What sort of percentage of people in Quebec are of the same political persuasion as viper and grallon? The Quebec nationalist thing or what ever it is that makes them post the things they do. I may not be familiar enough with Canadian politics to know what they are called.
A lot fewer after I'm in charge and have unified the Anglo lands under one crown.
In my experience, 1/3. The other 2/3 are like GF, Rex, Oex and Zoupa. :P
Zoupa hates Anglo's too :P
Quote from: HVC on August 15, 2013, 06:40:43 PM
Zoupa hates Anglo's too :P
Way to miss the point :P
Quote from: HVC on August 15, 2013, 06:40:43 PM
Zoupa hates Anglo's too :P
But he loves the Asians!
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2013, 06:10:39 PM
What sort of percentage of people in Quebec are of the same political persuasion as viper and grallon? The Quebec nationalist thing or what ever it is that makes them post the things they do. I may not be familiar enough with Canadian politics to know what they are called.
We're all a friendly bunch. See, when guys like you comme to visit, we throw a welcoming party :)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fionenewsone.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F04%2Fkkk.jpg&hash=9d0b29f036f8f1f3c6b37ba2f0d32aa6e3ba6d95)
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2013, 06:10:39 PM
What sort of percentage of people in Quebec are of the same political persuasion as viper and grallon?
Is condescending obnoxiousness really a "political persuasion"?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 15, 2013, 08:30:35 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2013, 06:10:39 PM
What sort of percentage of people in Quebec are of the same political persuasion as viper and grallon?
Is condescending obnoxiousness really a "political persuasion"?
I was trying to use politically neutral language.
No one is like Grallon.
Outside of Montreal, I would gather that most are like Viper. Except left leaning.
While Viper is obviously a proud Quebecois i've always had the impression that he is at core a Federalist.
Quote from: PRC on August 15, 2013, 10:00:28 PM
While Viper is obviously a proud Quebecois i've always had the impression that he is at core a Federalist.
I'm not sure about him being a Federalist, but seems to lack the silly leftist economic notions which most separatists apparantly embrace.
Viper est bien un raciste, oui? C'est normal au Québec, car ils sont tous les nazis.
I saw a movie about les Nazis once.
You've seen a lot of movies, so I would imagine that would have to be true.
I work with a girl from Quebec, and she's not anti-Anglo.
Quote from: Syt on August 16, 2013, 02:02:26 AM
I work with a girl from Quebec, and she's not anti-Anglo.
that's why she's not in quebec anymore, they kicked her out :P
Quote from: Syt on August 16, 2013, 02:02:26 AM
I work with a girl from Quebec, and she's not anti-Anglo.
She's from Montreal?
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 16, 2013, 07:45:52 AM
Quote from: Syt on August 16, 2013, 02:02:26 AM
I work with a girl from Quebec, and she's not anti-Anglo.
She's from Montreal?
From near Montreal, yes.
Quote from: Syt on August 16, 2013, 08:25:06 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 16, 2013, 07:45:52 AM
Quote from: Syt on August 16, 2013, 02:02:26 AM
I work with a girl from Quebec, and she's not anti-Anglo.
She's from Montreal?
From near Montreal, yes.
That's your explanation then.
You have to understand when Outside of Montreal people like Viper are exposed to english, it's usually by some asshole tourists or in the news being used to put down something French. If he didn't watch American TV or browse Languish, Viper could live his entire day to day life without ever being exposed to English.
While when people from Montreal are exposed to English, it can be in totally mondain way, beause they are actually english speaking people living here. After a while you get use to hear different languages, English gets lost in the chatter anyway.
My colleague is mostly francophone. She speaks English with an accent, and German, too (her parents are German immigrants). However, it's not an accent a French person would have - in fact, when I first met her I found it almost impossible to place her German/English accents, and she didn't speak French in the office (that was before my French colleague joined).
Quote from: PRC on August 15, 2013, 10:00:28 PM
While Viper is obviously a proud Quebecois i've always had the impression that he is at core a Federalist.
I don't think seperation is viable at the moment, not when the 3 seperatist party have almost the same socialist agenda.
I do believe there are valid reasons, historical, current and future ones to seperate from Canada.
I think it is unavoidable that one day Quebec will have to quit the Federation. I would prefer an evolving Federation where Quebec could grow, but I don't think it will be possible.
I don't think seperation will happen while I am alive, if it happens while I'm alive, we'll probably have lunar tourism for the middle class by then.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 16, 2013, 08:32:04 AM
mondain way
English people in Montreal have the gem of immortality
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 16, 2013, 08:32:04 AM
Quote from: Syt on August 16, 2013, 08:25:06 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 16, 2013, 07:45:52 AM
Quote from: Syt on August 16, 2013, 02:02:26 AM
I work with a girl from Quebec, and she's not anti-Anglo.
She's from Montreal?
From near Montreal, yes.
That's your explanation then.
You have to understand when Outside of Montreal people like Viper are exposed to english, it's usually by some asshole tourists or in the news being used to put down something French. .
That explains why he puts so much importance ono matters in the "media" that are unimportant to English speakers.
Quote from: HVC on August 16, 2013, 07:00:30 AM
Quote from: Syt on August 16, 2013, 02:02:26 AM
I work with a girl from Quebec, and she's not anti-Anglo.
that's why she's not in quebec anymore, they kicked her out :P
I was going to comment that 'none of the Quebecers I know are anything like that', but realized all of the Quebecers I know have all voluntarily left the province, so they're probably not representative...
Quote from: Barrister on August 16, 2013, 09:18:01 AM
Quote from: HVC on August 16, 2013, 07:00:30 AM
Quote from: Syt on August 16, 2013, 02:02:26 AM
I work with a girl from Quebec, and she's not anti-Anglo.
that's why she's not in quebec anymore, they kicked her out :P
I was going to comment that 'none of the Quebecers I know are anything like that', but realized all of the Quebecers I know have all voluntarily left the province, so they're probably not representative...
Well some people voluntarily leave for economic opportunities not because they hate their homeland so much. It sounds like Alberta is the place to be because of all your sweet oil wealth.
Quote from: Valmy on August 16, 2013, 09:23:39 AM
Well some people voluntarily leave for economic opportunities not because they hate their homeland so much. It sounds like Alberta is the place to be because of all your sweet oil wealth.
They (and we) should nationalize the oil reserves. No more free money for Katmai. :mad:
Viper and grallon are alike?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 15, 2013, 08:30:35 PM
Is condescending obnoxiousness really a "political persuasion"?
No, that's just being French.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 15, 2013, 06:27:49 PM
In my experience, 1/3. The other 2/3 are like GF, Rex, Oex and Zoupa. :P
I am nationalist myself too.
One would imagine patriotism is something American would understand - maybe not cave rats like Raz but the others should be able to grasp the concept.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on August 16, 2013, 11:14:39 AM
One would imagine patriotism is something American would understand - maybe not cave rats like Raz but the others should be able to grasp the concept.
G.
If it isn't California or NYC, let it sink into the ocean!
And I'm a statist, and find separatism in a utopia like Canada to be so stupid as to be monstrously evil.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 16, 2013, 10:13:49 AM
Viper and grallon are alike?
Generally no. But if you have been reading some of Viper's posts over the last couple days you might be forgiven if you thought Grallon had hacked his account.
Quote from: Grallon on August 16, 2013, 11:14:39 AM
One would imagine patriotism is something American would understand - maybe not cave rats like Raz but the others should be able to grasp the concept.
G.
Yeah, but in American terms, Parti Quebecois is a bunch of Jefferson Davis wannabes.
Quote from: dps on August 17, 2013, 06:20:50 PM
Yeah, but in American terms, Parti Quebecois is a bunch of Jefferson Davis wannabes.
You don't need to be a PQ car carrying member to be patriotic. Do you think the GOP members watching Fox News are the only ones with patriotic feelings in the US?
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2013, 07:34:12 PM
Do you think the GOP members watching Fox News are the only ones with patriotic feelings in the US?
Wait, according to them or according to someone with a brain?
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2013, 07:34:12 PM
Quote from: dps on August 17, 2013, 06:20:50 PM
Yeah, but in American terms, Parti Quebecois is a bunch of Jefferson Davis wannabes.
You don't need to be a PQ car carrying member to be patriotic. Do you think the GOP members watching Fox News are the only ones with patriotic feelings in the US?
Patriots in the country seldom wish to destroy it.
Quote from: Grallon on August 16, 2013, 11:14:39 AM
One would imagine patriotism is something American would understand - maybe not cave rats like Raz but the others should be able to grasp the concept.
Ethnic nationalism is a fringe concept in the US.
Viva Califas!
Viva Aztlan!
Quote from: PDH on August 17, 2013, 08:04:46 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2013, 07:34:12 PM
Do you think the GOP members watching Fox News are the only ones with patriotic feelings in the US?
Wait, according to them or according to someone with a brain?
according to them, they are the only ones. Just like many PQ supporters seems to think, actually ;)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 17, 2013, 09:55:13 PM
Quote from: Grallon on August 16, 2013, 11:14:39 AM
One would imagine patriotism is something American would understand - maybe not cave rats like Raz but the others should be able to grasp the concept.
Ethnic nationalism is a fringe concept in the US.
there's no practical difference between american patriotism and quebec nationalism. Quebec nationalism isn't "ethnic" by nature, more cultural and territorial. I'd say it's inclusive, but for those to who it's an insult to be called Québécois.
You can adapt to a culture. You can learn a language. You can be a part of a society. Or you can make the willing choice of living apart. Like the Shafia family did, never accepting their daughters tolerance of occidental culture. But it's a choice you make.
However, when it comes to ethnic nationalism, such as practiced by KKK and other racist groups, you can't chose to be of another skin color or ethnic background.
If some people can not see the difference between Quebec nationalists and KKK, I can not do anything for you. I am not the one to cure blindness, especially when it is voluntary.
"L'argent et les votes ethniques"
Quebec nationalism is about as exclusionary as you can get.
Quote from: Neil on August 17, 2013, 10:17:27 PM
"L'argent et les votes ethniques"
Quebec nationalism is about as exclusionary as you can get.
Ramblings from one drunk guy who resigned from his job the day after. In Canada, such a politician would be given a job at the PMO or the Senate.
Let's make comparisons:
Anti-Quebec sentiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Quebec_sentiment)
QuoteGraham Fraser, an English Canadian journalist noted for his sympathy for Quebec, has tempered both sides. "This phenomenon (of English Canadian Francophobia) exists, I do not doubt it; I have read enough of Alberta Report to know that there are people that think bilingualism is a conspiracy against English Canadians to guarantee jobs for Quebecers — who are all bilingual, anyway.", he wrote. "I have heard enough call-in radio shows to know that these sentiments of fear and rage are not confined to the Canadian west. But I do not think these anti-francophone prejudices dominate the Canadian culture."[110] Fraser, in fact, was himself named as Canada's new Official Languages Commissioner in September 2006.
Even Stephen Harper things that Jane Wong's piece was not just "a simple critic of Quebec's policies".
And you got the reports of the OCOL about compliance with the law on official languages and the status of French in Canada. Year after years, it seems the same to me.
http://www.ocol-clo.gc.ca/html/publications_e.php (http://www.ocol-clo.gc.ca/html/publications_e.php)
I will never understand these insistance at keeping two official languages yet doing everything to undermine its application. Wouldn't it be so simpler for Canada to ditch the policy and stop pretending they care?
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2013, 10:14:24 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 17, 2013, 09:55:13 PM
Quote from: Grallon on August 16, 2013, 11:14:39 AM
One would imagine patriotism is something American would understand - maybe not cave rats like Raz but the others should be able to grasp the concept.
Ethnic nationalism is a fringe concept in the US.
there's no practical difference between american patriotism and quebec nationalism. Quebec nationalism isn't "ethnic" by nature, more cultural and territorial. I'd say it's inclusive, but for those to who it's an insult to be called Québécois.
You can adapt to a culture. You can learn a language. You can be a part of a society. Or you can make the willing choice of living apart. Like the Shafia family did, never accepting their daughters tolerance of occidental culture. But it's a choice you make.
However, when it comes to ethnic nationalism, such as practiced by KKK and other racist groups, you can't chose to be of another skin color or ethnic background.
If some people can not see the difference between Quebec nationalists and KKK, I can not do anything for you. I am not the one to cure blindness, especially when it is voluntary.
I'm an American, and fairly patriotic, and I don't feel insulted when my countrymen speak Spanish or French so clearly there is a difference.
A better question would be: How many people from Alberta are like Neil and BB?
Also, upthread when people were talking about Zoupa: Can you really say a nigga from Orleans represents Quebec? That's like taking a typical English, dropping him in Mississippi, and asking him his opinions on "dusky" people.
Quote from: Fireblade on August 17, 2013, 11:03:34 PM
A better question would be: How many people from Alberta are like Neil and BB?
Also, upthread when people were talking about Zoupa: Can you really say a nigga from Orleans represents Quebec? That's like taking a typical English, dropping him in Mississippi, and asking him his opinions on "dusky" people.
Neil is definitely one of a kind.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 17, 2013, 10:35:48 PM
I'm an American, and fairly patriotic, and I don't feel insulted when my countrymen speak Spanish or French so clearly there is a difference.
And nobody was talking about patriotism towards Canada you moron. :rolleyes:
-----
Well at least Viper is beginning to talk about willful blindness... so perhaps he's beginning to understand what myself and others have understood a long time ago.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on August 18, 2013, 08:24:32 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 17, 2013, 10:35:48 PM
I'm an American, and fairly patriotic, and I don't feel insulted when my countrymen speak Spanish or French so clearly there is a difference.
And nobody was talking about patriotism towards Canada you moron. :rolleyes:
-----
Well at least Viper is beginning to talk about willful blindness... so perhaps he's beginning to understand what myself and others have understood a long time ago.
G.
I'm struggling to see the relevance here.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 18, 2013, 08:57:08 AM
I'm struggling to see the relevance here.
Well, duh, it's a thread about Canada. :P
Quote from: Grallon on August 18, 2013, 08:24:32 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 17, 2013, 10:35:48 PM
I'm an American, and fairly patriotic, and I don't feel insulted when my countrymen speak Spanish or French so clearly there is a difference.
And nobody was talking about patriotism towards Canada you moron. :rolleyes:
And that's where my comment about Jefferson Davis comes from. The Civil War wasn't
just about slavery (though obviously it was mostly about slavery); it was also about whether a person's primary alligiance was to the state they were from, or to the U.S. as a whole. Same thing here--is your primary alligiance to the province, or to Canada? If the former, the Davis comparison is spot on.
Quote from: dps on August 18, 2013, 07:42:37 PM
And that's where my comment about Jefferson Davis comes from. The Civil War wasn't just about slavery (though obviously it was mostly about slavery); it was also about whether a person's primary alligiance was to the state they were from, or to the U.S. as a whole. Same thing here--is your primary allegiance to the province, or to Canada? If the former, the Davis comparison is spot on.
Canada is the political construct (a federation) my country (socially, culturally, linguistically) is currently a member of. Naturally my allegiance is first and foremost to Quebec, my own country.
You shouldn't confuse the United States with Canada. With the former you have one country with subunits expressing regional variations on a number of topics; while with the latter you have 2 countries stuck in bed with each other by the vagaries of History; *and* by the fact that both are neighbors of the same giant...
One could almost say that being anti-Quebec is an affirmation of being Canadian (for them) since denying Quebec's national existence is like strengthening Canada's - particularly when facing the American giant.
Maddeningly there's a (rather large) number of our own people - such as Viper - who keep sitting on the fence - never choosing sides - thus generating the permanent feeling of frustration (felt by a majority of Quebecers - who do feel different) of never being strong enough to force the other 'bed partner' to acknowledge us as a separate entity. It is a form of collective schizophrenia we have endured for a long time now.
G.
I often wonder if the Brits regret the Quebec Act.
Quote from: Grallon on August 18, 2013, 08:22:15 PM
Quote from: dps on August 18, 2013, 07:42:37 PM
And that's where my comment about Jefferson Davis comes from. The Civil War wasn't just about slavery (though obviously it was mostly about slavery); it was also about whether a person's primary alligiance was to the state they were from, or to the U.S. as a whole. Same thing here--is your primary allegiance to the province, or to Canada? If the former, the Davis comparison is spot on.
Canada is the political construct (a federation) my country (socially, culturally, linguistically) is currently a member of. Naturally my allegiance is first and foremost to Quebec, my own country.
You shouldn't confuse the United States with Canada. With the former you have one country with subunits expressing regional variations on a number of topics; while with the latter you have 2 countries stuck in bed with each other by the vagaries of History; *and* by the fact that both are neighbors of the same giant...
It's not confusion on my part--it was the historical position of a great many southerners in 1860-61. Men like Robert E. Lee would have said that the U.S. was a construct (after all, it was founded by 13 separate colonies joining together) and that he was a Virginian, moreso than an American.
Quote from: dps on August 18, 2013, 09:02:13 PM
It's not confusion on my part--it was the historical position of a great many southerners in 1860-61. Men like Robert E. Lee would have said that the U.S. was a construct (after all, it was founded by 13 separate colonies joining together) and that he was a Virginian, moreso than an American.
Yet, they were all speaking the same language, they all shared the same origins and the same common founding myth (the revolution). The gulf between them was not fundamental - it was merely ideological - and thus circumscribed.
Interestingly, it is quite telling of the differences between Americans and Canadians that you guys went to war over ' relative trivialities' while we didn't over much more profound issues.
G.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on August 18, 2013, 08:54:20 PM
I often wonder if the Brits regret the Quebec Act.
Certainly. That's why they had Lord Durham, investigate the situation, conclude French Canadians were inferior, and then proclaim the Act of Union because the best thing that could happen to us would be to assimilate to the British culture:
Quote
Recommendations Durham recommended that Upper (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Canada) and Lower Canada (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Canada) be united into one province. He also encouraged immigration to Canada from Britain, to overwhelm the existing numbers of French Canadians with the hope of assimilating them into British culture.[1] The freedoms granted to the French Canadians under the Royal Proclamation of 1763 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Proclamation_of_1763) and the Quebec Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Act) of 1774 should also be rescinded; according to Lord Durham this would eliminate the possibility of future rebellions. The French Canadians did not necessarily have to give up their religion and language entirely, but their culture could not be protected at the expense of what Durham considered a more progressive British culture.
The proposed merger would also benefit Upper Canada as the construction of canals led to a considerable debt load; while access to the former Lower Canada fiscal surplus would allow that debt to be erased. He also recommended responsible government, in which the governor general would be a figurehead and the legislative assembly would hold a great deal of power. In the responsible government, the legislative assembly would be elected by the people. The party with majority would hold power and as long as they held support, they would keep power. However, this recommendation was not accepted and the Province of Canada would not get responsible government for another decade.
And the Act of Union itself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Union_%281840%29)
Quote from: Grallon on August 18, 2013, 09:15:42 PM
Interestingly, it is quite telling of the differences between Americans and Canadians that you guys went to war over ' relative trivialities' while we didn't over much more profound issues.
Prior to 1860, the army was heavily decentralized, each State already had its own militia and its own regiments even if technically under the Feds responsibility. We did not have an army here, nor did we have any permanent militia. There was no real military tradition in Canada, except for the British soldiers&officers who would emigrate here.
And to avoid anything american, they made sure the officers were english. The Vandoos only exists since 1922. By then, there weren't any chances of rebellion.
Quote from: viper37 on August 18, 2013, 09:27:39 PM
Certainly. That's why they had Lord Durham, investigate the situation, conclude French Canadians were inferior, and then proclaim the Act of Union because the best thing that could happen to us would be to assimilate to the British culture:
The French came to that conclusion as well.
America is ready to take on the White Man's Burden by relieving our northern brothers of their troublesome Quebec province. I guarantee that within a generation, we will breed out the frog and turn them into overweight, under-educated working-class drones. :)
Quote from: Grallon on August 18, 2013, 09:15:42 PM
Yet, they were all speaking the same language, they all shared the same origins and the same common founding myth (the revolution). The gulf between them was not fundamental - it was merely ideological - and thus circumscribed.
Interestingly, it is quite telling of the differences between Americans and Canadians that you guys went to war over ' relative trivialities' while we didn't over much more profound issues.
Language is far more trivial than ideas.
Quote from: Maximus on August 18, 2013, 11:45:53 PM
Quote from: Grallon on August 18, 2013, 09:15:42 PM
Yet, they were all speaking the same language, they all shared the same origins and the same common founding myth (the revolution). The gulf between them was not fundamental - it was merely ideological - and thus circumscribed.
Interestingly, it is quite telling of the differences between Americans and Canadians that you guys went to war over ' relative trivialities' while we didn't over much more profound issues.
Language is far more trivial than ideas.
And a hell of a lot more trivial than human chattel slavery.
Quote from: dps on August 19, 2013, 05:22:56 AM
Quote from: Maximus on August 18, 2013, 11:45:53 PM
Language is far more trivial than ideas.
And a hell of a lot more trivial than human chattel slavery.
Language is fundamental to some peoples' identity - and identity, its survival, its protection, its continuation - are anything but trivial. You both express that point of view because your own native language isn't under siege. By the same token it's been a big fad in France, for many years now, to use all sorts of english words and expressions - they feel secure enough to do so. See my point?
In any case we will not give up who we are to please foreigners. And if that makes us racists and tribalists and whatever other slurs you can come up with then so be it. *shrug*
G.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 17, 2013, 09:55:13 PM
Quote from: Grallon on August 16, 2013, 11:14:39 AM
One would imagine patriotism is something American would understand - maybe not cave rats like Raz but the others should be able to grasp the concept.
Ethnic nationalism is a fringe concept in the US.
Fringe is maybe an overstatement. Given the nature and breadth of opposition to the immigration bill and the continuing popularity of the English as official language cause.
Quote from: Grallon on August 19, 2013, 10:58:45 AM
In any case we will not give up who we are to please foreigners. And if that makes us racists and tribalists and whatever other slurs you can come up with then so be it. *shrug*
It is those who cling to such backward concepts as basing your identity on language that try to get people to change who they are.
Quote from: Maximus on August 19, 2013, 11:15:18 AM
Quote from: Grallon on August 19, 2013, 10:58:45 AM
In any case we will not give up who we are to please foreigners. And if that makes us racists and tribalists and whatever other slurs you can come up with then so be it. *shrug*
It is those who cling to such backward concepts as basing your identity on language that try to get people to change who they are.
that's what the PC-brigade claims here too, but of course they're wrong here too.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 19, 2013, 12:00:16 PM
Quote from: Maximus on August 19, 2013, 11:15:18 AM
Quote from: Grallon on August 19, 2013, 10:58:45 AM
In any case we will not give up who we are to please foreigners. And if that makes us racists and tribalists and whatever other slurs you can come up with then so be it. *shrug*
It is those who cling to such backward concepts as basing your identity on language that try to get people to change who they are.
that's what the PC-brigade claims here too, but of course they're wrong here too.
:console:
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 19, 2013, 12:00:16 PM
that's what the PC-brigade claims here too, but of course they're wrong here too.
Ah the old PC-labeling tactic.
Nope, sorry. It's not the 19th century anymore. People have figured out how useless nationalism is.
Quote from: Maximus on August 19, 2013, 12:35:55 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 19, 2013, 12:00:16 PM
that's what the PC-brigade claims here too, but of course they're wrong here too.
Ah the old PC-labeling tactic.
Nope, sorry. It's not the 19th century anymore. People have figured out how useless nationalism is.
How naively optimistic of you.
Moreover, I'm curious. What do you base your identity on if language is not a component of it?
His identity is completely wrapped up in his being a 5th columnist for the metric system. :P
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 19, 2013, 12:57:45 PM
His identity is completely wrapped up in his being a 5th columnist for the metric system. :P
We have them planted all over the US. One day, in the near future, there will be a referendum to bring civilized measurement and then they will reveal their true might.
Quote from: Agelastus on August 19, 2013, 12:54:51 PM
Moreover, I'm curious. What do you base your identity on if language is not a component of it?
Why is there a need to base one's identity in the first place? Why not just have a stable personality and some basic self-confidence?
Quote from: Maximus on August 19, 2013, 12:35:55 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 19, 2013, 12:00:16 PM
that's what the PC-brigade claims here too, but of course they're wrong here too.
Ah the old PC-labeling tactic.
Nope, sorry. It's not the 19th century anymore. People have figured out how useless nationalism is.
reality disagees with you.
Language is so much a part of identity that even within the same language different groups differentiate their use of language from other groups as a means of distinguishing themselves, of creating and maintaining group-identity. Your erlier post is a prime example of that.
