more of a cultural continuum. So what kept France together? I suppose because there was no reason to split and every reason to stay together. Austria-Hungary was basically jammed together from existent smaller states. Why was it an overall detriment? A deteriorating economic situation mostly I suppose.
I have 2 situations that involve America, one of them is present day, so they kindof match America.
So, I'm not looking for situations that involve the US. I'm looking for situations that describe the same situation as the US. That is, mass immigration from a culturally distinct country, into another country which has lead to a secession. I can't speak for your Texas/California examples, so perhaps you can answer why you think the situation is similar. But obviously Puerto Rico is not such an example.
"kids might end up", "kids tend to keep", "that will inevitably", " they would want".
Do you have any facts or evidence other than speculation?
In my examples, none of the leaders thought that their country would break up on the basis of language and by the time they realized it, it was too late.
Did their countries break up on the basis of language? Do you have evidence for this?
Because history rhymes. Ask many Puerto Ricans why they want to secede and they would say because PR is Hispanophone whereas the rest of the country is anglophone.
Do you have evidence for this? Are you sure it wouldn't have to do the historical relationship with the US?
Recipients of DACA are but a subset of illegal immigrants. Isn't it the general case that when an illegal immigrant is found and identified, they are deported? And hence Pro is arguing against the status quo?
In your examples, people wished to secede due to the perceived right of their own governance. This is due to their own historical, language backgrounds and the way in which they were included in the larger nation. And yes, this may be generally titled under cultural differences. But the key here is that as a whole, entire groups of pre-existent and differing cultural background were included with little say into a larger union. Hence, in most cases when that union was perceived to be an overall detriment, secessionist movements formed. This detriment is what I've described as motivations. I believe in all of your examples, this is the case. Hence in none your examples does the situation match America's. How then do you justify using them as examples for your fears?
In the case of the US, immigrants migrate with the understanding that they are leaving their own country to live in another country which is not their own and perhaps to call it their own eventually. The motivations are completely different as there is no historical or linguistic background. They were not forced into a union, they've voluntarily chosen to immigrate and in most cases, they enjoy equal rights. This being the case, what motivations do Hispanics in the US have to secede?
Finally, obviously calling something ingrained is subjective. However as I understand it, Hispanic culture is pervasive throughout the US, especially in the southern and western states. For example, Cinco de Mayo is celebrated in many parts of the US. The language is spoken widely, up to a 6th of the population. There are many places where Hispanics are a majority of the population. Finally, Hispanic cuisine is extremely popular. In many of your examples, secessionist movements form due to the incompatibility of differing cultures. How then do you justify your fears when Hispanic and American culture are seemly so very compatible?
So I guess my point about your examples is that there are specific motivations that cause separatist groups to form. In many of your examples, it was something like "This was originally our land, these are our rules and customs, why shouldn't we govern ourselves". However in the case of immigrants to the US, I'm not seeing the motivation. There is no feeling of resent from misappropriated lands or customs, they are treated fairly and in general, it is understood that they are guests in someone elses country and should respect that. Is the cultural difference really a good enough motivator for a separatist movement, despite the fact that Hispanic culture is already fairly well ingrained in the US in the first place?
But is this a universal definition of americanization? For example, traditionally, many languages have been spoken in the USA and at a federal level, there are no official languages. Spanish for example has persisted in Puerto Rico and near the Mexico/US border, before English was spoken in those areas even. Why then is knowledge of fluent English part of the definition of americanization? Also is it fair to hold immigrants at a higher standard than you would natively born americans? If knowledge/respect of the US constitution and US history/civics is a requirement, I imagine that many natively born americans would fail abysmally. In which case, are they less american than their migratory peers?
Finally, how supported are your fears? When I mentioned the difference between your examples and America, it was to highlight the differences in subculture. In America's case, due to the gradual nature of immigration I'd imagine that there is more of a cultural continuum between hispanic and more traditional American cultures. This is differs to your examples in which the subcultures are uniform. More directly, are you able to provide any evidence that shows that there are rampant numbers of unassimilated migrant hispanics that have formed distinctive subcultures within America or is likely to be an occurrence in the future? Your first source is actually evidence against this. While it does state that there is a large growth of latino populations in California due to immigration, it also notes the existence of spanglish and states that the spanish language fades in successive generations. Is this not an example assimilation?
What does it mean to be american/to americanize? As a non-american, from my perspective, America is a melting pot of different cultures that are capable of co-existing peacefully. Obviously there are somethings that are more or less set in stone, such as acknowledgement of the constitution and a more-than-healthy dose of patriotism. But other than that I think the definition of being "american" should adapt as other cultures are blended into american society.
