Coca-Cola superbowl ad

#177
#177
Grand Vol said:
The question will arise of why should I, a non-immigrant American, learn another language unless either my job requires it or I have that urge.

This nation's immigrants learned English back in the day because they wanted to be Americans. They incorporated other parts of their culture into ours, but did so while speaking English. They made sure their children learned English. While many kept their native tongues, they also knew this nation's unwritten rule that the primary language was English. And they learned it willingly.

Unfortunately, political correctness these days says we have to learn other people's languages and respect their cultures. Our culture is speaking English. So how about them respecting the American culture for a change?
Click to expand...

Not the point. Point is there are plenty of Americans who grew up speaking English as well as another language tied to their culture.
 
#178
#178
Ducreux said:
I realize I'm getting dangerously close to forgoing George Bernard Shaw's admonition to 'not get in the mud with a pig...you get dirty...and besides the pig likes it' in discussing this with you but 'Muslim' is not a language, its a religion. Muslim's speak Arabic. Depending where they are from....the majority speak Arabic...
Click to expand...

That isn't accurate either. Although most Muslims might learn to read Arabic to read the Koran, the largest Islamic population speaks Bahasa Indonesian or a variant of Javanese. After that it is probably English or Hindi. A relatively small percentage of Muslims speak Arabic day to day.
 
#179
#179
therealUT said:
I believe it is not morally wrong to cross any nation's borders.
Click to expand...

Okay, you don't. I'm not sure if you answered that way just to argue or genuinely believe that. But I'll take it at face value.

Now how about the vast majority of people when asked that question.
 
#181
#181
PotS said:
Sign and Braille. There's 2. Unless you meant spoken in the true literal sense.

If a person's parents were immigrants, but said person was born in America, is that person considered an immigrant?

If not, the answer to your question is a bunch.
Click to expand...

Nerd-Vol said:
Off the top of my head I can come up with creole and Gullah. I am not sure if you would count hawaiian.
Click to expand...

VOLatile said:
Inuit? Or is that considered Native American?
Click to expand...

I was thinking US Territories and Colonies. So, Spanish for Puerto Rico, Samoan for American Samoa, Chamorro for Guam, and Tagolog for the Philippines as it was a US Colony up until WWII and there are plenty of US Citizens (and WWII Vets) still living there. I would put Hawaiian on the list of indigenous languages since it is a state, but don't have a good logic for that distinction.
 
#183
#183
Grand Vol said:
Okay, you don't. I'm not sure if you answered that way just to argue or genuinely believe that. But I'll take it at face value.

Now how about the vast majority of people when asked that question.
Click to expand...

I don't care about the vast majority of persons' responses to that question. Morality does not rest upon popularity. Further, things that are right and wrong are either right or wrong absolutely and always. E.g., if it is wrong to rape someone, then it is wrong to rape someone in third century B.C.E. Athens and it is wrong to rape someone in 2013, US. To deny that, is to assert moral relativism. It is a defensible position, but one must remain faithful to it. And, there is no relevant distinction between space and time such that one can say, "Well, rape was not wrong in third century BCE, but it is wrong in 2013 Bangladesh". Basically, moral relativism attaches right/wrong to the cultural and societal norms, such that one society/culture cannot morally critique any other society/culture, so long as said societies/cultures are distinct.

That is, one could not be morally outraged if a Muslim in Iran decides to stone a young girl for flirting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#185
#185
VOLatile said:
Pretty sure there was Arabic in the commercial, too.
Click to expand...

There were eight languages featured English, Tagalog, Senegalese-French, Hebrew, Mandarin, Keres, Arabic and Spanish.

Keres is a language spoken by The Pueblo Indians who live in the Southwestern United States.
 
#187
#187
therealUT said:
I don't care about the vast majority of persons' responses to that question. Morality does not rest upon popularity. Further, things that are right and wrong are either right or wrong absolutely and always. E.g., if it is wrong to rape someone, then it is wrong to rape someone in third century B.C.E. Athens and it is wrong to rape someone in 2013, US. To deny that, is to assert moral relativism. It is a defensible position, but one must remain faithful to it. And, there is no relevant distinction between space and time such that one can say, "Well, rape was not wrong in third century BCE, but it is wrong in 2013 Bangladesh". Basically, moral relativism attaches right/wrong to the cultural and societal norms, such that one society/culture cannot morally critique any other society/culture, so long as said societies/cultures are distinct.

That is, one could not be morally outraged if a Muslim in Iran decides to stone a young girl for flirting.
Click to expand...

