Yes, blarman, I agree with you, and also remember the riots in France. Barcelona, Spain, is in deep
trouble,and the Netherlands are too. Their lonely
defender, Geert Wilder (if I remember his last name correctly) has even testified before our
Congress for what good it did.

It has nothing to do with being an individualist or a statist. Society and individual isolationism are inherently contradictory. You can not have a society made of isolated individuals - it is only through their interactions and agreements that they become a society at all!

And it is a complete falsehood that people exist in a vacuum. How is that person going to find a mate or conduct business? If they are strictly isolationist, they cease to exist and render themselves moot. If they remove themselves from society, are they not withdrawing their efforts and productivity as well, reducing the overall productivity of society? I would argue in the affirmative. Does this mean that they have no right to do so? No, but they can not simultaneously claim a right to participate in society AND NOT participate in society. That is an inherent logical contradiction.

it's a lovely commercial. I don't buy it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MEsOzzun...

Sorry, I was not able to view the commercial. A business can, however, spread whatever propaganda it wants to build a wider customer base. Can you provide a working link and I'll take a look? Thanks.

how about celebrating entire groups without celebrating the individual-such as demonstrated in the Coke commercial

I see your point and is a why I have disagree with you as an individualist. Your comment is sprinkled with statism. I come from an individualist idea. The only duty of each person is not to initiate an act of forces against one’s neighbor. The idea of one duty to society to speak the same language is moot because society does not have the right impose on the right of others. In addition, while the person has every right to disengage for society by refusing to speak the same language, he or she alone has to bear the burden or benefit of their actions.

America is both. She is sovereign by having a foothold (military bases) in 170 out of the 196 countries in the world. You can't get much more sovereign (imperial) and international than that.

Rejection syndrome is hardwired, both physically and mentally, a left-over of our evolutionary survival kit. Prejudice, racism, bigotry are inborn default positions only a rational process can overcome.

Those who prize individualism or pay lipservice to it yet condemn entire groups, tarring them all with the same brush, on grounds of color or belief or cultural traditions, are living a contradiction. Get to know them as individuals, and then judge only that individual. Wholesale cultural denigration is racism taken to the totalitarian terminus.

Sadly, that all-or-nothing tendency is also hardwired, because ideas, like living organisms, are selfish and want to survive. But mankind's longest-range self-interest is not in mutual destruction of those who think or speak differently, but in the integration of diversity for mutual benefit. Like a symphony in which many individual notes can combine into a magnificent harmony.

The current panic about Islam wanting to impose its totalitarian control, to say nothing about the Christian mobilization for imposing its control, excuses wars against the physical bodies of those peoples when what we have is a war of ideas. We are slaves to our beliefs. We pervert Reason to create rationalizations. We swear we will not live for the sake of another, and then forget the other half of the equation, of not asking another to live (or die) for ours. And this is just a reformulation of the golden rule, the universal algorithm for equality and justice.

The individual IS the greatest value, and that is the most powerful idea for life and for a lasting civilization. It can prevail, not through mass slaughter but through rational persuasion. And by practicing the second half of the Galtian oath along with the first.

I agree with that to a point. But first, a society need philosophers. In the case of the US, the philosophers who contributed to the founding were extremely well read. This included reading philosophical works in other languages. Jefferson was highly interested in the French Revolution and read Rousseau, Moliere and Racine, among other french writers.

Just give everyone a Babelfish (Hitchhiker's Guide variety) until technology can build the Universal Translator (Star Trek variety).

Sure. When I was traveling some 45 years ago I learned the most important sentence for a few countries. "Satu logi, bier," for example in Indonesia. It means "One more beer." I learned it for Burma, India, Afghanistan, Iran, Turkey, Bulgaria, France and Germany and Spain, too.

I love language(s) and anyone can speak any language they want, any place they want as long as they do not initiate force for me to speak it.

There are sub-cultural languages in most major countries. We have Spanglish in the US, Then there's the mega language which is the tongue of commerce and daily life. If one wants to function efficiently in any locale, one must bear the burden of learning to communicate and can communicate any way they want as long as they don't initiate force (through government) to FORCE anyone to learn anything. A person has a right to do anything as long as it doesn't involve force or fraud that results in harm to another.

Only if you look at things by sheer population. If you look at things by economic transaction value, American English by far is the winner.

You are confusing globalism and international trade with national identity. My father speaks fluent Mandarin which he uses when he travels to China for business (as most Chinese do not speak English). Please note that he is doing business in China in Chinese. When he talks with clients here in the United States, however, he doesn't speak Mandarin, he speaks English, because that is the language of this nation.

No nation needs to adopt the Tower of Babble to accommodate the destruction of diversity of language. It neither makes sense nor does it benefit anyone except those who do not wish to assimilate in the first place.

That is an irrelevant question. It doesn't matter. The question is whether or not he has a responsibility as a member of that society to learn to communicate with the rest of society. I would say that that is the number one rule of society because without communication, one can not set up the basic rules or framework of any civilization!

The problem you point out with Islam is going on in many of the nations of Europe. You may or may not remember the riots in France a few years back when Islamic youths went about burning cars, etc.

Diversity of opinion can be useful in examining options. Diversity of culture and language only brings division.

This is no different than requiring everyone in geometry class to understand geometry. Do you need to accomodate looters, theives and irrational people? Murderers? No. I agree Atlantis was by special invitation, but to each individual -not as a slave to any one culture or tradition. And in order to thrive, they would necessarily have to be able to communicate. But take the oath in whatever language can effectively and accurately convey its meaning.

I dislike manipulation.
I appreciate other cultures. Ilike to travel. I have hosted many foreign exchange students over the years :swedish, german, danish, spanish, french.I insisted both of my children immerse in another culture to learn another langauge. My son is fluent in german, my daughter french. I have close friends who speak many languages and english is not their native language. As a matter of fact they would probably agree with me regarding this argument. They 'd also laugh at your claim.

Ok, let's play the grammar game, kids...

re: Posted by $ khalling 13 hours, 29 minutes ago...
"....You can disagree that that's what it's pushing, but both myself and my husband and clearly others immediately saw through the disguise..."

Yes, and "please give a slice of the cake to Joe and myself, too..." Improper reflexive; sorry.

"both _I_ and my husband..." [are subjects of the verb (saw) in that sentence..."

Hugs and Cheer!

In NC, "y'all" is singular; to make it plural, you use the term "all y'all."

Am here, do that.