Regardless: if -using your first post again- langauge isn't a basis for identity then all these people migrating to countries where people speak other langages will gladly and enthousiastically adapt. After all, it's only language. Right?!
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 19, 2013, 01:02:39 PM
Why is there a need to base one's identity in the first place? Why not just have a stable personality and some basic self-confidence?
Indeed. Seems like a sign of insecurity.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 19, 2013, 01:08:00 PM
reality disagees with you.
Language is so much a part of identity that even within the same language different groups differentiate their use of language from other groups as a means of distinguishing themselves, of creating and maintaining group-identity.
In backward areas sure.
Quote
Regardless: if -using your first post again- langauge isn't a basis for identity then all these people migrating to countries where people speak other langages will gladly and enthousiastically adapt. After all, it's only language. Right?!
Right. What's your point?
Quote from: Maximus on August 19, 2013, 01:15:30 PM
Quote
Regardless: if -using your first post again- langauge isn't a basis for identity then all these people migrating to countries where people speak other langages will gladly and enthousiastically adapt. After all, it's only language. Right?!
Right. What's your point?
I forget Crazy's main language but I think, if we use the Quebec example, he's saying that it is unreasonable for people who speak English to refuse to learn French and live in Quebec. If language is such a small thing, why do they not adapt?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 19, 2013, 01:02:39 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on August 19, 2013, 12:54:51 PM
Moreover, I'm curious. What do you base your identity on if language is not a component of it?
Why is there a need to base one's identity in the first place? Why not just have a stable personality and some basic self-confidence?
:o
I should base my identity in my sexuality?
Quote from: garbon on August 19, 2013, 01:55:02 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 19, 2013, 01:02:39 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on August 19, 2013, 12:54:51 PM
Moreover, I'm curious. What do you base your identity on if language is not a component of it?
Why is there a need to base one's identity in the first place? Why not just have a stable personality and some basic self-confidence?
:o
I should base my identity in my sexuality?
Are you saying you dont have a stable personality and some basic self-confidence? :hmm:
Quote from: garbon on August 19, 2013, 01:55:02 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 19, 2013, 01:02:39 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on August 19, 2013, 12:54:51 PM
Moreover, I'm curious. What do you base your identity on if language is not a component of it?
Why is there a need to base one's identity in the first place? Why not just have a stable personality and some basic self-confidence?
:o
I should base my identity in my sexuality?
No, your posting style would be more apposite. :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 19, 2013, 01:56:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 19, 2013, 01:55:02 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 19, 2013, 01:02:39 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on August 19, 2013, 12:54:51 PM
Moreover, I'm curious. What do you base your identity on if language is not a component of it?
Why is there a need to base one's identity in the first place? Why not just have a stable personality and some basic self-confidence?
:o
I should base my identity in my sexuality?
Are you saying you dont have a stable personality and some basic self-confidence? :hmm:
:goodboy:
Quote from: mongers on August 19, 2013, 01:59:06 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 19, 2013, 01:55:02 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 19, 2013, 01:02:39 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on August 19, 2013, 12:54:51 PM
Moreover, I'm curious. What do you base your identity on if language is not a component of it?
Why is there a need to base one's identity in the first place? Why not just have a stable personality and some basic self-confidence?
:o
I should base my identity in my sexuality?
No, your posting style would be more apposite. :P
Pot, kettle?
Btw, I actually had meant to say:
I shouldn't base my identity in my sexuality?
:blush:
Quote from: garbon on August 19, 2013, 02:09:16 PM
Btw, I actually had meant to say:
I shouldn't base my identity in my sexuality?
:blush:
Do what you want to do. But if your sense of who you are extends beyond your sexuality, it seems limiting to focus just at that aspect.
:D
I extend about 13 inches beyond my sexuality.
Try exercise and a diet.
Quote from: Maximus on August 19, 2013, 12:35:55 PM
sorry. It's not the 19th century anymore. People have figured out how useless nationalism is.
Nonetheless, the majority is never willing to ditch their language for another and will always resist whenever it feels threatened. Curious, no? Shouldn't it work both ways? Otherwise, it is imperialism. Make the world British and all that ;)
Sure, using a language you are less than perfectly familiar with is hard. There is a resistance to doing hard things. Nothing curious about that. What is curious is the desire to force a particular language use for purposes other than to facilitate communication.
Quote from: Grallon on August 19, 2013, 10:58:45 AM
Quote from: dps on August 19, 2013, 05:22:56 AM
Quote from: Maximus on August 18, 2013, 11:45:53 PM
Language is far more trivial than ideas.
And a hell of a lot more trivial than human chattel slavery.
Language is fundamental to some peoples' identity - and identity, its survival, its protection, its continuation - are anything but trivial. You both express that point of view because your own native language isn't under siege. By the same token it's been a big fad in France, for many years now, to use all sorts of english words and expressions - they feel secure enough to do so. See my point?
In any case we will not give up who we are to please foreigners. And if that makes us racists and tribalists and whatever other slurs you can come up with then so be it. *shrug*
G.
Under siege from from who? Haven't you already given up your national identity? After all, you aren't hardcore Catholic.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 19, 2013, 05:43:37 PM
Under siege from from who? Haven't you already given up your national identity? After all, you aren't hardcore Catholic.
And you aren't a Baptist.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 19, 2013, 01:02:39 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on August 19, 2013, 12:54:51 PM
Moreover, I'm curious. What do you base your identity on if language is not a component of it?
Why is there a need to base one's identity in the first place? Why not just have a stable personality and some basic self-confidence?
Are Isrealis insecure? They insist on having their own country where they are the majority. Once inside the same country with the same laws, I doubt the Palestinian leadership would propose to exterminate all Jews. Not physically, of course, but given that and identity is simple a stable personality and some basic self-confidence, I don't see the problem.
No one warned me about rockets in Canada.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 19, 2013, 02:52:21 PM
But if your sense of who you are extends beyond your sexuality, it seems limiting to focus just at that aspect.
I was once told you can't seperate one's sexual orientation from the rest. And the annual gay pride aims at reminding us that it is something important for many of them. Still don't get that, but I'm at least willing to be open minded.
Lol what, Canada is Hamas now?
Quote from: viper37 on August 19, 2013, 06:30:34 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 19, 2013, 02:52:21 PM
But if your sense of who you are extends beyond your sexuality, it seems limiting to focus just at that aspect.
I was once told you can't seperate one's sexual orientation from the rest. And the annual gay pride aims at reminding us that it is something important for many of them. Still don't get that, but I'm at least willing to be open minded.
:huh:
Gay pride aims to be a party for gay people and a chance to hookup with hot strangers wearing skimpy outfits.
Quote from: HVC on August 19, 2013, 06:31:17 PM
Lol what, Canada is Hamas now?
Hamas is a problem because they have many supporters in the occupied territories and the refugee camps. Once those camps disbanded, once the standard of living for Palestinians and Israelis is similar, these groups will lost a lot of their appeal.
They might however, insist Israel becomes an arab state. Arab language predominance, sharia based laws, no priviledges ot jewish communities when extending settlements, etc, etc. Nothing that self confidence can't overcome :)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 19, 2013, 05:54:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 19, 2013, 05:43:37 PM
Under siege from from who? Haven't you already given up your national identity? After all, you aren't hardcore Catholic.
And you aren't a Baptist.
And?
Quote from: garbon on August 19, 2013, 06:34:27 PM
:huh:
Gay pride aims to be a party for gay people and a chance to hookup with hot strangers wearing skimpy outfits.
I didn't realize it was limited to a single event.
Usually, it's initiation day at college/university that serves this purpose :P
Quote from: garbon on August 19, 2013, 06:29:24 PM
No one warned me about rockets in Canada.
if everyone lives in the same state, with the same rights, why is there needs for rocket?
Quote from: viper37 on August 19, 2013, 06:37:59 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 19, 2013, 06:34:27 PM
:huh:
Gay pride aims to be a party for gay people and a chance to hookup with hot strangers wearing skimpy outfits.
I didn't realize it was limited to a single event.
It isn't - for one there is a whole pride month. Then you got your different types of subgroup prides like leather pride and bear pride.
At any rate though, we've discussed this before. In the West the only purpose of pride is to have a party.
Quote from: viper37 on August 19, 2013, 06:40:25 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 19, 2013, 06:29:24 PM
No one warned me about rockets in Canada.
if everyone lives in the same state, with the same rights, why is there needs for rocket?
I think you should stay away from comparisons as they clearly aren't your strong suit. Sort of like Marti with analogies.
Quote from: viper37 on August 19, 2013, 06:35:12 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 19, 2013, 06:31:17 PM
Lol what, Canada is Hamas now?
Hamas is a problem because they have many supporters in the occupied territories and the refugee camps. Once those camps disbanded, once the standard of living for Palestinians and Israelis is similar, these groups will lost a lot of their appeal.
They might however, insist Israel becomes an arab state. Arab language predominance, sharia based laws, no priviledges ot jewish communities when extending settlements, etc, etc. Nothing that self confidence can't overcome :)
Hamas is a problem because they kill people. The Palestinians living in camps aren't interested in becoming part of Israel. They are interested in their own country.
Quote from: viper37 on August 19, 2013, 06:26:05 PM
Are Isrealis insecure? They insist on having their own country where they are the majority.
They sure as hell were when they created that country.
Quote from: Maximus on August 19, 2013, 07:00:51 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 19, 2013, 06:26:05 PM
Are Isrealis insecure? They insist on having their own country where they are the majority.
They sure as hell were when they created that country.
They still haven't gotten over it. As if the Jewish Mother and Nice Jewish Boy memes weren't insecure enough.
Quote from: garbon on August 19, 2013, 06:42:28 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 19, 2013, 06:40:25 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 19, 2013, 06:29:24 PM
No one warned me about rockets in Canada.
if everyone lives in the same state, with the same rights, why is there needs for rocket?
I think you should stay away from comparisons as they clearly aren't your strong suit. Sort of like Marti with analogies.
They are amusing.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 19, 2013, 06:37:18 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 19, 2013, 05:54:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 19, 2013, 05:43:37 PM
Under siege from from who? Haven't you already given up your national identity? After all, you aren't hardcore Catholic.
And you aren't a Baptist.
And?
You live in a Protestant country. While as in northern Europe this means that most people don't really believe or go to church anymore, they're skipping church, not mass.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 19, 2013, 01:02:39 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on August 19, 2013, 12:54:51 PM
Moreover, I'm curious. What do you base your identity on if language is not a component of it?
Why is there a need to base one's identity in the first place? Why not just have a stable personality and some basic self-confidence?
You realize that you sound like some ultra-right wing crazy going on about how it's a bad thing that weak people can't look after themselves and need a handout, right? Even not taking mental illness into account, you sound like a complete ass when you say things like that.
Guess what, some people don't feel good about themselves. That is completely unavoidable, as we live in societies that are built to grind people down, and there are so many who don't have much to begin with.
Quote from: garbon on August 19, 2013, 06:42:28 PM
I think you should stay away from comparisons as they clearly aren't your strong suit. Sort of like Marti with analogies.
Israelis want their country to be a Jewish state, whith all that implies. Their fear is not physical destruction from the Palestinians, it is cultural domination.
But here, you're all to say it's silly to have group-based differences. It's 19th century, it's a lack of self-confidence, etc, etc.
It seems to apply... oh, I'll use the word "differently", from one state to another. Heck, even among the US, lots of States could merge together. Why don't they? Why even bother with a state level government after all?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 19, 2013, 07:19:13 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 19, 2013, 06:37:18 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 19, 2013, 05:54:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 19, 2013, 05:43:37 PM
Under siege from from who? Haven't you already given up your national identity? After all, you aren't hardcore Catholic.
And you aren't a Baptist.
And?
You live in a Protestant country. While as in northern Europe this means that most people don't really believe or go to church anymore, they're skipping church, not mass.
The single largest denomination in the US is Catholic. :contract: But that's beside the point, Protestantism has never been one of the identifying features of American nationality. On the other hand, Catholicism has long been part of the identity Quebec.
Quote from: viper37 on August 19, 2013, 07:25:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 19, 2013, 06:42:28 PM
I think you should stay away from comparisons as they clearly aren't your strong suit. Sort of like Marti with analogies.
Israelis want their country to be a Jewish state, whith all that implies. Their fear is not physical destruction from the Palestinians, it is cultural domination.
But here, you're all to say it's silly to have group-based differences. It's 19th century, it's a lack of self-confidence, etc, etc.
It seems to apply... oh, I'll use the word "differently", from one state to another. Heck, even among the US, lots of States could merge together. Why don't they? Why even bother with a state level government after all?
:lol: That is hilarious!
Quote from: Razgovory on August 19, 2013, 07:29:43 PM
The single largest denomination in the US is Catholic. :contract: But that's beside the point, Protestantism has never been one of the identifying features of American nationality. On the other hand, Catholicism has long been part of the identity Quebec.
French Catholicism has never had the same fervor as the Mediterraneans.
:secret: France is a Mediterranean country. Besides we were talking about Quebec.
Quote from: viper37 on August 19, 2013, 07:25:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 19, 2013, 06:42:28 PM
I think you should stay away from comparisons as they clearly aren't your strong suit. Sort of like Marti with analogies.
Israelis want their country to be a Jewish state, whith all that implies. Their fear is not physical destruction from the Palestinians, it is cultural domination.
But here, you're all to say it's silly to have group-based differences. It's 19th century, it's a lack of self-confidence, etc, etc.
It seems to apply... oh, I'll use the word "differently", from one state to another. Heck, even among the US, lots of States could merge together. Why don't they? Why even bother with a state level government after all?
I have no idea what you are trying to say. I also don't know why you are discounting out violence in the Middle East.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 19, 2013, 07:38:12 PM
:secret: France is a Mediterranean country. Besides we were talking about Quebec.
Quebec's culture stems from France even more strongly than ours does from Britain.
Quote from: garbon on August 19, 2013, 07:38:17 PM
I have no idea what you are trying to say.
I'm saying that it doesn't seem to be a problem for other countries in the world to base mostly based on one cultural group. Nobody calls them racists. Nobody calls them nazis. When it comes to Quebec, everything seems different. I'm trying to understand why. France has banned most religious symbols to preserve cultural unity. United States had a practice of forced assimilation for all non anglo-saxon ethnic groups until they were made irrelevant. Canada did the same. Nobody calls them nazis for this. Yet, all we do, is ask that people living here learn our language. And we got editorials comparing us to Nazis. We got people complaining about human rights violation given credits in canadian medias. We are called intolerant whenever some non "pure-laine" wacko decides to shoot people.
But it's considered "a valid criticism of Quebec's policies".
Quote
I also don't know why you are discounting out violence in the Middle East.
I'm not. But there does not seem to be any problem with the majority of Israeli-Arabs. I don't see why Israel wouldn't even consider a one state solution, based on mutual respect. Since it's silly to have seperate states for different cultures. Or are you in disagreement with the other comments about ethnic nationalism, 19th century ideology and "all it takes is self confidence" ?
Yeah, a lot of people call Israelis "nazis".
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 19, 2013, 07:48:15 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 19, 2013, 07:38:12 PM
:secret: France is a Mediterranean country. Besides we were talking about Quebec.
Quebec's culture stems from France even more strongly than ours does from Britain.
Quebec lost it's ties to France before the enforced secularism of the French Republic. Though there is an interesting observation here, we hear a lot of whining about British colonialism, but perhaps the problem isn't colonialism but colonialism from the wrong country. Perhaps the Nationalists really just want to be part of France or France Jr rather then have their own unique culture.
French culture has always been relatively secular.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 19, 2013, 08:38:05 PM
French culture has always been relatively secular.
That must be why they had all those crusades.
As opposed to Spain which just had the one.
Quote from: viper37 on August 19, 2013, 08:07:08 PM
United States had a practice of forced assimilation for all non anglo-saxon ethnic groups until they were made irrelevant.
:lmfao:
Quote from: Berkut on August 19, 2013, 09:07:48 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 19, 2013, 08:07:08 PM
United States had a practice of forced assimilation for all non anglo-saxon ethnic groups until they were made irrelevant.
:lmfao:
What? He's right. Well, except for the irrevelant part, you guys never achieved that.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 19, 2013, 09:36:30 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 19, 2013, 09:07:48 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 19, 2013, 08:07:08 PM
United States had a practice of forced assimilation for all non anglo-saxon ethnic groups until they were made irrelevant.
:lmfao:
What? He's right. Well, except for the irrevelant part, you guys never achieved that.
Even if one was to be so generous as to grant his proposition, why is viper so quick to compare his ideas to bigots in Texas and outmoded terrible ideas?
I was going to say something similar about viper's comment, but then i thought to myself, primary and secondary school are mandatory, and English is generally the primary language of instruction, so...
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 19, 2013, 09:36:30 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 19, 2013, 09:07:48 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 19, 2013, 08:07:08 PM
United States had a practice of forced assimilation for all non anglo-saxon ethnic groups until they were made irrelevant.
:lmfao:
What? He's right. Well, except for the irrevelant part, you guys never achieved that.
I wasn't aware my ancestors were forced into assimilation. Assimilation just sort of happened over several generation.
Quote from: viper37 on August 19, 2013, 07:25:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 19, 2013, 06:42:28 PM
I think you should stay away from comparisons as they clearly aren't your strong suit. Sort of like Marti with analogies.
Israelis want their country to be a Jewish state, whith all that implies. Their fear is not physical destruction from the Palestinians, it is cultural domination.
I'd say that they fear both, but the threat of physical destruction is the more immediate threat.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 19, 2013, 09:40:02 PM
I was going to say something similar about viper's comment, but then i thought to myself, primary and secondary school are mandatory, and English is generally the primary language of instruction, so...
Yeah, it was one of those idiotic comments that of course can be defended on some narrow interpretation that has little to do with what was actually said...
To be honest I find the nationalism espoused by grallon and viper to be repulsive, mostly because it's manipulative, two-faced and dishonest. They demand compliance in the official bilingualism from the their anglophone neighbors but have absolutely no interest in that same bilingualism in Quebec. This "bilingualism for you, monolingualism for me" seems inherently dishonest. They seem absolutely paranoid that someone in Anglophone Canada is somewhere being critical of them, yet go on and on about the evil Anglos and their colonial imperialism. One wonders how Quebec managed to maintain it's French language at all in the face of the the overwhelming tyranny of British rule for over two centuries.
We made babies. That's how.
Quote from: garbon on August 19, 2013, 06:41:23 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 19, 2013, 06:37:59 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 19, 2013, 06:34:27 PM
:huh:
Gay pride aims to be a party for gay people and a chance to hookup with hot strangers wearing skimpy outfits.
I didn't realize it was limited to a single event.
It isn't - for one there is a whole pride month. Then you got your different types of subgroup prides like leather pride and bear pride.
At any rate though, we've discussed this before. In the West the only purpose of pride is to have a party.
Can heterosexuals have a party? :(
Don't know, don't care.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 20, 2013, 04:15:21 AM
Can heterosexuals have a party? :(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_pride (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_pride)
Doesn't appear to have caught on.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 20, 2013, 02:48:48 AM
We made babies. That's how.
So do most people, yet many, many languages and cultures have vanished.
Quote from: viper37 on August 19, 2013, 06:26:05 PM
Are Isrealis insecure? They insist on having their own country where they are the majority. Once inside the same country with the same laws, I doubt the Palestinian leadership would propose to exterminate all Jews. Not physically, of course, but given that and identity is simple a stable personality and some basic self-confidence, I don't see the problem.
In an ideal world there could be a single democratic Israelo-Palestinian state where all communities stand on the basis of equality and full political rights, where religion and state are strictly separated and where competition is left to the economic arena. In reality because of the kind atavistic identity politics that dominate the region, the result would probably look more like Lebanon, at best.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 20, 2013, 09:40:14 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 20, 2013, 02:48:48 AM
We made babies. That's how.
So do most people, yet many, many languages and cultures have vanished.
We made more. Average in the 1870-1940 is ~10 among French-Canadians.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 19, 2013, 09:40:02 PM
I was going to say something similar about viper's comment, but then i thought to myself, primary and secondary school are mandatory, and English is generally the primary language of instruction, so...
What does that have to do with "anglo-saxon assimilation"?
Can someone explain what this anglo-saxon culture that every American has been assimilated into is? Without defaulting back to the English language?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 20, 2013, 09:52:05 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 19, 2013, 09:40:02 PM
I was going to say something similar about viper's comment, but then i thought to myself, primary and secondary school are mandatory, and English is generally the primary language of instruction, so...
What does that have to do with "anglo-saxon assimilation"?
Can someone explain what this anglo-saxon culture that every American has been assimilated into is? Without defaulting back to the English language?
Well language seems to be the defining factor for at least Viper on what this "unique" culture is in Quebec.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 20, 2013, 09:46:19 AM
Quote from: viper37 on August 19, 2013, 06:26:05 PM
Are Isrealis insecure? They insist on having their own country where they are the majority. Once inside the same country with the same laws, I doubt the Palestinian leadership would propose to exterminate all Jews. Not physically, of course, but given that and identity is simple a stable personality and some basic self-confidence, I don't see the problem.
In an ideal world there could be a single democratic Israelo-Palestinian state where all communities stand on the basis of equality and full political rights, where religion and state are strictly separated and where competition is left to the economic arena. In reality because of the kind atavistic identity politics that dominate the region, the result would probably look more like Lebanon, at best.
Kind of like the type of society Canada has created which is threatened by the separatists who insist on governing based on the politics of identity - for want of a better phrase. Tribalism might be a better term - something Grallon has already said is a label he wears with some pride.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 20, 2013, 09:46:23 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 20, 2013, 09:40:14 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 20, 2013, 02:48:48 AM
We made babies. That's how.
So do most people, yet many, many languages and cultures have vanished.
We made more. Average in the 1870-1940 is ~10 among French-Canadians.
I thought the British ran the schools. If they enforced English over 200 years it's hard to see how having more children would prevent the complete erosion of French. It's hard to imagine that a people with no political rights, a people who are but slaves to the English monarchs can maintain their culture.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 20, 2013, 10:06:58 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 20, 2013, 09:46:23 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 20, 2013, 09:40:14 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 20, 2013, 02:48:48 AM
We made babies. That's how.
So do most people, yet many, many languages and cultures have vanished.
We made more. Average in the 1870-1940 is ~10 among French-Canadians.
I thought the British ran the schools. If they enforced English over 200 years it's hard to see how having more children would prevent the complete erosion of French. It's hard to imagine that a people with no political rights, a people who are but slaves to the English monarchs can maintain their culture.
Outside of Quebec, the British ran the schools. Inside Quebec, they were in the charge of the Catholic church for francophones. That's one of the component of the Quebec Act or maybe the Constitutionnal act of 1791.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 20, 2013, 10:05:54 AM
Kind of like the type of society Canada has created which is threatened by the separatists who insist on governing based on the politics of identity - for want of a better phrase. Tribalism might be a better term - something Grallon has already said is a label he wears with some pride.
Are you really this fucking stupid?! Or is this just for show?
G.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 20, 2013, 09:46:23 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 20, 2013, 09:40:14 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 20, 2013, 02:48:48 AM
We made babies. That's how.
So do most people, yet many, many languages and cultures have vanished.
We made more. Average in the 1870-1940 is ~10 among French-Canadians.
So Anglo-Saxons are K-strategists who devote resources to fewer, higher-quality offspring. So what? :frog: :P
Quote from: Grallon on August 20, 2013, 10:58:34 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 20, 2013, 10:05:54 AM
Kind of like the type of society Canada has created which is threatened by the separatists who insist on governing based on the politics of identity - for want of a better phrase. Tribalism might be a better term - something Grallon has already said is a label he wears with some pride.
Are you really this fucking stupid?! Or is this just for show?
G.
As you are on the side of tribalism and intolerance I am very comfortable throwing that question right back at you.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 20, 2013, 10:46:33 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 20, 2013, 10:06:58 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 20, 2013, 09:46:23 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 20, 2013, 09:40:14 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 20, 2013, 02:48:48 AM
We made babies. That's how.
So do most people, yet many, many languages and cultures have vanished.
We made more. Average in the 1870-1940 is ~10 among French-Canadians.
I thought the British ran the schools. If they enforced English over 200 years it's hard to see how having more children would prevent the complete erosion of French. It's hard to imagine that a people with no political rights, a people who are but slaves to the English monarchs can maintain their culture.
Outside of Quebec, the British ran the schools. Inside Quebec, they were in the charge of the Catholic church for francophones. That's one of the component of the Quebec Act or maybe the Constitutionnal act of 1791.
