Is it racism?

[jboking]

I'm just wondering if you guys consider this racism? My family has been in Canada since the colonization by the Europeans (on my father's side). Now we have been here for a looooong time and we've been through the bad times and the good times over the past few hundred years. some of our ancestors helped build this country.

So it pisses my dad off when someone who obviously is a new immigrant comes in with pins & stickers & etc. that are basically saying "down with gay marriage", and etc (gay marriage is legal in Canada, and my dad is gay). That is just one example, but what about when other people in my family get upset and sometimes downright mad when we get immigrants who want to bend the laws so they can sort of impose their culture unto the rest of the country.
For example a guy did not want to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle on the highway, because he had a turban. Or the right to allow Kirpans in schools (a Kirpan is a small knife) to accommodate religious groups (keep in mind knives are weapons). Another one is one man refusing to wear the imposed uniform of an RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) officer because he had a turban and didn't want wear the regulatory hat. Is it racist to get mad at these people and complain?

I mean, think about it this way : you invite a person into your house, for let's say dinner. And they decide to rearrange all of your living room and furniture because they think that your house should look more like theirs. Or they start to comment on how you should be raising your kids and that you're doing a bad job. Wouldn't you get insulted and mad at them for that? I mean, they're in your home thanks to you being nice to them, and they turn around and do something insulting...

No, if they're twats, morons or just want a different slice of pie because they're different then to hell with them. "Don't like our laws, don't respect our beliefs, FUCK OFF THEN! Go back to your war-ridden country and get blown up. Don't want to die, SHUT THE FUCK UP AND BE HAPPY THAT WE LET YOU IN!"

Does this qualify as xenophobia or just dickish behaviour?

Neither. What he is trying to stress is the evident relation of laws and people. He proclaims in an exclaiming manner, that like we would have to abide by the laws of Iraq if we moved there, people from Iraq should abide by our laws when they move here.




Oh alright... It was dickish behaviour anyway, with all the caps...

You could also consider that the United States of America proclaims itself as a country of tolerance. If we want to endource that, shouldn't we work with people of other religions to change laws that might hinder their religious practice? In other words, can't we work with them to make a compromise?

Well of course! Reaching a compromise would be the best solution for everyone. Thing is, though, that breaking the law in order to promote compromise isn't very good, unless done in very large numbers, and notifying the police; Then it's a demonstration.

Cultures are different though, and I personally believe, most passionately, that the immigrant should be the adaptee - and this is regardless of race, religion or whatnot.

People are just so politically correct. Everyone agrees that a Russian should come and enforce laws in America, they're just lame, and they should adapt to life there. They share the "American religion", and as such we can descriminate them any way we like. Much like white Americans descriminate black Americans.

When you add a variable into the equation though, instead of the constant, the immigrant/ethnicity that the subject can relate to: Hell breaks loose.

Why not do a compromise for the world? Why not a compromise for overweight white women? Why not a compromise for men with long legs?

Why just a compromise for the sake of a religion? Didn't we seperate church from state a long time ago? Aren't we secularised?

The trouble is that the middle-eastern countries are not, or some of them at least. It's their pain, though, since we shouldn't change the whole idea of our state and government just for their sake. Sure we could perhaps make slight adjustment, for the better of the religion, but why not the adjustment for the long-legged asian man? The black woman with large hair?

Because those are matters of anatomy, ones that are particularily easy to adapt with. Any problems of anatomy that are not easily delt with by the individual we already have laws for. The situation with say the religion is that you are asking someone to sacrafice their faith.
ps. While we claim to be secularized, we really are not. I can go to a local high school with a hat on. when they tell me its against the rules to wear it, all I have to say is it is part of my religious expression. Bingo, I can do whatever I want so long as it is part of my "Religious Expression."

Or is it just religion? The very bridge we crossed, we are moving back towards again? A bridge we should have burned, perhaps?

perhaps...

 

[anti_strunt]

Well of course! Reaching a compromise would be the best solution for everyone. Thing is, though, that breaking the law in order to promote compromise isn't very good, unless done in very large numbers, and notifying the police; Then it's a demonstration.

Cultures are different though, and I personally believe, most passionately, that the immigrant should be the adaptee - and this is regardless of race, religion or whatnot.

I must say that I don't see how one could adopt a new race...

Anyway, while I'm usually an advocate of paternal statism, surely wearing a motorcycle helmet should be the choice of the individual? If I crash into someone, that person is not going to be any better off if I wear a helmet than if I don't, so for once I don't see how that choice could hurt anyone besides the person making it.