Also, though I'm not familiar with all your examples so I may be wrong, but none of those conflicts occurred as a result of excessive immigration. Rather, the nations were already formed with existent and distinct subcultures. Hence those situations are rather different to America
So, you seem to have completely missed my point, even though I did ask you to reread what I wrote. My position was on the definition of affirmative action, not on affirmative action itself. If you think I've made a position on affirmative action, by all means, directly quote me. Until then, my advice stays the same. Reread what I've written and avoid starting topics that you cannot or do not wish to defend
I don't follow, given that I have already successfully defended my position. Perhaps you should reread what I've written, so you can respond in a manner that is remotely sensible.
What do you mean "if"? It's part of the definition for affirmative action which provides context to why the minority is receiving special treatment. It would be like defining abortion as the removal of a parasite from the human womb. It's technically true, but wildly misleading without further clarifying that the "parasite" in question is a human baby.
Do you agree or disagree that with my addition, the definition of affirmative action is more accurate than with nmvarco's definition alone?
Death23 knows that you didn't want to debate him on this position, and accordingly, your argument was half-assed. Despite this, he made a fairly complete reply. This is respectful because:
1. He's acknowledged your attempt to debate him on a topic despite your reluctance.
2. He's made a high-effort reply in response to a comparatively low-effort argument when he needn't of done so.
Do you have anymore misunderstandings about my original comment?
Honor demands that Trump pay Warren 1 million dollars <-- This is the issue with which you disagree on.
I disagree that Honor demands that Trump pay Warren 1 million dollars <-- This is the specific position that Death23 has given on the issue. You agree with Death23 on this position.
Do you understand the difference between where you have disagreed with the issue and agreed with the specific position?
He's respected your attempt to debate on an issue that you disagree with. You could've either chosen to debate in earnest as a personal challenge or ignore it entirely as a protest, but you've decided to half-ass it and mock him for his reply. If you think this makes you look anything other than petty, think again.
Not responding to points is different to responding to points in a fallacious manner. If there hasn't been any reasoning at all, it can't be an error in reasoning
Claiming that evolutionary theory is based off assumptions is a molehill on its own. However you are factually wrong that evolutionary is incompatible with symbiosis. And this is due to you clearly misunderstanding symbiotic relationships.
But in my case, my understanding is based upon factual evidence and is supported by evolutionary theory.
Your understanding is not and is therefore unsupported by evolutionary theory. That's all there is to it.
If you wish to make a honest attempt at arguing against evolutionary theory, you should actually attempt to understand what evolutionary theory states instead of forming a sock puppet of bad science from creationist literature and claiming that evolutionary theory supports this bad science.
Oh don't get me wrong. This isn't an argument for evolution. This is simply an explanation as to why your understanding of mutualistic evolution is wrong.
From this, you can either go "Hmmm, my understanding of mutualistic evolution is wrong. Perhaps I should seek out more accurate and different sources of knowledge if these websites which I assumed to be true have misled me" or "Well my understanding of mutualistic evolution is wrong. But that doesn't mean evolution is right".
I don't see how
It wasn't an argument, it was an explanation. If I were interested in arguing this point with you I'd just jam "Arguments from incredulity or probability are not valid forms of argument" down your throat and call it a day.
Same selection pressures and luck
Because thousands to millions of individuals within species interact with each other everyday. Then multiply this by millions of years.
Relationships need not necessarily start with the mouth. For example, the relationship may begun as one of tolerance, where the smaller fish were too fast and too small to be worth catching by the larger fish. And hence the larger fish evolves to tolerate smaller fish, perhaps only attempting to catch them in desperate situations. At the same time, larger fish can provide meals in the form of the remnants of a hunt, so over time the smaller fish has evolved to follow the larger fish.
Note though that neither relationship is dependent on the other having specific traits in particular. It's irrelevant to the larger fish species whether or not the smaller fish species follows them. Nor is the smaller fish species dependent on the shark ignoring them as whether or not they expend energy to run away, it's still beneficial for the easy meals.
The crocodile and the plover bird relationship appears to be a myth. There has been little recorded evidence of this relationship actually existing.