Ah... so perhaps the tyranny wasn't so complete. Viper compared the plight of Quebec to that of African Americans in the 19th century. Was there anything like self-governance in Quebec? Did the people have any kind of civil rights?
That depends on when. The British gave that & took that different rights at different time until 1931.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 19, 2013, 01:02:39 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on August 19, 2013, 12:54:51 PM
Moreover, I'm curious. What do you base your identity on if language is not a component of it?
Why is there a need to base one's identity in the first place? Why not just have a stable personality and some basic self-confidence?
:rolleyes:
Well, I always thought that you were more than just a nameless blank slate, myself; it's sad to be proved wrong about this. :cry:
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 20, 2013, 11:15:42 AM
As you are on the side of tribalism and intolerance I am very comfortable throwing that question right back at you.
Tribalism & intolerance according to your lights. *Snort* Who am I kidding!? You're on the 'right' side aren't you? So trying to talk some sense into you is like trying to have a rational discussion with a demented Muslim Salafist.
G.
Quote from: Agelastus on August 20, 2013, 05:52:35 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 19, 2013, 01:02:39 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on August 19, 2013, 12:54:51 PM
Moreover, I'm curious. What do you base your identity on if language is not a component of it?
Why is there a need to base one's identity in the first place? Why not just have a stable personality and some basic self-confidence?
:rolleyes:
Well, I always thought that you were more than just a nameless blank slate, myself; it's sad to be proved wrong about this. :cry:
Yeah sorry but that won't work well when you try and fling mud at one of the pillars of our community.
Btw, Joan, I was watching Twin Peaks last night and they talked about picking up a bottle of sparkling wine. I was like what an immersion breaker, as if these people would distinguish between technical champagne and sparkling wine.
Quote from: Grallon on August 20, 2013, 06:56:16 PM
Tribalism & intolerance according to your lights. *Snort* Who am I kidding!? You're on the 'right' side aren't you? So trying to talk some sense into you is like trying to have a rational discussion with a demented Muslim Salafist.
You're the one clinging to a backwards language and culture. Its people like you who force multiculturalism on the civilized world, and in so doing destroyed it.
Quote from: Neil on August 15, 2013, 11:10:24 PM
Viper est bien un raciste, oui? C'est normal au Québec, car ils sont tous des nazis.
Corrigé pour toi !
Quote from: Neil on August 20, 2013, 11:31:06 PM
You're the one clinging to a backwards language and culture. Its people like you who force multiculturalism on the civilized world, and in so doing destroyed it.
:yeahright: This is a bit much - even by your own considerable trolling standards.
G.
From the Anglo point of view, indulging your Quebec nationalism is multiculturalism.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 20, 2013, 09:52:05 AM
What does that have to do with "anglo-saxon assimilation"?
Can someone explain what this anglo-saxon culture that every American has been assimilated into is? Without defaulting back to the English language?
Love of Reality Television, Coca-Cola, Disney, Adam Sandler movies, muscle cars, Pringles, Starbucks, The Olive Garden...
;)
In the 19th Century Richard Henry Pratt forced captured Plains Indians to learn English, useful trades, and Protestant religion and to wear western style clothes in order that they would assimilate into American culture. Viper is wrong in that forced assimilation was not the norm; most immigrants learned English and adopted western style dress to get ahead. Forced assimilation did occur with African slaves and some natives; so it's unfair to completely dismiss it.
Quote from: Savonarola on August 26, 2013, 02:18:51 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 20, 2013, 09:52:05 AM
What does that have to do with "anglo-saxon assimilation"?
Can someone explain what this anglo-saxon culture that every American has been assimilated into is? Without defaulting back to the English language?
Love of Reality Television, Coca-Cola, Disney, Adam Sandler movies, muscle cars, Pringles, Starbucks, The Olive Garden...
;)
In the 19th Century Richard Henry Pratt forced captured Plains Indians to learn English, useful trades, and Protestant religion and to wear western style clothes in order that they would assimilate into American culture. Viper is wrong in that forced assimilation was not the norm; most immigrants learned English and adopted western style dress to get ahead. Forced assimilation did occur with African slaves and some natives; so it's unfair to completely dismiss it.
Such forced assimilation of native peoples went on until the mid to late 20th century.
Quote from: Barrister on August 26, 2013, 02:23:31 PM
Such forced assimilation of native peoples went on until the mid to late 20th century.
You talking about the US or Canada?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 26, 2013, 02:29:50 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 26, 2013, 02:23:31 PM
Such forced assimilation of native peoples went on until the mid to late 20th century.
You talking about the US or Canada?
I'm more familiar with Canada, but I'm led to believe the same kinds of things were going on in the US till the 60s or so. Native languages or ceremonies being banned, forced learning of english, various means used to encourage natives to leave reserves.
Like in Eurabia today. Btw, do you guys ever ask permission before channeling slarg?
What I want to know, are there enough people in Quebec that think like Grallon to make the Charter of Values politically saleable in Quebec?
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 26, 2013, 02:45:24 PM
What I want to know, are there enough people in Quebec that think like Grallon to make the Charter of Values politically saleable in Quebec?
Reports are that 65% of Francophones approve of it - however when asked to list their priorities it is something like 15th.
It's the kind of thing that unless you're a lawyer and think about the constitution every day it sounds good if you don't think very hard about it.
The reaction has been negative enough that the PQ is certainly not going to pass this suggestion as-is (which was likely why it was launched as a trial balloon to begin with). But they are almost certainly gong to pass something that discriminates against sikhs and muslims, but now they'll present themselves as being more "moderate" because it doesn't go as far as they had first suggested.
Quote from: Barrister on August 26, 2013, 03:03:02 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 26, 2013, 02:45:24 PM
What I want to know, are there enough people in Quebec that think like Grallon to make the Charter of Values politically saleable in Quebec?
Reports are that 65% of Francophones approve of it - however when asked to list their priorities it is something like 15th.
That is what I was wondering. If only 65% of Francophone support it to some degree that means that 35% of Francophones along with close to 100% of everyone else doesnt. How does that help the separatist cause? Aren't immigrants more than likely to oppose separation if they fear that a separate Quebec would become an even more intolerant place to live than it is now?
Not every non francophone is a Muslim.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 26, 2013, 03:15:35 PM
Not every non francophone is a Muslim.
No, but I am willing to bet that non francophones have no reason to be discriminatory either. Although I have to admit I dont fully understand it in the francophones other than being a crass appeal to the worst aspects of a tribalist instinct that Grallon often expresses.
:rolleyes:
In the last decade, we made too many compromises, that's how way to back out of them.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 26, 2013, 04:41:42 PM
:rolleyes:
In the last decade, we made too many compromises, that's how way to back out of them.
I am not sure what you mean. The government ought to have cracked down on religious freedom a long time ago?
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 26, 2013, 04:42:38 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 26, 2013, 04:41:42 PM
:rolleyes:
In the last decade, we made too many compromises, that's how way to back out of them.
I am not sure what you mean. The government ought to have cracked down on religious freedom a long time ago?
We have a tendency to accept any demand made by a religious group.
Orthodox jews of some denomination or an other can request to the DMV that they never have to deal with women clerk, test giver, etc. We accepted that. I find that totally unacceptable.
Other Jews had the YMCA tint is windows because it they could see women in the gym. We accepted that. That too was unacceptable.
Why is it unacceptable to you. And isnt there a human rights tribunal of some sort that can make those kinds of judgments?
Because it undermines the most important value of Quebec society, the equality between men & women.
No? Does BC have that?
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 26, 2013, 05:35:47 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 26, 2013, 04:42:38 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 26, 2013, 04:41:42 PM
:rolleyes:
In the last decade, we made too many compromises, that's how way to back out of them.
I am not sure what you mean. The government ought to have cracked down on religious freedom a long time ago?
We have a tendency to accept any demand made by a religious group.
Orthodox jews of some denomination or an other can request to the DMV that they never have to deal with women clerk, test giver, etc. We accepted that. I find that totally unacceptable.
Other Jews had the YMCA tint is windows because it they could see women in the gym. We accepted that. That too was unacceptable.
I don't find the DMV thing acceptable, either, but the other issue seems to be something that should be solely between the Y and the Jewish groups--no one else, including the government, should be involved at all, IMO.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 26, 2013, 05:43:23 PM
Because it undermines the most important value of Quebec society, the equality between men & women.
No? Does BC have that?
BC has what everyone else has - reasonable accomodation.
That's our problem, we dont stand up.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 26, 2013, 05:57:49 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 26, 2013, 05:43:23 PM
Because it undermines the most important value of Quebec society, the equality between men & women.
No? Does BC have that?
BC has what everyone else has - reasonable accomodation.
That's wholly unreasonable accomodation. That's insane levels of accomodation. You tried that in America, you'd get your ass kicked, man.
Maybe you guys aren't so great after all. Another hero has feet of clay. :(
Quote from: Ideologue on August 27, 2013, 12:30:18 AM
That's wholly unreasonable accomodation. That's insane levels of accomodation.
That's Canada for you in a nutshell - then English part of it. They'd like to see us become as stupidly accomodating as they are and resent it when we refuse this kind of demeaning behavior. That's when the accusations of racism and what not start being flung our way. And don't forget Canada' state religion - the multiculturalism bullshit. They have that in lieu of a collective identity - no wonder they cling to it so desperatly.
G.
It is very sad to see the direction the Quebec government is going with this legislation.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 27, 2013, 12:30:18 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 26, 2013, 05:57:49 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 26, 2013, 05:43:23 PM
Because it undermines the most important value of Quebec society, the equality between men & women.
No? Does BC have that?
BC has what everyone else has - reasonable accomodation.
That's wholly unreasonable accomodation. That's insane levels of accomodation. You tried that in America, you'd get your ass kicked, man.
Maybe you guys aren't so great after all. Another hero has feet of clay. :(
Dude. The issue was (surprise!) blown waaaaay out of proportion.
The true story is that a bunch of Hassids asked the YMCA to tint its windows so as not to 'distract' their students next door, and they initially said yes; them members of the YMCA complained, and the Y changed its decision to "no".
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2007/03/19/qc-ymcawindows20070318.html
Note that this had exactly nothing to do with the government, human rights tribunals, or anything - it was a private decision made by an organization in response to a
request - which, ultimately, they
refused because their members found it obnoxious. The system ... works? :hmm:
But the requests was made.
Usually it said that Freedom of Religion isn't freedom from religion. It might be right. We're looking into getting that freedom from them.
Altho, we need to wait a little bit before arguing all of this. We need to wait and find out what the government will propose, not just rumors & feelers.
I'm ok with no sign of religion to public employees. I'm not sure it's a good idea to include Teachers & Daycare workers.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 27, 2013, 08:46:57 AM
But the requests was made.
I hate to be difficult - but so the fuck what?
Is "making requests" something you need to regulate now? Be saved from the horrors of ... people having the balls to
politely ask for stuff?! The horror! The horror! :hmm:
You guys would have a case if it was the goverment
forcing the Y to tint windows in response to some Human Rights Tribunal ruling or court decision.
As it is, the whole thing is a non-issue, and if the absolute worst example of the majority being "oppressed" by religious minorities is someone making such a request (and, BTW,
being turned down), does it really justify all this angst?
QuoteUsually it said that Freedom of Religion isn't freedom from religion. It might be right. We're looking into getting there.
Altho, we need to wait a little bit before arguing all of this. We need to wait and find out what the government will propose, not just rumors & feelers.
I'm ok with no sign of religion to public employees. I'm not sure it's a good idea to include Teachers & Daycare workers.
That's why I'm limiting myself to saying I don't like the direction this is going. It appears from what little is known that this isn't about 'freedom from religion', but about putting the boots to minorities under the thin guise of secularization. We will see when the details are known. The whole notion of legislation specifically to protect the majority from being annoyed by minorities is fucked up, in my opinion.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 27, 2013, 08:46:57 AM
But the requests was made.
Usually it said that Freedom of Religion isn't freedom from religion. It might be right. We're looking into getting that freedom from them.
Really? The government is going to forbid one private group from asking another private group to take some action. Have you guys gone insane in your zeal to protect yourself from people that wont vote for separation.
I don't know if that's what the government will do. We'll find out soon enough, you will disagree then.
That has nothing to do with it. :rolleyes: Don't be a viper/Liberal party member & bring everything back to that.
Quote from: Malthus on August 27, 2013, 09:01:17 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 27, 2013, 08:46:57 AM
But the requests was made.
I hate to be difficult - but so the fuck what?
Is "making requests" something you need to regulate now? Be saved from the horrors of ... people having the balls to politely ask for stuff?! The horror! The horror! :hmm:
When religious groups are concern? I'd say yes.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 27, 2013, 08:46:57 AM
I'm ok with no sign of religion to public employees.
Why? Why is this a good idea?
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 27, 2013, 09:15:01 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 27, 2013, 09:01:17 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 27, 2013, 08:46:57 AM
But the requests was made.
I hate to be difficult - but so the fuck what?
Is "making requests" something you need to regulate now? Be saved from the horrors of ... people having the balls to politely ask for stuff?! The horror! The horror! :hmm:
When religious groups are concern? I'd say yes.
And I'd say that's nuts.
Who cares whether the group simply asking for stuff is a "religious" one or not? They aren't demanding stuff as a legal right, so it isn't an issue.
Oh, and do you remember what the term "YMCA" stands for? "Young Men's
Christian Association". The horror! :D
How would one go about legislating away private groups ability to ask other private groups to do things, religious or otherwise?
This might be one of the most bizarre things I've ever heard of - I keep thinking I must be missing something.
Quote from: Barrister on August 27, 2013, 09:20:27 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 27, 2013, 08:46:57 AM
I'm ok with no sign of religion to public employees.
Why? Why is this a good idea?
I don't know how to rationilize it, nor how to write out good compelling argument why that would be good idea.
But, in a general principal way, I am always in the favor of LESS religion in every sphere of society.
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2013, 09:24:06 AM
How would one go about legislating away private groups ability to ask other private groups to do things, religious or otherwise?
This might be one of the most bizarre things I've ever heard of - I keep thinking I must be missing something.
Actually, the Quebec legislation isn't (as far as I know) actually intended to legislate away the ability of religious groups to ask for stuff. They will still be just as able to ask for stuff as before.
Rather, the supporters of the legislation are using the fact that religious groups have in the past asked for stuff as proof that religious folks are a serious problem with Canadian society, which needs "fixing" by legislation harrasing such folks over what they wear.
I know this argument lacks somewhat in logic, but there it is.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 26, 2013, 05:43:23 PM
Because it undermines the most important value of Quebec society, the equality between men & women.
No? Does BC have that?
I thought the most important value was speaking French and maintaining French culture. Has Quebec always had equality between men and woman?
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 27, 2013, 09:30:59 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 27, 2013, 09:20:27 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 27, 2013, 08:46:57 AM
I'm ok with no sign of religion to public employees.
Why? Why is this a good idea?
I don't know how to rationilize it, nor how to write out good compelling argument why that would be good idea.
But, in a general principal way, I am always in the favor of LESS religion in every sphere of society.
Even if it tramples human rights?
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 27, 2013, 09:15:01 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 27, 2013, 09:01:17 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 27, 2013, 08:46:57 AM
But the requests was made.
I hate to be difficult - but so the fuck what?
Is "making requests" something you need to regulate now? Be saved from the horrors of ... people having the balls to politely ask for stuff?! The horror! The horror! :hmm:
When religious groups are concern? I'd say yes.
Wow. That's.... fucked up. Religious groups are organizations of like-minded people. That's it. Are you then going to legislate it so that Mensa can't request anything? Or a private university?
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 27, 2013, 09:30:59 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 27, 2013, 09:20:27 AM
Why? Why is this a good idea?
I don't know how to rationilize it, nor how to write out good compelling argument why that would be good idea.
But, in a general principal way, I am always in the favor of LESS religion in every sphere of society.
Because there isn't a good compelling argument why that would be a good idea. :blink:
You are welcome to choose for yourself to have less religion in your life. You do not, however, get to choose for OTHERS how much religion they have in THEIR lives. That's crossing a line that just shouldn't be crossed. So long as what they do does not hinder or endanger others, you should really be keeping yourself to yourself on this one.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 26, 2013, 02:45:24 PM
What I want to know, are there enough people in Quebec that think like Grallon to make the Charter of Values politically saleable in Quebec?
I knew it would be brought here.
It's hard to tell if it's politically saleable, as we have yet to see what is it they are actually proposing. Lots of things have surface in the media. The PQ did not deny or confirm anything at first, then hinted at something big.
All the while, speculation goes on. Opponents of the PQ call them racists, nazis, as usual. PQ supporters call them brave heroes, defenders of our values.
We'll know when it comes. Then, I'll see if it's good or bad.
Imho, the PQ is just appealing to the hard line extremists, the blue-necks of the province. They know it won't pass, they know it will be rejected by all opposition party, they know the majority of the population will most likely be against them, but they need that tiny minority's support if they hope to cling to at least official opposition status at the next election. They just need a few more votes in some critical ridings to get a dozen more MPs.
In the end, what we will get won't be much more different than what the Conservatives did at the Federal level.
Now, what I want, is simply to stop accepting every single weird idea just because it's supposedly freedom of religion.
No knife in school, no religious education where creationism is thought, no accomodating someone who doesn't want a female doctor or clerk. We wouldn't accomodate someone who doesn't want a black gay doctor to treat him at the ER, so this is nothing different.
As for religious symbols, well, the state should be neutral and not take any part in the religion of its employees. I'll clash with most people, including BB (sorry), but I still believe religion should be a private thing and has no place in the public sphere. Government employees, theoritically, are forbidden to do any politics, wear any political symbols (say, a Liberal party pin, or a Che t-shirt I guess ;) ). In practice, we all know many Federal employees actively support the Liberal Party of Quebec and Canada, particularly in the Ottawa-Gatineau area and do it on their work time (Chuck Guitté wasn't alone, you know). But in theory, such things are forbidden.
So I don't really see a difference between politics and religion. I don't mind someone working in his office, mostly alone, wearing an hijab, a cross, kipa, kirpan, whatever, but imho, when it comes to public, the face of the government should be religion-neutral.
And of course, no face covering while in the street, or driving, or flying. The message must be clear if we don't want anymore honor crimes like the Shaffia.
Quote from: merithyn on August 27, 2013, 10:17:27 AM
You are welcome to choose for yourself to have less religion in your life. You do not, however, get to choose for OTHERS how much religion they have in THEIR lives. That's crossing a line that just shouldn't be crossed. So long as what they do does not hinder or endanger others, you should really be keeping yourself to yourself on this one.
but if they impose their religion on me by requiring a prayer before any event, how are they not choosing for me?
Quote from: merithyn on August 27, 2013, 10:17:27 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 27, 2013, 09:30:59 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 27, 2013, 09:20:27 AM
Why? Why is this a good idea?
I don't know how to rationilize it, nor how to write out good compelling argument why that would be good idea.
But, in a general principal way, I am always in the favor of LESS religion in every sphere of society.
Because there isn't a good compelling argument why that would be a good idea. :blink:
You are welcome to choose for yourself to have less religion in your life. You do not, however, get to choose for OTHERS how much religion they have in THEIR lives. That's crossing a line that just shouldn't be crossed. So long as what they do does not hinder or endanger others, you should really be keeping yourself to yourself on this one.
Yes, we are trying to define what is and is not hinder.
I don't get to pick anything because if I did you wouldn't be happy. But as a society, we might or not, choose to do so. It's the Quebec the Quiet revolution built, secular society, and no one wants to go back to the Great Darkness.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 27, 2013, 09:14:04 AM
That has nothing to do with it. :rolleyes: Don't be a viper/Liberal party member & bring everything back to that.
You dont see at least some link between the separatist concern about their vote being diluted away by immigrants coming to the Province and a piece of legislation that targets the beliefs of immigrants who separatists dont want to attract to the Province?
Quote from: viper37 on August 27, 2013, 10:24:29 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 27, 2013, 10:17:27 AM
You are welcome to choose for yourself to have less religion in your life. You do not, however, get to choose for OTHERS how much religion they have in THEIR lives. That's crossing a line that just shouldn't be crossed. So long as what they do does not hinder or endanger others, you should really be keeping yourself to yourself on this one.
but if they impose their religion on me by requiring a prayer before any event, how are they not choosing for me?
How is their prayer harming you in any way? So you stand there for a few minutes listening to what you term as dribble, and then move on. It's no different than listening to a speech that you think is a waste of time before an event.
You guys attach far too much to the term "religion" as an excuse to ban things. If I wear a head-scarf to keep my hair in place - or because I don't want to brush it that day - will you then forbid me from doing so because of a religion elsewhere that attributes significance to doing so? I have a lovely gold necklace that I love, that happens to have a cross on it along with some other geometric symbols. Will I be forbidden from wearing it to work simply because of the cross on it? What if I prefer a female doctor in the ER to deal with a rape? Will that be forbidden to? Or is only a preference based on religion that offends your delicate sensibilities?
So long as my
actions do not impinge on you or yours, then the government has no right to dictate to me what I can or cannot do.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 10:36:10 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 27, 2013, 09:14:04 AM
That has nothing to do with it. :rolleyes: Don't be a viper/Liberal party member & bring everything back to that.
You dont see at least some link between the separatist concern about their vote being diluted away by immigrants coming to the Province and a piece of legislation that targets the beliefs of immigrants who separatists dont want to attract to the Province?
Yes, viper.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 27, 2013, 10:49:10 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 10:36:10 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 27, 2013, 09:14:04 AM
That has nothing to do with it. :rolleyes: Don't be a viper/Liberal party member & bring everything back to that.
You dont see at least some link between the separatist concern about their vote being diluted away by immigrants coming to the Province and a piece of legislation that targets the beliefs of immigrants who separatists dont want to attract to the Province?
Yes, viper.
Ok, not sure why you dont think there is such a link. Seems painfully obvious to me.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 27, 2013, 09:30:59 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 27, 2013, 09:20:27 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 27, 2013, 08:46:57 AM
I'm ok with no sign of religion to public employees.
Why? Why is this a good idea?
I don't know how to rationilize it, nor how to write out good compelling argument why that would be good idea.
If you find yourself unable to rationalize or create a compelling argument for your position, then perhaps you should re-examine your position and the irrational and non-compelling reasons you have for holding it?
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 10:50:36 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 27, 2013, 10:49:10 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 10:36:10 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 27, 2013, 09:14:04 AM
That has nothing to do with it. :rolleyes: Don't be a viper/Liberal party member & bring everything back to that.
You dont see at least some link between the separatist concern about their vote being diluted away by immigrants coming to the Province and a piece of legislation that targets the beliefs of immigrants who separatists dont want to attract to the Province?
Yes, viper.
Ok, not sure why you dont think there is such a link. Seems painfully obvious to me.
Because, the separatists aren't actually much of a separatist party anymore.
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2013, 10:55:07 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 27, 2013, 09:30:59 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 27, 2013, 09:20:27 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 27, 2013, 08:46:57 AM
I'm ok with no sign of religion to public employees.
Why? Why is this a good idea?
I don't know how to rationilize it, nor how to write out good compelling argument why that would be good idea.
If you find yourself unable to rationalize or create a compelling argument for your position, then perhaps you should re-examine your position and the irrational and non-compelling reasons you have for holding it?
Maybe but then we'll go back to having Viper & CC argue about nothing, so I won't tell Languish.
Quote from: merithyn on August 27, 2013, 10:17:27 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 27, 2013, 09:30:59 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 27, 2013, 09:20:27 AM
Why? Why is this a good idea?
I don't know how to rationilize it, nor how to write out good compelling argument why that would be good idea.
But, in a general principal way, I am always in the favor of LESS religion in every sphere of society.
Because there isn't a good compelling argument why that would be a good idea. :blink:
You are welcome to choose for yourself to have less religion in your life. You do not, however, get to choose for OTHERS how much religion they have in THEIR lives. That's crossing a line that just shouldn't be crossed. So long as what they do does not hinder or endanger others, you should really be keeping yourself to yourself on this one.
when you work for the government you're a representative of that government. That means you don't get to proselytise for your particular religion, sportsclub, music, sexual oriëntation or any other personal opinions. You get to do that in your own free time, not when your working.
Quote from: viper37 on August 27, 2013, 10:23:33 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 26, 2013, 02:45:24 PM
What I want to know, are there enough people in Quebec that think like Grallon to make the Charter of Values politically saleable in Quebec?