 

[s0denone]

ps. While we claim to be secularized, we really are not. I can go to a local high school with a hat on. when they tell me its against the rules to wear it, all I have to say is it is part of my religious expression. Bingo, I can do whatever I want so long as it is part of my "Religious Expression."

Or is it just religion? The very bridge we crossed, we are moving back towards again? A bridge we should have burned, perhaps?

perhaps...

Isn't that the whole issue right here? On one hand Scientology is still a working religion, regardless of it's laws and turban-wearing motorcyclists. On the other hand, sits a middle-class white male yappering on about how he want's everyone to be equal, no race and no religion should give any special benefits or special hindrances.

Perhaps it's due time that America choose which one it wants.



I'm from Denmark myself, a very secularized country.

 

[Jamash]

It isnt as bad as the UK. Where they cant show TV ads with puppies, cause the muslims will be offended. Nor do yu have a Sharia court system.
Heck, some hadji sued the company he was working for cause they had him handle booze. he knew this when he got the job.
Thank the gods you live in a...relatively sane country man. If hadji doesnt want to follow the rules, then he goes without.

What the hell is a Hadji? Is that the other N word for Arabs now?

Pretty much, yes.

It's basically America's new "gook".

 

[Enuvreck]

I see no holes in your argument whatsoever. If anyone has a problem with a law, then they should still obey them. While doing that, they can go threw the proper channels to change that law.

 

[mosinmatt]

It isnt as bad as the UK. Where they cant show TV ads with puppies, cause the muslims will be offended. Nor do yu have a Sharia court system.
Heck, some hadji sued the company he was working for cause they had him handle booze. he knew this when he got the job.
Thank the gods you live in a...relatively sane country man. If hadji doesnt want to follow the rules, then he goes without.

What the hell is a Hadji? Is that the other N word for Arabs now?

Pretty much, yes.

It's basically America's new "gook".

*growls* Get off my lawn

 

[s0denone]

I must say that I don't see how one could adopt a new race...

Anyway, while I'm usually an advocate of paternal statism, surely wearing a motorcycle helmet should be the choice of the individual? If I crash into someone, that person is not going to be any better off if I wear a helmet than if I don't, so for once I don't see how that choice could hurt anyone besides the person making it.

So if you, supposedly, do not wear a motorcycle-helmet, crash head-first into front of a car, is hurled off the bike and above the car, into the ground behind it. Your head crushed against the curve, your own blood reflecting the emptiness of your eyes as you gasp for a last breath of air, and whisper "No fair" to your self before you bend to the side in an inhumane manner, breaking your own arm as your lifeless body collapses on the asphalt.

Yeah, surely that's not going to traumatize everyone in the car, all children in sight, and leave everyone else with bad memories to remember their entire life... Right? Good thing you stood up for individuality, when little Britney is sitting in the 2th grade, after 3 weeks of absence, still having nightmares every nights. Still asking mommy about the blood-covered man on the street, from the bike.

 

[jboking]

ps. While we claim to be secularized, we really are not. I can go to a local high school with a hat on. when they tell me its against the rules to wear it, all I have to say is it is part of my religious expression. Bingo, I can do whatever I want so long as it is part of my "Religious Expression."

Or is it just religion? The very bridge we crossed, we are moving back towards again? A bridge we should have burned, perhaps?

perhaps...

Isn't that the whole issue right here? On one hand Scientology is still a working religion, regardless of it's laws and turban-wearing motorcyclists. On the other hand, sits a middle-class white male yappering on about how he want's everyone to be equal, no race and no religion should give any special benefits or special hindrances.

Perhaps it's due time that America choose which one it wants.



I'm from Denmark myself, a very secularized country.

I think I'm missing something
Do you mean the choice between trying to keep everyone equal while letting them retain their religion or turning to complete secularization?

 

[Socius]

I would call it patrioism not racism!

 

[s0denone]

ps. While we claim to be secularized, we really are not. I can go to a local high school with a hat on. when they tell me its against the rules to wear it, all I have to say is it is part of my religious expression. Bingo, I can do whatever I want so long as it is part of my "Religious Expression."

Or is it just religion? The very bridge we crossed, we are moving back towards again? A bridge we should have burned, perhaps?

perhaps...

Isn't that the whole issue right here? On one hand Scientology is still a working religion, regardless of it's laws and turban-wearing motorcyclists. On the other hand, sits a middle-class white male yappering on about how he want's everyone to be equal, no race and no religion should give any special benefits or special hindrances.

Perhaps it's due time that America choose which one it wants.



I'm from Denmark myself, a very secularized country.