Predatory nature of what? You're generalizing multiple species of fish. Not all cleaner fish eat remnants left on teeth, nor are they all of the same size or predated upon by the same species of fish. In the same vein, not all fish with teeth have the same diet or tolerate other fish in their mouths
The birds and the alligator proposed symbiotic relationship seems to be a myth
The idea that the toothed fish necessarily would have to develop an evolutionary mutation at the same time is false. I gave one example below. That is, the ancestors of the toothed fish may have darted in and out of fish mouths to retrieve food in addition to regular sources of food. And this can be seen as a precursor of behaviour that allows for routinely relying on fish mouths as a main source of food. This does not depend on the toothed fish to stop its predatory behaviour. At the same time, teethed fish may not have even been interested in wasting energy chasing after small and and quick fish, and this does not depend on the cleaner fish to eat food around the mouths of teethed fish.
The ancestors of cleaner fish did not rely upon the teeth of other fish to get food. Nor did the ancestors of toothed fish have teeth such that they require regular cleaning by other fish.
It just so happens that members of the toothed fish, when their teeth are clean, survive for longer, and members of the cleaner fish, when they have additional food sources, also survive for longer. However it does not mean that either species are immediately dependent on each other. It might be the case that ancestor cleaner fish darted in and out of other fish mouths to retrieve food. It might be the case that toothed fish had a set lifespan associated with the degradation of teeth that was entirely sufficiently to allow time for reproduction, with the development of teeth allowing for the fish to take advantage of a specific niche. However it just so happens when two fish of either species co-operated with each other, both lived longer. Now just multiply this over millions of interactions over millions of years
And what I've said bar the specific algae-lichen relationship holds true for all such relationships. This is why evolution is so robust. It is consistent for all organisms.
It's the way he's using it. He keeps using the noun form of the word instead of the adjective. ie "bias vote" instead of "biased vote", "bias mind" instead of "biased mind". It's somewhat nitpicky, but on the otherhand, if you're never called out on your mistakes you're doomed to repeat them.
Oh, in that case your understanding is fatally flawed. Algae did not evolve such that they can only survive with lichen. In my postulated scenario on the development of the symbiotic relationship between algae-lichen, I made no mention of the algae having any specific traits that forced it to become dependant on the lichen, only the lichen benefitting slightly from having trapped algae within a porous body. It is likely the scenario that the vast majority of the same species of algae floated on by.
Also you seem to be unaware of this but the algae species that comprise the lichen are apparently found independently of lichen, so it's quite clear that algae has always been capable of living independently from lichen or other symbiotic relationships
Just FYI, biased is the adjective form you're looking for. Bias as an adjective apparently means something that is cut or folded diagonally which is probably not the meaning you are going after
Again, your understanding is slightly off. Any trait of either species that marked the beginning of a symbiotic relationship would not have needed reciprocal trait. For example in the case of algae-lichen, it might be the case that the earliest development of the relationship was a lichen that had a slightly more porous structure such that passing algae were slightly more likely to become lodged inside. In which case the lichen has a slight advantage over its competitors. However this does not require a reciprocal trait of algae, though naturally reciprocal traits have probably since developed.
Or in the scenario of the attractive neighbour, the two years of politely ignoring one another is spent with you observing her through your window while fapping, with her ignoring the fact that you do so
inb4 vote graveyard
Your understanding of symbiotic evolution is off. The ancestors of modern species with symbiotic relationships did not depend on each other initially. The traits for such relationships were developed over thousands of years. It's likely even that the ancestors of the modern species lived in close proximity without any sort of symbiotic relationship for quite a while until the correct mutations started to become expressed.
Think of it like the relationship with an attractive neighbour. Your understanding seems to be that the neighbour moves into, you see each other and then you two immediately get married. When it's more like 2 years of politely ignoring each other, 3 years of friendship, 5 years of dating and finally marriage.
Perhaps make a debate or a forum post on this topic. The comments section isn't a good medium for discussion like this
I did not speak of specifics. Just that your request for "recent" evidence is unnecessary when considering "more likely than not" in terms of racism.
For example, if my neighbour consistently shouted racist slurs throughout a period of 20 years moved away, and returned after 10 years, I would consider it more likely than not that he is still racist.
Even if the evidence brought up is old, if there is enough of it throughout the years it would show sustained racially charged behaviours that is more likely than not to have carried forward into present days.
The objective of debating isn't really to change the opponents mind, of course that could be one outcome. The point is to convince the readers that you've made a better argument towards a particular viewpoint. If you want to do the first, random autistic forum screeching suffices.
In this regard, it shouldn't matter if you think I'm "set in my leftism".
Why on earth would you use fake news to mean misleading news when you could just use misleading news to mean misleading news and fake news to mean fake news.
