Canadian Language Education Questions

[viper37]

I don't accept that there is some historical justification for current and future state mandated intolerance and discrimination.

Then you don't accept history to explain the present.  You don't accept that we are byproducts of the society we evolved in, everything is pre-determined at birth.  Strange concept, I admit...

[Berkut]

Exactly. This is why I reject the notion that in a western liberal society people have the right to secede if they don't get their way.

do individuals have the right to form an association of some kind or are they limited in their individual rights to enter collective agreements?

Depends. You can't mask state impinging on individual rights by calling it a "collective agreement" to do so.

[garbon]

Yes, it is sad it has to be forced.  But it is necessary.  Just like it is sad that we need basic laws forbidding murders and thievery when everyone should simply refrain from harming others.  But we live in the real world, not some utopia.

But I don't think it is necessary - in that it will prove successful. You are only delaying the inevitable if the populace is not invested in seeing the language/culture thrive.

[garbon]

I don't accept that there is some historical justification for current and future state mandated intolerance and discrimination.

Then you don't accept history to explain the present.  You don't accept that we are byproducts of the society we evolved in, everything is pre-determined at birth.  Strange concept, I admit...

The past might inform the present but it doesn't have to dictate the future.

[Berkut]

I don't accept that there is some historical justification for current and future state mandated intolerance and discrimination.

Then you don't accept history to explain the present.  You don't accept that we are byproducts of the society we evolved in, everything is pre-determined at birth.  Strange concept, I admit...

No, I don't accept the idea that we can use past claims of injustice to validate current and future demands that we tolerate our own bigotry.

Understanding history does not lead to the desire to discriminate against others, quite the opposite in fact.

I submit that those demanding that they have the right to deny others freedom are evidencing that they are the ones who do not understand the lessons of history.

The language you are using is no different than listening to the KKK validate their need for laws to "protect their culture", and while considerably less personally onerous in its application, it it identically invalid in its logic and humanity.

[Barrister]

Guys, I'd just ignore Berkut.  He's on his "I'm the only one who truly understands human rights and liberty" kick he sometimes goes on.

I mean - self-determination has been widely understood as a right for over a century - but Berkut marches in to say it shouldn't exist because he says so.  He's just on a different wavelength than most people.

[garbon]

I mean - self-determination has been widely understood as a right for over a century - but Berkut marches in to say it shouldn't exist because he says so.  He's just on a different wavelength than most people.

Lots of things have been understood for long periods of time. That doesn't mean they are good things or worthy of being supported.

[garbon]

Besides, I think B has been rather clear on why he opposes it in liberal Western societies.

[Razgovory]

You probably shouldn't use a statue representing the Nazi party as your avatar if you don't like being called a Nazi.

Whenever I read you I'm reminded of a monkey - monkeying it up to his handlers to prove them he's not a monkey.  Go away!  Choo!  Disappear.

Yes the picture is from one of the statue of the Nurnberg stadium built by the Nazis - and yet you do not even grasp its meaning.



G.

And who are my handlers?  The Jews?

[Berkut]

Guys, I'd just ignore Berkut.  He's on his "I'm the only one who truly understands human rights and liberty" kick he sometimes goes on.

I mean - self-determination has been widely understood as a right for over a century - but Berkut marches in to say it shouldn't exist because he says so.  He's just on a different wavelength than most people.

Unilateral self determination has NEVER been understood as a right, ever. That is simply not true, and it is truly unfair to claim that I've only supported my position "because I said so". You might not agree with my arguments, but to claim I haven't made them is simply not at all true.

[Martinus]

The amount of unwarranted and offensive xenophobic butthurt from the francophones in this thread is just amazing. If Canadian politics is anything like that, it would probably be better for Canada to let Quebec go, just to get rid of people like that. 

[Martinus]

Incidentally, if I have ever, prior to my ban, acted any way like grallon in this thread, then I truly wish to apologise.

[Barrister]

Guys, I'd just ignore Berkut.  He's on his "I'm the only one who truly understands human rights and liberty" kick he sometimes goes on.

I mean - self-determination has been widely understood as a right for over a century - but Berkut marches in to say it shouldn't exist because he says so.  He's just on a different wavelength than most people.

Unilateral self determination has NEVER been understood as a right, ever. That is simply not true, and it is truly unfair to claim that I've only supported my position "because I said so". You might not agree with my arguments, but to claim I haven't made them is simply not at all true.

It goes back as far as Wilson's 14 points.

[Berkut]

Guys, I'd just ignore Berkut.  He's on his "I'm the only one who truly understands human rights and liberty" kick he sometimes goes on.

I mean - self-determination has been widely understood as a right for over a century - but Berkut marches in to say it shouldn't exist because he says so.  He's just on a different wavelength than most people.

Unilateral self determination has NEVER been understood as a right, ever. That is simply not true, and it is truly unfair to claim that I've only supported my position "because I said so". You might not agree with my arguments, but to claim I haven't made them is simply not at all true.

It goes back as far as Wilson's 14 points.

You confuse a consideration for self-determination as one of many, many factors involved with a unilateral right to self-determination, which for many reasons I've pointed out and you've ignored, simply does not exist - indeed, cannot exist.

[Martinus]

Guys, I'd just ignore Berkut.  He's on his "I'm the only one who truly understands human rights and liberty" kick he sometimes goes on.

I mean - self-determination has been widely understood as a right for over a century - but Berkut marches in to say it shouldn't exist because he says so.  He's just on a different wavelength than most people.

Unilateral self determination has NEVER been understood as a right, ever. That is simply not true, and it is truly unfair to claim that I've only supported my position "because I said so". You might not agree with my arguments, but to claim I haven't made them is simply not at all true.

It goes back as far as Wilson's 14 points.

It is slightly more complex than that. Wilson's 14 points addressed a political reality where Central and Eastern Europe operated in what would, by today's standards, be considered close to apartheid. Right now, the position, especially in liberal democracies, is more ambiguous I would say - there is no unilateral and absolute right of any ethnic minority occupying a given territory to secede (no "People's Republic of Chinatown, NYC" for you).