As for religious symbols, well, the state should be neutral and not take any part in the religion of its employees. I'll clash with most people, including BB (sorry), but I still believe religion should be a private thing and has no place in the public sphere. Government employees, theoritically, are forbidden to do any politics, wear any political symbols (say, a Liberal party pin, or a Che t-shirt I guess ;) ). In practice, we all know many Federal employees actively support the Liberal Party of Quebec and Canada, particularly in the Ottawa-Gatineau area and do it on their work time (Chuck Guitté wasn't alone, you know). But in theory, such things are forbidden.
So I don't really see a difference between politics and religion. I don't mind someone working in his office, mostly alone, wearing an hijab, a cross, kipa, kirpan, whatever, but imho, when it comes to public, the face of the government should be religion-neutral.
And of course, no face covering while in the street, or driving, or flying. The message must be clear if we don't want anymore honor crimes like the Shaffia.
So okay if you are gay as long as you keep it a secret?
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 27, 2013, 11:15:25 AM
when you work for the government you're a representative of that government. That means you don't get to proselytise for your particular religion, sportsclub, music, sexual oriëntation or any other personal opinions. You get to do that in your own free time, not when your working.
I agree proselytising would go over the line. But I fail to see how wearing clothing required by a religious belief is proselytising.
In your view if there was an event the employee had to attend on behalf of the government which serviced ham sandwiches that a person who does not eat ham because of their religious beliefs would still have to eat it so as not to proselytise?
It seems there is utility in keeping these non-dominant language groups "oppressed". Left to pursue their agendas unhindered they would establish quite restrictive societies!
Quote from: garbon on August 27, 2013, 11:38:26 AM
It seems there is utility in keeping these non-dominant language groups "oppressed". Left to pursue their agendas unhindered they would establish quite restrictive societies!
:lol:
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 11:38:25 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 27, 2013, 11:15:25 AM
when you work for the government you're a representative of that government. That means you don't get to proselytise for your particular religion, sportsclub, music, sexual oriëntation or any other personal opinions. You get to do that in your own free time, not when your working.
I agree proselytising would go over the line. But I fail to see how wearing clothing required by a religious belief is proselytising.
In your view if there was an event the employee had to attend on behalf of the government which serviced ham sandwiches that a person who does not eat ham because of their religious beliefs would still have to eat it so as not to proselytise?
And what if a male government worker mentioned his husband?
Quote from: merithyn on August 27, 2013, 10:44:40 AM
How is their prayer harming you in any way? So you stand there for a few minutes listening to what you term as dribble, and then move on. It's no different than listening to a speech that you think is a waste of time before an event.
How is no prayer harming you in any way? Does the prayer has any medicinal effect? No. Does it has any psychological effect? No. Does it make you more efficient at your work? No.
I want to hear metal music before a city counsil. I'm told it offends others who are not fan of that music.
Quote
You guys attach far too much to the term "religion" as an excuse to ban things. If I wear a head-scarf to keep my hair in place - or because I don't want to brush it that day - will you then forbid me from doing so because of a religion elsewhere that attributes significance to doing so?
In your work, do you have a specific dress code? When I worked in government, blue jeans were forbidden. Metallica t-shirts were forbidden too. Shirt, neck-tie, proper pants. Nobody asked me if my religion required blue jeans and Iron Maiden t-shirts.
Was I discriminated against?
Quote
I have a lovely gold necklace that I love, that happens to have a cross on it along with some other geometric symbols. Will I be forbidden from wearing it to work simply because of the cross on it? What if I prefer a female doctor in the ER to deal with a rape? Will that be forbidden to? Or is only a preference based on religion that offends your delicate sensibilities?
You're asking me or you're asking what the law will be?
In my opinion, at the ER, you don't get to choose. I can't chose wich doctor I see at the ER, they won't even tell me when a specific doctor will be there (and I understand the reasoning).
If you want to choose whom you're seeing, than you should go to your family doctor, at his office.
Quote
So long as my actions do not impinge on you or yours, then the government has no right to dictate to me what I can or cannot do.
but you're the one defining "impinge" and what impinge on me or not. I don't get to say so... Maybe I am offended at seeing you clothed and I prefer to see women naked (like the Ferengi in Star Trek). Will you walk along naked to not offend me? Don't answer, you'll offend me :P
I like your line of reasoning, and I could even agree with it... except we don't have the same definition as to what is impinging on someone. Orthodox Jews are offended by women in bathing suits, so they asks that women do not use the bathing pool near their community. They are offended. So we comply, and we block the windows to the gym, we bar women from this pool. Muslim men are offended if women bathe in the same pool as men. So we have seperate hours for men and women, at twice the costs.
Where does this bullshit stops? Men&women are equals, it's the way of the land over here. Why shoud we tolerate middle age behavior because some religious people are offended? My grandpa never tolerated his daughters in bikini, but once they were married, he stopped talking about it, it was no longer his business. My grandpa was a very religious man, but he never seek to impose his values on the outside, never required that others adapt to please him.
Quote from: garbon on August 27, 2013, 11:42:56 AM
And what if a male government worker mentioned his husband?
Well obviously he would have to get a divorce if that didnt conform to the governments view of how people should act.
It's always the French speaking western people who have a bug about language and other cultures. Quebec, France, the Walloons. Wonder why that is.
Quote from: HVC on August 27, 2013, 11:49:05 AM
It's always the French speaking western people who have a bug about language and other cultures. Quebec, France, the Walloons. Wonder why that is.
To be fair we also have bigots as Viper likes to point out as twisted justification for his behavior. Its just that no one sensible trucks with them.
Quote from: HVC on August 27, 2013, 11:49:05 AM
It's always the French speaking western people who have a bug about language and other cultures. Quebec, France, the Walloons. Wonder why that is.
I don't know that I've even heard the Walloons going on about other cultures. The Flemish on the other hand...
Quote from: garbon on August 27, 2013, 11:52:01 AM
Quote from: HVC on August 27, 2013, 11:49:05 AM
It's always the French speaking western people who have a bug about language and other cultures. Quebec, France, the Walloons. Wonder why that is.
To be fair we also have bigots as Viper likes to point out as twisted justification for his behavior. Its just that no one sensible trucks with them.
yes, but those bigots don't get national and legislative support.
Quote from: merithyn on August 27, 2013, 10:44:40 AM
How is their prayer harming you in any way? So you stand there for a few minutes listening to what you term as dribble, and then move on. It's no different than listening to a speech that you think is a waste of time before an event.
As the others have said there should be no religion in public - it's private so you keep it private - unobstrusive - invisible.
Quote from: merithyn on August 27, 2013, 10:44:40 AM
You guys attach far too much to the term "religion" as an excuse to ban things. ...
I've already explained why our history has predisposed us to take that stance.
Quote from: merithyn on August 27, 2013, 10:44:40 AM
So long as my actions do not impinge on you or yours, then the government has no right to dictate to me what I can or cannot do.
A very American reply ;) Contrary to you guys we (mostly) don't see the government as some sort of ennemy out to get us... In this case its power is intended to be used to counteract the debilitating effects of Canadian multiculturalism - by marking out clear lines of what is acceptable or not when it comes to religion in the public sphere.
Naturally we woulnd't have to go through all these legal hooplas if those who govern us had the courage to deal with the problem at its source: immigration from sub standard and/or traditionalist societies <_<
G.
Quote from: Malthus on August 27, 2013, 09:36:03 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2013, 09:24:06 AM
How would one go about legislating away private groups ability to ask other private groups to do things, religious or otherwise?
This might be one of the most bizarre things I've ever heard of - I keep thinking I must be missing something.
Actually, the Quebec legislation isn't (as far as I know) actually intended to legislate away the ability of religious groups to ask for stuff. They will still be just as able to ask for stuff as before.
Rather, the supporters of the legislation are using the fact that religious groups have in the past asked for stuff as proof that religious folks are a serious problem with Canadian society, which needs "fixing" by legislation harrasing such folks over what they wear.
I know this argument lacks somewhat in logic, but there it is.
you have a good grasp of the situation. It's not a serious problem, not now, but it may become one, as in Europe, if we don't do anything. Now, doing something and going way overboard... there is lattitude.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 11:38:25 AM
In your view if there was an event the employee had to attend on behalf of the government which serviced ham sandwiches that a person who does not eat ham because of their religious beliefs would still have to eat it so as not to proselytise?
What happens now is that the government cafeteria will be required to serve Halal food for everyone if one employee request it claiming his religious rights are violated.
Quote from: Grallon on August 27, 2013, 11:57:32 AM
Naturally we woulnd't have to go through all these legal hooplas if those who govern us had the courage to deal with the problem at its source: immigration from sub standard and/or traditionalist societies <_<
Naturally we wouldn't have to go through all these legal hooplas if those who governed had had the courage to deal with the problem at its source: the french-speaking peoples of Lower Canada.
Lord Carleton's early experiment in multiculturalism isn't looking so good now, eh?
Quote from: garbon on August 27, 2013, 11:52:01 AM
Quote from: HVC on August 27, 2013, 11:49:05 AM
It's always the French speaking western people who have a bug about language and other cultures. Quebec, France, the Walloons. Wonder why that is.
To be fair we also have bigots as Viper likes to point out as twisted justification for his behavior. Its just that no one sensible trucks with them.
instead of language issues, you have race and sexual orientation issue. Especially in your own political party. And the Mexican "problem" down south, with all those border patrol, Arizona's stance on illegal immigration, etc, etc. I really don't see how the American way is better. Different, but not better. Certainly not more tolerant of difference.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 27, 2013, 11:15:25 AM
when you work for the government you're a representative of that government. That means you don't get to proselytise for your particular religion, sportsclub, music, sexual oriëntation or any other personal opinions. You get to do that in your own free time, not when your working.
Oh, I absolutely agree!
Luckily, wearing certain jewelry or headwear != proselytizing.
Quote from: viper37 on August 27, 2013, 12:07:14 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 27, 2013, 11:52:01 AM
Quote from: HVC on August 27, 2013, 11:49:05 AM
It's always the French speaking western people who have a bug about language and other cultures. Quebec, France, the Walloons. Wonder why that is.
To be fair we also have bigots as Viper likes to point out as twisted justification for his behavior. Its just that no one sensible trucks with them.
instead of language issues, you have race and sexual orientation issue. Especially in your own political party. And the Mexican "problem" down south, with all those border patrol, Arizona's stance on illegal immigration, etc, etc. I really don't see how the American way is better. Different, but not better. Certainly not more tolerant of difference.
The difference is you cry about intolerance to your own group and then spew intolerance for other groups.
Quote from: Maximus on August 27, 2013, 12:05:12 PM
Naturally we wouldn't have to go through all these legal hooplas if those who governed had had the courage to deal with the problem at its source: the french-speaking peoples of Lower Canada.
Well, you would all be Americans by now, and some of your former compatriots did not like that idea at all, so they gave some token rights to francophone, making them believe they would build a better country than the savages living down south. We did make something different, but the jury is still on if it's better or not.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 27, 2013, 08:46:57 AM
But the requests was made.
And this is why there can never be any agreement with Quebec. It's not just that they're assholes, it's that they're totalitarians. So long as a francophone is allowed to wield power in Canada, we'll never be safe.
Quote from: viper37 on August 27, 2013, 12:08:41 PM
Quote from: Maximus on August 27, 2013, 12:05:12 PM
Naturally we wouldn't have to go through all these legal hooplas if those who governed had had the courage to deal with the problem at its source: the french-speaking peoples of Lower Canada.
Well, you would all be Americans by now, and some of your former compatriots did not like that idea at all, so they gave some token rights to francophone, making them believe they would build a better country than the savages living down south. We did make something different, but the jury is still on if it's better or not.
Max is an American. :huh:
Quote from: viper37 on August 27, 2013, 12:04:42 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 11:38:25 AM
In your view if there was an event the employee had to attend on behalf of the government which serviced ham sandwiches that a person who does not eat ham because of their religious beliefs would still have to eat it so as not to proselytise?
What happens now is that the government cafeteria will be required to serve Halal food for everyone if one employee request it claiming his religious rights are violated.
Really?
Everyone will have to eat halal food if 1 person asks for it?
I am skeptical.
Quote from: viper37 on August 27, 2013, 11:44:32 AM
I like your line of reasoning, and I could even agree with it... except we don't have the same definition as to what is impinging on someone. Orthodox Jews are offended by women in bathing suits, so they asks that women do not use the bathing pool near their community. They are offended. So we comply, and we block the windows to the gym, we bar women from this pool. Muslim men are offended if women bathe in the same pool as men. So we have seperate hours for men and women, at twice the costs.
Where does this bullshit stops? Men&women are equals, it's the way of the land over here. Why shoud we tolerate middle age behavior because some religious people are offended? My grandpa never tolerated his daughters in bikini, but once they were married, he stopped talking about it, it was no longer his business. My grandpa was a very religious man, but he never seek to impose his values on the outside, never required that others adapt to please him.
The things that you're talking about were done by private individuals by private companies. They're allowed to make those changes if they want. The government has no business requiring - or forbidding - them, however. That's where the line should be drawn.
Quote from: viper37 on August 27, 2013, 12:08:41 PM
Quote from: Maximus on August 27, 2013, 12:05:12 PM
Naturally we wouldn't have to go through all these legal hooplas if those who governed had had the courage to deal with the problem at its source: the french-speaking peoples of Lower Canada.
Well, you would all be Americans by now, and some of your former compatriots did not like that idea at all, so they gave some token rights to francophone, making them believe they would build a better country than the savages living down south. We did make something different, but the jury is still on if it's better or not.
I'm actually in favour of it, I think. My point is Franco-Canada only exists because of an official multicultural policy that was not common in its time.
It is the height of irony that those who benefited the most from that multicultural policy now wish to deny that benefit to others.
Quote from: HVC on August 27, 2013, 11:55:43 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 27, 2013, 11:52:01 AM
Quote from: HVC on August 27, 2013, 11:49:05 AM
It's always the French speaking western people who have a bug about language and other cultures. Quebec, France, the Walloons. Wonder why that is.
To be fair we also have bigots as Viper likes to point out as twisted justification for his behavior. Its just that no one sensible trucks with them.
yes, but those bigots don't get national and legislative support.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/25/ariz-senators-immigration-town-hall/2697087/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_barrier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_River_Rebellion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manitoba_Schools_Question#Abolition_of_French_as_an_Official_Language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_17
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%9368%29
Quote from: garbon on August 27, 2013, 12:09:33 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 27, 2013, 12:08:41 PM
Quote from: Maximus on August 27, 2013, 12:05:12 PM
Naturally we wouldn't have to go through all these legal hooplas if those who governed had had the courage to deal with the problem at its source: the french-speaking peoples of Lower Canada.
Well, you would all be Americans by now, and some of your former compatriots did not like that idea at all, so they gave some token rights to francophone, making them believe they would build a better country than the savages living down south. We did make something different, but the jury is still on if it's better or not.
Max is an American. :huh:
Technically, he's both. :sleep:
Quote from: viper37 on August 27, 2013, 12:13:31 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 27, 2013, 11:55:43 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 27, 2013, 11:52:01 AM
Quote from: HVC on August 27, 2013, 11:49:05 AM
It's always the French speaking western people who have a bug about language and other cultures. Quebec, France, the Walloons. Wonder why that is.
To be fair we also have bigots as Viper likes to point out as twisted justification for his behavior. Its just that no one sensible trucks with them.
yes, but those bigots don't get national and legislative support.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/25/ariz-senators-immigration-town-hall/2697087/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_barrier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_River_Rebellion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manitoba_Schools_Question#Abolition_of_French_as_an_Official_Language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_17
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%9368%29
Today. He meant today.
Quote from: Maximus on August 27, 2013, 12:13:04 PM
I'm actually in favour of it, I think. My point is Franco-Canada only exists because of an official multicultural policy that was not common in its time.
I understood your point, but it is wrong. Multiculturalism was a policy devised by Canada to ignore its French-citizens demands by drowning them in the mass and making all cultures equals, instead of having the concept of 2 founding nations as the francophones always believed.
French got rights whenever America was a threat. In 1775, we were given the Quebec Act, making us officiall citizens of the British Empire with full rights, instead of half slaves with barely no rights. Those rights were only partially respected over the years, and as the American threat diminished rapidly after the war of 1812, they were totally renegated by the Act of Union and Quebec had to pay English Canada's debt.
Toward the end of the US Civil War, when there were constant threats of US invasion, were the British were tired of defending the colony and when the Fenians did invade Canada, when it was clear that without Quebec all British colonies would become American States, than we got serious about discussing the creation of a country with theoritical full rights to french speaking citizens and a semi-official bilingualism occured.
Between then an the 70s, immigration wasn't really an issue, the few immigrants we had came from the French speaking part of Europe, and there were no guiding principles from the Federal gov to the effect that speaking French in Canada wasn't a necessity. It changed with Trudeau coming to power, considering everyone in Quebec to be semi-intelligent cave men, barely able to talk. I think only the Americans were worst than Quebecers in his eyes.
Quote from: merithyn on August 27, 2013, 12:16:29 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 27, 2013, 12:13:31 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 27, 2013, 11:55:43 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 27, 2013, 11:52:01 AM
Quote from: HVC on August 27, 2013, 11:49:05 AM
It's always the French speaking western people who have a bug about language and other cultures. Quebec, France, the Walloons. Wonder why that is.
To be fair we also have bigots as Viper likes to point out as twisted justification for his behavior. Its just that no one sensible trucks with them.
yes, but those bigots don't get national and legislative support.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/25/ariz-senators-immigration-town-hall/2697087/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_barrier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_River_Rebellion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manitoba_Schools_Question#Abolition_of_French_as_an_Official_Language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_17
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%9368%29
Today. He meant today.
Heh, I thought he was listing all the reasons we now know governments should not engage in this kind of behaviour.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 12:27:02 PM
Quote from: merithyn on August 27, 2013, 12:16:29 PM
Today. He meant today.
Heh, I thought he was listing all the reasons we now know governments should not engage in this kind of behaviour.
That works, too.
Quote from: viper37 on August 27, 2013, 12:22:25 PM
Multiculturalism was a policy devised by Canada to ignore its French-citizens demands by drowning them in the mass and making all cultures equals, instead of having the concept of 2 founding nations as the francophones always believed.
I realize that is the line you are supposed to parrot, but allowing french to remain as official language is multiculturalism too. Once you (rightly) discard the nationalist notion that each country can only have one official culture it makes no sense to stop on the notion that a country can have only two official cultures.
Quote from: merithyn on August 27, 2013, 12:16:29 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 27, 2013, 12:13:31 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 27, 2013, 11:55:43 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 27, 2013, 11:52:01 AM
Quote from: HVC on August 27, 2013, 11:49:05 AM
It's always the French speaking western people who have a bug about language and other cultures. Quebec, France, the Walloons. Wonder why that is.
To be fair we also have bigots as Viper likes to point out as twisted justification for his behavior. Its just that no one sensible trucks with them.
yes, but those bigots don't get national and legislative support.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/25/ariz-senators-immigration-town-hall/2697087/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_barrier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_River_Rebellion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manitoba_Schools_Question#Abolition_of_French_as_an_Official_Language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_17
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%9368%29
Today. He meant today.
some of these still have effect today. The Southern US States switched to Republican votes after the Civil Rights movement, never forgiving the Democrats. We had a news piece on this some time ago.
The indian removal act still has consequences, in US & Canada. Indians still have to live in reservations or lose their indian status. In Canada, if they live the reservation and marry a white woman, they can,t come back to their reservation, among other things. I doubt things are better in the US.
Barring French education has had for consequence than there aren't many French people outside of Quebec today, so it's a good excuse for many provinces to reduce services to their french speaking population (see British Columbia recently).
Another example, in Canada's dearest province, would be this one:
http://www.standard-freeholder.com/2012/03/03/protesters-rally-over-hospitals-language-hiring-policy
Requiring bilingual applicant is bad. Having French above English is bad:
QuoteSpokesperson Beth Trudeau called attention to the placement of French above English on signs along highways in Eastern Ontario. "That illusion creates that feeling that I am in the minority and I should not speak up," she said.
This is multi-culturalism for the Canadians. English predominant = Multicularlism. French predominant = racism.
And this organization here:
http://languagefairness.net/
The tone is very similar to what you'll hear from KKK and other extreme right groups. Except the target is French speaking people with "too much power". Same discourse as the Reform Party, now merged into the Conservative Party of Canada and still an influent wing in the party.
Again, this is alright for Canada. English only is ok. English first is ok. English bigger is ok. This is bilinguism for most of Canada. And it is a consequence of past decisions.
Quote from: Maximus on August 27, 2013, 12:31:19 PM
I realize that is the line you are supposed to parrot, but allowing french to remain as official language is multiculturalism too. Once you (rightly) discard the nationalist notion that each country can only have one official culture it makes no sense to stop on the notion that a country can have only two official cultures.
As we see in Canada, having more than one official culture clearly doesn't work. English Canadians don't want anything to do with French, in Quebec english speakers physically isolate themselves from the french speaking riff-raff, in western provinces they drag their feet until there's a court order (and even then), in Quebec many don't want a single word of English everywhere...
Imho, Quebec will have no choice but to assimilate to the anglo-saxon culture or leave the country. There's simply no future for a French speaking province in Canada, and nothing I've read here has convinced me that I am wrong, even if I don't consider every single one of you to be a racist. But that is not for today.
Quote from: viper37 on August 27, 2013, 12:43:47 PM
As we see in Canada, having more than one official culture clearly doesn't work. English Canadians don't want anything to do with French
That is incorrect
Quote from: viper37 on August 27, 2013, 12:43:47 PM
As we see in Canada, having more than one official culture clearly doesn't work. English Canadians don't want anything to do with French, in Quebec english speakers physically isolate themselves from the french speaking riff-raff, in western provinces they drag their feet until there's a court order (and even then), in Quebec many don't want a single word of English everywhere...
Imho, Quebec will have no choice but to assimilate to the anglo-saxon culture or leave the country. There's simply no future for a French speaking province in Canada, and nothing I've read here has convinced me that I am wrong, even if I don't consider every single one of you to be a racist. But that is not for today.
That's 'cause, as we see in this thread, you all are assholes. :uffda:
Quote from: Maximus on August 27, 2013, 12:44:59 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 27, 2013, 12:43:47 PM
As we see in Canada, having more than one official culture clearly doesn't work. English Canadians don't want anything to do with French
That is incorrect
Dont burst the bubble. Creating and us vs them mentality is required.
Quote from: viper37 on August 27, 2013, 12:36:25 PM
The indian removal act still has consequences, in US & Canada. Indians still have to live in reservations or lose their indian status. In Canada, if they live the reservation and marry a white woman, they can,t come back to their reservation, among other things. I doubt things are better in the US.
As an aside, the section bolded has nothing to do with the Indian Act. Individual bands control their own housing policy. So what many individual bands have said is that band housing is for band members only, and if someone has a white partner they will not be allowed to live in band housing.
Quote
Another example, in Canada's dearest province, would be this one:
http://www.standard-freeholder.com/2012/03/03/protesters-rally-over-hospitals-language-hiring-policy
Requiring bilingual applicant is bad. Having French above English is bad:
QuoteSpokesperson Beth Trudeau called attention to the placement of French above English on signs along highways in Eastern Ontario. "That illusion creates that feeling that I am in the minority and I should not speak up," she said.
This is multi-culturalism for the Canadians. English predominant = Multicularlism. French predominant = racism.
And this organization here:
http://languagefairness.net/
The tone is very similar to what you'll hear from KKK and other extreme right groups. Except the target is French speaking people with "too much power". Same discourse as the Reform Party, now merged into the Conservative Party of Canada and still an influent wing in the party.
Again, this is alright for Canada. English only is ok. English first is ok. English bigger is ok. This is bilinguism for most of Canada. And it is a consequence of past decisions.
Wow - you're really getting yourself worked up over staffing policy at the local hospital in Cornwall, Ontario? Really?
The actual article does contain the quote you mentioned, which seems silly. The rest of the article talks about requiring nurses to be bilingual. Whether they're correct or not they do have a point. Requiring bilingual nurses means unilingual people can't work there, and in a tight job market for nurses might make it hard to attract and keep nurses.
Now maybe that's just the price you have to pay in order to have a bilingual hospital, but it's not as silly as complaining about the order on highway signs.
Quote from: Malthus on August 27, 2013, 08:42:01 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 27, 2013, 12:30:18 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 26, 2013, 05:57:49 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 26, 2013, 05:43:23 PM
Because it undermines the most important value of Quebec society, the equality between men & women.
No? Does BC have that?
BC has what everyone else has - reasonable accomodation.
That's wholly unreasonable accomodation. That's insane levels of accomodation. You tried that in America, you'd get your ass kicked, man.
Maybe you guys aren't so great after all. Another hero has feet of clay. :(
Dude. The issue was (surprise!) blown waaaaay out of proportion.