The thing about morality is the fact it is a widely accepted ideal or principle. You use rape as an example that is the square peg in the round hole here. It may have been accepted back then, but the majority of people don't believe in the morality of it now. It's pretty much a basic human concept. The Crusades are also a part of history that were supposedly "morally" justified. And since that time, people have seen the folly of that justification. But it is history and people cannot change it. So your example is...not a good example

So again, do the majority of people believe international boundaries have a significance and crossing them violates a morality code of right and wrong?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#190
#190
Grand Vol said:
The thing about morality is the fact it is a widely accepted ideal or principle. You use rape as an example that is the square peg in the round hole here. It may have been accepted back then, but the majority of people don't believe in the morality of it now. It's pretty much a basic human concept. The Crusades are also a part of history that were supposedly "morally" justified. And since that time, people have seen the folly of that justification. But it is history and people cannot change it. So your example is...not a good example

So again, do the majority of people believe international boundaries have a significance and crossing them violates a morality code of right and wrong?
Click to expand...

1. You could not be more wrong in your conception of morality.

2. However, since it is quite apparent that you ground what it is that you think morally appropriate in some hypothetical popularity contest, then, sure, the vast majority of Americans see something morally wrong in illegally crossing international boundaries (the vast majority of humans living now, though, I would place money on them not giving such high moral appraisal to boundaries).

I guess it is quite refreshing for you that you no longer have to believe that holding black persons down as subhuman and, at best, second class citizens, is morally right. So, that's a good step forward for you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#191
#191
Grand Vol said:
I actually included that point in my post.
Click to expand...

I missed it. Also, not sure I agree that English is our culture. I think our Americanized English reflects a lot about our culture but not everything. And, so there is no mistake, I love the American culture and actually think there will come a time when American will become a racial distinction. But, I love everything about it, from the worst welfare riding American Idol watching lazy butts to the best help your neighbor rebuild from a tornado heroes. As I'm sure you have, I've walked down foreign streets with a group of Americans and, despite there being multiple skin tones, accents and hometowns, we were seen as a group of Americans for how we walked, talked, laughed etc. I guess I see us as a country of diverse individuals and groups united by shared set of values, which is why I liked the ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#196
#196
therealUT said:
1. You could not be more wrong in your conception of morality.

2. However, since it is quite apparent that you ground what it is that you think morally appropriate in some hypothetical popularity contest, then, sure, the vast majority of Americans see something morally wrong in illegally crossing international boundaries (the vast majority of humans living now, though, I would place money on them not giving such high moral appraisal to boundaries).

I guess it is quite refreshing for you that you no longer have to believe that holding black persons down as subhuman and, at best, second class citizens, is morally right. So, that's a good step forward for you.
Click to expand...

Did this have to become about race? And why the veiled accusations to me being racist? Or overt accusations of xenophobia for that matter? Because I'm not a racist nor am I xenophobic. Kind of hard to be xenophobic with my mutt background, but anyway.

As for the rest of your post...

Have you lived in another nation? Know many foreign people? Had to learn their customs that were strange and foreign? I have. And yes, the idea of borders being a morality issue of right and wrong is like I stated, universal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#198
#198
VOLatile said:
So I've only come across cane sugar Coke in the US that's been imported from Mexico.
Click to expand...

You are correct. I'm saying I think we are one of the only countries that puts the fructose in our Coke. IIRC, German sodas had actual sugar in them. But the Mexican Coke is easier to get.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#200
#200
Grand Vol said:
Did this have to become about race? And why the veiled accusations to me being racist? Or overt accusations of xenophobia for that matter? Because I'm not a racist nor am I xenophobic. Kind of hard to be xenophobic with my mutt background, but anyway.
Click to expand...

I allowed two options: ignorant or xenophobic. Your views on morality and law express the former. So, congrats, you are not a racist.

And, as for the comment at the end, re: popular norms changing in the US over the past sixty years concerning black persons, yes, I am making the inference that had this been sixty or seventy years ago, you would have proudly advanced an anti-black and very racist viewpoint, since that was the popular thing to do.

Grand Vol said:
As for the rest of your post...

Have you lived in another nation? Know many foreign people? Had to learn their customs that were strange and foreign? I have. And yes, the idea of borders being a morality issue of right and wrong is like I stated, universal.
Click to expand...

I have lived in other nations. I flat out disagree with your assertion of fact; but, I don't need it anyway.

Any system of morality was answer two questions:
1. How ought we to live?
2. Why?

You are basically saying the answer to (2) is: "Everybody is doing it". I guess if looking for a system on how it is you ought to live your life, you can rest with the motivating answer that it is merely the popular thing to do, then go for it. As for me, the response, "Everybody is doing it" still leaves me asking, "Okay, but why should I?"

And, again, feel free to be a moral relativist. But, if so, be consistent in it and know that you cannot, with any integrity, express any moral outrage with regard to what goes on in other cultures/societies.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top