MONTREAL - A 62-year-old suspect in police custody after a shooting late Tuesday night as premier-elect Pauline Marois was giving a victory speech.
Marois was whisked from the stage by bodyguards at the Metropolis theatre and returned a few moments later unharmed.
Montreal police said the man was “quickly apprehended” after approaching the back of Metropolis, penetrating a vestibule and opening fire.
“For us this is a homicide investigation,” Montreal police spokesman Ian Lafrenière said.
Television footage showed a heavy-set man in a blue bathrobe and black balaclava yelling: “the anglos are waking up” in French with an English accent as he was led away by police. Then alternating between English and French he added: “There’s going to be f-ing payback. It’s enough. Wanna make trouble.”
The suspect “is not from Montreal. He is a Quebecer,” Lafrenière said this morning. Footage showed a high-powered rifle, which Twitter users identified as an AK-47 or Valmont Hunter weapon.
Lafrenière said two guns were recovered at the scene but there was no reason to believe there was more than one shooter.
Urgences Santé spokesperson Stéphane Smith said a man died on the scene and two others were transported to hospital.
The life of the second shooting victim is no longer considered in danger, Lt. Guy Lapointe of the Sûreté du Québec confirmed this morning. The third person was treated for shock, Smith said.
Lafrenière said the dead man was in his 40s, but refused to say more out of respect for the victim’s family.
However a witness told The Gazette at least one of the two men shot was a stage technician waiting to dismantle the set where Marois was speaking. The deceased was a freelance lighting technician who worked with Solotech, a company that had been hired to work at Metropolis on election night. The men were inside the building when they were shot near the artists’ entrance.
Employees at Solotech, who knew the victim, were stunned by their colleague’s death. “He went to work and was shot, it is unbelievable,” said one employee. Another employee, who knew the victim, fought back tears as he talked about his friend. “My heart goes out to the family,” he said. The employees did not divulge the man’s name because they were not certain that his family had been notified.
A co-worker of the deceased technician told LCN news that he was at the rear of Metropolis when the gunman fired a few shots before his rifle jammed. “We were about 12 feet away – if it didn’t jam, we could have all been (hit). I lost a work colleague and another one was seriously injured because of this psychopath.” The co-worker said he immediately called 911 and gave a description of the suspect who was arrested near the scene.
Witnesses also said the suspect launched some kind of incendiary device into a nearby Dumpster, igniting it briefly before the flames were doused.
A section of Ste. Catherine St. in front of the Metropolis was been closed as a security perimeter was erected around the scene.
Marois, Quebec’s premier-elect, was rushed from the stage mid-speech by her bodyguards just before midnight after her Parti Québécois won a minority government.
Marois returned to the microphone shortly after and told stunned supporters an “unfortunate incident” had occurred. She asked the crowd to leave the theatre and appealed for calm, saying: “That is what a woman head of government does.”
The incident put a damper on what was a noisy, happy celebration of Marois’s victory as the first woman to lead Quebec.
Sylvain Giguere, a PQ supporter, said after Marois was yanked offstage, “the room went deadly quiet.”
The other party leaders, including outgoing premier Jean Charest and Coalition Avenir Québec leader François Legault denounced the tragic turn of events.
Montreal police downplayed how close the suspect got to Quebec’s newly elected premier.
“Yes, he entered inside the theatre, but he was only in the entryway ... a vestibule,” Lafrenière said. “The suspect was quickly apprehended. The incident took place behind the theatre.”
He added that it was too early to speculate about the suspect’s motivations or whether he has a criminal record.
“What was his motive? Those are things we are looking into,” Lafrenière said.
Marois sent out a press release following the shooting saying her thoughts are with the family and friends of the deceased. “All Quebecers are in mourning today because of this act of violence. Never would a society like ours allow violence to dictate our collective choice. It is through democracy that we have to express ourselves, like Quebecers were able to do yesterday.”
Canada already has substantial regulation, so by the laws of physics this can't have happened...
When the US permits Canada to become part of Greater Texas, France can have Quebec.
Wife: "Why do you always make fun of France. Aren't you part French." Frazzled: "Thats because all the guys who don't surrender bailed when Napaleon lost." Wife: "Is that why you're so crotchety?" Frazzled:"You're just jealous because all the voices talk to me." Team Weinie from the kennel: "Thats right. We only talk to him."
I always thought Canada had a ton of guns, maybe not quite as many as the United States but close per capita.
Say what you want about Michael Moore, but I thought Bowling For Columbine was a pretty good discussion on why the US has so many more gun deaths than Canada when they aren't too dissimilar in gun ownership.
I was mostly making fun of insecure gun owners up above who jump to defend gun ownership when there is literally no one actually talking about gun control. I hate to be cynical but it's been a great marketing tactic by the gun industry to create imagined threats to gun ownership, since it has resulted in a surge in gun sales in America.
30.8 guns per 100 people seems like quite a lot of guns! Sure, it doesn't reach American standards of insanity, at almost 90 guns per 100 people, but it still seems like a lot.
What is strange, and what I was talking about above, is that there is a huge disparity between gun homicides between the two:
Manchu wrote: Is this a freak thing or is there really some resurgent ethnic hostility?
The Anglophone medias have really done a number on Marois and the PQ, calling it a racist party and such. Of course, it didn't help that Marois refused addressing the Anglo community during the race.
Since it was really a close race between 3 party, 2 of which tried to covet the Anglo vote, and the other one being the elected one, with promises of a referendum on separation ''soonish'', their might be some rise of hostility. But until now, said hostility is pretty much contained in debates and newspapers editorials. This is the first act of violence clearly claimed as ethnic.
Manchu wrote: Is this a freak thing or is there really some resurgent ethnic hostility?
Well some members of the PQ campaigned pretty hard on the idea of a heavily french first culture, to the point of eroding minority English rights. So to say that this incident came out of nowhere is naive.
However I suspect this was an isolated incident following a high stakes, high pressure election campaign.
30.8 guns per 100 people seems like quite a lot of guns! Sure, it doesn't reach American standards of insanity, at almost 90 guns per 100 people, but it still seems like a lot.
What is strange, and what I was talking about above, is that there is a huge disparity between gun homicides between the two:
So, while Canada has 1/3 the amount of guns per capita as America it only has close to 1/6 the amount of gun homicides per capita as America.
Its because: 1) their population density is extremely low in much of the country; 2) they are the most polite people on the planet secure in their freedom from attack, sitting on the oil sands, and their ultimate monopoly of maple syrup. You can't be cramy when you dominate the maple syrup trade.
Manchu wrote: Is this a freak thing or is there really some resurgent ethnic hostility?
Well some members of the PQ campaigned pretty hard on the idea of a heavily french first culture, to the point of eroding minority English rights. So to say that this incident came out of nowhere is naive.
However I suspect this was an isolated incident following a high stakes, high pressure election campaign.
Is the concept of a Quebec secession a realistic one? I'm not particularly aware of Canadian polity.
Manchu wrote: Is this a freak thing or is there really some resurgent ethnic hostility?
Well some members of the PQ campaigned pretty hard on the idea of a heavily french first culture, to the point of eroding minority English rights.
The PQ always campaigned on the idea of a francophone Quebec ONLY. Separation is for the sole purpose of protecting our culture from assimilation, and it's the 1st article the the PQ platform. It's nothing new.
Was there some questions on the Anglo's access to english colleges that was brought up during the race, that I might have missed? From what I gathered, it was mostly the popular based referendum (for everyone else, Marois promised that if she would get 60k signatures on a petition, she'd do a referendum on the separation). Considering that at any point in time there's between 1.6 and 2.5 millions quebecers for separation, it was seen as a bit of an easy process.
Jefffar wrote:Well some members of the PQ campaigned pretty hard on the idea of a heavily french first culture, to the point of eroding minority English rights.
That sounds blatantly bad. I'm not condoning the violence but I will say that it makes more sense than, for example, our recent theater shooting in Colorado.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kovnik Obama wrote: The PQ always campaigned on the idea of a francophone Quebec ONLY. Separation is for the sole purpose of protecting our culture from assimilation, and it's the 1st article the the PQ platform. It's nothing new.
Is the concept of a Quebec secession a realistic one? I'm not particularly aware of Canadian polity.
Seeing as we once obtained 49.5% for separation on a referendum, it definitely isn't as outlandish as, let's say, an Albertan separation (there's a separatist party in just about every province, btw). Right now the support is between 30 and 37% depending on the age groups. That's after about a decade of doing everything to avoid thinking about the question.
And, just a minor point, it's a Separation. A secession would follow a (majority) sovereignist party being elected and simply annoncing the secession. That was the initial plan, but it's been ruled out before the PQ was first elected. A referendum isn't legally required, but it lends legitimacy to the process.
He's saying: Discriminating against English speaking Canadians-BAD.
It's not really what's happening. That's what's presented by a few anglophone medias. I really don't know what type of 'erosion of minority rights' that's been presented. No one has, to my knowledge, asked to repel the rights of Anglo to obtain an education in English.
Quebec is a predominantly french culture, in a country that's from the moment of the conquest publicized the wish to assimilate us. So yes, we are particularly defensive on the language question.
He's saying: Discriminating against English speaking Canadians-BAD.
It's not really what's happening. That's what's presented by a few anglophone medias. I really don't know what type of 'erosion of minority rights' that's been presented. No one has, to my knowledge, asked to repel the rights of Anglo to obtain an education in English.
Quebec is a predominantly french culture, in a country that's from the moment of the conquest publicized the wish to assimilate us. So yes, we are particularly defensive on the language question.
If I recollect can you even have signs in English at this point? IIRC, but they had to be something like half the size of the English portion.
Kovnik Obama wrote: Quebec is a predominantly french culture, in a country that's from the moment of the conquest publicized the wish to assimilate us. So yes, we are particularly defensive on the language question.
And yet after centuries, the English never did assimilate you. Perhaps the lesson of history is that diversity can persist even in the face of opposition without exclusivity and ethnocentrism? I dunno, maybe ethnocentrism is what you guys think has kept you speaking Québécois.
Frazzled wrote: If I recollect can you even have signs in English at this point? IIRC, but they had to be something like half the size of the English portion.
Law 101 goes in pretty crazy details over what can and can't be done in english up here. I don't know if the 'half the size of the french lettering' is correct or just a popular misconception, but yeah, the signs have to be predominantly in french.
If you think about it, it's not really any crazier than a city passing a law to say that all roofs are to be this or that colour. To a point it's an aesthetical question. On the other side, I admit that even the most rage-filled separatist doesn't really care about the signs. What's important are the services and the education.
Kovnik Obama wrote: Quebec is a predominantly french culture, in a country that's from the moment of the conquest publicized the wish to assimilate us. So yes, we are particularly defensive on the language question.
And yet after centuries, the English never did assimilate you. Perhaps the lesson of history is that diversity can persist even in the face of opposition without exclusivity and ethnocentrism? I dunno, maybe ethnocentrism is what you guys think has kept you speaking Québécois.
Don't say that too hard. My Acadian ancestors would like to have a word with you...out back...just step over by this bayou...here hold this chicken...no reason (runs away).
Kovnik Obama wrote: Quebec is a predominantly french culture, in a country that's from the moment of the conquest publicized the wish to assimilate us. So yes, we are particularly defensive on the language question.
And yet after centuries, the English never did assimilate you. Perhaps the lesson of history is that diversity can persist even in the face of opposition without exclusivity and ethnocentrism? I dunno, maybe ethnocentrism is what you guys think has kept you speaking Québécois.
It'd actually be the Catholic Church. And the distinct legal code. And the distinct culture and history. And the fact that over a century we pretty much did nothing else but have babies like rabbits. And the hatred of the english which was much more prevalant prior to the Quiet Revolution.
Fact is, Trudeau's multiculturalism is the best strategy of assimilation that's been attempted as of yet. Which is sad because it gives the impression that we are ultra-nationnalists, and hate multiculturalism.
I'll admit that the defense of french is a bit over-zealous, and shouldn't come at the expense of any community inside Quebec. On the other side, when your born in a place which has only one official language, the intelligent thing to do is to learn that language, even if it's only to be able to obtain services there.
Frazzled wrote: The argument of course would then be that everyone should learn English (ok a large portion of Vancouver might pipe up and say Chinese).
Argument to which I agree entirely. The question is about access to 'entirely' english schooling, since it's been shown that it does have a huge incidence in someone adopting english as a primary language.
To most Quebecers, to be a Quebecer is to speak French, and to have spent one winter here.
Frazzled wrote: The argument of course would then be that everyone should learn English (ok a large portion of Vancouver might pipe up and say Chinese).
Argument to which I agree entirely. The question is about access to 'entirely' english schooling, since it's been shown that it does have a huge incidence in someone adopting english as a primary language.
To most Quebecers, to be a Quebecer is to speak French, and to have spent one winter here.
Whats the issue you're referring to KO? Do the schools require French and English, French only or whats the situation? I'm not familiar with whats going on that you're referring to.
Law 101 forces access to english schools only for children of at least one english parent, in a household that is predominantly anglophone. English courses, as a secondary language, is mandatory every year after the 6th grade.
It's a hard law to apply, and has such it's pretty easily abused. I'm thinking that the 'erosion of minority english rights' mentionned before would have something to do with the PQ wanting to thighten those laws (not only for english, but also for religious schools).
Anyhow, there will always be a way around the application of those laws.
Does that mean all others have French as the primary language with English as an ESL? If so, is the ESL taught sufficiently that you can converse with native English speakers?
Kovnik Obama wrote: Quebec is a predominantly french culture, in a country that's from the moment of the conquest publicized the wish to assimilate us. So yes, we are particularly defensive on the language question.
And yet after centuries, the English never did assimilate you. Perhaps the lesson of history is that diversity can persist even in the face of opposition without exclusivity and ethnocentrism? I dunno, maybe ethnocentrism is what you guys think has kept you speaking Québécois.
It'd actually be the Catholic Church. And the distinct legal code. And the distinct culture and history. And the fact that over a century we pretty much did nothing else but have babies like rabbits. And the hatred of the english which was much more prevalant prior to the Quiet Revolution.
Fact is, Trudeau's multiculturalism is the best strategy of assimilation that's been attempted as of yet. Which is sad because it gives the impression that we are ultra-nationnalists, and hate multiculturalism.
I'll admit that the defense of french is a bit over-zealous, and shouldn't come at the expense of any community inside Quebec. On the other side, when your born in a place which has only one official language, the intelligent thing to do is to learn that language, even if it's only to be able to obtain services there.
Agreed, of course seeing as this is Canada where there are two official languages . . . .
Kovnik Obama wrote: it gives the impression that we are ultra-nationnalists, and hate multiculturalism.
Yep, that is the impression I get. I know it's a basically different issue but this reminds me of the crypto-racism surrounding Spanish-language services in the US.
Frazzled wrote: Does that mean all others have French as the primary language with English as an ESL? If so, is the ESL taught sufficiently that you can converse with native English speakers?
40% of Quebecers are fluent in english, I don't know what's the pourcentage of people with an 'basic operationnal' english. Gotta say, I went to private school, our english classes were a lot better then those of my public system friends.
Jefffar wrote: Agreed, of course seeing as this is Canada where there are two official languages . . . .
Well that's what you get for signing the Constitution behind our backs.
Kovnik Obama wrote: it gives the impression that we are ultra-nationnalists, and hate multiculturalism.
Yep, that is the impression I get. I know it's a basically different issue but this reminds me of the crypto-racism surrounding Spanish-language services in the US.
Unfortunately, in a lot of case, it's fairly similar. It's just that it spawns from about a century and a half of being on the defensive about our language. And that we've defined ourselves around that language. The US as a different kind of patriotism, it's particular history, and AMERICA #1!!!!!
TheHammer wrote:I know, right? It's horrible that the lamestream media doesn't report all the instances of political assassination by blowdart!
Does it ever get cold under your bridge?
The Anglos of Quebec haven't exactly been asleep or quiet in referendums. So I have no idea what that guy was on about. Wearing a bathrob makes him seem twice as sane. Clearly a nutter. Do the not have security that stops crqzy men in bathrobes and ski masks in maplesyrupland?
TheHammer wrote:I know, right? It's horrible that the lamestream media doesn't report all the instances of political assassination by blowdart!
Does it ever get cold under your bridge?
The Anglos of Quebec haven't exactly been asleep or quiet in referendums. So I have no idea what that guy was on about. Wearing a bathrob makes him seem twice as sane. Clearly a nutter. Do the not have security that stops crqzy men in bathrobes and ski masks in maplesyrupland?
One of our prime ministers managed to get pied in the face, security must be pretty lazy.
TheHammer wrote:I know, right? It's horrible that the lamestream media doesn't report all the instances of political assassination by blowdart!
Does it ever get cold under your bridge?
The Anglos of Quebec haven't exactly been asleep or quiet in referendums. So I have no idea what that guy was on about. Wearing a bathrob makes him seem twice as sane. Clearly a nutter. Do the not have security that stops crqzy men in bathrobes and ski masks in maplesyrupland?
One of our prime ministers managed to get pied in the face, security must be pretty lazy.
And then proceded to deck the pie thrower, if I remember right (or was it strangled?) Anyway, Chrétien was, for all his many flaws, pretty cool.
TheHammer wrote:I know, right? It's horrible that the lamestream media doesn't report all the instances of political assassination by blowdart!
Does it ever get cold under your bridge?
The Anglos of Quebec haven't exactly been asleep or quiet in referendums. So I have no idea what that guy was on about. Wearing a bathrob makes him seem twice as sane. Clearly a nutter. Do the not have security that stops crqzy men in bathrobes and ski masks in maplesyrupland?
One of our prime ministers managed to get pied in the face, security must be pretty lazy.
And then proceded to deck the pie thrower, if I remember right (or was it strangled?) Anyway, Chrétien was, for all his many flaws, pretty cool.
TheHammer wrote:I know, right? It's horrible that the lamestream media doesn't report all the instances of political assassination by blowdart!
Does it ever get cold under your bridge?
The Anglos of Quebec haven't exactly been asleep or quiet in referendums. So I have no idea what that guy was on about. Wearing a bathrob makes him seem twice as sane. Clearly a nutter. Do the not have security that stops crqzy men in bathrobes and ski masks in maplesyrupland?
One of our prime ministers managed to get pied in the face, security must be pretty lazy.
And then proceded to deck the pie thrower, if I remember right (or was it strangled?) Anyway, Chrétien was, for all his many flaws, pretty cool.
Did he really do that?
That's all kinds of awesome!
Nah I'm mixing it up, it was Murdoch's wife who decked a pie thrower. Jean Chrétien dived in a protest and tried to strangle some hippie.
Jihadin wrote: Here we go on another "guns are bad" thread
It obviously isn't, why are you trying to make it one? Surely there are more than enough cyclical (and entirely pointless) gun argument threads on these boards as it is.
I'm an admirer of Trudeau myself. It's hard for me to ignore what appears to be a recalcitrance that borders on outright pettiness characterizing the PQ. The sovereignty movement strikes me as an artifact of a pre-World War I mindset or an artifact of the kind of Parisian thinking Québécois claim to detest.
Manchu wrote: I'm an admirer of Trudeau myself. It's hard for me to ignore what appears to be a recalcitrance that borders on outright pettiness characterizing the PQ. The sovereignty movement strikes me as an artifact of a pre-World War I mindset or an artifact of the kind of Parisian thinking Québécois claim to detest.
That's easy to say for the guy who'se people got a fully fledged sovereign Nation in which his culture can effectively direct itself. In our case, the conquest and the mathematics of canadian population pretty much means that we'll forever be the ones expressing our opinions without actually getting our wishes.
Americans bitch about gerrymandering when it happens ; we are forever on the losing side of it.
Kovnik Obama wrote: That's easy to say for the guy who'se people got a fully fledged sovereign Nation in which his culture can effectively direct itself.
As you can see from your computer screen, I am from Richmond -- the capital of the Confederacy. Despite a lot of earnest thinking about subsidiarity and sovereignty over the course of my life, I've come to realize that in modern times this kind of talk is just political smoke blowing through very foul winds -- provincialism (no pun intended, my friend), faux triumphalism, and racism to name the most obvious. I admit to not having read a huge amount on Canadian political history but what I have read gives me no reason to believe the PQ is any different. Can there really be a defense for something like Marois's Quebec Identity Act? I know that when it comes to US citizenship and Spanish speakers, there can be no defense for that backwards sentiment. As for being in the minority, that seems like a nationalist point of view as well. Is Quebec really disadvantaged compared to Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland? Honestly, the issue seems more than a bit overblown.
Here's the real question: If Quebec did decide to leave, would the rest of Canada allow it? (And how well would either side pay, though I grant I'd give Quebec a discount.)
BaronIveagh wrote: Here's the real question: If Quebec did decide to leave, would the rest of Canada allow it? (And how well would either side pay, though I grant I'd give Quebec a discount.)
Canada can't stop it, in theory at least. If a population legally votes to be a distinct nation then there is provition under international law which allows them to do so. I don't know the exact ins and outs of it but the same question has been raised about Scottish independance and that was the answer.
BaronIveagh wrote: Here's the real question: If Quebec did decide to leave, would the rest of Canada allow it? (And how well would either side pay, though I grant I'd give Quebec a discount.)
Canada can't stop it, in theory at least. If a population legally votes to be a distinct nation then there is provition under international law which allows them to do so. I don't know the exact ins and outs of it but the same question has been raised about Scottish independance and that was the answer.
Sure they can. You'll have to show me what international treaty Canada signed that binds them to some meaningless vote.
real solution 1) Rent some tanks from the USA and park them in Montreal. The Confederate Air Force has some Mustangs and a B17 you can rent for a small fee. 2) then announce: sorry thats a no, or as you people might say Non!
Manchu wrote: As you can see from your computer screen, I am from Richmond -- the capital of the Confederacy. Despite a lot of earnest thinking about subsidiarity and sovereignty over the course of my life, I've come to realize that in modern times this kind of talk is just political smoke blowing through very foul winds -- provincialism (no pun intended, my friend), faux triumphalism, and racism to name the most obvious. I admit to not having read a huge amount on Canadian political history but what I have read gives me no reason to believe the PQ is any different. Can there really be a defense for something like Marois's Quebec Identity Act? I know that when it comes to US citizenship and Spanish speakers, there can be no defense for that backwards sentiment. As for being in the minority, that seems like a nationalist point of view as well. Is Quebec really disadvantaged compared to Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland? Honestly, the issue seems more than a bit overblown.
Can you truly say that a people that is different on every level that defines a people from those that decides, and wishes to govern itself, is doing it through pettiness? That any issue regarding the wish for a people to preserve itself is reductible to racism and provincialism? That a people doesn't have the right to wish to direct itself because 'the era for such struggle has passed'?