I think I'm missing something
Do you mean the choice between trying to keep everyone equal while letting them retain their religion or turning to complete secularization?

That's a very clever observation, and yes emphasis on trying.

The choice between a very secularized country, trying to let people retain their religion while letting them all be equal.

Or a not-so-secularized country, trying to keep everyone equal while letting them retaining their religion.


It's a never-ending debate in Denmark.

 

[anti_strunt]

So if you, supposedly, do not wear a motorcycle-helmet, crash head-first into front of a car, is hurled off the bike and above the car, into the ground behind it. Your head crushed against the curve, your own blood reflecting the emptiness of your eyes as you gasp for a last breath of air, and whisper "No fair" to your self before you bend to the side in an inhumane manner, breaking your own arm as your lifeless body collapses on the asphalt.

Yeah, surely that's not going to traumatize everyone in the car, all children in sight, and leave everyone else with bad memories to remember their entire life... Right? Good thing you stood up for individuality, when little Britney is sitting in the 2th grade, after 3 weeks of absence, still having nightmares every nights. Still asking mommy about the blood-covered man on the street, from the bike.

Hmm, are you being facetious? I don't think those poor children are going to laugh it all off if I merely break a few legs; they would still have been part of a horrible accident most likely involving bloodsheed, with or without a helmet...

Besides, you example would've been far more effective if I had flown into the car through the windshield...

 

[Senor Smoke21]

Good Mencken, people, it doesn't hurt you to read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan

Why do I always end up being the one defending social groups I have utterly no interest (or reason) to defend?

Don't then.
=]

 

[s0denone]

So if you, supposedly, do not wear a motorcycle-helmet, crash head-first into front of a car, is hurled off the bike and above the car, into the ground behind it. Your head crushed against the curve, your own blood reflecting the emptiness of your eyes as you gasp for a last breath of air, and whisper "No fair" to your self before you bend to the side in an inhumane manner, breaking your own arm as your lifeless body collapses on the asphalt.

Yeah, surely that's not going to traumatize everyone in the car, all children in sight, and leave everyone else with bad memories to remember their entire life... Right? Good thing you stood up for individuality, when little Britney is sitting in the 2th grade, after 3 weeks of absence, still having nightmares every nights. Still asking mommy about the blood-covered man on the street, from the bike.

Hmm, are you being facetious? I don't think those poor children are going to laugh it all off if I merely break a few legs; they would still have been part of a horrible accident most likely involving bloodsheed, with or without a helmet...

Besides, you example would've been far more effective if I had flown into the car through the windshield...

I was thinking about that, but I wouldn't want to be going graphic when you hit the baby seal they had stashed in a bucket on the back seat, splashing blood onto the three babies to your right, and chopped the head of a dolphin with your left hand due to the sheer impact of the force.

Oh, and you went right through the driver, a lone-mother of 3.


----

Truth is, though, that a helmet can do wonders for safety, take that from a person talking from experience.

 

[Easykill]

Sorry Mobius, but I really need to disagree here. If you so strongly believe that having a weapon guarantees it's use, then why would you suggest that they have their own school? You're saying that you will allow people to carry their knives that they are apparently destined to use on people, but only "with their own kind". I don't like the sort of nanny/paranoid logic that is often used by the government, but I do at least understand it. If you don't follow through though, the logic crumbles. In your adherence to not creating exceptions, you have created a greater exception which will probably ultimately lead to racism. And, as I said, I don't like that logic. People in general are decent, responsible, and intelligent enough to know jumping off a building hurts. Looking down on them like that really seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me.

If a thing is illegal to carry, you shouldn't carry it. Period.

If you MUST carry it, at least use it with and/or on others like you, hopefully changing their mind.

Schools aren't saying "We don't want that here, we dislike muslims." they are saying "We don't want weapons here, like we've always not wanted weapons here."

But, should it stay illegal? I wasn't advocating breaking the law. If you want me too, I will, but I wasn't.

I get what you're saying, but as soon as the problem moves to the back shelf, it'll be ignored. It will just create another division.

I also know what schools are saying, I'm not saying anything was said with racism in mind, but it might create it. "Them" and "Us".

I would call it patrioism not racism!

I'm not much fonder of that value myself...

 

[WinkyTheGreat]

Good Mencken, people, it doesn't hurt you to read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan

Why do I always end up being the one defending social groups I have utterly no interest (or reason) to defend?

So what's to stop little Johnny from taking this weapon from somebody on the playground and using it? Just because it is a weapon of "non-violence" doesn't mean that it can't be used for violence...