The true story is that a bunch of Hassids asked the YMCA to tint its windows so as not to 'distract' their students next door, and they initially said yes; them members of the YMCA complained, and the Y changed its decision to "no".
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2007/03/19/qc-ymcawindows20070318.html
Note that this had exactly nothing to do with the government, human rights tribunals, or anything - it was a private decision made by an organization in response to a request - which, ultimately, they refused because their members found it obnoxious. The system ... works? :hmm:
Oh, well, nevermind. I was just going by what Fox said since CC didn't contradict him.
What about the Orthodox Jews and the female clerks thing?
Quote from: Ideologue on August 27, 2013, 01:09:54 PM
Oh, well, nevermind. I was just going by what Fox said since CC didn't contradict him.
What about the Orthodox Jews and the female clerks thing?
I have no idea. I chose the example that was easy to google, to see what the actual story was.
Finding it was bullshit, I didn't bother with the other one.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 27, 2013, 01:09:54 PM
Oh, well, nevermind. I was just going by what Fox said since CC didn't contradict him.
Wait, unless I contract every stupid thing said in this thread you take it as truth?
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 01:27:47 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 27, 2013, 01:09:54 PM
Oh, well, nevermind. I was just going by what Fox said since CC didn't contradict him.
Wait, unless I contract every stupid thing said in this thread you take it as truth?
Well, I do. In every thread.
Now I believe all sorts of absurd stuff
and I blame you. :mad:
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 01:27:47 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 27, 2013, 01:09:54 PM
Oh, well, nevermind. I was just going by what Fox said since CC didn't contradict him.
Wait, unless I contract every stupid thing said in this thread you take it as truth?
It's not exactly a pleading, but I figured if it was total bullshit you'd have called him on it, is all. -_-
Quote from: viper37 on August 27, 2013, 12:43:47 PM
Imho, Quebec will have no choice but to assimilate to the anglo-saxon culture or leave the country. There's simply no future for a French speaking province in Canada, and nothing I've read here has convinced me that I am wrong, even if I don't consider every single one of you to be a racist. But that is not for today.
Canada isn't our country Viper - it's theirs - when will you get that into your thick head!?
G.
Quote from: Malthus on August 27, 2013, 01:34:02 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 01:27:47 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 27, 2013, 01:09:54 PM
Oh, well, nevermind. I was just going by what Fox said since CC didn't contradict him.
Wait, unless I contract every stupid thing said in this thread you take it as truth?
Well, I do. In every thread.
Now I believe all sorts of absurd stuff and I blame you. :mad:
Fair warning, I am not going to deal with Meri anymore.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 01:55:51 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 27, 2013, 01:34:02 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 01:27:47 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 27, 2013, 01:09:54 PM
Oh, well, nevermind. I was just going by what Fox said since CC didn't contradict him.
Wait, unless I contract every stupid thing said in this thread you take it as truth?
Well, I do. In every thread.
Now I believe all sorts of absurd stuff and I blame you. :mad:
Fair warning, I am not going to deal with Meri anymore.
:lol:
Damn it, CC. You unleashed Viper.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 27, 2013, 02:05:29 PM
Damn it, CC. You unleashed Viper.
I enjoy his views regarding what he believes I think. Huge entertainment value there.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 01:55:51 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 27, 2013, 01:34:02 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 01:27:47 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 27, 2013, 01:09:54 PM
Oh, well, nevermind. I was just going by what Fox said since CC didn't contradict him.
Wait, unless I contract every stupid thing said in this thread you take it as truth?
Well, I do. In every thread.
Now I believe all sorts of absurd stuff and I blame you. :mad:
Fair warning, I am not going to deal with Meri anymore.
I tried listening to my body. It told me to fuck off. :(
Quote from: HVC on August 27, 2013, 11:49:05 AM
It's always the French speaking western people who have a bug about language and other cultures. Quebec, France, the Walloons. Wonder why that is.
Anglo-Canadian-Azorean pidgin speaker has no clue about languages (policies) around the world e.g Portuguese spelling reform ;)
Score one for Anglo-Canadian "multiculturalism"!
:lol:
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on August 27, 2013, 02:32:28 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 27, 2013, 11:49:05 AM
It's always the French speaking western people who have a bug about language and other cultures. Quebec, France, the Walloons. Wonder why that is.
Anglo-Canadian-Azorean pidgin speaker has no clue about languages (policies) around the world e.g Portuguese spelling reform ;)
Score one for Anglo-Canadian "multiculturalism"!
:lol:
too mean. Calling me Azorean. You've spent too much time in France and have become culturally insensitive :(
:P
Quote from: HVC on August 27, 2013, 11:49:05 AM
It's always the French speaking western people who have a bug about language and other cultures. Quebec, France, the Walloons. Wonder why that is.
Doesn't Canada have cultural content laws just like France? Maybe you and the Quebecois aren't so different after all.
;)
You're Italian, aren't you? At least that's what I've gathered from Ed.
Besides, aren't you originally from the Alentejo region? That's only slightly better then the Azores.
Is there a country that does multiculturalism well? I mean, who's the poster child for a well-done multicutural nation?
Quote from: Savonarola on August 27, 2013, 02:48:16 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 27, 2013, 11:49:05 AM
It's always the French speaking western people who have a bug about language and other cultures. Quebec, France, the Walloons. Wonder why that is.
Doesn't Canada have cultural content laws just like France? Maybe you and the Quebecois aren't so different after all.
;)
it seems that that only applies to commercials on tv :D. And radio, but who listens to radio? :lol:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 27, 2013, 02:49:04 PM
You're Italian, aren't you? At least that's what I've gathered from Ed.
<_< :D
Quote from: merithyn on August 27, 2013, 02:50:29 PM
Is there a country that does multiculturalism well? I mean, who's the poster child for a well-done multicutural nation?
The one you live in does a pretty good job, I think.
Quote from: merithyn on August 27, 2013, 02:50:29 PM
Is there a country that does multiculturalism well? I mean, who's the poster child for a well-done multicutural nation?
I was going to say India but then I realized they slaughtered each other because of it...so I guess not.
Quote from: garbon on August 27, 2013, 12:08:30 PM
The difference is you cry about intolerance to your own group and then spew intolerance for other groups.
If my religion believe homosexuality is a sin and gays should be stoned to death, do you think it wise that we should indulge my religious beliefs over yours? We can't both have our freedom in this. I hate gays, you obviously do not. You are intolerant of me hating gays. Do we need to prioritize the level of intolerance? At some point, one of us will call the other intolerant.
Technically, both of us would be intolerant, unless you let me free to spew my hate of gays.
Let's say it's against my religion to be in contact with gay men. I work at the DMV, I have to renew your driver's licence. I refuse to do it because it's against my religion. Do you tolerate my behavior? Will you accomodate me and go elsewhere to get your license? What if it's a government official policy that gays have no rights and it's based on the majority group's religion. Do you tolerate their religion as it affects you?
It's not "allright" to cover a gym windows and prevent the people inside from seeing outside just because a particular group is offended by the sight of non-fully-clothed-to-the-neck women. I wouldn't do it to satisfy Grallon either :P , so it has nothing to do with intolerance toward a religious group. It ain't alright either to ask women to leave a public pool because a group of men is offended by women sharing their water. Clearly, there needs to be a limit somewhere. Before it becomes worst.
And I don't see that as racism. No more than a Black College is a racist symbol.
Marty is gay. Marty makes bad analogies. Viper hates gays. Viper makes bad analogies.
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2013, 02:53:47 PM
Quote from: merithyn on August 27, 2013, 02:50:29 PM
Is there a country that does multiculturalism well? I mean, who's the poster child for a well-done multicutural nation?
The one you live in does a pretty good job, I think.
I think that the United States does okay, but I question calling us the poster child for it. After all, we still don't allow same-sex marriages as a rule, we're less than brilliant in how we handle Mexican immigrants, and I know many black people who would argue that we've got a long way to go on how we treat them, too.
I was wondering who does it better.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on August 27, 2013, 02:32:28 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 27, 2013, 11:49:05 AM
It's always the French speaking western people who have a bug about language and other cultures. Quebec, France, the Walloons. Wonder why that is.
Anglo-Canadian-Azorean pidgin speaker has no clue about languages (policies) around the world e.g Portuguese spelling reform ;)
Score one for Anglo-Canadian "multiculturalism"!
:lol:
Hey, weren't you the one giving me grief because you thought I had a hate-on for Quebec? :hmm:
Quote from: merithyn on August 27, 2013, 02:59:46 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2013, 02:53:47 PM
Quote from: merithyn on August 27, 2013, 02:50:29 PM
Is there a country that does multiculturalism well? I mean, who's the poster child for a well-done multicutural nation?
The one you live in does a pretty good job, I think.
I think that the United States does okay, but I question calling us the poster child for it. After all, we still don't allow same-sex marriages as a rule, we're less than brilliant in how we handle Mexican immigrants, and I know many black people who would argue that we've got a long way to go on how we treat them, too.
I was wondering who does it better.
How we handle Mexican immigrants has little to do with how we do multiculturalism though. That is just immigration policy.
And yeah, I am sure every minority in America will have some of their members who are not happy with how they are treated. That, however, is true whether we do it well or not.
There is certainly room for improvement of course, but I can't think of another country of similar size and situation that does it better.
Quote from: garbon on August 27, 2013, 12:09:33 PM
Max is an American. :huh:
I know he lives there, I thought he didn't have the citizenship? Anyhow, Canada-US annexation has never been a popular topic amongst canadians. As I said, most Canadians felt and still feel as US annexation of Canada is not a good thing. As such, French speaking citizens of Canada were granted a few favours in hope of keeping them loyal subject of his/her Majesty.
Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2013, 12:09:43 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 27, 2013, 12:04:42 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 11:38:25 AM
In your view if there was an event the employee had to attend on behalf of the government which serviced ham sandwiches that a person who does not eat ham because of their religious beliefs would still have to eat it so as not to proselytise?
What happens now is that the government cafeteria will be required to serve Halal food for everyone if one employee request it claiming his religious rights are violated.
Really?
Everyone will have to eat halal food if 1 person asks for it?
I am skeptical.
obviously, not one. But much less than 50%+1.
Quote from: merithyn on August 27, 2013, 12:45:42 PM
That's 'cause, as we see in this thread, you all are assholes. :uffda:
For defending equality between men and women, we are assholes. What's next? Supporting gay marriage is bigoted? Voting rights for blacks is racist?
Quote from: viper37 on August 27, 2013, 03:22:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 27, 2013, 12:09:33 PM
Max is an American. :huh:
I know he lives there, I thought he didn't have the citizenship? Anyhow, Canada-US annexation has never been a popular topic amongst canadians. As I said, most Canadians felt and still feel as US annexation of Canada is not a good thing. As such, French speaking citizens of Canada were granted a few favours in hope of keeping them loyal subject of his/her Majesty.
He's both a Canadian and an American. :)
Quote from: viper37 on August 27, 2013, 03:24:56 PM
Quote from: merithyn on August 27, 2013, 12:45:42 PM
That's 'cause, as we see in this thread, you all are assholes. :uffda:
For defending equality between men and women, we are assholes. What's next? Supporting gay marriage is bigoted? Voting rights for blacks is racist?
No, equating private company policy with government requirements so that no one can show any kind of religious affiliation in public. That's kind of an asshole move. Just sayin'.
Quote from: Barrister on August 27, 2013, 12:47:55 PM
As an aside, the section bolded has nothing to do with the Indian Act. Individual bands control their own housing policy. So what many individual bands have said is that band housing is for band members only, and if someone has a white partner they will not be allowed to live in band housing.
Hmm, I was told it was in the Federal law. I know Mohawks won't allow white women on their reservation, and I'm pretty sure that inter-marriage outside of the reservation will result in a loss of status. Are you absolutely positive about that BB? If you are, I'll retract.
Quote
The actual article does contain the quote you mentioned, which seems silly. The rest of the article talks about requiring nurses to be bilingual. Whether they're correct or not they do have a point. Requiring bilingual nurses means unilingual people can't work there, and in a tight job market for nurses might make it hard to attract and keep nurses.
I don't see how it is different from Quebec's language policies which forbid requiring bilinguism when it can't be justified.
And frankly, having unilingual nurses in Eastern Ontario simply means that francophones will be denied health care in their own languages. We can't claim to be a bilingual country (English & French my friend, in case you forgot ;) :P ) if we don't respect people of the other group. As I see it, English want it all: full bilinguism for Quebec, unilinguism for the Rest of Canada.
Quote
Now maybe that's just the price you have to pay in order to have a bilingual hospital, but it's not as silly as complaining about the order on highway signs.
I think it's a good policy to have bilingual hospitals, rather than seperate ones. I wish we would do that in Montreal and Quebec city instead of having mono-lingual hospitals for each groups.
Canada would really benefit in having a trully bilingual population from coast to coast. And yes, Quebec can do a lot more on this front, we really don't have enough bilingual people.
Quote from: Grallon on August 27, 2013, 01:39:06 PM
Canada isn't our country Viper - it's theirs - when will you get that into your thick head!?
G.
They sure aren't making it easy. But I still believe there's a possibility of a better Canada for everyone.
Quote from: viper37 on August 27, 2013, 03:33:37 PM
Quote from: Grallon on August 27, 2013, 01:39:06 PM
Canada isn't our country Viper - it's theirs - when will you get that into your thick head!?
G.
They sure aren't making it easy. But I still believe there's a possibility of a better Canada for everyone.
So long as they are not religious, gay or anything else that might offend the government of the day.
Quote from: Malthus on August 27, 2013, 03:00:33 PM
Hey, weren't you the one giving me grief because you thought I had a hate-on for Quebec? :hmm:
That was Grallon. Duque is French citizen of Portuguese origin, he couldn't care less about Quebec, except hockey :) Wich makes him one of the good guys. Contrary to false Canadians who have a fondness for basketball :yuk: :cry: :P
Quote from: Grallon on August 27, 2013, 11:57:32 AM
A very American reply ;) Contrary to you guys we (mostly) don't see the government as some sort of ennemy out to get us... In this case its power is intended to be used to counteract the debilitating effects of Canadian multiculturalism - by marking out clear lines of what is acceptable or not when it comes to religion in the public sphere.
So we want the government to tell everyone what to do, so long as it tells everyone to do what we want to do.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 27, 2013, 02:58:28 PM
Marty is gay. Marty makes bad analogies. Viper hates gays. Viper makes bad analogies.
so far, the Canadian government has gone way beyond what Quebec has done to protect "Canadian values". I'm sure CC, Malthus, Maximus, Raz and Mery have complained about the Federal government attitude.
One recent example:
New guide for immigrants (http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/01/welcome-to-canada-new-guide-for-immigrants-highlights-the-queen-the-military-and-acceptable-marriages/)
Another one (http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/releases/2012/2012-10-24.asp)
Apparently, Canada does not want to let just about anybody in.
Of course, being the intolerant moron that I am, I approve of these guidelines.
Quote from: viper37 on August 27, 2013, 03:45:55 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 27, 2013, 02:58:28 PM
Marty is gay. Marty makes bad analogies. Viper hates gays. Viper makes bad analogies.
so far, the Canadian government has gone way beyond what Quebec has done to protect "Canadian values". I'm sure CC, Malthus, Maximus, Raz and Mery have complained about the Federal government attitude.
One recent example:
New guide for immigrants (http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/01/welcome-to-canada-new-guide-for-immigrants-highlights-the-queen-the-military-and-acceptable-marriages/)
Another one (http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/releases/2012/2012-10-24.asp)
Apparently, Canada does not want to let just about anybody in.
Of course, being the intolerant moron that I am, I approve of these guidelines.
Ok Viper, you tell me. What is wrong with this
QuoteIt includes, for the first time, references to marriage fraud and human smuggling
Shocking!
I don't know anything about the truthful content of those guidelines. I will say I am not a fan of "cultural guidance" laws. Same goes for the cultural content laws Sav mentioned. They appear to be an artifact of Trudeauism that the current government has sadly adopted.
Quote from: viper37 on August 27, 2013, 12:22:25 PM
Quote from: Maximus on August 27, 2013, 12:13:04 PM
I'm actually in favour of it, I think. My point is Franco-Canada only exists because of an official multicultural policy that was not common in its time.
I understood your point, but it is wrong. Multiculturalism was a policy devised by Canada to ignore its French-citizens demands by drowning them in the mass and making all cultures equals, instead of having the concept of 2 founding nations as the francophones always believed.
French got rights whenever America was a threat. In 1775, we were given the Quebec Act, making us officiall citizens of the British Empire with full rights, instead of half slaves with barely no rights. Those rights were only partially respected over the years, and as the American threat diminished rapidly after the war of 1812, they were totally renegated by the Act of Union and Quebec had to pay English Canada's debt.
Toward the end of the US Civil War, when there were constant threats of US invasion, were the British were tired of defending the colony and when the Fenians did invade Canada, when it was clear that without Quebec all British colonies would become American States, than we got serious about discussing the creation of a country with theoritical full rights to french speaking citizens and a semi-official bilingualism occured.
Between then an the 70s, immigration wasn't really an issue, the few immigrants we had came from the French speaking part of Europe, and there were no guiding principles from the Federal gov to the effect that speaking French in Canada wasn't a necessity. It changed with Trudeau coming to power, considering everyone in Quebec to be semi-intelligent cave men, barely able to talk. I think only the Americans were worst than Quebecers in his eyes.
So accommodation of minority groups is actually a plot to destroy Quebec? How do the First Nations fit into your world?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 27, 2013, 04:42:14 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 27, 2013, 12:22:25 PM
Quote from: Maximus on August 27, 2013, 12:13:04 PM
I'm actually in favour of it, I think. My point is Franco-Canada only exists because of an official multicultural policy that was not common in its time.
I understood your point, but it is wrong. Multiculturalism was a policy devised by Canada to ignore its French-citizens demands by drowning them in the mass and making all cultures equals, instead of having the concept of 2 founding nations as the francophones always believed.
French got rights whenever America was a threat. In 1775, we were given the Quebec Act, making us officiall citizens of the British Empire with full rights, instead of half slaves with barely no rights. Those rights were only partially respected over the years, and as the American threat diminished rapidly after the war of 1812, they were totally renegated by the Act of Union and Quebec had to pay English Canada's debt.
Toward the end of the US Civil War, when there were constant threats of US invasion, were the British were tired of defending the colony and when the Fenians did invade Canada, when it was clear that without Quebec all British colonies would become American States, than we got serious about discussing the creation of a country with theoritical full rights to french speaking citizens and a semi-official bilingualism occured.
Between then an the 70s, immigration wasn't really an issue, the few immigrants we had came from the French speaking part of Europe, and there were no guiding principles from the Federal gov to the effect that speaking French in Canada wasn't a necessity. It changed with Trudeau coming to power, considering everyone in Quebec to be semi-intelligent cave men, barely able to talk. I think only the Americans were worst than Quebecers in his eyes.
So accommodation of minority groups is actually a plot to destroy Quebec? How do the First Nations fit into your world?
True story: the local first nations around Kippawa in Quebec all seem to speak English, not French. Moreover, they no longer speak or read their ancestral language.
My dad found a picture taken by my grandfather in the 1940s in the area that had a sign in the background in three languages - French, English and Algonquian. He took a print to Chief Harry at his request, and they were very happy to have it, as they planned to use it to show the local government there that the native language had been officially recognized back then.
Only thing was, Chief Harry could find no-one who could read the Algonquian. Its use has completely disappeared.
Big deal. King Arthur wasn't even real.
Quote from: HVC on August 27, 2013, 02:49:07 PM
Besides, aren't you originally from the Alentejo region? That's only slightly better then the Azores.
Hint: Bragança ;)
Anglo-Canadian imperialism under its thin guise of "multiculturalism" really works wonders for the cultural race to the bottom as can be seen with you :(
Quote from: Ideologue on August 27, 2013, 04:58:49 PM
Big deal. King Arthur wasn't even real.
Arturus disagrees.
Quote from: viper37 on August 27, 2013, 02:55:51 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 27, 2013, 12:08:30 PM
The difference is you cry about intolerance to your own group and then spew intolerance for other groups.
If my religion believe homosexuality is a sin and gays should be stoned to death, do you think it wise that we should indulge my religious beliefs over yours? We can't both have our freedom in this. I hate gays, you obviously do not. You are intolerant of me hating gays. Do we need to prioritize the level of intolerance? At some point, one of us will call the other intolerant.
Technically, both of us would be intolerant, unless you let me free to spew my hate of gays.
Let's say it's against my religion to be in contact with gay men. I work at the DMV, I have to renew your driver's licence. I refuse to do it because it's against my religion. Do you tolerate my behavior? Will you accomodate me and go elsewhere to get your license? What if it's a government official policy that gays have no rights and it's based on the majority group's religion. Do you tolerate their religion as it affects you?
It's not "allright" to cover a gym windows and prevent the people inside from seeing outside just because a particular group is offended by the sight of non-fully-clothed-to-the-neck women. I wouldn't do it to satisfy Grallon either :P , so it has nothing to do with intolerance toward a religious group. It ain't alright either to ask women to leave a public pool because a group of men is offended by women sharing their water. Clearly, there needs to be a limit somewhere. Before it becomes worst.
And I don't see that as racism. No more than a Black College is a racist symbol.
I feel bad that you wasted time emphatically typing such drivel.
Btw, slippery slope much?
Maybe it was meant as tongue-in-cheek. It's hard to imagine that someone would write something so absurd.
One thing I'm unclear on, (okay that's a lie, there are a lot of things I'm unclear on), wouldn't multiculturalism destroy English speaking Canada as well? If it's really a plot to flood Quebec with foreigners then wouldn't it do the same to saw British Columbia which has fewer people living in it then Quebec.
Btw, viper, I think I'm pretty tolerant of those intolerant towards me in comparison to you. I've never complained about homophobic comments in comment sections. ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 03:35:50 PM
So long as they are not religious, gay or anything else that might offend the government of the day.
If people don't like religion, gays or anything else, we sure must not offend them by reminding them of our tolerance. It would be a crime to go against someone religious beliefs, after all, no matter the belief.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 27, 2013, 03:48:56 PM
Ok Viper, you tell me. What is wrong with this
QuoteIt includes, for the first time, references to marriage fraud and human smuggling
Shocking!
I don't know, I was hoping you would. This goes way beyond anything Quebec has done, but we're the racists ones.
So I'm waiting for some explation... If this is more extreme than what we have done so far, and you don't like what we have done so far, surely you must be able to explain what is wrong with our actual policies. You certainly wouldn't criticize a policy that has not even been presented, discussed, and voted, now would you? 'Cause that be a little silly...
Quote from: Malthus on August 27, 2013, 04:57:41 PM
True story: the local first nations around Kippawa in Quebec all seem to speak English, not French. Moreover, they no longer speak or read their ancestral language.
My dad found a picture taken by my grandfather in the 1940s in the area that had a sign in the background in three languages - French, English and Algonquian. He took a print to Chief Harry at his request, and they were very happy to have it, as they planned to use it to show the local government there that the native language had been officially recognized back then.
Only thing was, Chief Harry could find no-one who could read the Algonquian. Its use has completely disappeared.
Algonquian is the language family, but there are various dialects. Many dialects still exists and are taught in reservation. Huron language is extinct, but they have adopted another writing system, I think. Signs on their reservations are bilingual, native language and French. I'd have to search to find out the whole story though.
And yeah, it's sad when a language disapears, part of the culture disapears too. It's a good proof that being too tolerant of foreigner's way will lead to your own assimilation. There clearly needs to be boundaries.
Quote from: garbon on August 27, 2013, 05:52:32 PM
I feel bad that you wasted time emphatically typing such drivel.
Btw, slippery slope much?
what is drivel here?
Do you even read what I type or you're reading what I think I type? 'Cause right now, it feels as if you're discussing some immigration policy that no one has seen so far. I don't see what's wrong with the Feds have done so far, yet, according to you and others, it must be pretty racist&bigoted, since it goes way beyond anything Quebec has done so far. Unless there would be a double standard, again.
You are the one who said you must act now before it gets worse.
Also, yes I do read your posts. Even when you conflate a million different issues.
Quote from: viper37 on August 27, 2013, 07:41:25 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 27, 2013, 05:52:32 PM
I feel bad that you wasted time emphatically typing such drivel.
Btw, slippery slope much?
what is drivel here?
Do you even read what I type or you're reading what I think I type? 'Cause right now, it feels as if you're discussing some immigration policy that no one has seen so far. I don't see what's wrong with the Feds have done so far, yet, according to you and others, it must be pretty racist&bigoted, since it goes way beyond anything Quebec has done so far. Unless there would be a double standard, again.