Sure they can. You'll have to show me what international treaty Canada signed that binds them to some meaningless vote.
real solution 1) Rent some tanks from the USA and park them in Montreal. The Confederate Air Force has some Mustangs and a B17 you can rent for a small fee. 2) then announce: sorry thats a no, or as you people might say Non!
Actually, the Supreme Court have already declared that such a vote would be legal and binding. Although the level of clarity they impose on the question asked at the referendum is incredibly complicated to acheive, as in pretty much impossible.
And even if the CA were to send all of it's troops to occupy Québec, they couldn't even hold Montreal. Coupled with the fact that about 35% of the Canadian Army is Québécois. Problem there. And the Army Headquarters are located in Montreal. Whole lot of problems.
BaronIveagh wrote: Here's the real question: If Quebec did decide to leave, would the rest of Canada allow it? (And how well would either side pay, though I grant I'd give Quebec a discount.)
The Canadian Forces don't really have the force to occupy a territory the size or 3 Frances, not even a city like Montreal.
As for reimbursement for the debt, it's good to keep in mind that we provide a metric crapton of hydro-electricity to the RoC.
Manchu wrote: As you can see from your computer screen, I am from Richmond -- the capital of the Confederacy. Despite a lot of earnest thinking about subsidiarity and sovereignty over the course of my life, I've come to realize that in modern times this kind of talk is just political smoke blowing through very foul winds -- provincialism (no pun intended, my friend), faux triumphalism, and racism to name the most obvious. I admit to not having read a huge amount on Canadian political history but what I have read gives me no reason to believe the PQ is any different. Can there really be a defense for something like Marois's Quebec Identity Act? I know that when it comes to US citizenship and Spanish speakers, there can be no defense for that backwards sentiment. As for being in the minority, that seems like a nationalist point of view as well. Is Quebec really disadvantaged compared to Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland? Honestly, the issue seems more than a bit overblown.
Can you truly say that a people that is different on every level that defines a people from those that decides, and wishes to govern itself, is doing it through pettiness? That any issue regarding the wish for a people to preserve itself is reductible to racism and provincialism? That a people doesn't have the right to wish to direct itself because 'the era for such struggle has passed'?
Further, and this has to be noted. IIRC Quebec was not voluntarily part of Canada (or it effectively was Canada before the British came). Again IIRC but Quebec was conquered by the British. Thats an excellent motivator for not joining with the Brits.
Sure they can. You'll have to show me what international treaty Canada signed that binds them to some meaningless vote. real solution 1) Rent some tanks from the USA and park them in Montreal. The Confederate Air Force has some Mustangs and a B17 you can rent for a small fee. 2) then announce: sorry thats a no, or as you people might say Non!
Actually, the Supreme Court have already declared that such a vote would be legal and binding. Although the level of clarity they impose on the question asked at the referendum is incredibly complicated to acheive, as in pretty much impossible.
And even if the CA were to send all of it's troops to occupy Québec, they couldn't even hold Montreal. Coupled with the fact that about 35% of the Canadian Army is Québécois. Problem there. And the Army Headquarters are located in Montreal. Whole lot of problems.
Thats a moot point if the government changes its mind and sends tanks. the military is an excellent motivator for a court to rethink its position. The canadians would win. its descendants of Brits vs. descendants of French. The French haven't won a war since Napoleon and the rest of Canada will be motivated to get you back in line quickly before the Great Satan in the South opens and eye and smells weakness. Alternatively could just say good riddance. I've gotten a lot of that sentiment from Canucks.
Kovnik Obama wrote: Can you truly say that a people that is different on every level that defines a people from those that decides, and wishes to govern itself, is doing it through pettiness? That any issue regarding the wish for a people to preserve itself is reductible to racism and provincialism? That a people doesn't have the right to wish to direct itself because 'the era for such struggle has passed'?
I am saying that it takes an arch-nationalist point of view to declare that Francophonic Canadians are different from Anglophonic Canadians "on every level that defines a people." One would think you are talking about different species rather than human beings who have indeed been caught up in similar historical circumstances for centuries -- and that tone is the very hallmark of sinister politics. Balkanization has never been a viable solution and thanks to the ongoing development of multiculturalism we no longer have to pretend that it is the only solution. Is not French spoken in Quebec, no let me say, in Canada even today? Then what use for the bigotry masquerading as self-determination that underlies this issue? Why drag the mistakes of the twentieth century into the twenty first? I see no democratic germ at the heart of a movement obsessed with disassociation.
It is not that the era of struggle has passed: the struggle of today is to live together even though we are different, same as it was yesterday. The era of racialist nationalism, however, is indeed over I should hope.
BaronIveagh wrote: Here's the real question: If Quebec did decide to leave, would the rest of Canada allow it? (And how well would either side pay, though I grant I'd give Quebec a discount.)
The Canadian Forces don't really have the force to occupy a territory the size or 3 Frances, not even a city like Montreal.
As for reimbursement for the debt, it's good to keep in mind that we provide a metric crapton of hydro-electricity to the RoC.
Kovnik Obama wrote: Can you truly say that a people that is different on every level that defines a people from those that decides, and wishes to govern itself, is doing it through pettiness? That any issue regarding the wish for a people to preserve itself is reductible to racism and provincialism? That a people doesn't have the right to wish to direct itself because 'the era for such struggle has passed'?
I am saying that it takes an arch-nationalist point of view to declare that Francophonic Canadians are different from Anglophonic Canadians "on every level that defines a people." One would think you are talking about different species rather than human beings who have indeed been caught up in similar historical circumstances for centuries -- and that tone is the very hallmark of sinister politics. Balkanization has never been a viable solution and thanks to the ongoing development of multiculturalism we no longer have to pretend that it is the only solution. Is not French spoken in Quebec, no let me say, in Canada even today? Then what use for the bigotry masquerading as self-determination that underlies this issue? Why drag the mistakes of the twentieth century into the twenty first? I see no democratic germ at the heart of a movement obsessed with disassociation.
It is not that the era of struggle has past: the struggle of today is to live together even though we are different, same as it was yesterday. The era of racialist nationalism, however, is indeed over I should hope.
Well, it is nationalistic. It WAS France after all... you're kind of presupposing US standards on a foreign country and a segment of that that had been forcibly conquered.
Sure they can. You'll have to show me what international treaty Canada signed that binds them to some meaningless vote.
real solution 1) Rent some tanks from the USA and park them in Montreal. The Confederate Air Force has some Mustangs and a B17 you can rent for a small fee. 2) then announce: sorry thats a no, or as you people might say Non!
Sadly, I'm with Frazzled this time. (it hurt me to say so )
Yes, the Supreme court did decide that a referendum would by legally binding. And no, I dont believe the Federal Gov would let anyone go. ever.
They did declare War Measures for less that that.
And that is why the 1995 referendum was scary: 49.5% for and 51% against, that civil war material...
You have to realize, this is a governement that prefered to sign a 'peace' with a masked and armed insurgent then send an army against a group of weapon smugglers in a town of 387 households (The Oka Crisis ; http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crise_d%27Oka).
They won't send the army against a legitimate Nation of about 7 million people.
Sure they can. You'll have to show me what international treaty Canada signed that binds them to some meaningless vote.
real solution 1) Rent some tanks from the USA and park them in Montreal. The Confederate Air Force has some Mustangs and a B17 you can rent for a small fee. 2) then announce: sorry thats a no, or as you people might say Non!
Sadly, I'm with Frazzled this time. (it hurt me to say so )
Yes, the Supreme court did decide that a referendum would by legally binding. And no, I dont believe the Federal Gov would let anyone go. ever.
They did declare War Measures for less that that.
And that is why the 1995 referendum was scary: 49.5% for and 51% against, that civil war material...
STI International, is willing and able to supply high quality competition level AR 15s to either the Righteous Protectors of the Union, or the Sacred Few Fighting for Truth, Justice, and proper croissants, whichever pays more (or both - we're equal opportunity).
You have to realize, this is a governement that prefered to sign a 'peace' with a masked and armed insurgent then send an army against a group of weapon smugglers in a town of 387 households (The Oka Crisis ; http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crise_d%27Oka).
They won't send the army against a legitimate Nation of about 7 million people.
Its surprising how active rebellion can change that view.
Frazzled wrote: Well, it is nationalistic. It WAS France after all... you're kind of presupposing US standards on a foreign country and a segment of that that had been forcibly conquered.
What is the relevance of the clashing ambitions of eighteenth-century colonial powers? No one is talking about France or Britain, no more than with regard to the contemporary United States we talk about Powhatan, Iroquois, and Apache -- nor even the Confederacy.
Frazzled wrote: Well, it is nationalistic. It WAS France after all...
you're kind of presupposing US standards on a foreign country and a segment of that that had been forcibly conquered.
What is the relevance of the clashing ambitions of eighteenth-century colonial powers? No one is talking about France or Britain, no more than with regard to the contemporary United States we talk about Powhatan, Iroquois, and Apache.
The relevance is, is that Quebec was a conquered people. You can't expect a conquered superior people (I give you French cuisine vs. the horse poop that is British cuisine) to willingly or easily assimilate to their conquerors. Its like Scotland or Ireland wanting independence from England. Getteth realio boyo! Its not racism, sexism, blah blah. At worst its foodism! Vive le munchies!
Manchu wrote: I am saying that it takes an arch-nationalist point of view to declare that Francophonic Canadians are different from Anglophonic Canadians "on every level that defines a people."
Just language, religion, law, attitude toward gender relations, culinary tastes, and general political spectrum position. Denying the essential cultural difference between Anglo Canadians and Franco Canadians is as absurd as denying a cultural between Chinese and Americans.
One would think you are talking about different species rather than human beings who have indeed been caught up in similar historical circumstances for centuries -- and that tone is the very hallmark of sinister politics.
One would then not know the gigantic differences between a discourse based on race and a discourse base on culture.
Balkanization has never been a viable solution and thanks to the ongoing development of multiculturalism we no longer have to pretend that it is the only solution.
There are plenty of countries that have fared well once they have obtained independance. Or do you think the US should still be British? Federalization only works if theirs a balance of power between the federalized entities. The only violence done on this topic is from the dude in a bathrobe trying to kill a duly elected official.
Is not French spoken in Quebec, no let me say, in Canada even today?
Less than it was 2 decades ago.
Then what use for the bigotry masquerading as self-determination that underlies this issue? Why drag the mistakes of the twentieth century into the twenty first? I see no democratic germ at the heart of a movement obsessed with disassociation.
So what, you support a one world government? The negation of diversity? The negation of the right of individual Nations to govern themselves?
It is not that the era of struggle has passed: the struggle of today is to live together even though we are different, same as it was yesterday. The era of racialist nationalism, however, is indeed over I should hope.
Your the one bringing the race point in it. As I've stated before, every quebecers I've spoken to is happy with the definition of a quebecers as someone who as spent a winter here and knows french.
@Frazzled: I think you will find exactly no member of the PQ seeking seats in the Fifth Republic's National Assembly. The Québécois are no conquered people nor are they even "a people" in the racial purist sense Kovnik seems to indicate. Does "Daniel Johnson" sound like a French name to you? The reality of being Québécois is being multicultural.
Manchu wrote: @Frazzled: I think you will find exactly no member of the PQ seeking seats in the Fifth Republic's National Assembly. The Québécois are no conquered people nor are they even "a people" in the racial purist sense Kovnik seems to indicate. Does "Daniel Johnson" sound like a French name to you? The reality of being Québécois is being multicultural.
Where are you getting race? It was a separate country, again akin to Scotland or Ireland, that was conquered by the Engligh. In turn, many of those French were driven from the country, some settling in Louisiana. Interestingly family on my mom's side still speak (or spoke I should say) harshly about the Brits, almost to the level of the dreaded DamnYankees). Memories run deep.
Now having said that, they are acting stupidly. French should not be the first language. This is North America! Speak Spanish!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cheesecat wrote: Yeah, the Quebec separatist movement has nothing to do with racism (wtf? ) and more to do with nationalism, patriotism, independence, etc.
Manchu wrote: @Frazzled: I think you will find exactly no member of the PQ seeking seats in the Fifth Republic's National Assembly. The Québécois are no conquered people nor are they even "a people" in the racial purist sense Kovnik seems to indicate. Does "Daniel Johnson" sound like a French name to you? The reality of being Québécois is being multicultural.
Where are you getting race? It was a separate country, again akin to Scotland or Ireland, that was conquered by the Engligh. In turn, many of those French were driven from the country, some settling in Louisiana. Interestingly family on my mom's side still speak (or spoke I should say) harshly about the Brits, almost to the level of the dreaded DamnYankees). Memories run deep.
Now having said that, they are acting stupidly. French should not be the first language. This is North America! Speak Spanish!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cheesecat wrote: Yeah, the Quebec separatist movement has nothing to do with racism (wtf? ) and more to do with nationalism, patriotism, independence, etc.
And cheese. don't forget cheese.
No think more poutines, smoked meat sandwiches, bacon and maple syrup.
Sadly, I'm with Frazzled this time. (it hurt me to say so )
Yes, the Supreme court did decide that a referendum would by legally binding. And no, I dont believe the Federal Gov would let anyone go. ever.
They did declare War Measures for less that that.
And that is why the 1995 referendum was scary: 49.5% for and 51% against, that civil war material...
They declared the War Measures because a Minister was murdered by a bunch of thugs.
Again, how do you figure that a force of 88 000 (including civilians and support troops) can occupy a population of 7 millions? When, again, 35% of those troops are attacking their own homes?
Manchu wrote: I am saying that it takes an arch-nationalist point of view to declare that Francophonic Canadians are different from Anglophonic Canadians "on every level that defines a people."
Just language, religion, law, attitude toward gender relations, culinary tastes, and general political spectrum position. Denying the essential cultural difference between Anglo Canadians and Franco Canadians is as absurd as denying a cultural between Chinese and Americans.
So all the Chinatown's should be independent nations???
Kovnik Obama wrote:
One would think you are talking about different species rather than human beings who have indeed been caught up in similar historical circumstances for centuries -- and that tone is the very hallmark of sinister politics.
One would then not know the gigantic differences between a discourse based on race and a discourse base on culture.
That "one" seems to be the PQ. There's a good book by Richard Evans on the subject of culture and race in politics. Good to keep such things in mind.
Kovnik Obama wrote:
Balkanization has never been a viable solution and thanks to the ongoing development of multiculturalism we no longer have to pretend that it is the only solution.
There are plenty of countries that have fared well once they have obtained independance. Or do you think the US should still be British? Federalization only works if theirs a balance of power between the federalized entities. The only violence done on this topic is from the dude in a bathrobe trying to kill a duly elected official.
Woah, slow down there. No one was talking about the sovereignists being violent. And so what if some nations have prospered as independent states? Just as many have not. Plus, you're confusing the issue. The prospective secession of Quebec has nothing at all to do with the end of colonialism.
Kovnik Obama wrote:
Is not French spoken in Quebec, no let me say, in Canada even today?
Less than it was 2 decades ago.
So the solution is to deny citizenship to those who speak something different??? According to the premier elect, yes.
Kovnik Obama wrote:
Then what use for the bigotry masquerading as self-determination that underlies this issue? Why drag the mistakes of the twentieth century into the twenty first? I see no democratic germ at the heart of a movement obsessed with disassociation.
So what, you support a one world government? The negation of diversity? The negation of the right of individual Nations to govern themselves?
Federalism is not the opposite of diversity. In fact, the great thing about federalism is that finds unity in diversity.
Kovnik Obama wrote:
It is not that the era of struggle has passed: the struggle of today is to live together even though we are different, same as it was yesterday. The era of racialist nationalism, however, is indeed over I should hope.
Your the one bringing the race point in it. As I've stated before, every quebecers I've spoken to is happy with the definition of a quebecers as someone who as spent a winter here and knows french.
I'd say the PQ brings the issue of "race" (in the nineteenth-/twentieth-century sense) into things.
Frazzled wrote: Well, it is nationalistic. It WAS France after all...
you're kind of presupposing US standards on a foreign country and a segment of that that had been forcibly conquered.
What is the relevance of the clashing ambitions of eighteenth-century colonial powers? No one is talking about France or Britain, no more than with regard to the contemporary United States we talk about Powhatan, Iroquois, and Apache.
The relevance is, is that Quebec was a conquered people. You can't expect a conquered superior people (I give you French cuisine vs. the horse poop that is British cuisine) to willingly or easily assimilate to their conquerors. Its like Scotland or Ireland wanting independence from England. Getteth realio boyo! Its not racism, sexism, blah blah. At worst its foodism! Vive le munchies!
This gets you an exalt. We don't hate the Anglo. I almost married one (God did I dodge a bullet, tho, completely unrelated story). We just don't think they represent what we are and what we want to be.
Sadly, I'm with Frazzled this time. (it hurt me to say so )
Yes, the Supreme court did decide that a referendum would by legally binding. And no, I dont believe the Federal Gov would let anyone go. ever.
They did declare War Measures for less that that.
And that is why the 1995 referendum was scary: 49.5% for and 51% against, that civil war material...
They declared the War Measures because a Minister was murdered by a bunch of thugs.
Again, how do you figure that a force of 88 000 (including civilians and support troops) can occupy a population of 7 millions? When, again, 35% of those troops are attacking their own homes?
Look up Arc light missions.
Seriously civil wars are always the worst bloodbaths. Don't think that if Canada decides to keep Quebec that it won't be bloody.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Woops my bad...Franglais north of the border and spanlish south of the border...How does Taco Bell fit in up there?
Wherever there are missing cats, there will be Taco Bell.
Frazzled wrote: Well, it is nationalistic. It WAS France after all...
you're kind of presupposing US standards on a foreign country and a segment of that that had been forcibly conquered.
What is the relevance of the clashing ambitions of eighteenth-century colonial powers? No one is talking about France or Britain, no more than with regard to the contemporary United States we talk about Powhatan, Iroquois, and Apache.
The relevance is, is that Quebec was a conquered people. You can't expect a conquered superior people (I give you French cuisine vs. the horse poop that is British cuisine) to willingly or easily assimilate to their conquerors. Its like Scotland or Ireland wanting independence from England. Getteth realio boyo! Its not racism, sexism, blah blah. At worst its foodism! Vive le munchies!
This gets you an exalt. We don't hate the Anglo. I almost married one (God did I dodge a bullet, tho, completely unrelated story). We just don't think they represent what we are and what we want to be.
No no, you need to marry a firey lass from South America. For good or bad, things will never be boring.
"all right, calm, just put down the knife. Your cooking is great, really, the best ever."
No no, you need to marry a firey lass from South America. For good or bad, things will never be boring.
"all right, calm, just put down the knife. Your cooking is great, really, the best ever."
I really do. Damn, I have my eyes on a Colombian hottie right now. Good call. Uncle Frazzled always know what words to use to cheer you up
Frazzled wrote: Where are you getting race? It was a separate country, again akin to Scotland or Ireland, that was conquered by the Engligh.
First, it was not a "separate country" -- it was a French and then British colonial possession. Second, I'm talking about racism in the sense of Japanese looking down on Chinese people or Germans looking down on Poles. You know, the racism that inspired the greatest conflicts of the twentieth century.
No no, you need to marry a firey lass from South America. For good or bad, things will never be boring.
"all right, calm, just put down the knife. Your cooking is great, really, the best ever."
I really do. Damn, I have my eyes on a Colombian hottie right now. Good call. Uncle Frazzled always know what words to use to cheer you up
Manchu wrote: @Frazzled: I think you will find exactly no member of the PQ seeking seats in the Fifth Republic's National Assembly. The Québécois are no conquered people nor are they even "a people" in the racial purist sense Kovnik seems to indicate. Does "Daniel Johnson" sound like a French name to you? The reality of being Québécois is being multicultural.
By that logic the Irish are not a people, consisting as they did (and do) of Norse, displaced Saxons, Gaels, Scots, etc, and therefor should bow to the throne of England.
I think that the typical Irish response to that would be 'Póg mo thón!'
BaronIveagh wrote: By that logic the Irish are not a people, consisting as they did (and do) of Norse, displaced Saxons, Gaels, Scots, etc, and therefor should bow to the throne of England.
I don't see how acknowledging the reality of multiculturalism over and against nationalist-racialist myths means the Irish need to bow to the English or that Québécois should not speak French. You'll have to explain to me what it is you mean by "logic." Better yet, explain it to dogma who will at least be entertained.
Frazzled wrote: Where are you getting race? It was a separate country, again akin to Scotland or Ireland, that was conquered by the Engligh.
First, it was not a "separate country" -- it was a French and then British colonial possession. Second, I'm talking about racism in the sense of Japanese looking down on Chinese people or Germans looking down on Poles. You know, the racism that inspired the greatest conflicts of the twentieth century.
It was sovereign French territory, peopled by French citizens who, like the Germans many years later, were conqured by the British. They just didn't have the snazzi uniforms and cool Polka music.
Again racism is via "races." This is good old fashioned nationalism / xenophobia.
Manchu wrote: I don't see how acknowledging the reality of multiculturalism over and against nationalist-racialist myths means the Irish need to bow to the English or that Québécois should not speak French. You'll have to explain to me what it is you mean by "logic." Better yet, explain it to dogma who will at least be entertained.
No difference. OK, one has better whiskey, stew, and a oligoplistic domination in the redhead market.
Manchu wrote: @Frazzled: I think you will find exactly no member of the PQ seeking seats in the Fifth Republic's National Assembly. The Québécois are no conquered people nor are they even "a people" in the racial purist sense Kovnik seems to indicate. Does "Daniel Johnson" sound like a French name to you? The reality of being Québécois is being multicultural.
Like every American people. Which is why no quebecer will consider itself a European. Which is why my Irish friends can be has separatist as me whitout any contradiction. Being a quebecer is, in romantic terms, being in love with the French-Canadian culture. It's not an issue of race. The colombian chicky who love Montreal, speak french, wants to stay here is more Quebecer than any of the Westmount brat who haven't bothered to learn a fething word of french and is constantly obssessed with US culture (or worse, British)
And what are you talking about, not conquered? There already was established colonists for decades at the time of the conquest. Afterward, there still was Métis in the (now) RoC who spoke either Indian or French. Each French spoken community got conquered at some point or another (or got sold by France)
Frazzled wrote: Where are you getting race? It was a separate country, again akin to Scotland or Ireland, that was conquered by the Engligh.
First, it was not a "separate country" -- it was a French and then British colonial possession. Second, I'm talking about racism in the sense of Japanese looking down on Chinese people or Germans looking down on Poles. You know, the racism that inspired the greatest conflicts of the twentieth century.
What you described isn't racism but national or ethnic discrimination.
Frazzled wrote: It was sovereign French territory, peopled by French citizens
AIt was not a sovereign territory, either, but a viceroyalty whose current population, whatever their ancestry, does not seek repartiation into France.
Frazzled wrote:Again racism is via "races." This is good old fashioned nationalism / xenophobia.
Again, your understanding of "race" does not reflect the term's historical usage.
Cheesecat wrote: What you described isn't racism but national or ethnic discrimination.