Just because your president is a dullard with language doesn't mean you need to fall off the cliff with him
The PRENDA act was blocked because you can't actually tell when someone is performing or wishes to perform a discriminative abortion. Realistically, there's no way to tell if such a crime is to be committed, or can be recognized. You would have to make wild guesses, largely upon the receivers race, which is extremely racist in itself.
Thus, such a law can only restrict the abortion rights of minortities. Finally, there are no studies which conclusively show that women undergo race-selective abortive procedures in the first place
I see no reason to award automatically win/loss if both sides have argued faithfully. To me, continuing to debate him in full despite the rules you yourself have set out constitutes tacit approval.
As for my vote, to be clear, I think Death23 has successfully negated the resolution by arguing that your use of term "Genetic engineering techniques" is too broad to be applicable to naturally developed organisms. And hence, they cannot be considered "Genetically modified organisms". Since these definitions were not set in the description, I think this is fair. I apologise if my RFD did not make this clear.
"I'll accept and you can see". I sense a trap
How is this not one giant argument from incredulity?
The document you've linked states that the objectives of the special council are to investigate any links or coordination efforts between the Russian government and people associated with the Trump campaign. And additionally, to investigate any matters that arise from what is discovered during the investigation.
This is far broader than just examining whether Trump conspired with Russia to interfere in the 2016 elections
They are not compatible. That was decided in the 1850s when the US took Texas because it was more American than Mexican. It also is decided when many in PR want to secede because of their culture. The Hispanics historically assimilate to at least some extent.
The US took Texas because it was more American than Mexican? Do you have evidence for this? Moreover how can you model current integration of culture based on the interaction of 3 states in their infancy? Undoubtedly culture has progressed from that point. I believe the Republic of Texas was vehemently for slavery. So that's certainly one example of progression of culture
Other than that, the currently integration of hispanics and their culture into typical American culture suggests that they are compatible
Why was the union an overall detriment? There was something causing the country to break apart. Something kept France united that divided Austria Hungary, 2 areas comparably big
These seem like questions better answered by a historian. And even then you may not get a satisfying answer. That said, I believe that the french royal crown lands were built up slowly over multiple centuries, and with some exception there was more of a cultural continuum. So what kept France together? I suppose because there was no reason to split and every reason to stay together. Austria-Hungary was basically jammed together from existent smaller states. Why was it an overall detriment? A deteriorating economic situation mostly I suppose.
I have 2 situations that involve America, one of them is present day, so they kindof match America.
So, I'm not looking for situations that involve the US. I'm looking for situations that describe the same situation as the US. That is, mass immigration from a culturally distinct country, into another country which has lead to a secession. I can't speak for your Texas/California examples, so perhaps you can answer why you think the situation is similar. But obviously Puerto Rico is not such an example.
"kids might end up", "kids tend to keep", "that will inevitably", " they would want".
Do you have any facts or evidence other than speculation?
In my examples, none of the leaders thought that their country would break up on the basis of language and by the time they realized it, it was too late.
Did their countries break up on the basis of language? Do you have evidence for this?
Because history rhymes. Ask many Puerto Ricans why they want to secede and they would say because PR is Hispanophone whereas the rest of the country is anglophone.
Do you have evidence for this? Are you sure it wouldn't have to do the historical relationship with the US?
Recipients of DACA are but a subset of illegal immigrants. Isn't it the general case that when an illegal immigrant is found and identified, they are deported? And hence Pro is arguing against the status quo?
In your examples, people wished to secede due to the perceived right of their own governance. This is due to their own historical, language backgrounds and the way in which they were included in the larger nation. And yes, this may be generally titled under cultural differences. But the key here is that as a whole, entire groups of pre-existent and differing cultural background were included with little say into a larger union. Hence, in most cases when that union was perceived to be an overall detriment, secessionist movements formed. This detriment is what I've described as motivations. I believe in all of your examples, this is the case. Hence in none your examples does the situation match America's. How then do you justify using them as examples for your fears?
In the case of the US, immigrants migrate with the understanding that they are leaving their own country to live in another country which is not their own and perhaps to call it their own eventually. The motivations are completely different as there is no historical or linguistic background. They were not forced into a union, they've voluntarily chosen to immigrate and in most cases, they enjoy equal rights. This being the case, what motivations do Hispanics in the US have to secede?
Finally, obviously calling something ingrained is subjective. However as I understand it, Hispanic culture is pervasive throughout the US, especially in the southern and western states. For example, Cinco de Mayo is celebrated in many parts of the US. The language is spoken widely, up to a 6th of the population. There are many places where Hispanics are a majority of the population. Finally, Hispanic cuisine is extremely popular. In many of your examples, secessionist movements form due to the incompatibility of differing cultures. How then do you justify your fears when Hispanic and American culture are seemly so very compatible?