Dude, we read what you type and that's precisely why you are met with such derision on the subject. For one thing you are mixing up public and private requests. If I call you to ask you to turn your music down so I can get some sleep, it's a private request. If the police come in and tell you to turn down your music that's a public request. The YMCA thing was a private thing.
You seem utterly paranoid that someone is calling you a Nazi, and I suspect it's because you fear the shoe would fit to well. You are the one going on about conspiracies to use immigrant to destroy your culture, restricting private communications, coercing people into to following your culture, using the fact the US army murder some people a hundred and forty years ago as a justification for this. That's pretty bonkers.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 27, 2013, 06:13:14 PM
One thing I'm unclear on, (okay that's a lie, there are a lot of things I'm unclear on), wouldn't multiculturalism destroy English speaking Canada as well? If it's really a plot to flood Quebec with foreigners then wouldn't it do the same to saw British Columbia which has fewer people living in it then Quebec.
There is no Canadian culture, so it doesn't matter much.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 28, 2013, 09:34:11 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 27, 2013, 06:13:14 PM
One thing I'm unclear on, (okay that's a lie, there are a lot of things I'm unclear on), wouldn't multiculturalism destroy English speaking Canada as well? If it's really a plot to flood Quebec with foreigners then wouldn't it do the same to saw British Columbia which has fewer people living in it then Quebec.
There is no Canadian culture, so it doesn't matter much.
Your face is on the wall but you never seen to work!
Quote from: Zoupa on August 28, 2013, 09:34:11 AM
There is no Canadian culture, so it doesn't matter much.
They have a centuries-old cultural tradition of not being the United States.
Oh and hi Zoupa :hug: :frog:
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on August 27, 2013, 05:10:52 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 27, 2013, 02:49:07 PM
Besides, aren't you originally from the Alentejo region? That's only slightly better then the Azores.
Hint: Bragança ;)
Anglo-Canadian imperialism under its thin guise of "multiculturalism" really works wonders for the cultural race to the bottom as can be seen with you :(
Can I get a summary on the issue between these two?
Quote from: Zoupa on August 28, 2013, 09:34:11 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 27, 2013, 06:13:14 PM
One thing I'm unclear on, (okay that's a lie, there are a lot of things I'm unclear on), wouldn't multiculturalism destroy English speaking Canada as well? If it's really a plot to flood Quebec with foreigners then wouldn't it do the same to saw British Columbia which has fewer people living in it then Quebec.
There is no Canadian culture, so it doesn't matter much.
And now the real trolls appear
Define Canadian culture. Tim Hortons and hockey don't count.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 28, 2013, 09:59:26 AM
Define Canadian culture. Tim Hortons and hockey don't count.
I suppose you demand a simplistic answer knowing one does not exist. The great thing about Canadian culture is its diversity. We are not like other nations who strive for a unifying national identity because we recognize we have many. From BB's love of everything northern to Grey Fox's love of everything french and my love of all the racial and cultural diversity of Vancouver and everything in between.
Valmy is quite right that part of our identity is to strongly identify with not being American because, on the one hand they are quite similar to us, sharing the same continent, many of the same languages, many of the same laws and most importantly almost all of the same news, sports and entertainment media. But for all our similarities there are significant differences and it is in part those differences that run deep within our cultural impulses. For example, on the whole we are much more community minded. Almost all Canadians are willing to pay for universal single payor health care system. Not just because it is a superiour model of health delivery (that only became apparent after the fact). It was because we found the notion of a Canadian not having access to health care to be abhorent. That is something which is deeply rooted in our culture. There are of course many other such examples.
Quote from: garbon on August 27, 2013, 07:43:39 PM
You are the one who said you must act now before it gets worse.
I have trouble enough concentrating and organizing my thoughts, is that too much to ask that you read what I post? I guess it's the Languish way.
I'm taking a break, I'll be back later if I don't have brain cancer. You could say I rage quit too, if that pleases you.
I'll be a good Québécois, sit home, and wait for the phone call telling me I won the hospital lottery. In the meantime, have fun, stay happy, read Quebec newspapers with Google translate, then we'll discuss the issue if and when there's a new charter :)
I don't love everything French. :ultra: I am a supersonic ball of hate.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 28, 2013, 10:26:13 AM
I don't love everything French. :ultra: I am a supersonic ball of hate.
:lol:
Quote from: viper37 on August 28, 2013, 10:22:36 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 27, 2013, 07:43:39 PM
You are the one who said you must act now before it gets worse.
I have trouble enough concentrating and organizing my thoughts, is that too much to ask that you read what I post? I guess it's the Languish way.
I did read what you posted. I also think you might want to try harder on organization as that post was a mish mash of various odd elements.
For the record I find this project from the PQ pretty ridiculous and clearly electoralist. Ugly politics. The laws, regulations and directives we already have in place are plenty, they're just not enforced properly.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 28, 2013, 09:59:26 AM
Define Canadian culture. Tim Hortons and hockey don't count.
Curling, politeness, and a massive inferiority complex.
Quote from: dps on August 28, 2013, 11:35:00 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 28, 2013, 09:59:26 AM
Define Canadian culture. Tim Hortons and hockey don't count.
Curling, politeness, and a massive inferiority complex.
Smugness about guns, religion and health care. And hockey definitely counts. The few Americans who watch it do it for the fights.
Wow, this thread certainly has delivered, as all these threads do.
Blatant racism, bigotry, and xenophobia not so cleverly disguised as some perverse form of national/racial/linguistic "pride". It is positively Orwellian.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 28, 2013, 10:53:29 AM
For the record I find this project from the PQ pretty ridiculous and clearly electoralist. Ugly politics. The laws, regulations and directives we already have in place are plenty, they're just not enforced properly.
:hug:
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2013, 10:12:31 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 28, 2013, 09:59:26 AM
Define Canadian culture. Tim Hortons and hockey don't count.
I suppose you demand a simplistic answer knowing one does not exist. The great thing about Canadian culture is its diversity. We are not like other nations who strive for a unifying national identity because we recognize we have many. From BB's love of everything northern to Grey Fox's love of everything french and my love of all the racial and cultural diversity of Vancouver and everything in between.
Valmy is quite right that part of our identity is to strongly identify with not being American because, on the one hand they are quite similar to us, sharing the same continent, many of the same languages, many of the same laws and most importantly almost all of the same news, sports and entertainment media. But for all our similarities there are significant differences and it is in part those differences that run deep within our cultural impulses. For example, on the whole we are much more community minded. Almost all Canadians are willing to pay for universal single payor health care system. Not just because it is a superiour model of health delivery (that only became apparent after the fact). It was because we found the notion of a Canadian not having access to health care to be abhorent. That is something which is deeply rooted in our culture. There are of course many other such examples.
"Peace, order, and good government".
QuoteDespite its technical purpose, the phrase "peace, order and good government" has also become meaningful to Canadians. This tripartite motto is sometimes said to define Canadian values in a way comparable to "liberté, égalité, fraternité" (liberty, equality, fraternity) in France or "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in the United States. Indeed, peace, order and good government has been used by some scholars to make broad characterisations of Canada's political culture. US sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset, for example, contrasted POGG with the American tripartite motto to conclude Canadians generally believe in a higher degree of deference to the law.[5] As Canadian historian Donald Creighton argued in his report to the Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relations,[6] the expression was used interchangeably in the 19th century by Canadian and Imperial officials with the expression Peace, Welfare and Good Government. The term Welfare referred not to its more narrow modern echoes, but to the protection of the common weal, the general public good. Good government referred to good public administration, on the one hand, but also had echoes of what we now talk of as good governance, which incorporates the notion of appropriate self-governance by civil society actors, since one element of good government was thought to be its limitation to its appropriate sphere of responsibility.
This is exactly why those in English Canada find the current Quebec government initiative disturbing - it is contrary to the cultural predeliction for "good government", meaning
appropriate governance. It is seen as an excess, an unwarranted intrusion by the government in matters better left ungoverned by the authorities.
Quote from: Malthus on August 28, 2013, 02:00:48 PM
"Peace, order, and good government".
This is the kind of slogan you get when you tell a committee to come up with one.
No offense but Canada does seem to be lacking the distinctiveness other Dominions have. The Kiwis are more English than the English, Australians still think like ex-cons and bandits, South Africans have the whole Boer thing going on.
Well I suppose what really makes Canada unique is the French minority. And hordes of shiftless Indians.
I dare say old man that 'peace, order, and good government' do sound like distinctly English obsessions. :bowler:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 28, 2013, 02:23:28 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 28, 2013, 02:00:48 PM
"Peace, order, and good government".
This is the kind of slogan you get when you tell a committee to come up with one.
No offense but Canada does seem to be lacking the distinctiveness other Dominions have. The Kiwis are more English than the English, Australians still think like ex-cons and bandits, South Africans have the whole Boer thing going on.
Well I suppose what really makes Canada unique is the French minority. And hordes of shiftless Indians.
No offence, but the intention wasn't to amuse you Yanks, but to create a society we would want to live in. :lol:
Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2013, 12:19:44 PM
Wow, this thread certainly has delivered, as all these threads do.
Blatant racism, bigotry, and xenophobia not so cleverly disguised as some perverse form of national/racial/linguistic "pride". It is positively Orwellian.
I think I missed the racism :mellow:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 28, 2013, 02:23:28 PM
The Kiwis are more English than the English,
In my limited experience(watching Flight of the Conchords), they're more like Australians. Or perhaps more like Canadians, in that their identity is mostly involved in being not Australian. :D
Quote from: Malthus on August 28, 2013, 02:46:50 PM
No offence, but the intention wasn't to amuse you Yanks, but to create a society we would want to live in. :lol:
As cultures are not created by intention, I assume you're talking about the slogan.
The slogan was clearly formulated with the intention of offending no one. Who can possibly be against good government?
Peace, order and good government is actually a line from our 1867 constitution:
QuoteIt shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; and for greater Certainty, but not so as to restrict the Generality of the foregoing Terms of this Section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 28, 2013, 02:52:02 PM
In my limited experience(watching Flight of the Conchords), they're more like Australians. Or perhaps more like Canadians, in that their identity is mostly involved in being not Australian. :D
I believe Flight of the Conchords is the Australians taking the piss out of the Kiwis. The funnier looking of the two dudes is Australian, and if I'm not mistaken so is the ginger maninger.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 28, 2013, 03:03:13 PM
I believe Flight of the Conchords is the Australians taking the piss out of the Kiwis. The funnier looking of the two dudes is Australian, and if I'm not mistaken so is the ginger maninger.
Both of them are native New Zealanders.
Kay.
In many ways Canadian culture is similar to American culture; it would surprising if it were not since America and Canada share many traits and are adjacent to one another.
I don't see why you should exclude hockey from a definition of Canadian culture; association football is a significant component of, say, Brazilian culture as it is of Danish culture (but in different ways), and American football and Aussie rules football are components of American and Australian cultures respectively, and so on.
I think it's hard to succinctly define any culture comprehensively, though you can usually come up with some pithy stereotypes if you want. But I'll give it a go, since I haven't seen Zoupa for a while and I like him :)
A culture is a (continually changing) collection of shared symbols, behaviours, experiences, values, social expectations, and institutions.
Canadian symbols include: the Stanley Cup; the maple leaf; Terry Fox; the beaver; the cottage; official bilingualism and multiculturalism; the loonie and the toonie and the way our money looks; hockey; the Hudson Bay Co.; the remembrance poppy; the CN tower; Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary; Anne of Green Gables; maple syrup; the never ending fields of the prairies; Albertan oil money; parliament; the Governor General; the CBC; the lumber jack; the back country; the Pacific Railway; Air Canada; Canadian wine (because other than the icewine, only Canadians drink the stuff); medicare; the snow and the clothes that go with it; our olympic and hockey teams; the RCMP
Canadian shared experiences, values, and behaviours include: swimming in the lake at the cottage (whatever cottage that is); struggling with the other official language in school; observing Stanley Cup media fever every year, whether you care or not; at the very least being aware of underage drinking and fake ID even if you don't partake yourself; talking to guidance counsellors about university admissions; the way we line up; the way we say "sorry" and other expectations about what is rude and what is polite; having to think about how you define your identity in relation to the US, even if you don't personally care because someone else cares; having on opinion on Quebec sovereignty and language issues; multiculturalism (again, I know - it's both a shared experience and a symbol); the metric system; not having real fixed-rate mortgages, in spite of calling them that; very exact expectations about personal space (everyone has them of course, but Canadians tend to have similar ones to other Canadians); the expectation that the medicare system is there and works; knowing that we can "make it big" by accessing the big pond to the South of the border but we don't have to at all if we don't want to; a foreign policy attitude that walks the line of being "nice" (no naked national interest for us) with being robust and responsible (keeping the heritage of Juno Beach and Vimy Ridge etc), and not having a "sphere of influence"; an awareness of Native issues, even if is no more than a slight nagging guilt or an abrasive dismissal; a certain level of trust in the government; shovelling and/or salting the sidewalk/ driveway; a cuisine that's American, but not quite; backyard bbq; Canadian Tire money; the occasional hockey riot; a whole number of TV shows and films (many of which are shared with the US, but some which are not)... and there are many more, I'm sure.
There are a ton of experiences, attitudes and expectations that are shared amongst Canadians. Not all Canadians share all of them, of course, and some of those experiences, attitudes, and expectations are not unique to Canadians alone - but the specific combination of those behaviours, and our shared symbols, are a significant part of what defines Canadian culture.
You can, of course, argue there is no such thing as Canadian culture - but the only legitimate reason is because you're either taking the piss, or making a political point.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 28, 2013, 02:58:39 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 28, 2013, 02:46:50 PM
No offence, but the intention wasn't to amuse you Yanks, but to create a society we would want to live in. :lol:
As cultures are not created by intention, I assume you're talking about the slogan.
The slogan was clearly formulated with the intention of offending no one. Who can possibly be against good government?
Tyrants, for one. Those wishing to pass laws hammering minorities, for another.
And who could possibly be against "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?" Yet Americans see value in that nonetheless.
I dunno where you are going with this thing. All slogans are designed to be attractive, not offensive.
My point is that these slogans, trite as they may be, are revealing nonetheless of cultural differences which are actually significant. As others have noted, Canada and the US share lots of traits, as isn't surprising. They do, however, have some pretty significant differences, which are really matters of cultural emphasis - Canadians tend to value social harmony more, while Americans tend to value individual freedom more, as demonstrated by choice of slogans. Americans tend to find Canadians dull (see, for example: Yi), while Canadians are astonished at the bizzare things Americans put up with, like gun nuts and lack of sensible medicare.
I think you support my point Malthus.
My personal opinion is that the US was established as an experiment in maximizing individual liberty. As you pointed out, that can and has come with some costs.
"Peace, order, and good government" on the other hand doesn't suggest any trade offs, any hard choices. "Oh shoot, I would love me some bad government but too late now."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 28, 2013, 05:10:04 PM
I think you support my point Malthus.
My personal opinion is that the US was established as an experiment in maximizing individual liberty. As you pointed out, that can and has come with some costs.
That seems awfully theoretical for large and diverse nation such as the US.
Quote"Peace, order, and good government" on the other hand doesn't suggest any trade offs, any hard choices. "Oh shoot, I would love me some bad government but too late now."
Okay, sure.
So what?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 28, 2013, 05:10:04 PM
I think you support my point Malthus.
My personal opinion is that the US was established as an experiment in maximizing individual liberty. As you pointed out, that can and has come with some costs.
"Peace, order, and good government" on the other hand doesn't suggest any trade offs, any hard choices. "Oh shoot, I would love me some bad government but too late now."
But that's total bullshit. Any choice you make entails hard choices and costs. Specifically, when next to the comparative giant the US, deliberately choosing do be different entails
significant hard choices and costs.
To give but one example, emphasizing social harmony entails rewarding the outstanding less, which means that they are likely to seek to 'make it big' in the US - and so their services are lost to Canada. So, to make the example even more specific, Canada ends up with a sorta-okay medicare system, but the real star and guru heart surgeons tend to move to the US.
That's a deliberate choice of values, and it has costs.
Or to turn your sneer around, "oh shoot, I wold love me some unhappiness but too late now". Who, exactly, doesn't want "happiness"?
Some people enjoy wallowing in sorrow.
Quote from: derspiess on August 28, 2013, 02:51:23 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2013, 12:19:44 PM
Wow, this thread certainly has delivered, as all these threads do.
Blatant racism, bigotry, and xenophobia not so cleverly disguised as some perverse form of national/racial/linguistic "pride". It is positively Orwellian.
I think I missed the racism :mellow:
Viper going on and on about racism. I don't think racism is an accurate term (though it may describe some Queberers.)
Quote from: Jacob on August 28, 2013, 05:13:38 PM
That seems awfully theoretical for large and diverse nation such as the US.
At the time that was established as our slogan, however, we were neither large nor very diverse. We grew while our slogan remained the same, despite all of the challenges that came up with our growth and changes.
I'm not saying that Canada didn't. I'm just saying that applying the argument of how large and diverse the US is to our slogan is a bit disingenous.
Quote from: Malthus on August 28, 2013, 05:18:09 PMOr to turn your sneer around, "oh shoot, I wold love me some unhappiness but too late now". Who, exactly, doesn't want "happiness"?
... why'd you leave out life and liberty?
I think most people generally are in favour of those as well.
Life, yeah. Liberty, not so much.
Quote from: Jacob on August 28, 2013, 05:28:42 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 28, 2013, 05:18:09 PMOr to turn your sneer around, "oh shoot, I wold love me some unhappiness but too late now". Who, exactly, doesn't want "happiness"?
... why'd you leave out life and liberty?
I think most people generally are in favour of those as well.
Just to chose one.
After all, he left alone "peace" and "order", which most people are also in favour of. ;)
Point is that all slogans of this sort tend to be lists of good stuff that no-one really denies is good. What is sigificant is not that, it is the emphasis chosen.
Canadians love life and liberty (not to mention happiness) just like Americans, but they have chosen as a community to emphasize peace, order and good government.
Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 05:27:46 PMAt the time that was established as our slogan, however, we were neither large nor very diverse. We grew while our slogan remained the same, despite all of the challenges that came up with our growth and changes.
Fair enough, actually.
QuoteI'm not saying that Canada didn't. I'm just saying that applying the argument of how large and diverse the US is to our slogan is a bit disingenous.
Nah, I think you're right there - Canada wasn't so much founded on "a big idea". It has generally been an incremental adjustment of the situation to fit the facts on the ground as they changed.
However, I don't see how those facts - and that's the original point that this branch of the conversation - support Zoupa's assertion that there's no such thing as Canadian culture, or Yi's that Canadian culture lacks distinctiveness.
I was sorta tongue in cheek. I think the lack of culture in the textbook definition is in fact what canadian culture is all about. No big driving force, no manifest destiny, no national idea/ideal. That's why most Canadians see multiculturalism as part of Canadian culture.
I'm not trying to be insulting or rude, but I don't see a Canadian culture. Canada is settler land. It's a nice place to live though, that's for sure.
I missed you guys :blush: I've been lurking though.
Quote from: Jacob on August 28, 2013, 06:00:40 PM
Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 05:27:46 PMAt the time that was established as our slogan, however, we were neither large nor very diverse. We grew while our slogan remained the same, despite all of the challenges that came up with our growth and changes.
Fair enough, actually.
QuoteI'm not saying that Canada didn't. I'm just saying that applying the argument of how large and diverse the US is to our slogan is a bit disingenous.
Nah, I think you're right there - Canada wasn't so much founded on "a big idea". It has generally been an incremental adjustment of the situation to fit the facts on the ground as they changed.
However, I don't see how those facts - and that's the original point that this branch of the conversation - support Zoupa's assertion that there's no such thing as Canadian culture, or Yi's that Canadian culture lacks distinctiveness.
I wasn't trying to. I was just pointing it out. :)
Quote from: Zoupa on August 28, 2013, 08:59:58 PM
I missed you guys :blush: I've been lurking though.
I missed you, too. :hug:
Quote from: Zoupa on August 28, 2013, 08:59:58 PM
I missed you guys :blush:
Likewise :hugz:
Seriously, welcome back :)
I actually agree with Zoupa I think. I see the need to force a Canadian culture as a Trudeauist agenda.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 28, 2013, 08:59:58 PMI'm not trying to be insulting or rude, but I don't see a Canadian culture. Canada is settler land. It's a nice place to live though, that's for sure.
Do you see a Quebecois culture?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 28, 2013, 02:58:39 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 28, 2013, 02:46:50 PM
No offence, but the intention wasn't to amuse you Yanks, but to create a society we would want to live in. :lol:
As cultures are not created by intention, I assume you're talking about the slogan.
The slogan was clearly formulated with the intention of offending no one. Who can possibly be against good government?
Anarchists and Libertarians. Good government weakens their arguments.
Quote from: Jacob on August 28, 2013, 11:18:19 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 28, 2013, 08:59:58 PMI'm not trying to be insulting or rude, but I don't see a Canadian culture. Canada is settler land. It's a nice place to live though, that's for sure.
Do you see a Quebecois culture?
Yes, the vague contours started forming in the 60s. This is just a personal opinion. I think everybody has their own definition of what culture means.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 28, 2013, 08:59:58 PM
I was sorta tongue in cheek. I think the lack of culture in the textbook definition is in fact what canadian culture is all about. No big driving force, no manifest destiny, no national idea/ideal. That's why most Canadians see multiculturalism as part of Canadian culture.
I'm not trying to be insulting or rude, but I don't see a Canadian culture. Canada is settler land. It's a nice place to live though, that's for sure.
I missed you guys :blush: I've been lurking though.
Disagree. There doesn't have to be a planned driving force or manifest destiny for there to be a "culture".
Canada has a set of national ideals, which have emerged over time and which differ from those of the US (for example). They are, essentially, an emphasis of social harmony and balancing of interests, as opposed to the US focus on individual liberty. That's why "multiculturalism" is appealing to Canadians - it fits in with an
already-existing national Canadian culture, formed (ironically enough, in the context of this discussion) by the Canadian history of attempting to deal with accomodating the competing interests of English colonialists, French settlers and Native Canadians.
When people say "Canada has no culture" they are referring to the fact that Canada attempts (not always successfully mind you!) not to officially value or promote the pre-existing culture of one of its constituent peoples over the others - which is all part of the specifically Canadian culture of seeking balance and social harmony. People may not see it, but it cannot be denied that it exists, and some people at least find it a powerful and attractive thing.
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 08:39:20 AM
Canada has a set of national ideals, which have emerged over time and which differ from those of the US (for example). They are, essentially, an emphasis of social harmony and balancing of interests, as opposed to the US focus on individual liberty.
I think you might be painting that with too big of a wide brush. Certainly during the course of the 20th and 21st centuries, the US has put a lot of effort into a collective and not just individual freedom (looking at our social spending - and sure we don't have the best functioning system but I think it'd be a mistaken to say our focus is just on individual liberty*).
*particularly during the last decade or so in US history where we've been sacrificing more and more personal liberty for perceived public good.
Also, I thought it was francophone nations/areas that put the most focus on the rights of the collective over the individual.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 29, 2013, 01:34:56 AM
Quote from: Jacob on August 28, 2013, 11:18:19 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 28, 2013, 08:59:58 PMI'm not trying to be insulting or rude, but I don't see a Canadian culture. Canada is settler land. It's a nice place to live though, that's for sure.
Do you see a Quebecois culture?
Yes, the vague contours started forming in the 60s. This is just a personal opinion. I think everybody has their own definition of what culture means.
I judge cultures based on the quality of computer games they have produced.
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 08:39:20 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 28, 2013, 08:59:58 PM
I missed you guys :blush: I've been lurking though.
Disagree.
We really can argue anything, can't we?
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 09:15:52 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 29, 2013, 09:09:17 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 08:39:20 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 28, 2013, 08:59:58 PM
I missed you guys :blush: I've been lurking though.
Disagree.
We really can argue anything, can't we?
I ... assume this is a joke. :)
And we've completely lost our sense of humor, too, apparently. :rolleyes:
Quote from: garbon on August 29, 2013, 08:54:36 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 08:39:20 AM
Canada has a set of national ideals, which have emerged over time and which differ from those of the US (for example). They are, essentially, an emphasis of social harmony and balancing of interests, as opposed to the US focus on individual liberty.
I think you might be painting that with too big of a wide brush. Certainly during the course of the 20th and 21st centuries, the US has put a lot of effort into a collective and not just individual freedom (looking at our social spending - and sure we don't have the best functioning system but I think it'd be a mistaken to say our focus is just on individual liberty*).