Even the Wikipedia article will explain to you why there is no difference. But I again recommend Evans's work on the rise of the Third Reich to give you a clearer understanding.
Frazzled wrote: It was sovereign French territory, peopled by French citizens
AIt was not a sovereign territory, either, but a viceroyalty whose current population, whatever their ancestry, does not seek repartiation into France.
Frazzled wrote:Again racism is via "races." This is good old fashioned nationalism / xenophobia.
Again, you're understanding of "race" does not reflect the term's historical usage.
yea, it kind of does. Its also in line with the 1964 Civil rights Act language which separates "race" from "national origin."
Frazzled wrote: It was sovereign French territory, peopled by French citizens
AIt was not a sovereign territory, either, but a viceroyalty whose current population, whatever their ancestry, does not seek repartiation into France.
Frazzled wrote:Again racism is via "races." This is good old fashioned nationalism / xenophobia.
Again, your understanding of "race" does not reflect the term's historical usage.
Cheesecat wrote: What you described isn't racism but national or ethnic discrimination.
Even the Wikipedia article will explain to you why there is no difference. But I again recommend Evans's work on the rise of the Third Reich to give you a clearer understanding.
I'm pretty sure discriminating someone for racial reasons is different than discriminating some for national or ethnic reasons.
Kovnik Obama wrote: Being a quebecer is, in romantic terms, being in love with the French-Canadian culture.
And in political terms, it seems to mean for the PQ taking away the rights and privileges of anyone who is not. Also "being X means loving X" is a propagandistic argument and reflects little to nothing about reality.
Kovnik Obama wrote:And what are you talking about, not conquered?
Who exactly conquered all the Irish Québécois or the Columbian girl you mention?
Cheesecat wrote: I'm pretty sure discriminating someone for racial reasons is different than discriminating some for national or ethnic reasons.
As sure as you are, you are not necessarily correct. Certainly, they can be different things. The attitude of the PQ, however, seems exceptionally similar to that of the racialist-nationalist theorists of the nineteenth century whose acolytes achieved power in the twentieth.
Manchu wrote: I don't see how acknowledging the reality of multiculturalism over and against nationalist-racialist myths means the Irish need to bow to the English or that Québécois should not speak French. You'll have to explain to me what it is you mean by "logic." Better yet, explain it to dogma who will at least be entertained.
Because you are asserting that on the grounds that a people has mixed with another, that they no longer have a right to self determination. It's like saying that the Irish, because there are quite a few of them of mixed ancestry, should never have been allowed to form their own country. To use your name example, I have an American sounding name. Not because I'm American, but because Americans tortured my great grandparents every time they spoke any language but English, until they forgot their native language. Does that mean that we lack a separate cultural identity to differ us from Americans? No. We're still a separate and distinct people (despite the best efforts of 'the most powerful nation on earth').
BaronIveagh wrote: Because you are asserting that on the grounds that a people has mixed with another, that they no longer have a right to self determination.
No, I didn't say that. I said that the "one pure people" approach being taken here, like Frazzled's mythical sovereign Quebec or Kovnik's romantic ideal, is not grounds for sovereignty today because that kind of account has never been true.
BaronIveagh wrote: Because you are asserting that on the grounds that a people has mixed with another, that they no longer have a right to self determination.
No, I didn't say that. I said that the "one pure people" approach being taken here, like Frazzled's mythical sovereign Quebec or Kovnik's romantic ideal, is not grounds for sovereignty today because that kind of account has never been true.
Seems like South Sudan disagrees. The Irish disagreed and killed British until the British got right in the head. Prior to the Pax Amiericana Alsace Lorraine was a region fought over. Separatist movements go on all the time.
I'm truly not getting what you're trying to say.
Quebec was French property peopled by french citizens. It was conquered. Many of the descendants of those that were conquered wish to maintain their cultural identity. Ethnically both sides cames from Celts, Germanic Franks/Angles, and Normans. Its not a race thing.
Frazzled wrote: I'm truly not getting what you're trying to say.
Quebec was French property peopled by french citizens. It was conquered. Many of the descendants of those that were conquered wish to maintain their cultural identity.
France and French people have nothing to do with Quebec sovereignty. In fact, the only people who Québécois seem to like less than Anglos are Parisians. So let's leave that unhelpful line of thought to the side and get to the real point, which you identify as the Québécois desire to maintain their cultural identity. What I am saying is that a politics of exclusivity, up to and including secession, is not necessary to achieve that goal. And I'm saying that history, the things that have already occurred to bring us to the situation today when Québécois speak Québécois as citizens of Canada, seems to show as much.
BaronIveagh wrote: Because you are asserting that on the grounds that a people has mixed with another, that they no longer have a right to self determination.
No, I didn't say that. I said that the "one pure people" approach being taken here, like Frazzled's mythical sovereign Quebec or Kovnik's romantic ideal, is not grounds for sovereignty today because that kind of account has never been true.
I wanted to reply, but I have a course starting soon. It'll have to wait for tomorrow. Sorry, and thanks for staying courteous despite our differences of opinion
Manchu wrote: No, I didn't say that. I said that the "one pure people" approach being taken here, like Frazzled's mythical sovereign Quebec or Kovnik's romantic ideal, is not grounds for sovereignty today because that kind of account has never been true.
There's no such thing as 'one pure people' anywhere. However, culturally, Quebec is, in fact, distinct from the rest of Canada.
Frazzled wrote: I'm truly not getting what you're trying to say.
Quebec was French property peopled by french citizens. It was conquered. Many of the descendants of those that were conquered wish to maintain their cultural identity.
France and French people have nothing to do with Quebec sovereignty. In fact, the only people who Québécois seem to like less than Anglos are Parisians. So let's leave that unhelpful line of thought to the side and get to the real point, which you identify as the Québécois desire to maintain their cultural identity. What I am saying is that a politics of exclusivity, up to and including secession, is not necessary to achieve that goal. And I'm saying that history, the things that have already occurred to bring us to the situation today when Québécois speak Québécois as citizens of Canada, seems to show as much.
Poppycock my dear yankee! It was France. Those people were French. Then the redcoats came and said shut up Frenchie! You're part of the British Empire now! Strangely the French Canadians, like the Boers, Irish, Indians, Singaporians, Scots, Zimbabweans etc etc didn't particularly like it. under manchue's theory of whatever the you're arguing, they all are racists and should shut the hell up.
Maybe they should. Maybe they shouldn't but don't give us this bogus concept that its racism. At best its regionalism, or love of better food. Frankly this is an error, because the rest of Canada has excellent beer, and of course bacon. This epic combination should not be broken. The UNION SHALL NOT BE DISSOLVED.
Now lets get back to how many WWII planes the Canadians would like to rent to insure Montreal doesn't secede... Oh we have a broken down B58 hustler in there too. That'll really scare em!
Kovnik Obama wrote: thanks for staying courteous despite our differences of opinion
Thank you for the same! John XXIII said, "and everything, even human differences, leads to the greater good of the Church." If that can be true for the Church then why not also other social institutions? I think history, which John called "the teacher of life," shows us -- teaches us that it is true of nations, too. That is my main point about the strength, and even unity, to be found in diversity.
Frazzled, I'll let this one slide on the basis of your obvious senility.
Frazzled wrote:At best its regionalism.
Not quite. As Kovnik pointed out, the fault lines here are "cultural." That is the language of nationalism. But we don't have to rely on Kovnik. Just look at Quebec internally during the last few decades, with all the nationalist rhetoric. They even renamed their provincial legislature the "National Assembly."
I should never have watched Game of Thrones. For some reason I just pictured Frazz yelling 'Un roi du nord!'
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: Not quite. As Kovnik pointed out, the fault lines here are "cultural." That is the language of nationalism. But we don't have to rely on Kovnik. Just look at Quebec internally during the last few decades, with all the nationalist rhetoric. They even renamed their provincial legislature the "National Assembly."
And let me ask this: How is nationalistic sentiment (also called by some 'patriotism') a bad thing in this context? They're functionally a different culture than the nation they're joined to, is it wrong of them to want to exercise every culture's right (save where occupied by the United States) to self determination?
Historically, one culture being given rule over another has only ever led to violence and destruction.
BaronIveagh wrote: And let me ask this: How is nationalistic sentiment (also called by some 'patriotism') a bad thing in this context?
Because it speaks to a myth rather than a reality. Because it's a merely symbolic gesture masquerading as a solution to a real problem. Because it is a divisive and marginalizing to a significant portion of the people.
BaronIveagh wrote: is it wrong of them to want to exercise every culture's right to self determination?
No dominant culture has the right to discriminate against its constituent minorities. This is as true when it comes to Canada's relationship to Quebec as it is when it comes to Quebec's relationship with the Anglo minority.
BaronIveagh wrote: Historically, one culture being given rule over another has only ever led to violence and destruction.
And this is why I advocate the notion of cultures governing together rather than ruling one over the other.
Manchu wrote: Because it speaks to a myth rather than a reality. Because it's a merely symbolic gesture masquerading as a solution to a real problem. Because it is a divisive and marginalizing to a significant portion of the people.
Myth and symbols can have a lot of power, and are very frequently the spark that ignites a firestorm.
No dominant culture has the right to discriminate against its constituent minorities. This is as true when it comes to Canada's relationship to Quebec as it is when it comes to Quebec's relationship with the Anglo minority.
And yet, this is what is happening, both between Canada and Quebec and Quebec and it's anglo minority. While two wrongs do not make a right, Quebec against the anglos might be lessened by an end to the Canada against Quebec angle.
While two wrongs do not make a right, Quebec against the anglos might be lessened by an end to the Canada against Quebec angle.
I think the two wrongs don't make a right maxim might cut closer to home with the separatists. If they feel oppressed and discriminated against by the rest of Canada, how can they justify engaging in the kind of treatment that they complain about, against their fellow Quebecois of anglo background? It's hypocritical.
Do you really think that independence would "end" the Canada against Quebec angle? If anything, wouldn't that recast their relationship more as rivals?
Mr Nobody wrote: The last referendum was so close, that the Canadian government flew all the fighter jets out of Quebec so they couldn't claim them as their own.
I was listening to a story about the election on NPR on my drive home, and they reported that current polling has support for independence ~ 28%, and that 2/3 of those polled don't want another referendum raised on it.
BaronIveagh wrote: And let me ask this: How is nationalistic sentiment (also called by some 'patriotism') a bad thing in this context?
Because it speaks to a myth rather than a reality. Because it's a merely symbolic gesture masquerading as a solution to a real problem. Because it is a divisive and marginalizing to a significant portion of the people.
BaronIveagh wrote: is it wrong of them to want to exercise every culture's right to self determination?
No dominant culture has the right to discriminate against its constituent minorities. This is as true when it comes to Canada's relationship to Quebec as it is when it comes to Quebec's relationship with the Anglo minority.
BaronIveagh wrote: Historically, one culture being given rule over another has only ever led to violence and destruction.
And this is why I advocate the notion of cultures governing together rather than ruling one over the other.
The Southerners wanted the right of self determination for their culture, which was different than the north. It ended badly.
The Southerners wanted the right of self determination for their culture, which was different than the north. It ended badly.
If you define "self-determination for their culture" as the right to own other people, to breed them like animals, to torture and kill them. I don't disagree with your larger point, and of course the North didn't fight primarily for the slaves. So the comparison isn't really bad. But we should be clear about what the Civil War was about.
Honestly, the only reason I'd oppose Quebec leaving is because they are unlikely to repay their percentage of the national debt, which is the highest in Canada at over $39,000 per person in Quebec. If they can cough up the money, I'd let them leave, after carving out a pathway along the south side of the province to ensure trans-canada freight and eliminate any border Quebec might have with the US.
Overall it's not the smartest move, but that "distinct society" garbage really irks me. Such is the level of my irritation.
If you define "self-determination for their culture" as the right to own other people, to breed them like animals, to torture and kill them. I don't disagree with your larger point, and of course the North didn't fight primarily for the slaves. So the comparison isn't really bad. But we should be clear about what the Civil War was about.
See again the part of my post about violence and destruction. The US Civil War is a wonderful example. According to some sources, 700,000+ were killed or wounded, and the cost of the war alone (never mind damage to infrastructure, etc) came to 80 billion dollars+ (in FY2011 dollars, CSA expenditures are based on estimates). This made it the most expensive war until World War II, and the most costly in human lives the US ever fought.
Personal Opinion: Depending on how Machiavellian they want to get, having someone who can be quickly and directly linked to the Canadian or US governments murder the Prime Minister shortly before the referendum would be just the right push, I think, to have it pass.
The Southerners wanted the right of self determination for their culture, which was different than the north. It ended badly.
If you define "self-determination for their culture" as the right to own other people, to breed them like animals, to torture and kill them. I don't disagree with your larger point, and of course the North didn't fight primarily for the slaves. So the comparison isn't really bad. But we should be clear about what the Civil War was about.
True, I just brought up that example to show how something like seperatism can be not as good as portrayed.
I'd hate to see things get ugly over in Quebec like they were in the 1960's and 70's. I remember when Trudeu's friend was kidnapped by seperatists, strangled with his own rosery and left in the trunk of a car. As a child living on the Maine side of the border, I couldn't understand why there were killings going on because I grew up surrounded by French people and they were some of the coolest people I've ever known in my life.
True, I just brought up that example to show how something like seperatism can be not as good as portrayed.
Depends on how willing one side is to commit crimes against humanity. Victory in the US Civil War was bought with many, many acts that, in this day and age, would be so far beyond the pale that the UN would have intervened. You know, banned weapons, running death camps, attacking Civilian populations, the list goes on...
True, I just brought up that example to show how something like seperatism can be not as good as portrayed.
Depends on how willing one side is to commit crimes against humanity. Victory in the US Civil War was bought with many, many acts that, in this day and age, would be so far beyond the pale that the UN would have intervened. You know, banned weapons, running death camps, attacking Civilian populations, the list goes on...
It was definitely an ugly time. A letter from an uncle of mine that fought for the North talks of a time he was on a forced march. Union soldiers were falling by the wayside and having their throats cut as they lay helpless by some of the locals. He had fallen out with heat stroke, but was taken in by some kinder souls that nursed him back to health.
It was definitely an ugly time. A letter from an uncle of mine that fought for the North talks of a time he was on a forced march. Union soldiers were falling by the wayside and having their throats cut as they lay helpless by some of the locals. He had fallen out with heat stroke, but was taken in by some kinder souls that nursed him back to health.
"I regard the death and mangling of a couple thousand men as a small affair, a kind of morning dash...' - W T Sherman (letter home to his wife)
"'When one man dies it is a tragedy, when thousands die it's statistics" - Stalin (att by McCullough)
Relapse wrote:I'd hate to see things get ugly over in Quebec like they were in the 1960's and 70's. I remember when Trudeu's friend was kidnapped by seperatists, strangled with his own rosery and left in the trunk of a car. As a child living on the Maine side of the border, I couldn't understand why there were killings going on because I grew up surrounded by French people and they were some of the coolest people I've ever known in my life.
I don't think he was friends with Trudeau; but he was an MP. Then the FLQ leaders fled to Paris, where they were assassinated by the Canadian government.
BaronIveagh wrote: I should never have watched Game of Thrones. For some reason I just pictured Frazz yelling 'Un roi du nord!'
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: Not quite. As Kovnik pointed out, the fault lines here are "cultural." That is the language of nationalism. But we don't have to rely on Kovnik. Just look at Quebec internally during the last few decades, with all the nationalist rhetoric. They even renamed their provincial legislature the "National Assembly."
And let me ask this: How is nationalistic sentiment (also called by some 'patriotism') a bad thing in this context? They're functionally a different culture than the nation they're joined to, is it wrong of them to want to exercise every culture's right (save where occupied by the United States) to self determination?
Historically, one culture being given rule over another has only ever led to violence and destruction.
I have to admit, I'm more of a "once more into the breech, dear friends!" kind of guy.
If we are really going to carve Canada up based on "culture" then we'd have: The Douchey Western Munchies, The Great Flat Nothing in the Middle, Boring Snotty Ontario, That Fething French Place, and Those Funny Easterners. Topped off by The Actual Frozen North.
Really, individually, we are a bunch of sad sacks who would inevitably get steamrolled by The Goddamn South. It is only together that we make up the Greatest Nation on God's Green Earth.
azazel the cat wrote: Honestly, the only reason I'd oppose Quebec leaving is because they are unlikely to repay their percentage of the national debt, which is the highest in Canada at over $39,000 per person in Quebec. If they can cough up the money, I'd let them leave, after carving out a pathway along the south side of the province to ensure trans-canada freight and eliminate any border Quebec might have with the US.
Overall it's not the smartest move, but that "distinct society" garbage really irks me. Such is the level of my irritation.
It would be funny if they split, then the Inuits pulled some legal strings and had them all evicted since they're just leasing the land anyways
Oh Quebec, you seceded, grats
Get off our lawn
we leased to canada, not to you, now get out.
The Quebecois or French Canadians or just Canadians as they used to call them self’s back in the days of British North America, when they weren’t discriminated against and were free to keep there language and culture. History’s been so hard on them
There about as french as Burger King Fries. Some say they speak 300 year old French. But no they speak a mutated North American hick French, that the actual French find hilarious. In much the same way Scots Canadians are ridiculed here
It would be funny if they split, then the Inuits pulled some legal strings and had them all evicted since they're just leasing the land anyways
Oh Quebec, you seceded, grats
Get off our lawn
we leased to canada, not to you, now get out.
If they do, let us know how they do it. We could use it to throw the United States out. Sadly, the two things are about as likely. (though I'm told that PA, NY, and OH would gladly give back the parts of them that we owned, except their tax income would drop)
So, while Canada has 1/3 the amount of guns per capita as America it only has close to 1/6 the amount of gun homicides per capita as America.
Hmm, I wonder if the amount of guns a country has is correlated with the amount of gun homicides.
Culture is far more important than gun ownership.
There are many places that have high gun ownership per capita and low gun related deaths per capita, both in the US and abroad. Many places are just plain dangerous, guns or no.
Melissia wrote: Culture is far more important than gun ownership.
There are many places that have high gun ownership per capita and low gun related deaths per capita, both in the US and abroad. Many places are just plain dangerous, guns or no.
Many areas of Canada have a similar culture to the US. Personally, I think that there is some sort of pressure mechanism at work.
cpt_fishcakes wrote: The Quebecois or French Canadians or just Canadians as they used to call them self’s back in the days of British North America, when they weren’t discriminated against and were free to keep there language and culture. History’s been so hard on them
Yes, the term 'canadian' was first used by us. Are you really going to suggest that this means that we should be content to be conquered, and later became part of a country that uses the same name? Because that's all kinds of dumb, honestly. Would Brits have been content being conquered by the Nazi, if only they had been allowed to keep their names?
There about as french as Burger King Fries. Some say they speak 300 year old French. But no they speak a mutated North American hick French, that the actual French find hilarious. In much the same way Scots Canadians are ridiculed here
That is correct. We have branched out and away from France's culture and language. I don't see how that's relevent. We're not asking for sovereignty on the grounds that we are french, but that we are distinct.
Many areas of Canada have a similar culture to the US.
Pretty much the entirety of the Commonwealth countries have a culture similar to that of the US, but they're also sufficiently distinct to be noted as such. Most notably the US tends towards individualism in a way that isn't as common in the remained of the Western world.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: You really have no damn clue what you're talking about if you think the US has one cohesive culture.
Its about as homogeneous as any other nation, possibly more so. Sure, there are regional differences, but there is most definitely common identity and set of cultural practices which is about as close as you can get to cohesiveness when discussing a culture.
Indeed, the majority of diversity in the United States seems to be political, rather than cultural, and likely resulted from the way our government is structured.
Melissia wrote: You really have no damn clue what you're talking about if you think the US has one cohesive culture.
While I grant there are regional differences, and even near dialects, no US states have quite the difference in culture between, say, Alberta and Quebec. The closest I can come up with off the top of my head is California and Texas, and even those two at least have an official language in common.
So, while Canada has 1/3 the amount of guns per capita as America it only has close to 1/6 the amount of gun homicides per capita as America.
Hmm, I wonder if the amount of guns a country has is correlated with the amount of gun homicides.
Culture is far more important than gun ownership.
There are many places that have high gun ownership per capita and low gun related deaths per capita, both in the US and abroad. Many places are just plain dangerous, guns or no.
Ever tried shooting up a school with a hunting rifle, I imagine it's a little slow.
While I grant there are regional differences, and even near dialects, no US states have quite the difference in culture between, say, Alberta and Quebec. The closest I can come up with off the top of my head is California and Texas, and even those two at least have an official language in common.
So do Quebec and Alberta.
As for cultural distinction, I think you would find a greater difference between Texas and New York (or really any New England state) than Texas and California. Though California is probably unique in being the most culturally diverse state in the US thanks to its sheer geographic size, and high rate of extra-national immigration.
While I grant there are regional differences, and even near dialects, no US states have quite the difference in culture between, say, Alberta and Quebec. The closest I can come up with off the top of my head is California and Texas, and even those two at least have an official language in common.
So do Quebec and Alberta.
Only in a legal sense.
In practice, you'll find that nobody speaks French in Alberta and in Quebec only small enclaves speak English. Hell, the province immediately to the East of Alberta, -Saskatchewan- actually has provincial legislation protecting schools from being forced to offer French as a language course.
In practice, you'll find that nobody speaks French in Alberta and in Quebec only small enclaves speak English. Hell, the province immediately to the East of Alberta, -Saskatchewan- actually has provincial legislation protecting schools from being forced to offer French as a language course.
'Nobody', as in over 65 000 people?
Anyway. If the PQ or Bloc had played their cards right, we'd have a French-Canadian zionism mouvement by now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote: The cultural difference between Alberta and Quebec is still comparable to that between Texas or Louisiana and New England.
I'd say that's about right. If you add to this that Catholicism is the major religion here, while it's next to inexistent over there, and that inversely Protestantism doesn't even register on our radars here.
And the language.
And, for some reason, the fact that teenage mothers are like a dime a dozen in Alberta. Seriously.
Can't beleive there's a thread about Canadian unity. Very interesting however I'm thinking the gunman, clad only in a bathrobe and balaclava, was probably just a crazy person rather than some political zealot.
Mannahnin wrote: The cultural difference between Alberta and Quebec is still comparable to that between Texas or Louisiana and New England.
I'd say that's about right. If you add to this that Catholicism is the major religion here, while it's next to inexistent over there, and that inversely Protestantism doesn't even register on our radars here
Whereas we have both, but one area has a large Spanish/Mexican and colonial French background, whereas the other's culture more directly based on the Brits. Plus little factors like that old slave state/free state difference of opinion.
Kovnik Obama wrote: And, for some reason, the fact that teenage mothers are like a dime a dozen in Alberta. Seriously.