So I guess my point about your examples is that there are specific motivations that cause separatist groups to form. In many of your examples, it was something like "This was originally our land, these are our rules and customs, why shouldn't we govern ourselves". However in the case of immigrants to the US, I'm not seeing the motivation. There is no feeling of resent from misappropriated lands or customs, they are treated fairly and in general, it is understood that they are guests in someone elses country and should respect that. Is the cultural difference really a good enough motivator for a separatist movement, despite the fact that Hispanic culture is already fairly well ingrained in the US in the first place?
But is this a universal definition of americanization? For example, traditionally, many languages have been spoken in the USA and at a federal level, there are no official languages. Spanish for example has persisted in Puerto Rico and near the Mexico/US border, before English was spoken in those areas even. Why then is knowledge of fluent English part of the definition of americanization? Also is it fair to hold immigrants at a higher standard than you would natively born americans? If knowledge/respect of the US constitution and US history/civics is a requirement, I imagine that many natively born americans would fail abysmally. In which case, are they less american than their migratory peers?
Finally, how supported are your fears? When I mentioned the difference between your examples and America, it was to highlight the differences in subculture. In America's case, due to the gradual nature of immigration I'd imagine that there is more of a cultural continuum between hispanic and more traditional American cultures. This is differs to your examples in which the subcultures are uniform. More directly, are you able to provide any evidence that shows that there are rampant numbers of unassimilated migrant hispanics that have formed distinctive subcultures within America or is likely to be an occurrence in the future? Your first source is actually evidence against this. While it does state that there is a large growth of latino populations in California due to immigration, it also notes the existence of spanglish and states that the spanish language fades in successive generations. Is this not an example assimilation?
P.S I'm from New Zealand
What does it mean to be american/to americanize? As a non-american, from my perspective, America is a melting pot of different cultures that are capable of co-existing peacefully. Obviously there are somethings that are more or less set in stone, such as acknowledgement of the constitution and a more-than-healthy dose of patriotism. But other than that I think the definition of being "american" should adapt as other cultures are blended into american society.
Also, though I'm not familiar with all your examples so I may be wrong, but none of those conflicts occurred as a result of excessive immigration. Rather, the nations were already formed with existent and distinct subcultures. Hence those situations are rather different to America
Are there more fleshed out/different arguments still to come? It looks like round 1 arguments have been used in the description
So, you seem to have completely missed my point, even though I did ask you to reread what I wrote. My position was on the definition of affirmative action, not on affirmative action itself. If you think I've made a position on affirmative action, by all means, directly quote me. Until then, my advice stays the same. Reread what I've written and avoid starting topics that you cannot or do not wish to defend
I don't follow, given that I have already successfully defended my position. Perhaps you should reread what I've written, so you can respond in a manner that is remotely sensible.
Or perhaps you could avoid starting topics that you either cannot or do not wish to defend
What do you mean "if"? It's part of the definition for affirmative action which provides context to why the minority is receiving special treatment. It would be like defining abortion as the removal of a parasite from the human womb. It's technically true, but wildly misleading without further clarifying that the "parasite" in question is a human baby.
Do you agree or disagree that with my addition, the definition of affirmative action is more accurate than with nmvarco's definition alone?
... in response to unfair discrimination
Points for conduct and spelling are certainly nitpicky.
debateisland looks hideous
Death23 knows that you didn't want to debate him on this position, and accordingly, your argument was half-assed. Despite this, he made a fairly complete reply. This is respectful because:
1. He's acknowledged your attempt to debate him on a topic despite your reluctance.
2. He's made a high-effort reply in response to a comparatively low-effort argument when he needn't of done so.
Do you have anymore misunderstandings about my original comment?
Honor demands that Trump pay Warren 1 million dollars <-- This is the issue with which you disagree on.
I disagree that Honor demands that Trump pay Warren 1 million dollars <-- This is the specific position that Death23 has given on the issue. You agree with Death23 on this position.
Do you understand the difference between where you have disagreed with the issue and agreed with the specific position?
If you read more carefully, the issue was the subject of the disagreement, not the position of your opponent.
ie "The issue that I disagreed with" vs "The issue that I disagreed with him on"
He's respected your attempt to debate on an issue that you disagree with. You could've either chosen to debate in earnest as a personal challenge or ignore it entirely as a protest, but you've decided to half-ass it and mock him for his reply. If you think this makes you look anything other than petty, think again.