>>1158>I'm not sure why you think the statement is ridiculous. It [i]is[/] a feeling, at most a hypothesis, I certainly don't have data for any of this.
For the same reason that I always find these kinds of sweeping statements ridiculous. You know, someone comes in with a feeling, or a hunch, or an idea, and sometimes they present it as based in fact or reality or sometimes they present it as just an object of consideration, but the function of the idea is to validate the tribal prejudices that really underpin it. Then some wild conjecture is started on the basis of an imagined premise, and in the end, the speaker is allowed to conclude, that, yes, it is not so irrational to oppose immigration, or whatever other regressive idea someone might be interested in justifying.
I find it ridiculous because it showcases a need to justify something that should be understood as an irrational evolutionary artifact, an instinct not suited for the situation, but which is instead coddled for and protected.>But if we were at capacity then the only way we could take on more things is by getting rid of old ones, right? That's what it would mean to be "full"?
This sounds like the subject of theory that is much more complex than you give it credit for.>We have met other cultures, we have exchanged ideas, we have adopted the ideas we think are good and rejected the ideas we think are bad.
You make it sound like the development of culture is a rational process, and not an emergent quality of the system.>I'm not sure what you expect us to learn from more immigrants that our existing immigrants and visitors haven't already relayed.
Well neither am I. If I knew that, the meeting wouldn't really benefit me, would it? Whatever qualities are outside of us, we cannot understand them deeply until we encounter them and interact with them for an extended time.Post too long. Click here to view the full text.