Really? I know the Southern US has a higher teenage pregnancy and birth rate, but the US in general has been improving on that score for decades. Is it really that common in Alberta, or is that one of those regional slurs?
Melissia wrote: You really have no damn clue what you're talking about if you think the US has one cohesive culture.
While I grant there are regional differences, and even near dialects, no US states have quite the difference in culture between, say, Alberta and Quebec. The closest I can come up with off the top of my head is California and Texas, and even those two at least have an official language in common.
repectfully, neither Texas nor California have an official language that I am aware of. Now cultural differences I'd put Texas or Louisiana against NY. There's some differences in country. But hey, my wife is from Chicago. Now thats an interracial marriage. If we can get along there's not that much of a difference.
I don't know how different Quebec is. I do know that separation would probably not help your economy. Leaving that would be strictly meh.
Manchu pegged a few pages back. He has an alarming understanding of Canada and will have to be eliminated later but basically yes, there's are true believers and die hards that want Quebec soveiregnty but a lot of it is political bs to hold over Ottawa for more federal money. This continues to this day because it works. Political pandering to Quebec is a serious problem. Quebec benefits more from being part of Canada than any other province.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Better off to ask what the job market is like there. I'm thinking its like northern WI. No jobs but drugs and alcohol with time on their hand.
Alberta? It has one of the world's largest oil reserves. It's Canada's boom town.
Really? I know the Southern US has a higher teenage pregnancy and birth rate, but the US in general has been improving on that score for decades. Is it really that common in Alberta, or is that one of those regional slurs?
It's a personnal observation, so take it with a grain of salt. But I've never seen as many pregnant teens as in Alberta (I stayed there 3 years). One softball female team was taken out of the circuit in a small town next to Red Deer because over half of the team was pregnant.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Better off to ask what the job market is like there. I'm thinking its like northern WI. No jobs but drugs and alcohol with time on their hand.
In Québec? It's not bad at all. We were spared most of the economic crisis. Québec City, for exemple, was cited in a newspaper as being the one least affected by it in Canada.
We have a booming gaming industry, both major cities are great touristic locations, and if we can get rid of those damn hippies, we'll be able to exploit our untouched natural gaz reserves.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Manchu pegged a few pages back. He has an alarming understanding of Canada and will have to be eliminated later but basically yes, there's are true believers and die hards that want Quebec soveiregnty but a lot of it is political bs to hold over Ottawa for more federal money. This continues to this day because it works. Political pandering to Quebec is a serious problem. Quebec benefits more from being part of Canada than any other province.
That pretty much ignores the fact that more or less 30% of the population remains sovereignist. It's not a political strategy to suck more cash out of Ottawa.
repectfully, neither Texas nor California have an official language that I am aware of. Now cultural differences I'd put Texas or Louisiana against NY. There's some differences in country. But hey, my wife is from Chicago. Now thats an interracial marriage. If we can get along there's not that much of a difference.
I don't know how different Quebec is. I do know that separation would probably not help your economy. Leaving that would be strictly meh.
I've been to Texas, Louisiana, and New York (and a whole lot of other places besides). They're not that different from Western New York. New York City, on the other hand, is a very different culture. (And if they ever want to leave, the rest of the state would be happy to give them all the non-New York State sovereignty they can do. Which is probably measured in kilos of cocaine)
Chi Town isn't too bad. They eat odd pizza there.
Though, in all honesty, it's fun to pit racist cowboys from Calgary against racist frogs from Quebec. *brandishes his 'Warbucks' brand coffee* After all, almost everything that has been discussed might just put loonies (or, my preference, Krugerrands, Swiss francs a distant second) in someone's pocket. A war next door and me with the legal right to take all sorts of interesting things across said boarder legally? And the tanks are even French*! (*May contain German, US, and custom after market add ons and may contain technology prohibited for export to non-NATO member states. Air freight and air drop are available. [direct to battlefield delivery surcharges may apply])
In practice, you'll find that nobody speaks French in Alberta and in Quebec only small enclaves speak English. Hell, the province immediately to the East of Alberta, -Saskatchewan- actually has provincial legislation protecting schools from being forced to offer French as a language course.
I thought a little less than 40% of francophones in Quebec spoke English as well.
repectfully, neither Texas nor California have an official language that I am aware of. Now cultural differences I'd put Texas or Louisiana against NY. There's some differences in country. But hey, my wife is from Chicago. Now thats an interracial marriage. If we can get along there's not that much of a difference.
I don't know how different Quebec is. I do know that separation would probably not help your economy. Leaving that would be strictly meh.
I've been to Texas, Louisiana, and New York (and a whole lot of other places besides). They're not that different from Western New York. New York City, on the other hand, is a very different culture. (And if they ever want to leave, the rest of the state would be happy to give them all the non-New York State sovereignty they can do. Which is probably measured in kilos of cocaine)
Chi Town isn't too bad. They eat odd pizza there.
Though, in all honesty, it's fun to pit racist cowboys from Calgary against racist frogs from Quebec. *brandishes his 'Warbucks' brand coffee* After all, almost everything that has been discussed might just put loonies (or, my preference, Krugerrands, Swiss francs a distant second) in someone's pocket. A war next door and me with the legal right to take all sorts of interesting things across said boarder legally? And the tanks are even French*! (*May contain German, US, and custom after market add ons and may contain technology prohibited for export to non-NATO member states. Air freight and air drop are available. [direct to battlefield delivery surcharges may apply])
Its heresy but I was not impressed with deepdish Chicago pizza. It seemed loaded with dough. I don't want dough. I want topping. Dough is like cake, a launching platform for the frosting.
You see, this is a basic difference between me, and the Frazzled party candidate. I love, and enjoy, and exalt ALL of the cake. He only cares about the frosting at the very top.
Similarly, he cannot appreciate the depth of the American icon that is the Chicago Stuffed Pizza. From the crust at the bottom and the sides, supporting the great middle cheese stuffing, to the zesty sauce at the top; I embrace ALL of these elements, and say that they are ALL needed, for this delicious American creation.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: How can that Saskatchewan factoid be true? It must be against federal law...
I think they can still teach French if they wish to, it seems like its there to stop local over meant going "you are going to teach French lessons to these kids" even if there was no will or need to do
Mannahnin wrote: You see, this is a basic difference between me, and the Frazzled party candidate. I love, and enjoy, and exalt ALL of the cake. He only cares about the frosting at the very top.
Similarly, he cannot appreciate the depth of the American icon that is the Chicago Stuffed Pizza. From the crust at the bottom and the sides, supporting the great middle cheese stuffing, to the zesty sauce at the top; I embrace ALL of these elements, and say that they are ALL needed, for this delicious American creation.
And in contrast it is Team Wienie's firm belief that the cream rises to the top! Its that One Percent on the top that is the best.
I think they can still teach French if they wish to, it seems like its there to stop local over meant going "you are going to teach French lessons to these kids" even if there was no will or need to do
'Need to do so' in the sense that francophones don't exist or in the sense that they are not welcome?
Mannahnin wrote: You see, this is a basic difference between me, and the Frazzled party candidate. I love, and enjoy, and exalt ALL of the cake. He only cares about the frosting at the very top.
Similarly, he cannot appreciate the depth of the American icon that is the Chicago Stuffed Pizza. From the crust at the bottom and the sides, supporting the great middle cheese stuffing, to the zesty sauce at the top; I embrace ALL of these elements, and say that they are ALL needed, for this delicious American creation.
Chicago Stuffed Pizza is all kinds of awesome...
How's this for a weird one? "St. Louis style Pizza" is basically think crust with provolone... its and acquired taste, but awesome too.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: How can that Saskatchewan factoid be true? It must be against federal law...
I think they can still teach French if they wish to, it seems like its there to stop local over meant going "you are going to teach French lessons to these kids" even if there was no will or need to do
My father wanted to learn French, and knew just enough to strike up a deal with a Frenchman where my dad would teach him English in return for this guy to teach him French. A couple months went by and my father noticed that as he tried to speak French exactly as he heard it, Frenchmen he tried it on would start laughing. He couldn't understand what was so funny until the person he was learning from began speaking more and more English.
Turns out the man had a serious stutter...
KamikazeCanuck wrote: How can that Saskatchewan factoid be true? It must be against federal law...
I think they can still teach French if they wish to, it seems like its there to stop local over meant going "you are going to teach French lessons to these kids" even if there was no will or need to do
Just so you know the way it works in Canada is that everyone outside of Quebec must learn French in school but it's illegal to teach English in Quebec.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Political pandering to Quebec is a serious problem. Quebec benefits more from being part of Canada than any other province.
That pretty much ignores the fact that more or less 30% of the population remains sovereignist. It's not a political strategy to suck more cash out of Ottawa.
Kovnik, your point about the percentage of separatists doesn't counter KC's position at all. I'd say 30% is a great sweet spot to put pressure on without being so OTT that they throw their hands up in Ottawa. It's a "non-serious serious problem" if you see what I mean.
Regardless of the sincerity of seperatists is it a serious problem. More so actually with the Anglo politicians pandering to Quebec. They are worse in many ways.
It's outrageous to use the supposed cultural difference of Alberta and Quebec as reason to divide people when Alberta literally pays for everything Quebec has.
Just so you know the way it works in Canada is that everyone outside of Quebec must learn French in school but it's illegal to teach English in Quebec.
Just so you know the way it works in Canada is that everyone outside of Quebec must learn French in school but it's illegal to teach English in Quebec.
Wait...what ?
Don't tell anyone but Canada's dirty little secret is it has an actual no-hyperbole fascist institution called The Language Police. They literally go around making English illegal in Quebec.
Sigh...
You know that law 101 Kovnik talked earlier ? That's what these articles are refering too (didn't read them all but it seems to be the case)
But yes, sometimes it can be ridiculous
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_the_French_Language
And about English being illegal to teach in Quebec... English is a mandatory class at school...
Only if you count the ones that speak English about as well as I speak French.
That's what the official statistics from the Canadian government are, and generally people are only classified as bilingual if they have conversational fluency. This doesn't mean speaking a language so well that you can carry on long conversations about esoteric topics, but that you can carry on a normal conversation with a native speaker. Most people never get beyond conversational fluency (Outside of reading and writing, which is relatively easy by comparison to speaking and listening.), because full fluency requires that you effectively think in the language in question.
Von Skyfury wrote: Sigh...
You know that law 101 Kovnik talked earlier ? That's what these articles are refering too (didn't read them all but it seems to be the case)
But yes, sometimes it can be ridiculous
It's as shallow as the fact the language police generally go around bullying and harassing shop owners.
Sorry if I sort of shrug at this. 'I support the law, but I object to having to follow it' seems a bit odd.
And, frankly, the fine sounds steep, but lets compare:
The Russian version sent them to the gulags.
The US version left cemeteries filled with the graves of children. 186 graves at Carlisle alone, 13 'unknown' because they couldn't be bothered.
I don't support the law. And yes, Baron things are always worse someplace else. I'll guess I'll just ignore the problems in my country because...... Russia exists.
I don't support the law. And yes, Baron things are always worse someplace else. I'll guess I'll just ignore the problems in my country because...... Russia exists.
The shopkeeper in question does. He just feels it's unfair to apply it to him. He even says so. Stop and think about that. And the point was actually those people didn't have a choice. The Canadian merchant in question chose to support it, and now complained because he was forced to obey it.
Are you talking about that one guy in that link? Yes, I suppose. Obviously many don't support the law anyway and It's completely reasonable to support an idea or law and then think the way it's enforced is wrong or not in the original spirit.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: It's complicated. Quebec is a big place. Montreal (the province's largest city by far) is basically an English city. Quebec city is very French.
Just so you know the way it works in Canada is that everyone outside of Quebec must learn French in school but it's illegal to teach English in Quebec.
Both those factoids are completely inaccurate.
I've had english classes since 3rd grade. Legally, it's mandatory for everyone as of 7th, and all through 12th, IIRC.
Montreal is a little bit over 12% Anglo. The numbers of Allophone (mostly Greeks, Italians and Jews) is more than double that.
Von Skyfury wrote: You saying they are going around making english illegal needed clarifications. It's deeper than what you are saying.
It's as shallow as the fact the language police generally go around bullying and harrasing shop owners.
It's illegal to build houses using brown bricks in my hometown. This is in no way different. It's a question of aesthetical sensibilities. Calling it a fascist institution just shows how much you ignore about fascism and law. And it's really not that much enforced. The Starbucks next to my place advertise ''Café Starbucks Coffee'' in equal lettering, and it's on one of the most travelled artery of Montreal.
It's outrageous to use the supposed cultural difference of Alberta and Quebec as reason to divide people when Alberta literally pays for everything Quebec has.
*Sigh* There is so much bullcrap in your statements, it's painfull. Have you even bothered to look the articles you've posted? We receive, per Capita, a little bit over 900$ in equalization.
First of all it's weird that brown bricks can't be used in your town but Quebec's language laws are obviously not just some aesthetic choice.
Not trying to overexaggerete but what I'm saying is everyone in Montreal speaks English. You're talking ethnic background.
Yes I read them, did you? Did you see how Quebec gets as much money from Ottawa as every other province combined?
And you know what? Have the money, who cares. I don't have a problem helping my fellow Canadians anyway. Just don't say Quebec doesn't benefit from being part of Canada.
Kovnik, I want to be clear: I like Quebec. Montreal is one of the greatest cities in Canada because uniquely amongst all Canadian cities it is what Canada thinks it is. It's bilingual, liberal, socialist, multicultural, insane with the hockey and...... cold. All of our ideals and stereotypes perfectly captured. The rest of Quebec actually contains the majority of our young country's history.
I can't deny I don't like separatists because, as I see it, they seek the death of country.
Pages ago you cited some reasons for separation that honestly, were ludacris. You had to dig deep for those and mainly I'm sad you felt you needed to do that. Despite what you say Quebecois are exactly like the rest of Canadians (hockey surprising popular in other provinces too!) except in one important way. Religon and politics are often cited as big dividers of people but one thing that divides people like no other is language. If people can't talk to each other the first step to understanding each other is lost.
French is supposed to be this great language and of course it is. It's one of the world's great languages but if it's only used as a divider is it? Is anything? There is more to French than this, there has to be. French should be part of the rich tapstry that makes up Quebec and Canada's culture. A important way in which individual Quebecois indentify themselves. I hope it means a lot more to you than just some wall to throw up between you and me and Francophones and Anglos. That's what it should never be.
"Footage showed a high-powered rifle, which Twitter users identified as an AK-47 or Valmont Hunter weapon."
What the hell is wrong with our society when news sites are using TWITTER to figure out what the weapon was.
I think this bugs me almost as much as the attempted shooting.
Also, as a person who works as a stagehand, literally doing the exact same job the guy who got shot was doing, this is really chilling for me. Had this been a job down near Kentucky, I could've easily been one of the guys that gunman would have run into first. Those back stage areas are always packed full of people. The crowd is always super noisy, so it's hard to hear. Everyone is trying to be quiet so we're not picked up on the microphones. If that guy hadn't had his weapon jam, a lot more people would've died. He could've easily made it almost all the way to the stage if there wasn't good security presence. And there are so many areas you can hide with it being dark back there and what not. People are very lucky, this could have gone much, much worse.
Hope the family of that man is ok. They must be devastated right now.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Kovnik, I want to be clear: I like Quebec. Montreal is one of the greatest cities in Canada because uniquely amongst all Canadian cities it is what Canada thinks it is. It's bilingual, liberal, socialist, multicultural, insane with the hockey and...... cold. All of our ideals and stereotypes perfectly captured. The rest of Quebec actually contains the majority of our young country's history.
I can't deny I don't like separatists because, as I see it, they seek the death of country.
Pages ago you cited some reasons for separation that honestly, were ludacris. You had to dig deep for those and mainly I'm sad you felt you needed to do that. Despite what you say Quebecois are exactly like the rest of Canadians (hockey surprising popular in other provinces too!) except in one important way. Religon and politics are often cited as big dividers of people but one thing that divides people like no other is language. If people can't talk to each other the first step to understanding each other is lost.
French is supposed to be this great language and of course it is. It's one of the world's great languages but if it's only used as a divider is it? Is anything? There is more to French than this, there has to be. French should be part of the rich tapstry that makes up Quebec and Canada's culture. A important way in which individual Quebecois indentify themselves. I hope it means a lot more to you than just some wall to throw up between you and me and Francophones and Anglos. That's what it should never be.
Exalted! Standing ovation!
I thought you couldn't say it better than before but I was wrong. I'm not sure what values underlying secession could be more urgent or noble than these for unity. I doubt there are any.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: How can that Saskatchewan factoid be true? It must be against federal law...
I think they can still teach French if they wish to, it seems like its there to stop local over meant going "you are going to teach French lessons to these kids" even if there was no will or need to do
Just so you know the way it works in Canada is that everyone outside of Quebec must learn French in school but it's illegal to teach English in Quebec.
This is two different kinds of wrong. English is a mandatory class in Quebec; and Saskatchewan students are not required to learn any French.
Alright, correct me if I'm wrong but I'm under the impression if your family is Francophone or you immigrate to Quebec you must go to a French school - by law.
I have no idea what's going on in Saskatchewan....y'know, like most people.
I can't deny I don't like separatists because, as I see it, they seek the death of country.
Because, as they most likely see it, they see their continued being part of Canada as the slow agonizing death of their own country and culture. I suppose that they should be thankful that Canada isn't as 'proactive' in the demise of Quebec as some countries are (ask the Basques, or the Roma, or the Irish, or Native Americans outside Canada). However, if they want ot stand up and fight for it, one way or another, I fully support them.
Are you comparing Quebec to what happened to the Native Americans, to the Irish, and to centuries of persecution of the Roma, and them being part of the genocide in WWII?
Are Quebecois being forced into ghettos or camps, having their language actively extinguished, or being killed by their government?
I can't deny I don't like separatists because, as I see it, they seek the death of country.
Because, as they most likely see it, they see their continued being part of Canada as the slow agonizing death of their own country and culture. I suppose that they should be thankful that Canada isn't as 'proactive' in the demise of Quebec as some countries are (ask the Basques, or the Roma, or the Irish, or Native Americans outside Canada). However, if they want ot stand up and fight for it, one way or another, I fully support them.
First: Quebec is not a country.
Second: Canada encourages the upkeep of traditional cultures; in Canada the policy is not to destroy cultures, with one exception...
Third: Do not even try to compare the plight of the Quebecois to the Aboriginals in Canada. French culture in Canada has never been the victim of state-endorsed genocide. Aboriginal language and culture, on the other hand, has.
Because, as they most likely see it, they see their continued being part of Canada as the slow agonizing death of their own country and culture. I suppose that they should be thankful that Canada isn't as 'proactive' in the demise of Quebec as some countries are (ask the Basques, or the Roma, or the Irish, or Native Americans outside Canada). However, if they want ot stand up and fight for it, one way or another, I fully support them.
The comparisons you're attempting to draw are ridiculously obtuse. What's happening with respect to Quebec is what happens whenever to sufficiently distinct cultures interact closely. It happened in the early United States, and its been happening in Europe ever since those nations decided that war wasn't good for them.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Kovnik, I want to be clear: I like Quebec. Montreal is one of the greatest cities in Canada because uniquely amongst all Canadian cities it is what Canada thinks it is. It's bilingual, liberal, socialist, multicultural, insane with the hockey and...... cold. All of our ideals and stereotypes perfectly captured. The rest of Quebec actually contains the majority of our young country's history.
I can't deny I don't like separatists because, as I see it, they seek the death of country.
Pages ago you cited some reasons for separation that honestly, were ludacris. You had to dig deep for those and mainly I'm sad you felt you needed to do that. Despite what you say Quebecois are exactly like the rest of Canadians (hockey surprising popular in other provinces too!) except in one important way. Religon and politics are often cited as big dividers of people but one thing that divides people like no other is language. If people can't talk to each other the first step to understanding each other is lost.
French is supposed to be this great language and of course it is. It's one of the world's great languages but if it's only used as a divider is it? Is anything? There is more to French than this, there has to be. French should be part of the rich tapstry that makes up Quebec and Canada's culture. A important way in which individual Quebecois indentify themselves. I hope it means a lot more to you than just some wall to throw up between you and me and Francophones and Anglos. That's what it should never be.
+1,000,000
I have friends who are Quebecois and I love my Habs along with all the other great things Quebec culture brings to our great country.
But I'm getting sick and tired of the PQ always demanding more $$$ to support their utterly unviable socialist ideals like 'free everything', all the while going on and on about how hard done by they are and that Ottawa is seeking to stamp out French wherever it hides.
Let's face it, Harper already signed into law a few years ago that Quebec is a 'distinctly unique society within Canadian culture'. He pretty much gave Quebec the unique idenity it's wanted, while keeping all the many perks the province already recieves.
If people actually think Quebec will be better off as it's own distinct country, then fine. Enjoy being the 'new Greece' and don't come crying expecting a now foriegn government to bail you out!
Mannahnin wrote: Are you comparing Quebec to what happened to the Native Americans, to the Irish, and to centuries of persecution of the Roma, and them being part of the genocide in WWII?
Only in the broadest sense (though I have little doubt that I could find some people in the Western Provinces who would argue exactly that sort of 'solution' to the issue).
From the perspective of the separatists, being included in Canada is eroding and will eventually extinguish their culture. This is complicated by the perception that they were not given a say in the matter in 1982, more or less being forced into Canada against their will.
At the core, there are only three possible outcomes for their culture in the end: independence or extinction (in one form or another).
@Azreal: 1: patriotism does not require an existing recognized state. However, according to a non-binding statement from the Canadian government, yes, it is.
2: Official policy and practical outcome are two different things. Stopping homogenization without division is like trying to stop gravity while standing on the surface of a black hole. It's going to win in the end, eventually.
3: As a survivor and decedent of survivors of state sponsored genocide, the ultimate outcome is the same, it just lacks the immediacy of killing them all outright. It's the same sort of philosophy that ran the Carlisle Schools. Rather than engaging in horrific slaughter, slowly grind the culture away until there's nothing left.
@dogma: And, that makes it OK somehow? As far as Europe goes, have you been paying attention to what it has been causing, right? The steady rise of something called National Socialism? Remember them? They're back because of the stresses this has caused.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: First of all it's weird that brown bricks can't be used in your town but Quebec's language laws are obviously not just some aesthetic choice.
That's right, there's also a legal publicity question. In French Civil law, all for of advertisement is considered legally binding. It must thus all be in the legal language of the land. But it's mostly an aesthetical question, yes.
Not trying to overexaggerete but what I'm saying is everyone in Montreal speaks English. You're talking ethnic background.
I'm sure you've spent a hell of a lot of time in Monk, Longueil, Hochelaga and Laval when you were here? The vast majority of what's outside Westmount, the Mile-End and St-Catherine is french.
Yes I read them, did you? Did you see how Quebec gets as much money from Ottawa as every other province combined?