*particularly during the last decade or so in US history where we've been sacrificing more and more personal liberty for perceived public good.
Also, I thought it was francophone nations/areas that put the most focus on the rights of the collective over the individual.
I'm talking in terms of comparative cultural ideals. Compared with Canada, the US tends, on average, to put more emphasis on individual liberty. That doesn't mean the US doesn't put effort into the collective and it doesn't mean that Canadians do not value individual liberty.
Also, emphasis on balancing of interests is not exactly the same as weighing down the collective side of the collective/individual dichotomy.
Quote from: merithyn on August 29, 2013, 09:17:25 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 09:15:52 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 29, 2013, 09:09:17 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 08:39:20 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 28, 2013, 08:59:58 PM
I missed you guys :blush: I've been lurking though.
Disagree.
We really can argue anything, can't we?
I ... assume this is a joke. :)
And we've completely lost our sense of humor, too, apparently. :rolleyes:
Using the "royal we"? :hmm:
Canadian drama is no joke!
Heh actually it is sorta funny.
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 09:19:46 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 29, 2013, 09:17:25 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 09:15:52 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 29, 2013, 09:09:17 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 08:39:20 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 28, 2013, 08:59:58 PM
I missed you guys :blush: I've been lurking though.
Disagree.
We really can argue anything, can't we?
I ... assume this is a joke. :)
And we've completely lost our sense of humor, too, apparently. :rolleyes:
Using the "royal we"? :hmm:
Meaning you. And everyone else around here.
Quote from: merithyn on August 29, 2013, 09:21:16 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 09:19:46 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 29, 2013, 09:17:25 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 09:15:52 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 29, 2013, 09:09:17 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 08:39:20 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 28, 2013, 08:59:58 PM
I missed you guys :blush: I've been lurking though.
Disagree.
We really can argue anything, can't we?
I ... assume this is a joke. :)
And we've completely lost our sense of humor, too, apparently. :rolleyes:
Using the "royal we"? :hmm:
Meaning you. And everyone else around here.
Woah. You are in a bad mood this AM. :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 09:23:00 AM
Woah. You are in a bad mood this AM. :lol:
:mellow:
Remarkably, it was going relatively fine until I logged into Languish. Go figure.
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 09:18:50 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 29, 2013, 08:54:36 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 08:39:20 AM
Canada has a set of national ideals, which have emerged over time and which differ from those of the US (for example). They are, essentially, an emphasis of social harmony and balancing of interests, as opposed to the US focus on individual liberty.
I think you might be painting that with too big of a wide brush. Certainly during the course of the 20th and 21st centuries, the US has put a lot of effort into a collective and not just individual freedom (looking at our social spending - and sure we don't have the best functioning system but I think it'd be a mistaken to say our focus is just on individual liberty*).
*particularly during the last decade or so in US history where we've been sacrificing more and more personal liberty for perceived public good.
Also, I thought it was francophone nations/areas that put the most focus on the rights of the collective over the individual.
I'm talking in terms of comparative cultural ideals. Compared with Canada, the US tends, on average, to put more emphasis on individual liberty. That doesn't mean the US doesn't put effort into the collective and it doesn't mean that Canadians do not value individual liberty.
Also, emphasis on balancing of interests is not exactly the same as weighing down the collective side of the collective/individual dichotomy.
I'm just saying that if someone was taking the stance that there is no Canadian culture (which I am not!), I don't think what you're saying is so convincing. To myself, it sounds like highlighting a difference that is not all that severe.
Quote from: merithyn on August 29, 2013, 09:27:11 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 09:23:00 AM
Woah. You are in a bad mood this AM. :lol:
:mellow:
Remarkably, it was going relatively fine until I logged into Languish. Go figure.
Fine. But why are you picking on me, here? I've done, literally, nothing to annoy you today - that I know of. :mellow:
Quote from: Zoupa on August 29, 2013, 01:34:56 AMYes, the vague contours started forming in the 60s. This is just a personal opinion. I think everybody has their own definition of what culture means.
:lol:
Like I said, either making a political point or taking the piss. In the case of your personal opinion, I think it's both.
Welcome back :hug:
Quote from: garbon on August 29, 2013, 09:27:55 AM
I'm just saying that if someone was taking the stance that there is no Canadian culture (which I am not!), I don't think what you're saying is so convincing. To myself, it sounds like highlighting a difference that is not all that severe.
I think it is a major and significant difference. Naturally any argument about "culture" is going to be pretty subjective and subject to the comment that variations within a country are greater that variations between countries.
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 09:30:50 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 29, 2013, 09:27:11 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 09:23:00 AM
Woah. You are in a bad mood this AM. :lol:
:mellow:
Remarkably, it was going relatively fine until I logged into Languish. Go figure.
Fine. But why are you picking on me, here? I've done, literally, nothing to annoy you today - that I know of. :mellow:
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 09:15:52 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 29, 2013, 09:09:17 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 08:39:20 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 28, 2013, 08:59:58 PM
I missed you guys :blush: I've been lurking though.
Disagree.
We really can argue anything, can't we?
I ... assume this is a joke. :)
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 09:33:53 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 29, 2013, 09:27:55 AM
I'm just saying that if someone was taking the stance that there is no Canadian culture (which I am not!), I don't think what you're saying is so convincing. To myself, it sounds like highlighting a difference that is not all that severe.
Naturally any argument about "culture" is going to be pretty subjective and subject to the comment that variations within a country are greater that variations between countries.
Fair.
Quote from: merithyn on August 29, 2013, 09:44:00 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 09:30:50 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 29, 2013, 09:27:11 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 09:23:00 AM
Woah. You are in a bad mood this AM. :lol:
:mellow:
Remarkably, it was going relatively fine until I logged into Languish. Go figure.
Fine. But why are you picking on me, here? I've done, literally, nothing to annoy you today - that I know of. :mellow:
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 09:15:52 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 29, 2013, 09:09:17 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 08:39:20 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 28, 2013, 08:59:58 PM
I missed you guys :blush: I've been lurking though.
Disagree.
We really can argue anything, can't we?
I ... assume this is a joke. :)
You took what looked like it might be a crack at me. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, assuming you were just joking. And
I'm the bad guy? :hmm:
I like Viper and Grallon. :)
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 09:50:03 AM
You took what looked like it might be a crack at me. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, assuming you were just joking. And I'm the bad guy? :hmm:
:rolleyes:
It was obviously a joke, and that you would think that it might be a crack at you says either you're paranoid, or you think very little of my ability to read, understand, and logically deduce what you were really saying. I'll go with the latter, as that seems to be the theme around here lately.
Quote from: merithyn on August 29, 2013, 09:57:25 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 09:50:03 AM
You took what looked like it might be a crack at me. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, assuming you were just joking. And I'm the bad guy? :hmm:
:rolleyes:
It was obviously a joke, and that you would think that it might be a crack at you says either you're paranoid, or you think very little of my ability to read, understand, and logically deduce what you were really saying. I'll go with the latter, as that seems to be the theme around here lately.
You really are in a nasty mood. :lol:
How about this: 'never mind, let it go'.
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 10:02:36 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 29, 2013, 09:57:25 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 09:50:03 AM
You took what looked like it might be a crack at me. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, assuming you were just joking. And I'm the bad guy? :hmm:
:rolleyes:
It was obviously a joke, and that you would think that it might be a crack at you says either you're paranoid, or you think very little of my ability to read, understand, and logically deduce what you were really saying. I'll go with the latter, as that seems to be the theme around here lately.
You really are in a nasty mood. :lol:
How about this: 'never mind, let it go'.
Rude.
Quote from: merithyn on August 29, 2013, 09:57:25 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 09:50:03 AM
You took what looked like it might be a crack at me. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, assuming you were just joking. And I'm the bad guy? :hmm:
:rolleyes:
It was obviously a joke, and that you would think that it might be a crack at you says either you're paranoid, or you think very little of my ability to read, understand, and logically deduce what you were really saying. I'll go with the latter, as that seems to be the theme around here lately.
Yeah what gives Malthus? This was about as obvious as a ton of bricks.
Quote from: Valmy on August 29, 2013, 10:33:55 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 29, 2013, 09:57:25 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 09:50:03 AM
You took what looked like it might be a crack at me. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, assuming you were just joking. And I'm the bad guy? :hmm:
:rolleyes:
It was obviously a joke, and that you would think that it might be a crack at you says either you're paranoid, or you think very little of my ability to read, understand, and logically deduce what you were really saying. I'll go with the latter, as that seems to be the theme around here lately.
Yeah what gives Malthus? This was about as obvious as a ton of bricks.
It wasn't obvious to me. The fact is that I often get accused of all sorts of bias in Quebec threads, and so I quite honestly did not know if that was a reference to that.
Know what? This place is getting on my nerves, and it is my fault. I should I think take a break.
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 10:37:43 AM
It wasn't obvious to me. The fact is that I often get accused of all sorts of bias in Quebec threads, and so I quite honestly did not know if that was a reference to that.
Nah it was just a general joke on how combatative the Canadians get in these threads, not you personally.
QuoteKnow what? This place is getting on my nerves, and it is my fault. I should I think take a break.
Always a good policy when that happens :hug:
Quote from: Valmy on August 29, 2013, 10:39:04 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 10:37:43 AM
It wasn't obvious to me. The fact is that I often get accused of all sorts of bias in Quebec threads, and so I quite honestly did not know if that was a reference to that.
Nah it was just a general joke on how combatative the Canadians get in these threads, not you personally.
QuoteKnow what? This place is getting on my nerves, and it is my fault. I should I think take a break.
Always a good policy when that happens :hug:
Heh, I'll be back. :D
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 10:37:43 AM
It wasn't obvious to me. The fact is that I often get accused of all sorts of bias in Quebec threads, and so I quite honestly did not know if that was a reference to that.
Know what? This place is getting on my nerves, and it is my fault. I should I think take a break.
I've said it before - Malthus has blinders full on when it comes to this question - and when asked about it he gets all defensive. :P
G.
What question?
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 09:19:46 AM
Using the "royal we"? :hmm:
I'm guessing the Obama "we", which means "you" or "they".
It seems like the PQ is mad at Justin Trudeau for comparing their charter to the Jim Crow laws.
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/blasts+Justin+Trudeau+seeming+comparison+Quebec+charter+values+segregation/8847738/story.html
Quote"You know we are not in the intolerance camp, our approach is one of dialogue, but we want to clarify the rules when it comes to Quebec values."
:lol:
Well maybe he is good for something.
BTW, "moderation of epitaphs"?
I was going to say that this is the first apt thing that Trudeau has ever done.
Quote from: Grallon on August 29, 2013, 11:14:41 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 10:37:43 AM
It wasn't obvious to me. The fact is that I often get accused of all sorts of bias in Quebec threads, and so I quite honestly did not know if that was a reference to that.
Know what? This place is getting on my nerves, and it is my fault. I should I think take a break.
I've said it before - Malthus has blinders full on when it comes to this question - and when asked about it he gets all defensive. :P
G.
See, Valmy? :) This is exactly what I was talking about. Thanks, Grallon, for the demonstration.
Having some third party crack a joke, based on this history = easily mistaken as a personal dig. Hence, my question.
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 01:05:56 PM
Quote from: Grallon on August 29, 2013, 11:14:41 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 10:37:43 AM
It wasn't obvious to me. The fact is that I often get accused of all sorts of bias in Quebec threads, and so I quite honestly did not know if that was a reference to that.
Know what? This place is getting on my nerves, and it is my fault. I should I think take a break.
I've said it before - Malthus has blinders full on when it comes to this question - and when asked about it he gets all defensive. :P
G.
See, Valmy? :) This is exactly what I was talking about. Thanks, Grallon, for the demonstration.
Having some third party crack a joke, based on this history = easily mistaken as a personal dig. Hence, my question.
From G-man, sure. From Meri though?
Justin was beginning to sound like he understood the issue, and then he said this to a Globe reporter.
QuoteHe clarified that he does not see a "direct parallel between segregation and the Quebec charter" which, according to media reports, would ban religious headgear and other visible religious symbols in provincial workplaces. "The parallel is certainly between the fight for openness and respect and acceptance of everything that everyone is and I am proud of where we have come and where we are as an open society and I intend to keep us as an open society and that is the opposition I have against this charter," he told reporters.
No Justin it is not about acceptance and respect for everyone and everything. There are plenty of things we have good reason not to respect or accept. Its about religious tolerance and where the boundaries should be set regarding that.
Now I suppose you could be charitable and say his "everything and everyone" comment implied every religious practice and everyone practicing those religious beliefs. But even that would be too broad. We still have limits on religious practices. The question is a lot more nuanced than his rather simplistic approach.
Said it before and I will say it again. The more this guy talks the more he comes across has having all the sophistication of an undergrad polysci student.
Quote from: garbon on August 29, 2013, 01:08:08 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 01:05:56 PM
Quote from: Grallon on August 29, 2013, 11:14:41 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 10:37:43 AM
It wasn't obvious to me. The fact is that I often get accused of all sorts of bias in Quebec threads, and so I quite honestly did not know if that was a reference to that.
Know what? This place is getting on my nerves, and it is my fault. I should I think take a break.
I've said it before - Malthus has blinders full on when it comes to this question - and when asked about it he gets all defensive. :P
G.
See, Valmy? :) This is exactly what I was talking about. Thanks, Grallon, for the demonstration.
Having some third party crack a joke, based on this history = easily mistaken as a personal dig. Hence, my question.
From G-man, sure. From Meri though?
The point is that it is a sorta-established Languish meme: Malthus has it in for Quebec and Quebec folks. Fact that it is untrue is of course irrelevant, this being Languish. So that raises the question - is what she said supposed to be a dig based on that or not?
I thought it wasn't but could not be sure. Hence the question.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 29, 2013, 01:14:12 PM
Justin was beginning to sound like he understood the issue, and then he said this to a Globe reporter.
QuoteHe clarified that he does not see a "direct parallel between segregation and the Quebec charter" which, according to media reports, would ban religious headgear and other visible religious symbols in provincial workplaces. "The parallel is certainly between the fight for openness and respect and acceptance of everything that everyone is and I am proud of where we have come and where we are as an open society and I intend to keep us as an open society and that is the opposition I have against this charter," he told reporters.
No Justin it is not about acceptance and respect for everyone and everything. There are plenty of things we have good reason not to respect or accept. Its about religious tolerance and where the boundaries should be set regarding that.
Now I suppose you could be charitable and say his "everything and everyone" comment implied every religious practice and everyone practicing those religious beliefs. But even that would be too broad. We still have limits on religious practices. The question is a lot more nuanced than his rather simplistic approach.
Said it before and I will say it again. The more this guy talks the more he comes across has having all the sophistication of an undergrad polysci student.
Ouch.
I tend to like Trudeau's positions on things when I hear them third-hand. :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 01:17:12 PM
The point is that it is a sorta-established Languish meme: Malthus has it in for Quebec and Quebec folks.
I don't think I've ever heard that from anyone other than a couple of Usual Suspects who say it about anyone.
Quote from: Maximus on August 29, 2013, 01:21:04 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 01:17:12 PM
The point is that it is a sorta-established Languish meme: Malthus has it in for Quebec and Quebec folks.
I don't think I've ever heard that from anyone other than a couple of Usual Suspects who say it about anyone.
Indeed. I didn't know that was a meme. :mellow:
Quote from: Maximus on August 29, 2013, 01:21:04 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 01:17:12 PM
The point is that it is a sorta-established Languish meme: Malthus has it in for Quebec and Quebec folks.
I don't think I've ever heard that from anyone other than a couple of Usual Suspects who say it about anyone.
Naturally, I tend to notice it more often. :lol:
I've got told it by posters I rarely even interact with.
Quote from: garbon on August 29, 2013, 01:22:30 PM
Quote from: Maximus on August 29, 2013, 01:21:04 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 01:17:12 PM
The point is that it is a sorta-established Languish meme: Malthus has it in for Quebec and Quebec folks.
I don't think I've ever heard that from anyone other than a couple of Usual Suspects who say it about anyone.
Indeed. I didn't know that was a meme. :mellow:
It is a meme in Canadian political threads. It has been going on for some years. I wouldnt say it is a Languish wide meme. Max is pretty accurate in ascribing it to the Usual Suspects - depending who might be slotted into that definition.
I give Meri the benefit of the doubt in not knowing how her joke could be been interpreted within that background as she is more of a part time poster in these threads - much like yourself.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 29, 2013, 01:14:12 PM
Justin was beginning to sound like he understood the issue, and then he said this to a Globe reporter.
QuoteHe clarified that he does not see a "direct parallel between segregation and the Quebec charter" which, according to media reports, would ban religious headgear and other visible religious symbols in provincial workplaces. "The parallel is certainly between the fight for openness and respect and acceptance of everything that everyone is and I am proud of where we have come and where we are as an open society and I intend to keep us as an open society and that is the opposition I have against this charter," he told reporters.
No Justin it is not about acceptance and respect for everyone and everything. There are plenty of things we have good reason not to respect or accept. Its about religious tolerance and where the boundaries should be set regarding that.
Now I suppose you could be charitable and say his "everything and everyone" comment implied every religious practice and everyone practicing those religious beliefs. But even that would be too broad. We still have limits on religious practices. The question is a lot more nuanced than his rather simplistic approach.
Said it before and I will say it again. The more this guy talks the more he comes across has having all the sophistication of an undergrad polysci student.
Somebody showed him the polling numbers for this thing from Quebec, and he decided to walk his statements back a bit.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 29, 2013, 01:27:52 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 29, 2013, 01:22:30 PM
Quote from: Maximus on August 29, 2013, 01:21:04 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 01:17:12 PM
The point is that it is a sorta-established Languish meme: Malthus has it in for Quebec and Quebec folks.
I don't think I've ever heard that from anyone other than a couple of Usual Suspects who say it about anyone.
Indeed. I didn't know that was a meme. :mellow:
It is a meme in Canadian political threads. It has been going on for some years. I wouldnt say it is a Languish wide meme. Max is pretty accurate in ascribing it to the Usual Suspects - depending who might be slotted into that definition.
I give Meri the benefit of the doubt in not knowing how her joke could be been interpreted within that background as she is more of a part time poster in these threads - much like yourself.
Okay. Yeah I knew it was a meme about Anglo-Canadians but didn't know it was Malthus specific.
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 09:30:50 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 29, 2013, 09:27:11 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 09:23:00 AM
Woah. You are in a bad mood this AM. :lol:
:mellow:
Remarkably, it was going relatively fine until I logged into Languish. Go figure.
Fine. But why are you picking on me, here? I've done, literally, nothing to annoy you today - that I know of. :mellow:
And that was your mistake. Girls love attention, even of the wrong kind.
Quote from: garbon on August 29, 2013, 01:29:37 PM
Okay. Yeah I knew it was a meme about Anglo-Canadians but didn't know it was Malthus specific.
I dunno how it got started, but it is pretty annoying to have people tell you repeatedly that you are a bigot, assuming you don't happen to think it is true. But like any Languish meme that someone is pushing, there is really no fighting it. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 01:33:56 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 29, 2013, 01:29:37 PM
Okay. Yeah I knew it was a meme about Anglo-Canadians but didn't know it was Malthus specific.
I dunno how it got started, but it is pretty annoying to have people tell you repeatedly that you are a bigot, assuming you don't happen to think it is true. But like any Languish meme that someone is pushing, there is really no fighting it. ;)
I thought you were pushing that trillion dollar stroller. :unsure:
Quote from: garbon on August 29, 2013, 01:36:46 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 01:33:56 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 29, 2013, 01:29:37 PM
Okay. Yeah I knew it was a meme about Anglo-Canadians but didn't know it was Malthus specific.
I dunno how it got started, but it is pretty annoying to have people tell you repeatedly that you are a bigot, assuming you don't happen to think it is true. But like any Languish meme that someone is pushing, there is really no fighting it. ;)
I thought you were pushing that trillion dollar stroller. :unsure:
Now I'm a victim of inflation, as well. :(
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 01:38:00 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 29, 2013, 01:36:46 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 01:33:56 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 29, 2013, 01:29:37 PM
Okay. Yeah I knew it was a meme about Anglo-Canadians but didn't know it was Malthus specific.
I dunno how it got started, but it is pretty annoying to have people tell you repeatedly that you are a bigot, assuming you don't happen to think it is true. But like any Languish meme that someone is pushing, there is really no fighting it. ;)
I thought you were pushing that trillion dollar stroller. :unsure:
Now I'm a victim of inflation, as well. :(
Oh sorry, billion. :blush:
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 01:33:56 PMI dunno how it got started, but it is pretty annoying to have people tell you repeatedly that you are a bigot, assuming you don't happen to think it is true. But like any Languish meme that someone is pushing, there is really no fighting it. ;)
The only people pushing it with any kind of conviction are Viper and Grallon. The rest are only doing it because it is effective in getting a rise out of you :console:
Quote from: Jacob on August 29, 2013, 01:40:56 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 01:33:56 PMI dunno how it got started, but it is pretty annoying to have people tell you repeatedly that you are a bigot, assuming you don't happen to think it is true. But like any Languish meme that someone is pushing, there is really no fighting it. ;)
The only people pushing it with any kind of conviction are Viper and Grallon. The rest are only doing it because it is effective in getting a rise out of you :console:
I think the point is that there is no "the rest".
It's ok Malthus. I hate French people too. :mad:
Quote from: Jacob on August 29, 2013, 01:40:56 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 01:33:56 PMI dunno how it got started, but it is pretty annoying to have people tell you repeatedly that you are a bigot, assuming you don't happen to think it is true. But like any Languish meme that someone is pushing, there is really no fighting it. ;)
The only people pushing it with any kind of conviction are Viper and Grallon. The rest are only doing it because it is effective in getting a rise out of you :console:
Yeah, I'm a soft touch for trolling. :(
I was unhappy to find posters I've never interacted with much, pushing the meme. To give but one example, in the thread on headcoverings:
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,9996.msg597002.html#msg597002
QuoteStop putting words into my mouth, I didn't say "your country has problems too", I said YOU had problems with Quebeckers, not the same thing
When I said I didn't:
QuoteThat's not what I get from the Québécois on Languish or from your repeated posts about these Têtes de Turc of yours...
That's from Duque de Bragança, whom I've never much interacted with before.
Quote from: merithyn on August 29, 2013, 01:42:48 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 29, 2013, 01:40:56 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 01:33:56 PMI dunno how it got started, but it is pretty annoying to have people tell you repeatedly that you are a bigot, assuming you don't happen to think it is true. But like any Languish meme that someone is pushing, there is really no fighting it. ;)
The only people pushing it with any kind of conviction are Viper and Grallon. The rest are only doing it because it is effective in getting a rise out of you :console:
I think the point is that there is no "the rest".
Not true. See post above.
Hence I had a reasonable suspicion of being trolled.
Not your fault, but given the background, it isn't unreasonable for me to
ask the question.
Quote from: Jacob on August 29, 2013, 01:40:56 PM
The only people pushing it with any kind of conviction are Viper and Grallon. The rest are only doing it because it is effective in getting a rise out of you :console:
Not at all Jacob - Oex left this place in part because of this chronic bad faith of Canadians when it comes to the matter of Quebec. And nobody can ever claim Oex was some sort of extremist/racist/tribalist... But since we're in 'saving Malthus' mode don't let that stop you.
-----
As for Trudeau Junior - he's an imbecile, picked by the Liberal establishment for his name and his good looks - no substance there whatsoever.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on August 29, 2013, 02:06:37 PM
Not at all Jacob - Oex left this place in part because of this chronic bad faith of Canadians when it comes to the matter of Quebec. And nobody can ever claim Oex was some sort of extremist/racist/tribalist... But since we're in 'saving Malthus' mode don't let that stop you.
-----
As for Trudeau Junior - he's an imbecile, picked by the Liberal establishment for his name and his good looks - no substance there whatsoever.
G.
Oex didn't leave.
I wasn't taking the piss Jake. I was just stating my opinion. Obviously I'm more exposed to qc culture though, might be just that.
Also Malthus is full of shit about his absence of a shoulder chip in regard to qc ;)
Quote from: Grallon on August 29, 2013, 02:06:37 PM
Not at all Jacob - Oex left this place in part because of this chronic bad faith of Canadians when it comes to the matter of Quebec. And nobody can ever claim Oex was some sort of extremist/racist/tribalist... But since we're in 'saving Malthus' mode don't let that stop you.
Actually I recall Oex seeming pretty hysterical at that time on this issue.
I would definitely consider Oex a nationalist.