Did you see how we receive per capita about half of what other provinces with the same GDP receive?
Let's face it, Harper already signed into law a few years ago that Quebec is a 'distinctly unique society within Canadian culture'. He pretty much gave Quebec the unique idenity it's wanted, while keeping all the many perks the province already recieves.
If people actually think Quebec will be better off as it's own distinct country, then fine. Enjoy being the 'new Greece' and don't come crying expecting a now foriegn government to bail you out!
Um, I might point out that both the Charlottetown and Meech Lake accords (which is what I think you're talking about) both failed, actually. Harper signed off an a non-binding recognition by the House of Commons.
"Que cette Chambre reconnaisse que les Québécoises et les Québécois forment une nation au sein d'un Canada uni."
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Political pandering to Quebec is a serious problem. Quebec benefits more from being part of Canada than any other province.
That pretty much ignores the fact that more or less 30% of the population remains sovereignist. It's not a political strategy to suck more cash out of Ottawa.
Kovnik, your point about the percentage of separatists doesn't counter KC's position at all. I'd say 30% is a great sweet spot to put pressure on without being so OTT that they throw their hands up in Ottawa. It's a "non-serious serious problem" if you see what I mean.
Okay, I used to respect your point, but now your just talking out of ignorance. If you truly beleives that people like Lévesque, Parizeau, Bouchard and even Marois are only using the sovereignty mouvement to milk the federal cow (I might give you Landry, because that guy was the most machiavellian fiscalist to ever walk the earth), then I suggest you educate yourself before drawing intent for the leadership of an entire social mouvement.
Bouchard when he founded the BQ more or less said that they were trying to get a better deal for Quebec, but if no such deal came they would help take Quebec out of Canada.
Those comments have framed the separatist movement for the rest of Canada for the last 20 years.
I can't deny I don't like separatists because, as I see it, they seek the death of country.
It's a sovereignty-association. You retain the rights of passage over the St-Laurent without any taxes or anything. We gain back all the federal competencies.
Pages ago you cited some reasons for separation that honestly, were ludacris. You had to dig deep for those and mainly I'm sad you felt you needed to do that.
Again, such as Law, History, political position? If you think our love for hockey outshines all these, then you have a ridiculous conception of what a distinct culture is. After all, both Brazil and Germany go nuts over soccer, are you going to maintain they should not be separate from another?
How about the fact that in the event of a new international conflict, over 65% of english canadian are for forced conscription, while in Quebec it's a little bit under 25% ? Not being forced to go kill and get killed is a pretty important issue, even tho it might never come up.
French is supposed to be this great language and of course it is. It's one of the world's great languages but if it's only used as a divider is it? Is anything? There is more to French than this, there has to be. French should be part of the rich tapstry that makes up Quebec and Canada's culture. A important way in which individual Quebecois indentify themselves. I hope it means a lot more to you than just some wall to throw up between you and me and Francophones and Anglos. That's what it should never be.
Than let's all learn Esperanto!! Let's all reny our traditions and values and conform ourselves to the pseudo-british culture, simply because we might 'create walls', and 'divide ourselves'. What don't you understand about the fact that our right to govern ourselves was stolen from us, and that we don't appreciate it?
Frontiers are other dividers, we should get rid of those too.
Jefffar wrote: Bouchard when he founded the BQ more or less said that they were trying to get a better deal for Quebec, but if no such deal came they would help take Quebec out of Canada.
Those comments have framed the separatist movement for the rest of Canada for the last 20 years.
The Bloc existed to defend the rights and interest of quebecers at the federal level (if they had been bright they would've also included all french speaking communities in Canada, not just quebecers). And since ihas always been clear that Independance would come from the provincial level, the actions of the Bloc have never been 'a frame' for the separatist mouvement.
Half of the separatists I know questionned the use of them existing.
It isn't a matter of whether or not its acceptable, its a matter of whether or not its inevitable. Cultures interact with one another, its what they do. There are very few examples in history of cultural groups, of any size, living in true isolation; and most of those came about on remote islands (and even they weren't stagnant). Cultures evolve, its what they do, whether they do so as a result of internal or external influence only matters if in attempting to fruitlessly cling to what you believe is yours you deny that simple truth.
As far as Europe goes, have you been paying attention to what it has been causing, right? The steady rise of something called National Socialism? Remember them? They're back because of the stresses this has caused.
Steady rise? What? National socialism never went away, it just lost its footing in the press because it ceased to be mainstream. Now that the press no longer has to limit itself to mainstream issues due to the exponential growth of mass media they get their share of time in The Sun.
The shift in perception of the role of war in Europe effectively began just before WWI, and crystallized after people saw the devastation that conflict caused. This is why you saw so much popular resistance to war despite German aggression during the interbellum period. Prior to WWI war would have been extremely popular, because it was as a way of "refreshing" a nation. National socialism rose to prominence in concert with this movement, not necessarily advocating war, but certainly extolling the virtues of national purity. Of course, the more cosmopolitan pacifist movement eventually won out.
In essence, WWI marked the beginning of European integration, and the associated social movements its fallout spawned. What we're seeing now isn't a return to open war in Europe, genocide, or anything remotely similar. What we're seeing is mild social backlash as a result of cultural interaction.
As ever your tendency is to immediately retreat to hyperbolic comparisons. I'm mean, you don't get much more hyperbolic than "Look, there's some Nazis!" Its really rather tiresome.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote: Stopping homogenization without division is like trying to stop gravity while standing on the surface of a black hole. It's going to win in the end, eventually.
See, this is part of the problem. Homogenization isn't the end result of any cultural interaction. It simply doesn't happen. Claiming that it does is to ape Marcuse's terrible argument regarding one-dimensional man, and the way mass media makes us all somehow the same. Its an overly romantic take on a sort of pseudo-primitivism that fails to appreciate the complexity of modern society, and the diversity of individual experience.
To use this post as an example, I'll bet that most people here who grew up in the US can't tell me who Herbert Marcuse was without using Wikipedia. This in itself points to an piece of knowledge that marks my experience as fundamentally distinct from that of many others.
Kovnik Obama wrote: I suggest you educate yourself before drawing intent for the leadership of an entire social mouvement.
Hmm, I don't think my comment attributed any motive to the PQ. But now that I think about it, it makes sense. After all, the PQ has backed off of pushing for a referendum, which means they are not spending their resources trying to convince Québécois to vote for secession. It's a reasonable inference to make that the PQ sees the status quo in terms of desire for sovereignty (the 30%) as adequate to back up their less dramatic programs -- like netting more federal money to support French language initiatives.
Steady rise? What? National socialism never went away, it just lost its footing in the press because it ceased to be mainstream. Now that the press no longer has to limit itself to mainstream issues due to the exponential growth of mass media they get their share of time in The Sun.
I never said it went away. It declined (please pay attention to the difference). Now it's rising again due to social and economic pressures.
In essence, WWI marked the beginning of European integration, and the associated social movements its fallout spawned. What we're seeing now isn't a return to open war in Europe, genocide, or anything remotely similar. What we're seeing is mild social backlash as a result of cultural interaction.
'Mild'? Never mind that technically what you just said includes such 'mild' events as the wars in the former Yugoslavia, ten THOUSAND neo nazis took to the streets of Budapest in the largest single gathering since the second world war and won 21% of the Hungarian Parliament. What sounds 'mild' about that?
As ever your tendency is to immediately retreat to hyperbolic comparisons. I'm mean, you don't get much more hyperbolic than "Look, there's some Nazis!" Its really rather tiresome.
Dogma, at what point did I compare anything specifically to Nazism? I simply pointed out that your argument was flawed in that it stressed societies who responded in unpredictable and dangerous ways, including a rise in radical hate based nationalist groups.
To use this post as an example, I'll bet that most people here who grew up in the US can't tell me who Herbert Marcuse was without using Wikipedia. This in itself points to an piece of knowledge that marks my experience as fundamentally distinct from that of many others.
And yet, if that statement is true, you outline he was essentially right in the majority of cases, in that mass media pacifies the masses, using, in this case, ignorance, to silence dissension.
"Unfortunately, the ugliness didn't stop with the shooting. "You just can't find good assassins these days!" Blake Marsh, a now-former tester at Eidos Montreal, wrote on his Facebook page. In a follow-up comment, he added, "I give this bitch a month before someone with better aim comes forth and does what must be done.""
So what is it about this subject that just seems to bring donkey-caves out of the woodwork in Canada? I've been there in the past, it seemed like such a nice, polite place, I half expected to find they had some sort of brainwashing program set up to cure jerks.
So what is it about this subject that just seems to bring donkey-caves out of the woodwork in Canada? I've been there in the past, it seemed like such a nice, polite place, I half expected to find they had some sort of brainwashing program set up to cure jerks.
Well, honestly, game testers makes mini wargamers cons seems like a posh gentleman club gatherings.
But that is very crass, indeed.
Well, honestly, game testers makes mini wargamers cons seems like a posh gentleman club gatherings.
But that is very crass, indeed.
Well, I agree about it being crass, but having been to gatherings of posh gentlemen, this place is spotlessly sans the butler with a plate full of pure Colombian snow with sterling silver coke staws. Bankers and politicians throw great parties.
I never said it went away. It declined (please pay attention to the difference). Now it's rising again due to social and economic pressures.
Except it isn't, which is why I assumed you were implying that Nazism somehow went away. I mean, of the two examples you listed one is about the Golden Dawn, and the other is Hungarian. Further, we're not talking about economic pressure, we're talking about the effects of cultural interaction. There are distinct things.
First, the Golden Dawn is a Greek organization. Greece has only ever been a "stable" country, and even that only for about 30 years. The group itself traces its roots back to the 80's and the larger right-wing movement that came about following the fall of the military junta. It hasn't gained power specifically, so much as Michaloliakos has remained a major figure in the Greek far right, which has always been politically significant.
Second, Hungary has always had a checkered history with the Roma (like pretty much every Eastern European country). Any increase in violence against them has nothing to do with European cultural integration, and everything to do with the Eastern Europe's history of increasing discrimination against that extant population during times of hardship.
'Mild'? Never mind that technically what you just said includes such 'mild' events as the wars in the former Yugoslavia, ten THOUSAND neo nazis took to the streets of Budapest in the largest single gathering since the second world war and won 21% of the Hungarian Parliament. What sounds 'mild' about that?
No, it doesn't. What I just said includes current events relating to European integration. Not past events related to the fall of the Soviet Union and post-Communism. Again, you're using a ridiculously broad brush in an attempt to make a point that is grounded in paranoia.
Post-communism is still a factor Eastern Europe, but its not at all relevant to the point I was making about cultural interaction.
Dogma, at what point did I compare anything specifically to Nazism?
I didn't say that you drew a comparison, I said you pointed at the existence of Nazis in places as evidence of increasing social unrest. This is a hyperbolic claim as Nazis exist in places even when there is virtually no social unrest. And, as I noted above, the places in which far right groups do have sway have had significant far right movements for all of contemporary history.
I simply pointed out that your argument was flawed in that it stressed societies who responded in unpredictable and dangerous ways, including a rise in radical hate based nationalist groups.
You didn't actually deal with my argument at all. You said that cultural interaction stresses societies, which isn't something I even dealt with, and is self-evident to anyone who has studied the topic in even the briefest sense. You then pointed abstractly at Europe (and later elaborated with a rather poor set of examples that weren't relevant to the initial topic), and tried to hearken back to the qualitative type of judgment which I explicitly rejected as being irrelevant.
Again, whether or not cultural interaction is "OK" is irrelevant (And, honestly, the way you phrased your initial response was extremely xenophobic.). What matters is that it is inevitable. The type of social controls that can actually impede it serve only to cause additional stress and violence.
And yet, if that statement is true, you outline he was essentially right in the majority of cases, in that mass media pacifies the masses, using, in this case, ignorance, to silence dissension.
No, not at all. It means that the whole of "media" is a vast thing, and while I'm more well read than most, even I'm not aware of everything. I couldn't, for example, give you the name of single literary critic, or tell you the name of a prominent contributor to Rolling Stone, or even more than 3 characters from Lost. The truth is that all people are ignorant of most things. The existence of mass media doesn't make people more homogeneous, it just makes more information available to more people because, at the end of the day, none of us can know or experience everything.
Well Kovnik, when all is said and done let's not argue because if in your own heart you do not feel Canadian nothing anyone says will change that. Only you know how you feel. For me personally I can only say I'm sorry you do not feel included in Canada. All I would ask is that you always represent that alienated feeling as honestly as possible and not as some sort of debate excercise.
dogma wrote: Further, we're not talking about economic pressure, we're talking about the effects of cultural interaction. There are distinct things.
Yes and No.
Cultures under increasing stress (of any type) behave differently based on a few factors. The nature of the stress, the historical relationship with other cultures in proximity, and the ideology of the culture are big ones.
Put pressure on a culture, be it crop failure, political unrest, plague and economic collapse and you see this: 'someone must be to blame'. It does not take long for the scapegoating to start from there. Cram two cultures together, tell them that have one vote as a group in a larger body, predominantly one of the two cultures, and watch the fur fly. One party will always feel disenfranchised and attempt to lash out in some manner. The pressure could be either cultural or economic, historically the end result is if not the same, very similar.
What I just said includes current events relating to European integration. Not past events related to the fall of the Soviet Union and post-Communism. Again, you're using a ridiculously broad brush in an attempt to make a point that is grounded in paranoia.
You ever been hunted by people who wanted to kill you due to not being a white Anglo-Saxon protestant? It's somewhat paranoia inducing.
And, again, that broad stroke was yours, not mine, when you started defining it in terms of events since WW1.
Post-communism is still a factor Eastern Europe, but its not at all relevant to the point I was making about cultural interaction.
You think that what had happened and is happening in eastern Europe has nothing to do with the fact that Russia shoved a large number of smaller cultures who actively detested one another into the same nations together? The fact that as soon as the big threat keeping them all together was gone, the situation came to a boil very, very rapidly?
I said you pointed at the existence of Nazis in places as evidence of increasing social unrest. This is a hyperbolic claim as Nazis exist in places even when there is virtually no social unrest. And, as I noted above, the places in which far right groups do have sway have had significant far right movements for all of contemporary history.
No, I said that neo-nazis increasing in power was evidence of social unrest. I never said they did not exist in other locations. There will always be random fascist donkey-caves. They don't, under normal circumstances, gain large followings and take up political power at the national level, however.
dogma wrote: And, honestly, the way you phrased your initial response was extremely xenophobic.
I'm not a big fan of Americans (and by extension anglo Canadians), for obvious reasons. I find the most disgusting thing is that most of them seem to think that their genocide and discrimination against natives is a thing 'in the past' rather than an ongoing situation.
No, not at all. It means that the whole of "media" is a vast thing, and while I'm more well read than most, even I'm not aware of everything. I couldn't, for example, give you the name of single literary critic, or tell you the name of a prominent contributor to Rolling Stone, or even more than 3 characters from Lost. The truth is that all people are ignorant of most things. The existence of mass media doesn't make people more homogeneous, it just makes more information available to more people because, at the end of the day, none of us can know or experience everything.
I think maybe I didn't make my point clear. A better word than ignorance might have been 'omission'. People don't get upset about things the media does not cover. You'll find there are a surprising number of things that fall under this code of silence. If police beat a black man to death in Compton, the media is on it like white on rice. If Police beat an Indian to death on a reservation, no one hears about it. This can have occasionally hilarious dissonance. ABC Nightly News, for example, was at a loss to explain why locals were cheering on escaped cop killer Bucky Phillips (to this day I have a 'got bucky?' t-shirt.) and actively hindering police efforts to catch (murder) him. The reason was that not that long before, 30 state troopers had broken up a native ceremony that was 'too close to the road' with batons and tear gas. That part didn't make the news. The man they shot six times in the back and killed while looking for Bucky also didn't make the news.
Why?
Because people would get pissed off about it. People who matter would have to get out of bed and address angry citizens over a bunch of dirty indians. And if local news doesn't cover it, the national news or foreign media most likely will never hear about it. So it never happened. John Q Public goes home to his 2.5 children and his white picket fence and isn't disturbed by the sight of his country's police clubbing little children with batons. He's also not disturbed by any number of wars his country illegally runs on the side, secret prisons, and the deliberate destabilization of democracies not friendly to US interests.
BaronIveagh wrote:@Azreal: 1: patriotism does not require an existing recognized state. However, according to a non-binding statement from the Canadian government, yes, it is.
2: Official policy and practical outcome are two different things. Stopping homogenization without division is like trying to stop gravity while standing on the surface of a black hole. It's going to win in the end, eventually.
3: As a survivor and decedent of survivors of state sponsored genocide, the ultimate outcome is the same, it just lacks the immediacy of killing them all outright. It's the same sort of philosophy that ran the Carlisle Schools. Rather than engaging in horrific slaughter, slowly grind the culture away until there's nothing left.
1: No, patriotism does not require an existing recognized state. But having a country does. Quebec is not a country. They are considered a nation, which is entirely different.
2: You're right, it will win in the end. And the end result will include some of what was put into it. The Quebecois are crying because they think their culture will disappear, whereas it will really just evolve and meld together. Kinda like how eventually there will only be one race of people, and they'll all be a tanned beige colour. But that uni-race will still have the genetic material of all the races that contributed in the past. That's technically homogenization, but it's the kind that is only feared by bigots.
3: No. My example in #2 has a group being included into a melting pot. There is still copper inside bronze; the copper doesn't go away. The residential school cultural genocide sought to remove the culture entirely; not to incorporate it. That is, that atrocity tried to destroy all copper, and leave only tin.
Cultures under increasing stress (of any type) behave differently based on a few factors. The nature of the stress, the historical relationship with other cultures in proximity, and the ideology of the culture are big ones.
Its mostly the nature of the stress. "ZOMG, my kid speaks English better than French!" is not as strong a motivation as "I'm poor, and that immigrant is rich!"
And, again, that broad stroke was yours, not mine, when you started defining it in terms of events since WW1.
What? Read my post again. I said that WWI marked the beginning of European integration*. And that what we're seeing now, as opposed to then (when Nazism was a big deal), is mild social backlash. Now does not mean 20 years ago when post-Communism became a huge issue, now means now. At most the last decade when post-Communism was still a big issue, but less of one than the formation of the EU.
*Note also that the phrase "European integration" is not conventionally applied to the entire continent of Europe, in large part due to that whole "Eastern Bloc" thing.
You think that what had happened and is happening in eastern Europe has nothing to do with the fact that Russia shoved a large number of smaller cultures who actively detested one another into the same nations together? The fact that as soon as the big threat keeping them all together was gone, the situation came to a boil very, very rapidly?
You mean Yugoslavia? That wasn't the Russians, that was the result of the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Putting aside that Yugoslavia was only initially part of the Eastern Bloc, look at a map of the administrative units of SFRY, and look at a map of the countries that resulted from the dissolution of Yugoslavia; they're essentially the same.
Aside from that, there's really no difference from the map of the Eastern Bloc, and the map of Eastern Europe before it became the Eastern Bloc; aside from the Czech/Slovak split (Which was very much an "Eh, alright." sort of thing.). The Russians didn't do a lot of lumping cultures together. The ones that they did (the ones they absorbed into the Soviet Union), are remarkably stable countries and really only fought Moscow in their rebellions, where they occurred.
As far as "is happening": again, the Roma have always been victims in Eastern Europe, and Greece has never really been stable.
As ever your tendency is to immediately retreat to hyperbolic comparisons.
Ah, I misunderstood your reply, allow me to reiterate.
You didn't compare anything to Nazism. You explicitly stated that there are Nazis today, and that their present existence should worry us because there were Nazis in the past. This is an obvious comparison of Nazism now, to Nazism then (when it was all the rage).
I'm sorry I wasn't clear.
BaronIveagh wrote: John Q Public goes home to his 2.5 children and his white picket fence and isn't disturbed by the sight of his country's police clubbing little children with batons. He's also not disturbed by any number of wars his country illegally runs on the side, secret prisons, and the deliberate destabilization of democracies not friendly to US interests.
Why should he be disturbed by any of those things? I'm not, and I'm aware of them all. Hell, its part of my job to be, and I don't even work directly for the government.
I will say this though, reservations are issues areas for a number of reasons (not all sympathetic). If something gakky happens get it on video, get it to a news organization, and see what happens. That's pretty much all you have.
Its mostly the nature of the stress. "ZOMG, my kid speaks English better than French!" is not as strong a motivation as "I'm poor, and that immigrant is rich!"
Both are actually powerful motivators. Your language example above was actually what motivated a lot of English expats in Holland to leave there and go to the New World, at the time effectively taking their lives in their hands.
*Note also that the phrase "European integration" is not conventionally applied to the entire continent of Europe, in large part due to that whole "Eastern Bloc" thing.
Then I suggest 'Western European Integration' might be a better phrase for that.
You mean Yugoslavia? That wasn't the Russians, that was the result of the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Putting aside that Yugoslavia was only initially part of the Eastern Bloc, look at a map of the administrative units of SFRY, and look at a map of the countries that resulted from the dissolution of Yugoslavia; they're essentially the same.
Actually I was not 'just' talking about Yugoslavia, though that one was the headline grabber. You might recall that several other breakups occurred with some violence, most though it didn't get beyond the 'riots and snipers' phase.
The ones that they did (the ones they absorbed into the Soviet Union), are remarkably stable countries and really only fought Moscow in their rebellions, where they occurred.
And Georgia and Estonia. And, secondly, many of them had been 'absorbed' since the time of Peter the Great or earlier, so claiming that it's a 'communist' thing is a bit misleading.
You didn't compare anything to Nazism. You explicitly stated that there are Nazis today, and that their present existence should worry us because there were Nazis in the past. This is an obvious comparison of Nazism now, to Nazism then (when it was all the rage).
I'm sorry I wasn't clear.
So, in a nutshell, you're claiming that we shouldn't worry about them taking power because they're not the exact same nazis that lead to the destruction of most of Europe years ago? While I grant, yes, most of those guys are dead, many of the new guys are every bit as rabid about exactly the same things. Dogma, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana, Reason and Common Sense. It's like saying that, upon being zapped by electrified concertina, that it won't possibly happen again.
I'm not, and I'm aware of them all. Hell, its part of my job to be, and I don't even work directly for the government.
Dogma, knowing about it intellectually and seeing it are two different things. I've seen it. He should be deeply disturbed, because the same men running his country are also the men who tell CIA operatives to pay mercs to slaughter villages as part of false flag operations. Who order the covert deaths of their own citizens, guys like said John Q Public, just because they don't happen to agree with the government (and, no, I'm not talking about al-Awlaki).
He should be damn disturbed when the people he elects based on their 'christian moral values' are quite happy to order the deaths of thousands over breakfast as a favor to the men who bribe him during his election campaign.
Dogma, I have to say, the fact that you are not disturbed in the least by this and think that others should not be either makes me question your sanity. I'm not disturbed by them at this point, but still have the lingering decency to realize I should be.
You know Baron when the "No" side win the referendum some politicians blamed the "ethnic" vote which meant immigrants and first nations. The vast majority of first nations in Quebec would prefer to remain in Canada in the event of some succession. The separatist movement, which is prone to racial rabble rousing isn't as friendly to Natives as you seem to think. Do you support the First Nations in that decision?
Using "anglo" as an insult annoys me. It's like when South Koreans call Europeans "Yankee" (which they do; the term is used for anyone who is caucasian).
Melissia wrote: Using "anglo" as an insult annoys me. It's like when South Koreans call Europeans "Yankee" (which they do; the term is used for anyone who is caucasian).
It also seems to further reinforce the sentiment that there aren't really any good racial insults for white people. They exist, of course, but they don't draw the same ire and instant reaction as the other more incendiary terms for other ethnic groups.
Both are actually powerful motivators. Your language example above was actually what motivated a lot of English expats in Holland to leave there and go to the New World, at the time effectively taking their lives in their hands.
No, not really. There's your broad brush again. There is a massive difference between being persecuted for being culturally distinct, and simply being culturally distinct. Several people have pointed this out to you, and you've ignored it in the manner that you're accustomed to.
Then I suggest 'Western European Integration' might be a better phrase for that.
No, not really because, you know, Spain. The phrase "European Integration" works just fine because it doesn't refer to the transition from Communism or fascism. That's what the terms "post-Communism" and "post-fascism" entail.
And Georgia and Estonia. And, secondly, many of them had been 'absorbed' since the time of Peter the Great or earlier, so claiming that it's a 'communist' thing is a bit misleading.
Georgia isn't in Europe, which is the topic of this discussion. And Estonia fought its rebellion against Moscow, which is what I said before.
So, in a nutshell, you're claiming that we shouldn't worry about them taking power because they're not the exact same nazis that lead to the destruction of most of Europe years ago?
No, and this should have been clear in the context of my previous posts, Nazism now is not what Nazism was then; a dominant political force. Today its a fringe group, and has been for years. You only see it rearing its head in places the far right has always had traction, or where "Kill the Roma" has always been popular. This is not only distinct from Hitler's Nazism (note: there exist Jewish Nazis) but it doesn't have anything like the political role that it once did.
This is something that I'm not sure you understand. When Hitler rose to power National Socialism was not a "fringe" movement, it was a very, very big thing. It was akin to Libertarianism* in terms of the number of people that expressed sympathy towards it. In short, not everyone was a Nazi, but lots of people were nationalists, hated Jews, and vaguely disliked communism.
*Disclaimer: Libertarians are not at all like Nazis in terms of ideology.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: You know Baron when the "No" side win the referendum some politicians blamed the "ethnic" vote which meant immigrants and first nations. The vast majority of first nations in Quebec would prefer to remain in Canada in the event of some succession. The separatist movement, which is prone to racial rabble rousing isn't as friendly to Natives as you seem to think. Do you support the First Nations in that decision?
None of them are 'friendly'. I'm waiting to hear from my cousins in Six Nations, since I have not dealt directly with the Inuit or Cree at any point, so I don't know if that position is 'We really believe this' or 'We were told we believe this so our corrupt leaders can squeeze Ottawa a little harder.' If they really do want to stay, I support that idea, but at the same time, some sort of arraignment would have to be made for Quebec to lease territory. If it's so that the 'nation elite' as we call them down here can get even richer at everyone else's expense, then no.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: You know Baron when the "No" side win the referendum some politicians blamed the "ethnic" vote which meant immigrants and first nations. The vast majority of first nations in Quebec would prefer to remain in Canada in the event of some succession. The separatist movement, which is prone to racial rabble rousing isn't as friendly to Natives as you seem to think. Do you support the First Nations in that decision?
None of them are 'friendly'. I'm waiting to hear from my cousins in Six Nations, since I have not dealt directly with the Inuit or Cree at any point, so I don't know if that position is 'We really believe this' or 'We were told we believe this so our corrupt leaders can squeeze Ottawa a little harder.' If they really do want to stay, I support that idea, but at the same time, some sort of arraignment would have to be made for Quebec to lease territory. If it's so that the 'nation elite' as we call them down here can get even richer at everyone else's expense, then no.
Were the Inuit/Cree/other-natives conquered people? Or, did the Indian Nations have a treaty with Canada?
We went thru a similar thing in Alaska and I still think it's still going thru the courts... The natives got a boat load of land, but as a "private" transer, not as "soveriegn land" transfer.
*means they have to pay taxes on the properties... (sneaky white man).
whembly wrote:Were the Inuit/Cree/other-natives conquered people? Or, did the Indian Nations have a treaty with Canada?
We went thru a similar thing in Alaska and I still think it's still going thru the courts... The natives got a boat load of land, but as a "private" transer, not as "soveriegn land" transfer.
*means they have to pay taxes on the properties... (sneaky white man).
It's a giant clusterfeth. Some bands signed treaties in some provinces, whereas others did not. It changes from group to group and from province to province.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: You know Baron when the "No" side win the referendum some politicians blamed the "ethnic" vote which meant immigrants and first nations. The vast majority of first nations in Quebec would prefer to remain in Canada in the event of some succession. The separatist movement, which is prone to racial rabble rousing isn't as friendly to Natives as you seem to think. Do you support the First Nations in that decision?
None of them are 'friendly'. I'm waiting to hear from my cousins in Six Nations, since I have not dealt directly with the Inuit or Cree at any point, so I don't know if that position is 'We really believe this' or 'We were told we believe this so our corrupt leaders can squeeze Ottawa a little harder.' If they really do want to stay, I support that idea, but at the same time, some sort of arraignment would have to be made for Quebec to lease territory. If it's so that the 'nation elite' as we call them down here can get even richer at everyone else's expense, then no.
Don't just assume everything is the same in Canada because we look the same as Americans. Need I remind you that America and Britain where enemies back in the day and because America were enemies with all the indigenous people at the time most of them ended behind allies with the British. Sadly, 99% of Canadians have forgotten that the First Nations fought and died side by side with Canadians against American aggression in 1812. Who knows if there'd be a Canada at all without their help. It was also the closest Aboringinals came to having their own modern Nation-State: the deal they struck with the Brits. Unfortunately, this "Native Confedrecy" died with Tecumesh on the field of battle. As the war wound down America made the non-existance of an Indian State the number one priority at the peace talks because they knew it would be a huge block to westward expansion.
Neither Canada or America gained much in that war but as usual the natives lost somehow.
whembly wrote:Were the Inuit/Cree/other-natives conquered people? Or, did the Indian Nations have a treaty with Canada?
We went thru a similar thing in Alaska and I still think it's still going thru the courts... The natives got a boat load of land, but as a "private" transer, not as "soveriegn land" transfer.
*means they have to pay taxes on the properties... (sneaky white man).
It's a giant clusterfeth. Some bands signed treaties in some provinces, whereas others did not. It changes from group to group and from province to province.
Interesting...
This thread is interesting as is prompting me to read up on this...
Oh... look up what happened in Bismark, N Dakota... the indians wanted to build a Casino... the folks of Bismark said "no".
Indian said, get off our land... Bismark leases that land...
Melissia wrote: Using "anglo" as an insult annoys me. It's like when South Koreans call Europeans "Yankee" (which they do; the term is used for anyone who is caucasian).
It's not an insult, it's a designation. We quebecers have a complete lexicon full of insults, don't worry, our insults for english-canadians are much more colourful.
No, not really. There's your broad brush again. There is a massive difference between being persecuted for being culturally distinct, and simply being culturally distinct. Several people have pointed this out to you, and you've ignored it in the manner that you're accustomed to.
Dogma, who was talking about anyone being persecuted? The people I was talking about went to Holland and were welcomed into Dutch society by the dutch, and left because they didn't want their children to be dutch. (It should be said that I've found Holland to be the most open, liberal place I've ever been, and have a hard time picturing them persecuting anyone. Even during the burning times, they barely roasted a hundred people. Compare that to the rest of Europe!)
No, and this should have been clear in the context of my previous posts, Nazism now is not what Nazism was then; a dominant political force. Today its a fringe group, and has been for years. You only see it rearing its head in places the far right has always had traction, or where "Kill the Roma" has always been popular. This is not only distinct from Hitler's Nazism (note: there exist Jewish Nazis) but it doesn't have anything like the political role that it once did.
Dogma, Nazism in Germany before Hitler assumed power was having a good year when they got more than 30% of the vote. Hitler only got 35% when he ran for President, and that was with the backing of most of Germany's major industrialists. That's hardly 'dominant'. It's influential, sure, but not the all powerful dominant force you're making it out to have been. At 21% Hungarian nazis just did better without major economic backing than the NSDAP did *with* major backing before 1932.
While I can't argue that Nazi ideology does not play well to the far right, as it does, and no one has said that Nazism does not turn up in places that are about as far from Aryan as you can possibly get. Unfortunately, it's hard to name a nation where more than one culture is forced into contact with another where it's peaceful, stable, and racism doesn't go on. While the most dramatic examples have been, as you said, in nations long associated with instability and racism, it's not like they are not growing in power elsewhere as well. Look at the Ukraine, Bulgaria, and Latvia. All of them have seen a marked rise in ultra nationalist 'nazis in all but name' parties.
These are still some pretty damn big numbers for nations you have implied are well adjusted to their mishmash of cultures.
This is something that I'm not sure you understand. When Hitler rose to power National Socialism was not a "fringe" movement, it was a very, very big thing.
I suspect its more like "I'm that involved with morality and ethics that I actually ask that question."
So you're implying that Americans are debased, unethical and immoral to the point that it would not bother them to see their government murder children on live television?
Kovnik Obama wrote: So, I'm hateful if I beleive that Islam promotes an unhealthy and intolerant (not sure if that's the best term) image of gender relations?
Stop and think about it in the context of the other questions. None of them are specifically about hate, but all of them cover preconceptions that could be used by a good orator to sway someone to a hate based organisation. Thihk of it in terms of a vulnerability assesment.
Dogma, who was talking about anyone being persecuted? The people I was talking about went to Holland and were welcomed into Dutch society by the dutch, and left because they didn't want their children to be dutch.
No, they left because they wanted their children to be Anabaptists or Calvinists, which were both persecuted in Holland by the Catholic Church. That you didn't say anything specifically about persecution was either the result of ignorance, incompetence, or disingenuousness.
You're also substituting an adherence to English culture for an adherence to a religious faith, which is what happens when you dislocate your argument from any sort of temporal continuity.
Unfortunately, it's hard to name a nation where more than one culture is forced into contact with another where it's peaceful, stable, and racism doesn't go on.
Name a nation in which cultures are not "forced" into contact.
So you're implying that Americans are debased, unethical and immoral to the point that it would not bother them to see their government murder children on live television?
No, I'm implying that, having studied ethics and morality for the better part of a decade, I'm well aware of how much of it people assume, rather than reason.
Anyway, I know you feel persecuted, but I don't care. I care about whether or not you can make a good argument, and you have consistently failed to do so. You've committed several fallacies, which I've let slide, but the essence of it is that you're reaching in order to justify how you feel; not something anyone should ever do.
Kovnik Obama wrote: So, I'm hateful if I beleive that Islam promotes an unhealthy and intolerant (not sure if that's the best term) image of gender relations?
Stop and think about it in the context of the other questions. None of them are specifically about hate, but all of them cover preconceptions that could be used by a good orator to sway someone to a hate based organisation.
Oh oki. Yeah, demagogue could easily use such themes, even tho they might factually have some truth to them. I was surprised that simply having a negative conception of religion equivalate being hateful.
Stop and think about it in the context of the other questions. None of them are specifically about hate, but all of them cover preconceptions that could be used by a good orator to sway someone to a hate based organisation. Thihk of it in terms of a vulnerability assesment.
So you grand statement is that someone, somewhere, could create hate based on popular sentiment?
Stop and think about it in the context of the other questions. None of them are specifically about hate, but all of them cover preconceptions that could be used by a good orator to sway someone to a hate based organisation. Thihk of it in terms of a vulnerability assesment.
So you grand statement is that someone, somewhere, could create hate based on popular sentiment?
Welcome to reality. Please enjoy your stay.
Numbers closing in the 50% marks should be rather alarming, I think. Although I doubt the 'Israel is abusing the post-Holocaust pro-Jew sentiment' might actually give way to real political action, I can see how 'there's too damn much immigrants' could.
I also want to be clear. While I did state that multi-culturalism was the best method of assimilation attempted yet, I do not beleive in any way that immigration is a bad thing.
No, they left because they wanted their children to be Anabaptists or Calvinists, which were both persecuted in Holland by the Catholic Church. That you didn't say anything specifically about persecution was either the result of ignorance, incompetence, or disingenuousness.
You're also substituting an adherence to English culture for an adherence to a religious faith...
Nice passing the blame onto me, but it's not so much time as space. I'm talking about the Dutch Republic, you're talking about the Spanish Netherlands, which had two very different policies on the Calvinists. Further, I'm guessing that you were talking about the Puritans whereas I was talking about the Quakers.
They are well adjusted. In fact that's what your little picture shows.
Actually, no. What the picture shows is the cultural predisposition to right wing extremism based on the European Social Survey and how 'in demand' right wing politics were at the time the survey was conducted (2010). If you scroll down a bit to the numbers, you might notice that the things that such groups feed on are surprisingly high in many of them, however. Poland, for example, is still in the green, but has startlingly high numbers. As you may be aware most of the nations in the picture have outlawed ultra nationalist groups, but despite outlawing such parties, still has a large number of them, and those numbers have been growing since 2008 at an alarming rate. Switzerland, also green, has had the Swiss Nationalist Party making gains in local elections, but staying out of the national spotlight so far.
I care about whether or not you can make a good argument, and you have consistently failed to do so.
If by a good argument you mean 'not bothering to read what the other guy is saying' then, no, I suppose I haven't. You've accused me of several fallacies, but yourself backpedaled furiously when called out for claiming I said things that I did not.
If the idea that people would not find being shown the immoral acts of their government disturbing is the result of ten years of studying ethics and morality, I would have to ask, where at, the Objectivist Institute?
I have to agree. There's a particularly nasty undercurrent of anti-English (and by extension, American) prejudice running through this thread. Apparently that's OK, though.
I wonder if it would be the same if the ethnicity wasn't 'Anglo', a word which is being tossed around like an insult in this thread, despite what certain people say.
Albatross wrote: I can't believe Melissia and I found something to agree on. Feels weird, but I'm happy to go with it.
Well the terms Anglophone and Francophone are considered part of Canadian culture and are used to describe one's mother tongue not as an insult, although I haven't heard anyone use the word "Anglo" in Canada so I don't no what our society's stance is on it.
Albatross wrote: I can't believe Melissia and I found something to agree on. Feels weird, but I'm happy to go with it.
Well the terms Anglophone and Francophone are considered part of Canadian culture and are used to describe one's mother tongue not as an insult, although I haven't heard anyone use the word "Anglo" in Canada so I don't no what our society's stance is on it.
Yeah, I know what those words mean and how they are typically used, thanks!
The word 'Pakistani' is used to describe someone from Pakistan, or with roots there. The shortened form of that word is considered a grave insult here, and rightly so. I hope this has been illustrative.
Albatross wrote: I can't believe Melissia and I found something to agree on. Feels weird, but I'm happy to go with it.
Well the terms Anglophone and Francophone are considered part of Canadian culture and are used to describe one's mother tongue not as an insult, although I haven't heard anyone use the word "Anglo" in Canada so I don't no what our society's stance is on it.
Yeah, I know what those words mean and how they are typically used, thanks!
The word 'Pakistani' is used to describe someone from Pakistan, or with roots there. The shortened form of that word is considered a grave insult here, and rightly so. I hope this has been illustrative.
Albatross wrote: I can't believe Melissia and I found something to agree on. Feels weird, but I'm happy to go with it.
Well the terms Anglophone and Francophone are considered part of Canadian culture and are used to describe one's mother tongue not as an insult, although I haven't heard anyone use the word "Anglo" in Canada so I don't no what our society's stance is on it.
Yeah, I know what those words mean and how they are typically used, thanks!
The word 'Pakistani' is used to describe someone from Pakistan, or with roots there. The shortened form of that word is considered a grave insult here, and rightly so. I hope this has been illustrative.
OK, that makes more sense, thanks.
It's all about the intent, isn't it?
I mean, calling someone a 'Paddy' is fine, because that's a typical Irish name, right? Wrong. And calling a Japanese person a 'Nip' should be OK, because the anglicised version of their country's name is 'Nippon', yeah? No. Not cool.
Yes, I am Anglophone. I speak English. Call me an 'Anglo' because you hate my kind and I will smash your face apart, however. Well, not you personally. Just in general.
Then you are an Anglo. What's hard to understand about it? Again, we have insults specific to english and english canadians. I always avoid using them, because they are ridiculous and the Anglo are mostly a great people that doesn't deserve being lumped togheter by insults.
I have to agree. There's a particularly nasty undercurrent of anti-English (and by extension, American) prejudice running through this thread.
That's a fairly ridiculous opinion, since a fairly large group of Sovereignist are actually considering the option of leaving Canada to join the US.
Wait the Sovereignty movement wants independence from Canada, but if they can't get it they move to the US which probably doesn't have any interest in Quebec independence whatsoever, what is the Sovereignty going to gain from this?
Wait the Sovereignty movement wants independence from Canada, but if they can't get it they move to the US which probably doesn't have any interest in Quebec independence whatsoever, what is the Sovereignty going to gain from this?
I think they mean that Quebec would join the US as a 51st state. I wonder if they'd add maple leaves instead of stars?
I have to agree. There's a particularly nasty undercurrent of anti-English (and by extension, American) prejudice running through this thread.
That's a fairly ridiculous opinion, since a fairly large group of Sovereignist are actually considering the option of leaving Canada to join the US.
I wasn't speaking specifically about the issue of Quebecois seperatism, rather the general attitudes displayed in the thread, and not just by you, though you are one of the worst offenders if not the worst.
Also, if you continue to subject me to ethnic slurs, then I will continue to report them to the moderators. Just a heads-up, mon frère.
Wait the Sovereignty movement wants independence from Canada, but if they can't get it they move to the US which probably doesn't have any interest in Quebec independence whatsoever, what is the Sovereignty going to gain from this?
Like I said, it's only a 'fairly' large portion that actually wants this, mostly people that have been too much affected by the 'SOCIALISM IS BAAAAAD' portion of American media.
I have to agree. There's a particularly nasty undercurrent of anti-English (and by extension, American) prejudice running through this thread.
That's a fairly ridiculous opinion, since a fairly large group of Sovereignist are actually considering the option of leaving Canada to join the US.
I wasn't speaking specifically about the issue of Quebecois seperatism, rather the general attitudes displayed in the thread, and not just by you, though you are one of the worst offenders if not the worst.
Also, if you continue to subject me to ethnic slurs, then I will continue to report them to the moderators. Just a heads-up, mon frère.
Since the objective of an insult is to carry over one's contempt for another, don't you find weird that the person who supposedly insulted you would deny having insulted you? If you want to feel insulted because you've been called by a designator that semantically applies to you, fine. It's another thing to give intent to someone who denies that very intent.
Rather weird too that until you and Melissia showed up, no other english-canadian engaged in this thread felt the need to report as insulting an idiom that's actually included in the title of the very thread.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: I'm not really comfortable with the title of this thread to be honest. It's inaccurate and inflammatory.
What would you rather have it has? The guy was english, the guy was an dick, the guy was trying to murder Marois.
He was trying to murder her exactly because of his ethnicity, and the oppression he perceived himself being victim of, so it's a valid piece of information. Are you uncomfortable with the fact that I call a murderer that ended his revolutionnary statement with 'wanna make trouble' a donkey-cave?
Since the objective of an insult is to carry over one's contempt for another, don't you find weird that the person who supposedly insulted you would deny having insulted you? If you want to feel insulted because you've been called by a designator that semantically applies to you, fine. It's another thing to give intent to someone who denies that very intent.
Yeah, good one. Racists use that sort of thin rhetoric all the time. "What? 'P*ki' is just short for 'Pakistani', that's not racist! I like p*kis!' Yeah, sure you do. You know what you're doing, so just knock it off.
Rather weird too that until you and Melissia showed up, no other english-canadian engaged in this thread felt the need to report as insulting a idiom that's actually included in the title of the very thread.
I reported the thread on day one. I didn't post in it until now because I doubted my ability to stay civil in the face of ethnic slurs. Do you really not understand that putting 'Anglo donkey-cave' in the title could be extremely offensive to English people and English speakers? I don't buy it. I think you're playing dumb.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: I'm not really comfortable with the title of this thread to be honest. It's inaccurate and inflammatory.
What would you rather have it has? The guy was english, the guy was an dick, the guy was trying to murder Marois.
He was trying to murder her exactly because of his ethnicity, and the oppression he perceived himself being victim of, so it's a valid piece of information. Are you uncomfortable with the fact that I call a murderer that ended his revolutionnary statement with 'wanna make trouble' a donkey-cave?
Well she isn't the Prime Minister she's the Premiere of Quebec so that's misleading.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: I'm not really comfortable with the title of this thread to be honest. It's inaccurate and inflammatory.
What would you rather have it has? The guy was english, the guy was an dick, the guy was trying to murder Marois.
He was trying to murder her exactly because of his ethnicity, and the oppression he perceived himself being victim of, so it's a valid piece of information. Are you uncomfortable with the fact that I call a murderer that ended his revolutionnary statement with 'wanna make trouble' a donkey-cave?
Well she isn't the Prime Minister she's the Premiere of Quebec so that's misleading.
Sorry, In French it's called Premier Ministre, so I've always had the reflex to translate it as such.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: I'm not really comfortable with the title of this thread to be honest. It's inaccurate and inflammatory.
What would you rather have it has? The guy was english, the guy was an dick, the guy was trying to murder Marois.
He was trying to murder her exactly because of his ethnicity, and the oppression he perceived himself being victim of, so it's a valid piece of information. Are you uncomfortable with the fact that I call a murderer that ended his revolutionnary statement with 'wanna make trouble' a donkey-cave?
Well she isn't the Prime Minister she's the Premiere of Quebec so that's misleading.
Sorry, In French it's called Premier Ministre, so I've always had the reflex to translate it as such.
Albatross wrote: I reported the thread on day one. I didn't post in it until now because I doubted my ability to stay civil in the face of ethnic slurs. Do you really not understand that putting 'Anglo donkey-cave' in the title could be extremely offensive to English people and English speakers? I don't buy it. I think you're playing dumb.
So you reported it from day one and it's still going on, on top of things I've even discussed my position with a MOD who disagreed with me, and yet didn't use the hammer. Maybe you should take a hint? Unless you identify yourself with the murderer in question, no, it shouldn't be insulting to you. He did what he did because he was anglophone, a dick, and perceived his people's oppression. Those are the defining elements of the story.