Quote from: garbon on August 29, 2013, 02:32:39 PM
Actually I recall Oex seeming pretty hysterical at that time on this issue.
Hysterical ha-ha? Or Marti hysterical? :unsure:
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 01:59:50 PM
Not true. See post above.
Hence I had a reasonable suspicion of being trolled.
I don't think Duque was trolling, and if you're referring to my post, I'd never known about your intense francophobia before this thread. :P
Malthus never really got over the Dreyfus Affair.
And so we witness the birth of a once isolated meme into a fully grown Languish wide meme. :D
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 29, 2013, 02:41:20 PM
Malthus never really got over the Dreyfus Affair.
:lol:
Quote from: merithyn on August 29, 2013, 02:35:43 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 29, 2013, 02:32:39 PM
Actually I recall Oex seeming pretty hysterical at that time on this issue.
Hysterical ha-ha? Or Marti hysterical? :unsure:
As in he seemed disproportionately bent out of shape. So neither. :P
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 29, 2013, 02:39:55 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2013, 01:59:50 PM
Not true. See post above.
Hence I had a reasonable suspicion of being trolled.
I don't think Duque was trolling, and if you're referring to my post, I'd never known about your intense francophobia before this thread. :P
I wasn't referring to your post. ;)
I'm not *that* suceptible. :D
Quote from: Zoupa on August 29, 2013, 02:20:28 PM
Also Malthus is full of shit about his absence of a shoulder chip in regard to qc ;)
As you can see, this is what I see a lot of.
I'm thinking about going up to the art festival in Frelighsburg PQ this Sunday. :swiss:
Quote from: Zoupa on August 29, 2013, 02:20:28 PM
I wasn't taking the piss Jake. I was just stating my opinion. Obviously I'm more exposed to qc culture though, might be just that
Would you be able to define Quebec culture the way that would satisfy your answer about Canadian culture earlier? You never did reply to my outline of what constitutes Canadian culture, by the way.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 29, 2013, 02:41:20 PM
Malthus never really got over the Dreyfus Affair.
:lol:
Quote from: Jacob on August 29, 2013, 04:04:59 PM
...
You never did reply to my outline of what constitutes Canadian culture, by the way.
You want to know what Canadian culture consists of? An immense inferiority complex towards Britain because of its dignity as Mother Country - towards the US because of its sheer power & towards Quebec because it has a tangible national identity. All of which is wrapped up in a thick cloak of smug condescension (insert lyrical paean to good government, free medicare and social harmony), basking in the uplifting multikulti mantras and, of late, scented with the acrid fumes of dirty - and profitable - quicksand oil.
That is the essence of Canada - and let no Canadian convince you otherwise for they are utterly incapable of detachment when it comes to this topic.
And as for you Zoupa - you coward - retreating before the enemy when pressed hard - you deserve a flogging!
-----
Alright I was being facetious. Canada is our shadow as we are theirs - the despised neighbor - the reviled roommate. They are the proverbial diminutive husband to our termagant housewife.
We're like an old couple that can't stand each other yet can't split up either.
The only reason I enjoy being 'Canadian' is to bite my thumb and thumb my nose at them - those... intimate foreigners.
And that ladies & gents is the true cornerstone of the 'Canadian identity' - this constant tug of war. It's like the 100 years war writ small.
G.
I'm preparing to go to Maine for labour day weekend, so my answer will have to wait. Grallon notwithstanding <_<
The Quebec brigade thinks that pretty much everyone else has a chip on their shoulder about Quebec because they don't seem to be able to distance themselves enough from the issue to see how their positions appear to others. But now that we know that Malthus is particularly sensitive to being accused of it, I'm sure we'll all join in on claiming that he in particular has a chip on his shoulder about it.
Quote from: dps on August 30, 2013, 11:08:38 AM
The Quebec brigade thinks that pretty much everyone else has a chip on their shoulder about Quebec because they don't seem to be able to distance themselves enough from the issue to see how their positions appear to others. But now that we know that Malthus is particularly sensitive to being accused of it, I'm sure we'll all join in on claiming that he in particular has a chip on his shoulder about it.
My Languish coat of arms is a $2,000 stoller rolling over a Quebec flag. :)
:weep:
I like you Canandians. EH EH EH ABOOT ZED
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2013, 12:26:13 PM
My Languish coat of arms is a $2,000 stoller rolling over a Quebec flag. :)
Quebec has a flag*? :unsure:
*Serious question. Not taking the piss out of anyone.
Yes.
Quote from: merithyn on August 30, 2013, 12:42:43 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2013, 12:26:13 PM
My Languish coat of arms is a $2,000 stoller rolling over a Quebec flag. :)
Quebec has a flag*? :unsure:
*Serious question. Not taking the piss out of anyone.
All Canadian provinces & territories have flags.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fshop.flagshop.com%2Fmedia%2Fcatalog%2Fproduct%2Fcache%2F1%2Fimage%2F9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95%2Ff%2Fl%2Fflag-canada-provincial-sets_1.gif&hash=964666579fa27da01a44dcc16d1e4597fb67092b)
It's the one with the fleur de lys.
Which poor schlubs got stuck with the pacifier? :(
Wow, Nova Scotia's flag is more Scottish than Scotland's .
Quote from: merithyn on August 30, 2013, 12:42:43 PM
Quebec has a flag*? :unsure:
*Serious question. Not taking the piss out of anyone.
Huh sort of surprised you have never seen it before. It is by far the most famous Canadian province flag, like how most people know Texas' flag but not say...Delaware's.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 30, 2013, 12:51:21 PM
Which poor schlubs got stuck with the pacifier? :(
Nunavut :)
It's a stone sculpture called an inuksuk
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbc.ca%2Fsevenwonders%2Fimages%2Fpic_wonder_inuksuk_lg.jpg&hash=31af5c835f051555514ab4d609bc562e87b226e7)
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2013, 12:57:01 PM
Huh sort of surprised you have never seen it before. It is by far the most famous Canadian province flag, like how most people know Texas' flag but not say...Delaware's.
Not sure that I'd know Texas' flag, either. :P
Quote from: merithyn on August 30, 2013, 12:42:43 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2013, 12:26:13 PM
My Languish coat of arms is a $2,000 stoller rolling over a Quebec flag. :)
Quebec has a flag*? :unsure:
*Serious question. Not taking the piss out of anyone.
Yup. All provinces do. The Quebec one the one you are most likely to see used.
There was a famous (well, famous here) incident in which some bigots in Ontario stamped on a Quebec flag to show their hatred of that province
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2013, 01:07:10 PM
There was a famous (well, famous here) incident in which some bigots in Ontario stamped on a Quebec flag to show their hatred of that province
That was you wasn't it? :P
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2013, 01:08:25 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2013, 01:07:10 PM
There was a famous (well, famous here) incident in which some bigots in Ontario stamped on a Quebec flag to show their hatred of that province
That was you wasn't it? :P
No. :mad:
As I said, I ran my $2,000 stroller over it. :contract:
Quote from: merithyn on August 30, 2013, 01:04:51 PM
Not sure that I'd know Texas' flag, either. :P
I know how many stars it has.
Our flag is known from Spitsbergen to Tazmania :mad:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbecker-realtors.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F12%2Ftexas-flag.jpg&hash=0c3bb35691f94973a154686a20b48891d144f43e)
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2013, 01:09:25 PM
No. :mad:
As I said, I ran my $2,000 stroller over it. :contract:
:thumbsup:
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2013, 01:07:10 PM
Yup. All provinces do. The Quebec one the one you are most likely to see used.
On the drive between Toronto and Montreal I remember starting to see a number of Canadian flags flying on several of the farms in the area. The Canadian flag is a rare enough site in the cities, much more so in remote rural areas. A few minutes later I saw the
Québec, Vous Souhaite la Bienvenue sign and then nothing but Quebec flags all the way to Montreal. :Canuck:
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2013, 01:15:16 PM
Our flag is known from Spitsbergen to Tazmania :mad:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbecker-realtors.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F12%2Ftexas-flag.jpg&hash=0c3bb35691f94973a154686a20b48891d144f43e)
I didn't know you lived in Chile.
Quote from: Savonarola on August 30, 2013, 01:19:46 PM
The Canadian flag is a rare enough site in the cities
What would Captain Canada say?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 30, 2013, 01:20:28 PMI didn't know you lived in Chile.
:lol:
I was actually going to make a joke about that, about how it NEVER gets confused with the Chilean flag. And of course there was the time the Texas A&M Corps of Cadets made a big Chilean flag to wave at their football game by mistake.
Quote from: Savonarola on August 30, 2013, 01:19:46 PM
On the drive between Toronto and Montreal I remember starting to see a number of Canadian flags flying on several of the farms in the area. The Canadian flag is a rare enough site in the cities, much more so in remote rural areas. A few minutes later I saw the Québec, Vous Souhaite la Bienvenue sign and then nothing but Quebec flags all the way to Montreal. :Canuck:
There is a stereotype that Ontarians see Ontario and Canada as synonymous. Probably not 100% accurate but I think you will see provincial flags a lot more in other parts of the country.
Hey, Toronto even has its own flag.
The ugliest flag in the history of flags, though. Looks exactly like an upside down pair of cartoon legs with a maple leaf for a figleaf. :lol:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Toronto
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2013, 01:27:10 PM
Hey, Toronto even has its own flag.
The ugliest flag in the history of flags, though. Looks exactly like an upside down pair of cartoon legs with a maple leaf for a figleaf. :lol:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Toronto
Ouch!
City flags tend to be hideous, though; here's Orlando's:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F4%2F41%2FFlag_of_Orlando%252C_Florida.png&hash=4f335b2ac104d3308bc9dfc3cd0fd5487bd7d512)
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2013, 01:27:10 PM
Hey, Toronto even has its own flag.
The ugliest flag in the history of flags, though. Looks exactly like an upside down pair of cartoon legs with a maple leaf for a figleaf. :lol:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Toronto
I don't know, it's distinctive. For ugliest I would nominate any of the 30+ US state flags that consist of the state seal on a blue field with optional state name.
I :wub: Iowa's.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fa%2Faa%2FFlag_of_Iowa.svg%2F670px-Flag_of_Iowa.svg.png&hash=eaea78aa9fb5b7f5cd5d5125d88cc1fb8dd496d3)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.courrierlaval.com%2Fmedia%2Fphotos%2Funis%2Fphoto_741454_resize.jpg&hash=78501df6de10ae6385c7bfda73922a362225c79c)
Here's the flag of my hometown. Yes, that's a beige background :bleeding:
I stand corrected. :lol:
Both Orlando and Laval have Toronto beat for the ugly prize.
Iowa's is what the Franco-Mexican Union flag would look like.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 30, 2013, 01:44:09 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.courrierlaval.com%2Fmedia%2Fphotos%2Funis%2Fphoto_741454_resize.jpg&hash=78501df6de10ae6385c7bfda73922a362225c79c)
Here's the flag of my hometown. Yes, that's a beige background :bleeding:
Oh my, I think we have a winner!
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 30, 2013, 01:44:09 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.courrierlaval.com%2Fmedia%2Fphotos%2Funis%2Fphoto_741454_resize.jpg&hash=78501df6de10ae6385c7bfda73922a362225c79c)
Here's the flag of my hometown. Yes, that's a beige background :bleeding:
What is it with Quebec and your fascination with ugly 1970's fonts?
I'm trying to figure out what the block thing is? :huh:
Quote from: merithyn on August 30, 2013, 01:51:14 PM
I'm trying to figure out what the block thing is? :huh:
Looks like a three dimesional L lying on its side.
Georgia's flag:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.50states.com%2Fflag%2Fimage%2Fnunst014.gif&hash=9268c60decd6500aa0a7e473ba1eea76844f1b1d)
(Think they actually changed it, but I don't care.)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 30, 2013, 01:52:32 PM
Georgia's flag:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.50states.com%2Fflag%2Fimage%2Fnunst014.gif&hash=9268c60decd6500aa0a7e473ba1eea76844f1b1d)
(Think they actually changed it, but I don't care.)
I assume the building on the left is where they held slave auctions? :hmm:
Maybe. :D
That funny part is they did not change that flag until 2001 :lol:
Ah the South. Mississippi only approved the the 13th Amendment like a week ago or something.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 30, 2013, 01:52:32 PM
Georgia's flag:
(Think they actually changed it, but I don't care.)
They did.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 30, 2013, 01:49:12 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 30, 2013, 01:44:09 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.courrierlaval.com%2Fmedia%2Fphotos%2Funis%2Fphoto_741454_resize.jpg&hash=78501df6de10ae6385c7bfda73922a362225c79c)
Here's the flag of my hometown. Yes, that's a beige background :bleeding:
What is it with Quebec and your fascination with ugly 1970's fonts?
Well, everything was designed in the 70s.
@mery, SBR is right, that's an L.
:showoff:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 30, 2013, 01:52:32 PM
Georgia's flag:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.50states.com%2Fflag%2Fimage%2Fnunst014.gif&hash=9268c60decd6500aa0a7e473ba1eea76844f1b1d)
(Think they actually changed it, but I don't care.)
They changed it twice after that one, actually.
The 2001 flag, which cost Governor Roy Barnes the 2002 election:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.50states.com%2Fflag%2Fimage%2Fga_flag_2001.gif&hash=a271ef4d47d88be5dab584c392610410788319d3)
And then the 2003 flag, after Governor Sonny Perdue had been sworn in:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.50states.com%2Fflag%2Fimage%2Fnunst090.gif&hash=54b1d405d03097c94adfc157ac4a686436045ee3)
The flag of Vienna can't decide if it wants to be Indonesian or Danish.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F5%2F5a%2FWien_Dienstflagge.PNG&hash=de6f6ed0d87f4a96de6ca7890be4c82c8e0437ff)
The flags of my German hometowns:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fahnenmasten-shop.de%2Fimages%2Fartikel%2F1010_big.jpg&hash=843d8148277825b0f027195d762d2e64dce3bf06)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fahnen-strauch.de%2FBilder%2FArtikelBilder%2FFahnen%2FItzehoe-90x150.jpg&hash=65eb3d13d34b350df345cc28dfa212ba56499ba6)
Your row boat is very nice. :)
As I've mentioned before my mother's family were among the original settlers of Detroit. Her grandfather's first language was French; prior to the First World War Detroit still had a French speaking district. That disappeared with the rise of the automobile industry; with industrialization and the rise of cities enclaves like that have largely disappeared throughout the United States. I think French Canadians look at that and assume they're going to be run over by the juggernaut of Anglo-American culture unless something drastic is done. There's been language laws since the 1970s, but they don't seem to have stemmed this, or at least not enough to be to the liking of Nationalists.
From an American perspective language laws and the like seem like foolishness; but French speakers generally take more pride in their language and linguistic heritage than English speakers (and there's no serious danger of the English language disappearing here.) It's hard for me to identify with Viper or Grallon's point of view; but I don't think it's completely crazy.
(Interestingly enough one of my father's ancestors was an Irish soldier in the British army in the beginning of the 19th century. For his service and received a land grant in Quebec. The British hoped that the soldiers would be a counter balance to the French influence in the region; and you know the British don't think highly of your culture when they that that the Irish will be a civilizing influence.)
Quote from: Savonarola on August 30, 2013, 04:20:25 PM
As I've mentioned before my mother's family were among the original settlers of Detroit. Her grandfather's first language was French; prior to the First World War Detroit still had a French speaking district. That disappeared with the rise of the automobile industry; with industrialization and the rise of cities enclaves like that have largely disappeared throughout the United States. I think French Canadians look at that and assume they're going to be run over by the juggernaut of Anglo-American culture unless something drastic is done. There's been language laws since the 1970s, but they don't seem to have stemmed this, or at least not enough to be to the liking of Nationalists.
From an American perspective language laws and the like seem like foolishness; but French speakers generally take more pride in their language and linguistic heritage than English speakers (and there's no serious danger of the English language disappearing here.) It's hard for me to identify with Viper or Grallon's point of view; but I don't think it's completely crazy.
(Interestingly enough one of my father's ancestors was an Irish soldier in the British army in the beginning of the 19th century. For his service and received a land grant in Quebec. The British hoped that the soldiers would be a counter balance to the French influence in the region; and you know the British don't think highly of your culture when they that that the Irish will be a civilizing influence.)
The current proposed legislation isn't about language, though. It's about religious headgear and the like.
The fear is not that they will be assimilated by the Anglos, but that they will be assimilated by the Muslims. Which fear would apply equally no non-French speakers.
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2013, 04:23:24 PM
The current proposed legislation isn't about language, though. It's about religious headgear and the like.
The fear is not that they will be assimilated by the Anglos, but that they will be assimilated by the Muslims. Which fear would apply equally no non-French speakers.
I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but I took it as there fear was being splintered further (and then easier for the Anglos to pick them off ;) .) Forcing the Sikhs and Muslims to become French Canadian gives them more numbers.
Quote from: Savonarola on August 30, 2013, 04:27:17 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2013, 04:23:24 PM
The current proposed legislation isn't about language, though. It's about religious headgear and the like.
The fear is not that they will be assimilated by the Anglos, but that they will be assimilated by the Muslims. Which fear would apply equally no non-French speakers.
I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but I took it as there fear was being splintered further (and then easier for the Anglos to pick them off ;) .) Forcing the Sikhs and Muslims to become French Canadian gives them more numbers.
I'm unsure what motivates this. The rhetoric in the past was that Sikhs and Muslims etc. could become french-Canadians by the simple expedient of having Canadian citizenship, living in Quebec, and speaking French.
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2013, 01:07:10 PM
Quote from: merithyn on August 30, 2013, 12:42:43 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2013, 12:26:13 PM
My Languish coat of arms is a $2,000 stoller rolling over a Quebec flag. :)
Quebec has a flag*? :unsure:
*Serious question. Not taking the piss out of anyone.
Yup. All provinces do. The Quebec one the one you are most likely to see used.
There was a famous (well, famous here) incident in which some bigots in Ontario stamped on a Quebec flag to show their hatred of that province
Gotta say, Quebec's flag is the best of the Canadian provincial flags, and better than those of most US states.
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2013, 04:31:13 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on August 30, 2013, 04:27:17 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2013, 04:23:24 PM
The current proposed legislation isn't about language, though. It's about religious headgear and the like.
The fear is not that they will be assimilated by the Anglos, but that they will be assimilated by the Muslims. Which fear would apply equally no non-French speakers.
I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but I took it as there fear was being splintered further (and then easier for the Anglos to pick them off ;) .) Forcing the Sikhs and Muslims to become French Canadian gives them more numbers.
I'm unsure what motivates this. The rhetoric in the past was that Sikhs and Muslims etc. could become french-Canadians by the simple expedient of having Canadian citizenship, living in Quebec, and speaking French.
I read a survey, that I cant seem to find anymore, that asked whether the host society should adapt to the immigrants coming in or that the immigrants should adapt to the host society.
ROC : 45% Host society should adapt.
Quebec : 24% Host society should adapt.
It seems it is something you will never understand.
So Canada is only 45% weenie? Lower than expected. :P
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2013, 04:31:13 PM
I'm unsure what motivates this. The rhetoric in the past was that Sikhs and Muslims etc. could become french-Canadians by the simple expedient of having Canadian citizenship, living in Quebec, and speaking French.
Instead of trying to divine this all by your lonesome self you should actually listen to those who live it and are trying to explain it to you...
G.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 30, 2013, 07:44:00 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2013, 04:31:13 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on August 30, 2013, 04:27:17 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2013, 04:23:24 PM
The current proposed legislation isn't about language, though. It's about religious headgear and the like.
The fear is not that they will be assimilated by the Anglos, but that they will be assimilated by the Muslims. Which fear would apply equally no non-French speakers.
I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but I took it as there fear was being splintered further (and then easier for the Anglos to pick them off ;) .) Forcing the Sikhs and Muslims to become French Canadian gives them more numbers.
I'm unsure what motivates this. The rhetoric in the past was that Sikhs and Muslims etc. could become french-Canadians by the simple expedient of having Canadian citizenship, living in Quebec, and speaking French.
I read a survey, that I cant seem to find anymore, that asked whether the host society should adapt to the immigrants coming in or that the immigrants should adapt to the host society.
ROC : 45% Host society should adapt.
Quebec : 24% Host society should adapt.
It seems it is something you will never understand.
Interesting that it should be phrased as a dichotomy.
Quote from: Grallon on August 30, 2013, 07:57:36 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 30, 2013, 04:31:13 PM
I'm unsure what motivates this. The rhetoric in the past was that Sikhs and Muslims etc. could become french-Canadians by the simple expedient of having Canadian citizenship, living in Quebec, and speaking French.
Instead of trying to divine this all by your lonesome self you should actually listen to those who live it and are trying to explain it to you...
G.
Fine. What's your explaination?
Quebecois have vandalized a mosque and demanded that all muslims leave the province. Grallon has not yet been arrested.
Quote from: Malthus on September 02, 2013, 10:17:19 AM
Interesting that it should be phrased as a dichotomy.
It's strange that simply tolerating someone is "forcing to adapt". What were people in Quebec doing before? Killing them in the streets?
Quote from: Malthus on September 02, 2013, 10:17:19 AM
Interesting that it should be phrased as a dichotomy.
Your response proves his point... You don't don't seem willing - or capable - to understand. Quebecers are *not* Canadians in the same way you guys are Canadians. For you being Canadian is expressing your primary or overarching identity - for us - merely an accessory or secondary one. Continue dismissing this fact as 'tribalism' and you will continue missing the point... This thread, and many others where we discuss Quebec nationalism/culture/identity - contains all the answers you need if you are willing to put aside your blinders.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on September 02, 2013, 07:38:47 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 02, 2013, 10:17:19 AM
Interesting that it should be phrased as a dichotomy.
Your response proves his point... You don't don't seem willing - or capable - to understand. Quebecers are *not* Canadians in the same way you guys are Canadians. For you being Canadian is expressing your primary or overarching identity - for us - merely an accessory or secondary one. Continue dismissing this fact as 'tribalism' and you will continue missing the point... This thread, and many others where we discuss Quebec nationalism/culture/identity - contains all the answers you need if you are willing to put aside your blinders.
G.
It's also possible that he understands it perfectly, and you simply don't want to admit that your views are simple tribalism.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 02, 2013, 07:40:32 PM
It's also possible that he understands it perfectly, and you simply don't want to admit that your views are simple tribalism.
Nurse! He's escaped again confinement again!
G.
Quote from: Grallon on September 02, 2013, 07:44:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 02, 2013, 07:40:32 PM
It's also possible that he understands it perfectly, and you simply don't want to admit that your views are simple tribalism.
Nurse! He's escaped again confinement again!
G.
I suppose the idea that someone can understand what you are saying, but totally reject it is beyond you.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 02, 2013, 07:40:32 PM
Quote from: Grallon on September 02, 2013, 07:38:47 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 02, 2013, 10:17:19 AM
Interesting that it should be phrased as a dichotomy.
Your response proves his point... You don't don't seem willing - or capable - to understand. Quebecers are *not* Canadians in the same way you guys are Canadians. For you being Canadian is expressing your primary or overarching identity - for us - merely an accessory or secondary one. Continue dismissing this fact as 'tribalism' and you will continue missing the point... This thread, and many others where we discuss Quebec nationalism/culture/identity - contains all the answers you need if you are willing to put aside your blinders.
G.
It's also possible that he understands it perfectly, and you simply don't want to admit that your views are simple tribalism.
both views are tribalism if you think about it
It's tribalism to understand what someone says, and not agree with it?
Quote from: Grallon on September 02, 2013, 07:38:47 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 02, 2013, 10:17:19 AM
Interesting that it should be phrased as a dichotomy.
Your response proves his point... You don't don't seem willing - or capable - to understand. Quebecers are *not* Canadians in the same way you guys are Canadians. For you being Canadian is expressing your primary or overarching identity - for us - merely an accessory or secondary one. Continue dismissing this fact as 'tribalism' and you will continue missing the point... This thread, and many others where we discuss Quebec nationalism/culture/identity - contains all the answers you need if you are willing to put aside your blinders.
G.
My point is that it is odd that the issue should be phrased as 'either immigrants adapt to us, or all of society adapts to them'. Naturally, given these two choices, most would prefer that immigrants adapt. It is however a 'false dilemma', as it deliberately excludes other choices (such as that the immigrants not adapt and society not adapt to them, or that the immigrants adapt in some ways but not in others, and society accomodate them but only up to a point).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
QuoteFalse dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice (such as, in some contexts, the assertion that "if you are not with us, you are against us").
This is a perfect example of a particular type of informal logical fallacy. I really don't know what *you* are going on about; *I* was commenting on the survey question.