Albatross wrote: I reported the thread on day one. I didn't post in it until now because I doubted my ability to stay civil in the face of ethnic slurs. Do you really not understand that putting 'Anglo donkey-cave' in the title could be extremely offensive to English people and English speakers? I don't buy it. I think you're playing dumb.
So you reported it from day one and it's still going on, on top of things I've even discussed my position with a MOD who disagreed with me, and yet didn't use the hammer. Maybe you should take a hint? Unless you identify yourself with the murderer in question, no, it shouldn't be insulting to you. He did what he did because he was anglophone, a dick, and perceived his people's oppression. Those are the defining elements of the story.
Yes, I can see that you combined those elements and managed to come up with the least offensive and inflammatory title possible. Please accept my completely insincere and sarcastic apologies.
Albatross wrote: I reported the thread on day one. I didn't post in it until now because I doubted my ability to stay civil in the face of ethnic slurs. Do you really not understand that putting 'Anglo donkey-cave' in the title could be extremely offensive to English people and English speakers? I don't buy it. I think you're playing dumb.
So you reported it from day one and it's still going on, on top of things I've even discussed my position with a MOD who disagreed with me, and yet didn't use the hammer. Maybe you should take a hint? Unless you identify yourself with the murderer in question, no, it shouldn't be insulting to you. He did what he did because he was anglophone, a dick, and perceived his people's oppression. Those are the defining elements of the story.
Albatross wrote: I reported the thread on day one. I didn't post in it until now because I doubted my ability to stay civil in the face of ethnic slurs. Do you really not understand that putting 'Anglo donkey-cave' in the title could be extremely offensive to English people and English speakers? I don't buy it. I think you're playing dumb.
So you reported it from day one and it's still going on, on top of things I've even discussed my position with a MOD who disagreed with me, and yet didn't use the hammer. Maybe you should take a hint? Unless you identify yourself with the murderer in question, no, it shouldn't be insulting to you. He did what he did because he was anglophone, a dick, and perceived his people's oppression. Those are the defining elements of the story.
Um, what? .
Let me rephrase ; the cause he espoused was that of an english uprising in Quebec. The 3 terms were to be put in conjonction, I'm not trying to imply that being anglophone is the cause of the violence. I'm saying that 'Anglo Donkey-cave murderer' is an apt descriptor if your being anenglish violent dick.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: I'm not really comfortable with the title of this thread to be honest. It's inaccurate and inflammatory.
What would you rather have it has? The guy was english, the guy was an dick, the guy was trying to murder Marois.
He was trying to murder her exactly because of his ethnicity, and the oppression he perceived himself being victim of, so it's a valid piece of information. Are you uncomfortable with the fact that I call a murderer that ended his revolutionnary statement with 'wanna make trouble' a donkey-cave?
He hasn't been charged with the attempted murder of Marois afaik. Like I said before he appears to just be a crazy guy with guns not some zealot.
I'll take the word of the Canadian folks that Anglo and Franco are used as neutral shorthand for folks who primarily speak one language or the other.
I think Alby's skepticism over that's not entirely inappropriate. Most similar terms used in most parts of the world are usually used in a derogatory or disrespectful sense.
Not normally offensive but context is important. If the title was "Black Donkey-Cave tries to kill white women" wouldn't you say one of those words is superfluous at best and inflammatory at worst even though it normally isn't?
He hasn't been charged with the attempted murder of Marois afaik. Like I said before he appears to just be a crazy guy with guns not some zealot.
Well that's another issue.
A few students put smoking bombs in the metro during summer ; Terrorism charges. Someone murders people at a political meeting while shouting calls to ethnic violence ; Homicide charges.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Not normally offensive but context is important. If the title was "Black Donkey-Cave kills tries to kill white women" wouldn't you say one of those words is superfluous at best and inflammatory at worst even though it normally isn't?
Well 'black' wouldn't be the offensive part of that title, honestly.
Anyway, insults have a subjective part, if english speakers beleive that 'anglo' is offensive, I'll avoid the term. I just want to say that I wasn't using it in any derogatory role, and that I find stupid loosing more and more terms because of over-sensibilities.
Melissia wrote: Using "anglo" as an insult annoys me. It's like when South Koreans call Europeans "Yankee" (which they do; the term is used for anyone who is caucasian).
It's not an insult, it's a designation. We quebecers have a complete lexicon full of insults, don't worry, our insults for english-canadians are much more colourful.
Well, as colourful as low-brow 18th-century French can possibly be nowadays. And given that most of ye olde French insults typically involve some sort of jab about not being Catholic or else a curse from God, those insults tend to make their contributor look silly in a modern context.
But for what it's worth, I've never once heard the term "Anglo" used as or interpreted to be an insult. It's just a shorthand for "anglophone", which means "English speaker". It in no way has the same connotation as something like "Jap" for instance. In Canada, we use the designations of "Anglophone" and "Francophone" to denote English and French speakers, respectively, because we cannot rightfully call many French speakers "French-Canadians", as they may not necessarily have French origins; they might merely speak French because of their regional habitation. Likewise, it would be remiss to call a Canadian that was naturalized from China a "English Canadian"; instead we might use the term "Anglophone", or "Anglo" for short.
However, the truth of it is that we really don't even do that. Kovnik Obama is something of a rarity, as very few Canadians use the term "Anglo" or "Anglophone" at all; we really just use the term "Francophone" when referring to a French-speaking person, and just otherwise assume that being an English speaker is the default in Canada.
...and THAT, ladies and gentlement, is how you insult a Canadian Francophone without saying anything derogatory or untrue.
I have to agree. There's a particularly nasty undercurrent of anti-English (and by extension, American) prejudice running through this thread.
That's a fairly ridiculous opinion, since a fairly large group of Sovereignist are actually considering the option of leaving Canada to join the US.
That implies a fairly large group of Sovereignists don't actually understand what "sovereign" means.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Not normally offensive but context is important. If the title was "Black Donkey-Cave tries to kill white women" wouldn't you say one of those words is superfluous at best and inflammatory at worst even though it normally isn't?
Given the root context for the attack is a potential breakdown in anglo-francophone relations, I think the description is warranted. While the "donkey-cave" bit is an obvious editorial statement, that doesn't appear to be the part that you're upset with. And I doubt that the "donkey-cave" bit is drawn as a result of the attacker being an anglophone, inasmuch as it is being drawn from the fact that he attempted ot assassinate the Premier of Quebec. And for what it's worth, I'm saying this as someone that lives in the least French part of Canada, and associates with that extremely-not-French culture.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:You were goIng along good there until that very last line: soggy fries are gross.
That means they've been prepared incorrectly!
The fries shall be crispy, and then covered in beef gravy and cheese curds! If the fries have been cut thin and cooked properly, then they shall remain (reasonably) crispy until you are finished eating.
A common mistake is cutting the fries too thick, in which case they become soggy.
azazel the cat wrote: However, the truth of it is that we really don't even do that. Kovnik Obama is something of a rarity, as very few Canadians use the term "Anglo" or "Anglophone" at all; we really just use the term "Francophone" when referring to a French-speaking person, and just otherwise assume that being an English speaker is the default in Canada.
...and THAT, ladies and gentlement, is how you insult a Canadian Francophone without saying anything derogatory or untrue.
And justify our impression that we are not part of the canadian culture.
Or course, Anglo is in much more common use in Quebec, were we assume 'Quebecer' immediatly refers to French-canadians. Weird, eh, how we both seem to be living in distinct cultural world ?
Nice passing the blame onto me, but it's not so much time as space. I'm talking about the Dutch Republic, you're talking about the Spanish Netherlands, which had two very different policies on the Calvinists. Further, I'm guessing that you were talking about the Puritans whereas I was talking about the Quakers.
I'm not passing blame onto you, I'm directly blaming you for making a mistake, or being deliberately obtuse. Now that you've specifically mentioned the Quakers I can simply say that the Dutch population existed because they were fleeing from English persecution, and that many of them left for America not because they didn't want Dutch children, but because they wanted Quaker children.
And yes, the Dutch Republic and the Spanish Netherlands had very different policies on Calvinists, but when you use the word "Holland" you aren't being clear; especially as regards English immigrants.
Um... you are aware that it's an abbreviation of Nationalsozialistische deutsche Arbeiter-Partei, right? That's pretty much exactly what it means.
First, its an acronym, not an abbreviation. Second, while that was what the acronym specifically denoted in the past, it isn't what the word denotes now. There is a huge difference between an acronym and a word.
Actually, no. What the picture shows is the cultural predisposition to right wing extremism based on the European Social Survey and how 'in demand' right wing politics were at the time the survey was conducted (2010).
Yes, they're well adjusted. The phrase "well adjusted" does not mean "not disposed to right wing extremism". You seem to have this idea in your head* that sentimental questions like the ones posed in the info-graphic (God I hate that term.) you posted don't tend to produce polarizing results whenever they're asked.
*Its alright though, lots of Americans have this weird idea that there is some Utopian "end" to things, where there will be no threat of violence.
If by a good argument you mean 'not bothering to read what the other guy is saying' then, no, I suppose I haven't. You've accused me of several fallacies, but yourself backpedaled furiously when called out for claiming I said things that I did not.
I've actually not accused you of committing a fallacy in this thread, though if you would like me to start I will; it would make this easier and more entertaining for me. But what I have done it is pointed our where you've made mistakes, or generalized inappropriately (Yes, that is a fallacy, but I didn't use the Latin name, so it doesn't count.).
As for "backpedaling" furiously, where? I admitted my mistakes, pointed out (aggressively) why I made them, and asked for clarification where it was needed. That isn't "backpedaling", that's you inability to carry on a coherent conversation.
If the idea that people would not find being shown the immoral acts of their government disturbing is the result of ten years of studying ethics and morality, I would have to ask, where at, the Objectivist Institute?
See, here's the problem, you already assumed the acts are immoral.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:You were goIng along good there until that very last line: soggy fries are gross.
That means they've been prepared incorrectly!
The fries shall be crispy, and then covered in beef gravy and cheese curds! If the fries have been cut thin and cooked properly, then they shall remain (reasonably) crispy until you are finished eating.
A common mistake is cutting the fries too thick, in which case they become soggy.
If your ever in Quebec, and goes to Quebec city, try some Ashton poutine. It's addictive to the point you'll dream about it.
Meh, spin the wheel. I've never even heard the second one.
You learn a lot of interesting words as you float around the world. The second one is the Seneca dialect of the broader Iroquois language. It's a generic term for a white man. Both words are only insults when inflected a particular way, it's not even the context, it's how it's pronounced when said.
Ironically, when written, they're robbed of the insult unless further context is given. It's one of the peculiar quirks of certain languages.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:You were goIng along good there until that very last line: soggy fries are gross.
That means they've been prepared incorrectly!
The fries shall be crispy, and then covered in beef gravy and cheese curds! If the fries have been cut thin and cooked properly, then they shall remain (reasonably) crispy until you are finished eating.
A common mistake is cutting the fries too thick, in which case they become soggy.
If your ever in Quebec, and goes to Quebec city, try some Ashton poutine. It's addictive to the point you'll dream about it.
I remember the first time I saw that dish was when I was a youngster out on the town with some friends from Quebec and my family.
We were at a restaurant and they instructed the waitress how it should be prepared. When I saw it brought out, I was going what the...
It doesn't match watching my dad eating Head Cheese with his French friends in our kitchen.
Kovnik Obama wrote: It's as much an insult as using Franco is a compliment. Which is not. Your reaching.
No, but you are lying, both to me and yourself.
In fact, I'm fairly certain that you DO use "Francophone" as a compliment, much like many people here would use "speaks English" as a compliment when talking about immigrants.
I'm not passing blame onto you, I'm directly blaming you for making a mistake, or being deliberately obtuse. Now that you've specifically mentioned the Quakers I can simply say that the Dutch population existed because they were fleeing from English persecution, and that many of them left for America not because they didn't want Dutch children, but because they wanted Quaker children.
And yes, the Dutch Republic and the Spanish Netherlands had very different policies on Calvinists, but when you use the word "Holland" you aren't being clear; especially as regards English immigrants.
The use of 'Holland' was quite correct and quite clear, as Spanish Netherlands was Belgium, Luxembourg and parts of Northern France. The area of Holland was occupied almost entirely by the Dutch Republic.
First, its an acronym, not an abbreviation. Second, while that was what the acronym specifically denoted in the past, it isn't what the word denotes now. There is a huge difference between an acronym and a word.
Well, first of all, no, the acronym was NSDAP. If you look into the etymology of it, it really is an abbreviation, derived from the pronunciation of Nationalsozialist. And it denotes the same thing in English (hence why groups in other locations are 'neo nazis').
Funny how there are an awful lot of Samoan Mormons.
There are an awful lot of Christian Samoans in general. The big secret of the success of Christianity in Samoa was that it actually wasn't that different from preexisting beliefs, it just happened to have Jesus, who's crucifixion made perfect sense as the Samoans already had a belief in self punishment as atonement for either yourself or another. It was, in it's way, very close to the ideal of the melting pot someone brought up earlier, as they tried to incorporate their beliefs into existing Samoan culture and were welcomed in rather than trying to force their faith on a culture that didn't want them at gun/fountain pen point.
See, here's the problem, you already assumed the acts are immoral.
Call me provincial, but generally speaking, murder, torture, and deliberately engineering situations that cause suffering in the name of financial profit are not moral acts unless you want to claim 'enlightened self interest'. Several people not only on this board, but who have posted in this thread, have previously denounced a certain occupation for that reason, among others.
The use of 'Holland' was quite correct and quite clear, as Spanish Netherlands was Belgium, Luxembourg and parts of Northern France. The area of Holland was occupied almost entirely by the Dutch Republic.
It would have been had you referenced a time period.
Well, first of all, no, the acronym was NSDAP. If you look into the etymology of it, it really is an abbreviation, derived from the pronunciation of Nationalsozialist.
No, its an acronym, because what you're describing is literally what an acronym is.
Call me provincial, but generally speaking, murder, torture, and deliberately engineering situations that cause suffering in the name of financial profit are not moral acts unless you want to claim 'enlightened self interest'. Several people not only on this board, but who have posted in this thread, have previously denounced a certain occupation for that reason, among others.
Not really. He didn't claim the objective truth of what he was claiming. An appeal by popularity can be a good supporting argument if it's simply to give credence to a tentative position.
I'm aware. This draws back to the initial point of this exchange which was the divide between inevitability and acceptability.
Yes, but again, you don't seem to be aware of the subtle difference of electing to add to one's own culture voluntarily and having it forced on you. One enriches the culture. The other incites resistance.
Not really. He didn't claim the objective truth of what he was claiming. An appeal by popularity can be a good supporting argument if it's simply to give credence to a tentative position.
He prior claimed objective truth by way of the phrase "immoral acts". The following statement was ad populum because of the absolute nature of the initial claim.
He prior claimed objective truth by way of the phrase "immoral acts". The following statement was ad populum because of the absolute nature of the initial claim.
Behold the straw man!
Actually, the initial claim was that it would shock and upset a hypothetical average American to to see for themselves acts that were being committed in their name which would generally be considered by that group to be immoral. I then used the term immoral acts in reference to this, not that the immorality of the acts was absolute. (though, in all fairness to dogma, most cultures consider the acts in question to be immoral, unless one is a moral relativist or an objectivist, so it's easy to assume I'm talking in absolutes.)
Kovnik Obama wrote: It's as much an insult as using Franco is a compliment. Which is not. Your reaching.
No, but you are lying, both to me and yourself.
In fact, I'm fairly certain that you DO use "Francophone" as a compliment, much like many people here would use "speaks English" as a compliment when talking about immigrants.
Melissia, your line of thinking here really is incorrect. As a 100%-not-French-in-any-way-what-so-ever-West-Coast-Canadian, I can assure you that Anglophone and Francophone are neither complimentary nor derogatory; but merely statements of fact. You really are reaching here, and I cannot figure out why. There are so many other threads wherein you can take offense to something with so much less effort.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:You were goIng along good there until that very last line: soggy fries are gross.
That means they've been prepared incorrectly!
The fries shall be crispy, and then covered in beef gravy and cheese curds! If the fries have been cut thin and cooked properly, then they shall remain (reasonably) crispy until you are finished eating.
A common mistake is cutting the fries too thick, in which case they become soggy.
If your ever in Quebec, and goes to Quebec city, try some Ashton poutine. It's addictive to the point you'll dream about it.
Quebec City is less likely, but there is a decent chance I'll find myself near Montreal this winter. (I calculate I will not have trouble finding a decent poutine.)
Kovnik Obama wrote:
azazel the cat wrote: However, the truth of it is that we really don't even do that. Kovnik Obama is something of a rarity, as very few Canadians use the term "Anglo" or "Anglophone" at all; we really just use the term "Francophone" when referring to a French-speaking person, and just otherwise assume that being an English speaker is the default in Canada.
...and THAT, ladies and gentlement, is how you insult a Canadian Francophone without saying anything derogatory or untrue.
And justify our impression that we are not part of the canadian culture.
Or course, Anglo is in much more common use in Quebec, were we assume 'Quebecer' immediatly refers to French-canadians. Weird, eh, how we both seem to be living in distinct cultural world ?
I've always said that Quebec should be given official status as a distinct society. Same with BC, Alberta, Sask., etc. Pretty much everyone except for the maritimes. They can all share one status.
As for "Canadian Culture", I don't have a reasonable method of defining it, so it's tough for me to exclude people.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Azazel I think you just eat your poutine at a dangerously fast speed!
You would too if you found yourself a well-made, delicious poutine!
Actually, the initial claim was that it would shock and upset a hypothetical average American to to see for themselves acts that were being committed in their name which would generally be considered by that group to be immoral.
Here's what you wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote: He should be deeply disturbed, because the same men running his country are also the men who tell CIA operatives to pay mercs to slaughter villages as part of false flag operations.
If the idea that people would not find being shown the immoral acts of their government disturbing is the result of ten years of studying ethics and morality, I would have to ask, where at, the Objectivist Institute?
Emphasis mine, of course. But all of what you wrote implies a claim to absolutism.
I then used the term immoral acts in reference to this, not that the immorality of the acts was absolute. (though, in all fairness to dogma, most cultures consider the acts in question to be immoral, unless one is a moral relativist or an objectivist, so it's easy to assume I'm talking in absolutes.)
I'm not assuming anything, you are plainly speaking as an absolutist. The fact that you clearly know nothing about relativism or objectivism (Good God, am I really defending it?) only adds to the point.
Because people would get pissed off about it. People who matter would have to get out of bed and address angry citizens over a bunch of dirty indians. And if local news doesn't cover it, the national news or foreign media most likely will never hear about it. So it never happened. John Q Public goes home to his 2.5 children and his white picket fence and isn't disturbed by the sight of his country's police clubbing little children with batons. He's also not disturbed by any number of wars his country illegally runs on the side, secret prisons, and the deliberate destabilization of democracies not friendly to US interests.
By posting everything BUT that actual assertion, you're committing a classic strawman fallacy, as it changes the meaning of what follows.
I'm not assuming anything, you are plainly speaking as an absolutist. The fact that you clearly know nothing about relativism or objectivism (Good God, am I really defending it?) only adds to the point.
Technically that's argumentum ad hominem based on an assertion that basically boils down to a false appeal to authority, as we can no more see proof of your credentials as we can see of mine [this is the internet after all].
No, its an acronym, because what you're describing is literally what an acronym is.
An acronym is a word composed of the first letter of each word of a longer phrase or statement.
NGS is an acronym. Nat Geo Soc is an abbreviation. NSDAP is an acronym. Nazi is an abbreviation.
That isn't right either. An acronym has to spell its own word, such as Scuba or NASA, whereas NGS is an initialism. Initialisms don't spell anything: FBI, CIA, GE, ect.
Kovnik Obama wrote: It's as much an insult as using Franco is a compliment. Which is not. Your reaching.
No, but you are lying, both to me and yourself.
In fact, I'm fairly certain that you DO use "Francophone" as a compliment, much like many people here would use "speaks English" as a compliment when talking about immigrants.
Melissia, your line of thinking here really is incorrect. As a 100%-not-French-in-any-way-what-so-ever-West-Coast-Canadian, I can assure you that Anglophone and Francophone are neither complimentary nor derogatory; but merely statements of fact.
By posting everything BUT that actual assertion, you're committing a classic strawman fallacy, as it changes the meaning of what follows.
No, I posted everything but the original assertion because the original assertion is a long-winded version of what I posted*. You're still taking an absolutist stand by presuming the only reason your hypothetical "white picket fence" guy is not horrified is because he doesn't know.
*Hint: the construction of a strawman requires misrepresentation.
Technically that's argumentum ad hominem based on an assertion that basically boils down to a false appeal to authority, as we can no more see proof of your credentials as we can see of mine [this is the internet after all].
That isn't ad hominem. Ad hominem would be something like "X clearly doesn't know what he's talking about, because X plays with little metal men."
That also isn't an appeal to authority. An appeal to authority would be something like "You're wrong because that guy says so." or "You're wrong because I'm an expert and I know this." I'm not claiming to be an expert, I'm simply stating that you don't understand relativism or objectivism.
That isn't right either. An acronym has to spell its own word, such as Scuba or NASA, whereas NGS is an initialism. Initialisms don't spell anything: FBI, CIA, GE, ect.
When SCUBA and NASA came about, they didn't spell anything either. Acronyms don't come about because they use initials to spell words. HUA is a good example, though how you say it differs between the army and marines.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote: You're still taking an absolutist stand by presuming the only reason your hypothetical "white picket fence" guy is not horrified is because he doesn't know.
*Hint: the construction of a strawman requires misrepresentation.
And omission is a form of misrepresentation. And, no, it's because he doesn't see it himself. As I also said, there's a difference between abstractly knowing something and seeing it yourself.
That isn't ad hominem. Ad hominem would be something like "X clearly doesn't know what he's talking about, because X plays with little metal men."
That also isn't an appeal to authority. An appeal to authority would be something like "You're wrong because that guy says so." or "You're wrong because I'm an expert and I know this." I'm not claiming to be an expert, I'm simply stating that you don't understand relativism or objectivism.
No, in this case it is: 'X doesn't know anything about it, because I say he does not know about y and I've studied y for ten years.'
You're presenting yourself as an authority, as you declare I am ignorant without a basis for that assertion other than your own opinion.
Right, so your understanding of an argument that isn't a strawman is one that does not consider relevance?
Wow, and I thought academic articles were already too long. I wonder what they'll look like when they start block quoting each other in their entirety?
And, no, it's because he doesn't see it himself. As I also said, there's a difference between abstractly knowing something and seeing it yourself.
There is, but the distinction you're creating implies that someone who saw X would perceive X as immoral because they saw it, but not because they knew about it. And, further, that seeing X is somehow closer to reality than merely knowing about X*.
*This is almost certainly why you're an absolutist, by the way.
No, in this case it is: 'X doesn't know anything about it, because I say he does not know about y and I've studied y for ten years.'
You're presenting yourself as an authority, as you declare I am ignorant without a basis for that assertion other than your own opinion.
I didn't leverage my authority (and I could have). Notice how you had to use a conjunction to make your "point"?
Anyway, I could have been more detailed had you used the words "relativist" and "objectivist" as anything other than scoffs; which in itself is problematic given the context.
That isn't right either. An acronym has to spell its own word, such as Scuba or NASA, whereas NGS is an initialism. Initialisms don't spell anything: FBI, CIA, GE, ect.
When SCUBA and NASA came about, they didn't spell anything either.
The criteria isn't, wasn't, and not proposed to be that they were words beforehand, but that they can be pronounced as words. You can say scuba and NASA as words, and people do all the time, but FBI and CIA are not pronounced as words, they are just reiterations of the first letters. This isn't really that complicated a concept.
Right, so your understanding of an argument that isn't a strawman is one that does not consider relevance?
Wow, and I thought academic articles were already too long. I wonder what they'll look like when they start block quoting each other in their entirety?
Usually the threat of peer review keeps the amount of misrepresentation down, in theory. However, since you've been trying to misrepresent in order to make it easier to prove your point, that does, in fact, make it a straw man.
There is, but the distinction you're creating implies that someone who saw X would perceive X as immoral because they saw it, but not because they knew about it. And, further, that seeing X is somehow closer to reality than merely knowing about X*.
*This is almost certainly why you're an absolutist, by the way.
To put it bluntly, that's not universalism or relativism, it's based in how human being experience the world through their senses. See, the more the brain is engaged, the more 'real' the brain perceives the experience to be.
The words:
'More than 4,000 slave laborers were burnt alive in their living quarters or were shot as they attempted to escape'
does not have the same impact as seeing, say, this:
and the picture itself is but a dim shadow of seeing something like it in person. This has nothing to do with philosophy, it has to do with sensory neuroscience.
Admittedly, this is an anecdote, but when Patton liberated Ohrdruf, he took the mayor of the town and his wife and (along with other able bodied people in the town)forced them to dig graves for the camp victims. That night the mayor and his wife hanged themselves. The suicide note they left said simply "We didn't know! - but we knew."
You can argue all the philosophy about abstract knowledge being more or less 'real' than seeing it yourself, but I think that says all that needs to be said about the truth of it.
Anyway, I could have been more detailed had you used the words "relativist" and "objectivist" as anything other than scoffs; which in itself is problematic given the context.
As an example, from the relative perspective of the Nazis, all that genocide was morally acceptable as it was purging the world of inferior beings who were parasitizing resources they felt they could better use. From an objectivist standpoint, that act was morally acceptable as it was in the enlightened self interest of the nazis to scapegoat someone in order to advance themselves and realize their personal goals.
Anyone want to tell me that they feel those acts were what the average human being would recognize as moral and justified?
Personally, I feel that both are simply crude justifications for those acts and, I believe I am not in the minority here, find the idea repellant and vile.
Usually the threat of peer review keeps the amount of misrepresentation down, in theory. However, since you've been trying to misrepresent in order to make it easier to prove your point, that does, in fact, make it a straw man.
You could have just said "You're misrepresenting my point!" again, it would have taken fewer words and meant exactly the same thing.
To put it bluntly, that's not universalism or relativism, it's based in how human being experience the world through their senses. See, the more the brain is engaged, the more 'real' the brain perceives the experience to be.
Which is not something that I denied. What I stated was that you are beginning from an assumed set of morals, and further claiming that its only distance that prevents dissenters from agreeing with you.
Which is not something that I denied. What I stated was that you are beginning from an assumed set of morals, and further claiming that its only distance that prevents dissenters from agreeing with you.
Well, yes, the fact that I refer to John Q Public, the hypothetical American everyman, does mean that a certain set of broad morals can be assumed.
You've never block quoted me, and I doubt you know what a block quote actually is.
Technically, it's not me, it's the forum software, but each of these quotations from your posts qualifies as a block quote as long as it contains more than four lines and has a distinguishing font variation [in the case of this forum, the font is marginally smaller]. At least one of which has been longer than the required four lines.
Lots of average human beings obviously felt they were moral, and justified. Because, you know, they perpetrated the relevant acts.
And, by the way, both statements you made were absolutist, not relativist*; though you could make the case for objectivism**.
*Though it wouldn't be hard to make them relativist as the distinction between the two is really weak.
**Were objectivism not a defined thing.
Assuming that the points you are referring to are the statements about the nazis, no, they were not, as an absolutist statement about the morality of it would have involved an axis mundi or absolute truth that was independent of their perception and circumstance.
And, by the way, again, nice false cause. Just because they did something does not mean they necessarily felt it was justified or moral. Did you know that other than Mengele, most of the Auschwitz doctors, according to several accounts, made it a point to be drunk before the trains arrived? The 6th Army chaplains balked at the number of soldiers visiting them when forced to assist the einsatzgruppen and actually wrote letters of protest: "In the case in question, measures against women and children were undertaken which in no way differ from atrocities carried out by the enemy about which the troops are continually being informed". Sadly, while many officers up the chain of command agreed and ordered the execution of children halted, these orders were countermanded by General Walther von Reichenau, the 6th Army's overall CO.
Here's one soldier's take on it:
"I went to the woods alone. The Wehrmacht had already dug a grave. The children were brought along in a tractor. I had nothing to do with this technical procedure. The Ukrainians were standing around trembling. The children were taken down from the tractor. They were lined up along the top of the grave and shot so that they fell into it. The Ukrainians did not aim at any particular part of the body. They fell into the grave. The wailing was indescribable. I shall never forget the scene throughout my life. I find it very hard to bear. I particularly remember a small fair-haired girl who took me by the hand. She too was shot later ... "
Some people involved actually had no idea what was going on. The testimony from the men who delivered the gas chamber doors would have been hilarious if it was not so tragic.
Well, yes, the fact that I refer to John Q Public, the hypothetical American everyman, does mean that a certain set of broad morals can be assumed.
No, it really doesn't. When people start saying "Americans believe..." or "John Q Public says..." without statistical evidence they're essentially just projecting.
Again, you're very clearly speaking as an absolutist, you just don't know it, or won't admit it.
I better make sure that my brain surgeon hasn't been reading Atlas Shrugged recently, then.
It is, after all, called neuroscience. That means that it runs on publicly verifiable evidence rather than philosophy, which runs on reason (usually).
Right. You very clearly do not understand what philosophy is. It isn't just about "reason" its about argument and evidence and, most importantly, logic. This is not just reason, it is the ability to construct a position which stands up to scrutiny that is essentially mathematical. This dovetails nicely into what we're discussing regarding neuroscience. If your brain surgeon hasn't read Atlas Shrugged (I love how you keep implying I'm an Objectivist by the way.) then you shouldn't be worried, but if he hasn't read anything by Searle then there might be a problem.
At least assuming he's a neuroscientist, and not 'just' a brain surgeon. There is a difference.
Technically, it's not me, it's the forum software, but each of these quotations from your posts qualifies as a block quote as long as it contains more than four lines and has a distinguishing font variation [in the case of this forum, the font is marginally smaller]. At least one of which has been longer than the required four lines.
I've not seen many block quotes that are headed by the author's name.
Assuming that the points you are referring to are the statements about the nazis, no, they were not, as an absolutist statement about the morality of it would have involved an axis mundi or absolute truth that was independent of their perception and circumstance.
First, that's not what the phrase "Axis Mundi" means.
Second, while your statement about absolutism is true, you're still using "relativism" and "objectivism" as scoffs rather than choosing to engage the concepts.
No, it really doesn't. When people start saying "Americans believe..." or "John Q Public says..." without statistical evidence they're essentially just projecting.
Again, you're very clearly speaking as an absolutist, you just don't know it, or won't admit it.
Well, if you want to read the statistics of the 'Average American'...
43. The average American believes in God without a doubt (59%).
General Social Survey
Assuming because they capitalize it they're referring to the Judeo-Christian one (technically also the same one in Islam), I'd say it is a fairly safe gamble that they broadly follow Christian ethics.
Right. You very clearly do not understand what philosophy is. It isn't just about "reason" its about argument and evidence and, most importantly, logic. This is not just reason, it is the ability to construct a position which stands up to scrutiny that is essentially mathematical.
Except that it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with reality. I draw your attention to the archer's paradox. Logically the arrow would have to pass through an infinite number of half distances, and thus, never reach the target. In the real world, it's not really bothered by that. If by 'absolutist' you mean 'someone who sticks to reality as closely as possible' then, yes, guilty as charged.
Second, while your statement about absolutism is true, you're still using "relativism" and "objectivism" as scoffs rather than choosing to engage the concepts.
Well, they did need to believe it was justified but that's beside the point.
Lots of people did a thing, and even if not all of them thought it was moral, at least some of them must have.
See, that's the problem, you're assuming that 'lots of people' were directly involved and that no compartmentalization existed. Auschwitz was a camp that went through over 7k personnel in it's existence, but only 800 of them had an active role, and were housed on site and segregated from the rest. Contrary to what you see in movies, most of the guards had little direct contact with prisoners outside riots and escape attempts. That least one of Germany's espionage organizations were even successfully kept in the dark for a while (and when they did find out, they went into the business of smuggling Jews out of Europe as long as they could). Many pogroms were covered up from the public as suppressing 'partisans'.
I will grant there were those men who, may or may not have seen it as moral or ethical, but certainly enjoyed their work.
Rapist. Pedophile. Necrophiliac. Sadist. And those were just the charges the SS could prove. Out of all the people sent to the camps, he was sadly one of the few in my opinion that really belonged there. Instead, they pulled him out of the camps and made him a Obersturmführer (over the protests of many SS officers claiming he was 'too cruel'). He in turn, emptied Germany's prisons of the worst scum he could lay hands on, and turned them loose on Eastern Europe. Thieves. Murderers. Deserters. Rapists. Madmen. Poachers and Traitors who turned in their own families to stay out of the camps. Men convicted of crimes 'no less than murder' were sent there from other units to avoid being executed. SS-Sonderbatallion "Dirlewanger" initially started off modest, burning over 30,000 people alive (fire was a favorite of theirs) in their first 8 months. Dirlewanger himself was investigated for raping and murdering female jews by the SSagain at this point. Most military's would have hanged him at this point.
Instead, they promoted him and sent him to liquidate Warsaw. Dirlewanger personally led the Wola Hospital massacre, slaughtering their way through the wards. They left none alive. Patients, nurses, doctors, all raped and butchered.
So, tell me what possible good is a philosophy in which it is possible to justify such an act? You say that I should engage those philosophies, but I can say that I have seen them applied, and each time, the result has been cruelty and horror.
Assuming because they capitalize it they're referring to the Judeo-Christian one (technically also the same one in Islam), I'd say it is a fairly safe gamble that they broadly follow Christian ethics.
First, the reported number was 59% (Where they got this I don't know, GSS 2010 says 63%.). That was the basis for establishing "average" which, in the case of the article, means "most".
Second, that the word "god" was capitalized references only the question as constructed, not the response given.
Third, "Christian ethics" are not homogeneous. It is quite possible to be fine with children being killed while believing oneself to be a Christian.
Except that it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with reality. I draw your attention to the archer's paradox. Logically the arrow would have to pass through an infinite number of half distances, and thus, never reach the target. In the real world, it's not really bothered by that.
You mean "Zeno's Arrow Paradox", the Archer's Paradox is very different.
And, interestingly enough, the arrow will never reach the target if the target is defined very narrowly. It is only by abstraction that the target can be approached, or even exist.
I suggest you look up what a continuous series is.
See, that's the problem, you're assuming that 'lots of people' were directly involved and that no compartmentalization existed.
Lots of people were directly involved, and I'm not assuming that compartmentalization didn't exist.
You seem to be trying to convince yourself that people are intrinsically good (read: what you want them to be) which is odd given your previous stance of paranoia.
You say that I should engage those philosophies, but I can say that I have seen them applied, and each time, the result has been cruelty and horror
You should engage them, because you clearly have absolutely no grasp of what they entail. Seriously, you would have a better idea of relativism and objectivism if you read the Wikipedia articles.
You come off as someone who is very bitter about something, but the reality is that no one cares unless you can express that bitterness in a way which is well-informed and sensible; least of all me. I would beat you with a pool cue till you got detached retinas, but only for 3 bucks (2 bucks is the friend price). Not because I'm objectivist, or relativist, but because I'm a selfish, materialist donkey-cave who gives absolutely no feth about anyone that isn't family, sex partner, or someone whose retinas I would detach for free. That's a facet of my personality, not the philosophies you've mentioned.
Third, "Christian ethics" are not homogeneous. It is quite possible to be fine with children being killed while believing oneself to be a Christian.
Well, yes, we all know delusional and sociopathic people exist. Hell, the internet is full of them. And, yes, there are variances, but there are also absolutes. They're not called the Ten Suggestions.
Ok, then, let me try another way of describing it: If relativism is true, and from my perspective there is an absolute truth, that means under relativism it's true, and therefor relativism is false. Does that argument make sense to you?
You mean "Zeno's Arrow Paradox", the Archer's Paradox is very different.
And, interestingly enough, the arrow will never reach the target if the target is defined very narrowly. It is only by abstraction that the target can be approached, or even exist.
I suggest you look up what a continuous series is.
Sorry, I meant fletcher's paradox (I remembered it had something to do with archery)
And yet, in the real world, I have little trouble hitting the target with an arrow. Which was the point. As 'pure reason' it makes sense, but it does not match the real world. I suggest you look into what a geometric series is, as geometric convergence takes place when r=1/2.
No it isn't. The phrase "axis mundi" has a very specific meaning and context which has no bearing on the matter of absolutism versus not absolutism.
While it can mean the location where a higher plane touches the Earth, it is also an 'absolute truth' or a fixed point of reference, something that cannot exist in relativism.
You seem to be trying to convince yourself that people are intrinsically good (read: what you want them to be) which is odd given your previous stance of paranoia.
What is funny is that you seem to keep thinking you understand me. Good and evil are both intrinsic to people. Some people are more one way, some more the other.
You come off as someone who is very bitter about something, but the reality is that no one cares unless you can express that bitterness in a way which is well-informed and sensible; least of all me. I would beat you with a pool cue till you got detached retinas, but only for 3 bucks (2 bucks is the friend price). Not because I'm objectivist, or relativist, but because I'm a selfish, materialist donkey-cave who gives absolutely no feth about anyone that isn't family, sex partner, or someone whose retinas I would detach for free. That's a facet of my personality, not the philosophies you've mentioned.
So, the fundamental problem is not with my argument, but with the fact that your 'reason' is divorced from empathy, as you've just demonstrated. This does clear up for me the reason you failed to understand a few of my arguments.
And how is beating people with a pool cue 'well informed and sensible'? (FYI, based on previous attempts, it would actually qualify as 'ignorant and foolish').
As far as my bitterness, it's because the world has too many selfish materialist donkey-caves. The sad part is that many of you are so short sighted that you lose out and never even know it. People keep telling me that wretched specimens like yourself can be salvaged, but frankly, as far as I can see, none of you want to be. You're content to remain small, selfish beings that scurry about until you die and are forgotten. The problem is that you actively resist any effort on the part of others to improve the lot of humanity as a whole. Rather than say 'Oh, my, we should do something about that', you're response is 'What's in it for me?'
Charles Dickens wrote:
"At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge,'' said the gentleman, taking up a pen, ``it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.''
"Are there no prisons?'' asked Scrooge.
"Plenty of prisons,'' said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
"And the Union workhouses?'' demanded Scrooge. ``Are they still in operation?''
"They are. Still,'' returned the gentleman, `` I wish I could say they were not.''
"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?'' said Scrooge.
"Both very busy, sir.''
"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,'' said Scrooge. ``I'm very glad to hear it.''
"Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,'' returned the gentleman, ``a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?''
"Nothing!'' Scrooge replied.
"You wish to be anonymous?''
"I wish to be left alone," said Scrooge. "Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.''
"Many can't go there; and many would rather die.''
"If they would rather die,'' said Scrooge, ``they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides -- excuse me -- I don't know that.''
"But you might know it,'' observed the gentleman.
"It's not my business,'' Scrooge returned. ``It's enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people's. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!''
Well, yes, we all know delusional and sociopathic people exist. Hell, the internet is full of them. And, yes, there are variances, but there are also absolutes. They're not called the Ten Suggestions.
Its almost as if there didn't exist thousands of pages discussing the meaning, and correct translation, of the Ten Commandments. I mean I suppose they're absolutes in the sense that they exist in a factual sense. That is, there exists a series of words referred to as "the Ten Commandments", but that's pretty much it.
Ok, then, let me try another way of describing it: If relativism is true, and from my perspective there is an absolute truth, that means under relativism it's true, and therefor relativism is false. Does that argument make sense to you?
Relativism does not imply that all things said by everyone, everywhere are true. Moral relativism implies the absence of absolute moral truth. You can have moral truths that are bound to a particular context, but any claim that such a truth extends beyond that context is mistaken.
And yet, in the real world, I have little trouble hitting the target with an arrow. Which was the point. As 'pure reason' it makes sense, but it does not match the real world. I suggest you look into what a geometric series is, as geometric convergence takes place when r=1/2
It only makes sense according to logic if you accept the premises outlined by Zeno. If these premises are flawed then the argument, while still valid, is spurious outside illustrative use (which is basically why we still teach the Paradoxes*). It is interesting that you brought up convergence, because that's one of the common methods of resolving Zeno's Paradoxes.
I think the fundamental problem here is that you don't actually understand how the Paradoxes fit into modern philosophy, or even the basic concepts that underpin the discipline. For example, you've butchered the meaning of "logic" several times.
*Its also why we still teach the method of exhaustion.
While it can mean the location where a higher plane touches the Earth, it is also an 'absolute truth' or a fixed point of reference, something that cannot exist in relativism.
No, that's wrong. An axis mundi is a point at which the heavens and the earth converge, or approach convergence. It has nothing to do with absolute truth by necessity because it serves only as a means of connecting to whatever might pass from a higher realm. It is an absolute truth in the sense that a fact is, not in the sense that a moral concept is.
So, the fundamental problem is not with my argument, but with the fact that your 'reason' is divorced from empathy, as you've just demonstrated. This does clear up for me the reason you failed to understand a few of my arguments.
I understood them, they just weren't good. You can't simply cite a concept like empathy and then lean on it without elaborating as to why empathy should have any bearing. This is something you've done repeatedly, and quite unintentionally, regarding concepts that aren't limited to empathy. Its why I brought up absolutism in the first place.
As far as my bitterness, it's because the world has too many selfish materialist donkey-caves. The sad part is that many of you are so short sighted that you lose out and never even know it. People keep telling me that wretched specimens like yourself can be salvaged, but frankly, as far as I can see, none of you want to be. You're content to remain small, selfish beings that scurry about until you die and are forgotten. The problem is that you actively resist any effort on the part of others to improve the lot of humanity as a whole. Rather than say 'Oh, my, we should do something about that', you're response is 'What's in it for me?'
Of course it is, because ultimately when people try to "improve humanity as a whole" what they're really talking about is making humanity more like what they want it to be. It isn't altruism motivating them, but selfishness that is masked by misleading terminology. I mean, the very fact that you're talking about "salvaging" people is pretty much indicative of a desire to mold the world into an image you find appealing.
Honestly, you come off as extremely self-important.
Its almost as if there didn't exist thousands of pages discussing the meaning, and correct translation, of the Ten Commandments. I mean I suppose they're absolutes in the sense that they exist in a factual sense. That is, there exists a series of words referred to as "the Ten Commandments", but that's pretty much it.
There are also tens of thousands of pages discussing what the meaning of 'is' is. While I'm aware there is a great deal of discussion of such esoteric matters as pre and post Babylonian invasion variations (yes, there is such a thing) again, you're confusing academic and popular interpretations. Let me try further refining it so you can grasp it better: generally speaking, the largest denominations of Christians in the lower 48 states of the United States have a broadly similar interpretation of it.
Relativism does not imply that all things said by everyone, everywhere are true. Moral relativism implies the absence of absolute moral truth. You can have moral truths that are bound to a particular context, but any claim that such a truth extends beyond that context is mistaken.
Ok, let me try it this way then: Lets take two groups of people, both of whom have different cultures. One culture includes slavery, one does not. If moral relativism is true, how do you compare the morality of ownership of slaves between those two cultures?
It's not that universalism doesn't break down in places as well, but it at least gives a common reference point.
No, that's wrong. An axis mundi is a point at which the heavens and the earth converge, or approach convergence. It has nothing to do with absolute truth by necessity because it serves only as a means of connecting to whatever might pass from a higher realm. It is an absolute truth in the sense that a fact is, not in the sense that a moral concept is.
So, you're claiming that all arguments from Christian philosophers against relativism are wrong, on the grounds that they view the axis mundi not merely as a fact but a moral concept (being that they equate the 'Absolute Truth' to God)?
I understood them, they just weren't good. You can't simply cite a concept like empathy and then lean on it without elaborating as to why empathy should have any bearing. This is something you've done repeatedly, and quite unintentionally, regarding concepts that aren't limited to empathy. Its why I brought up absolutism in the first place.
If you don't think that empathy has baring on a discussion of philosophy and morality, you're forgetting that all philosophy eventually comes back to humanity. While there are aspects of philosophy that don't touch on it, such as the nature of reality and the 'reason' for existence, almost all of it comes back to humanity and the interrelationship between one another and the world around them. To say that some element of humanity has no bearing is to deny the underlying purpose of philosophy in general.
Of course it is, because ultimately when people try to "improve humanity as a whole" what they're really talking about is making humanity more like what they want it to be. It isn't altruism motivating them, but selfishness that is masked by misleading terminology. I mean, the very fact that you're talking about "salvaging" people is pretty much indicative of a desire to mold the world into an image you find appealing.
Honestly, you come off as extremely self-important.
Yes, because thinking that humanity would be better off if people stopped being jerks and cooperated together in working toward the common good instead of screwing each other over all the time in the pursuit of material wealth is terribly selfish of me and I should be spanked. I would, most likely, only need to find a new job.
I find your response rather telling in the implication that there are people who do not want to mold the world into an image they find more appealing. It has been, after all, one of the major driving forces in human history, both for good or for ill. To not attempt to change things is to give up on finding a better way to do things and simply embrace stagnation and decline. I don't know if there's a philosophy on that off the top of my head, but I can say that, from my own study, acceptance of the status quo leads to terminal decline.
As far as my own self importance, thank you, I've been working on that.
).
Its more like Canada's drunken uncle.
)
) and more to do with nationalism, patriotism, independence, etc.
you're arguing, they all are racists and should shut the hell up. 