 

[s0denone]

Sorry Mobius, but I really need to disagree here. If you so strongly believe that having a weapon guarantees it's use, then why would you suggest that they have their own school? You're saying that you will allow people to carry their knives that they are apparently destined to use on people, but only "with their own kind". I don't like the sort of nanny/paranoid logic that is often used by the government, but I do at least understand it. If you don't follow through though, the logic crumbles. In your adherence to not creating exceptions, you have created a greater exception which will probably ultimately lead to racism. And, as I said, I don't like that logic. People in general are decent, responsible, and intelligent enough to know jumping off a building hurts. Looking down on them like that really seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me.

If a thing is illegal to carry, you shouldn't carry it. Period.

If you MUST carry it, at least use it with and/or on others like you, hopefully changing their mind.

Schools aren't saying "We don't want that here, we dislike muslims." they are saying "We don't want weapons here, like we've always not wanted weapons here."

But, should it stay illegal? I wasn't advocating breaking the law. If you want me too, I will, but I wasn't.

I get what you're saying, but as soon as the problem moves to the back shelf, it'll be ignored. It will just create another division.

I also know what schools are saying, I'm not saying anything was said with racism in mind, but it might create it. "Them" and "Us".

I would call it patrioism not racism!

I'm not much fonder of that value myself...

Here is my answer: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.84109?page=3#1191511

Sorry for not re-wording it, and repeating myself, but I'm out of shape forum-wise.

 

[Wai]

OK so what do people think about people climbing and taking pictures of certain parts of Uluru. Since that is a issue that seems add to Eggos side while holding it in modern context.

Climbing

The local Aṉangu do not climb Uluru because of its great spiritual significance. They request that visitors not climb the rock, partly due to the path crossing a sacred traditional Dreamtime track, and also due to a sense of responsibility for the safety of visitors to their land. The Aṉangu believe they have a spiritual connection to Uluru, and feel great sadness when a person dies or is injured whilst climbing.

On 11 December 1983, the Prime Minister Bob Hawke promised to hand back the land title to the Aṉangu traditional owners and agreed to the community's 10-point plan which included forbidding the climbing of Uluru. However, the government set access to climb Uluru and a 99-year lease, instead of the previously agreed upon 50-year lease, as conditions before the title was officially given back to the Aṉangu.[16]

Climbing Uluru is a popular attraction for visitors. A chain handhold added in 1964 and extended in 1976 makes the hour-long climb easier, but it is still a long (800 m/0.5 mi) and steep hike to the top, where it can be quite windy. An above-average level of fitness and a high tolerance to desert conditions is required. Climbing Uluru is generally closed to the public when high winds are recorded at the top. Over the years there have been at least 35 deaths relating to climbing incidents

Photography

The Aṉangu also request that visitors do not photograph certain sections of Uluru, for reasons related to traditional Tjukurpa beliefs. These areas are the sites of gender-linked rituals, and are forbidden ground for Aṉangu of the opposite sex of those participating in the rituals in question. The photographic ban is intended to prevent Aṉangu from inadvertently violating this taboo by encountering photographs of the forbidden sites in the outside world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uluru

 

[jboking]

ps. While we claim to be secularized, we really are not. I can go to a local high school with a hat on. when they tell me its against the rules to wear it, all I have to say is it is part of my religious expression. Bingo, I can do whatever I want so long as it is part of my "Religious Expression."

Or is it just religion? The very bridge we crossed, we are moving back towards again? A bridge we should have burned, perhaps?

perhaps...

Isn't that the whole issue right here? On one hand Scientology is still a working religion, regardless of it's laws and turban-wearing motorcyclists. On the other hand, sits a middle-class white male yappering on about how he want's everyone to be equal, no race and no religion should give any special benefits or special hindrances.

Perhaps it's due time that America choose which one it wants.



I'm from Denmark myself, a very secularized country.

I think I'm missing something
Do you mean the choice between trying to keep everyone equal while letting them retain their religion or turning to complete secularization?

That's a very clever observation, and yes emphasis on trying.

The choice between a very secularized country, trying to let people retain their religion while letting them all be equal.

Or a not-so-secularized country, trying to keep everyone equal while letting them retaining their religion.


It's a never-ending debate in Denmark.

Then Denmark is in a very odd situation. Secularization typically means "separate from religious or spiritual connection or influences" Making your country extremely secular and yet letting everyone retain their religion is damn close to impossible.
I'm not going to preach American dominance in this field (...because american dominance is a joke), but at the very least they have made a stand that isnt contradictory to itself. Keep everyone equal and let them all retain their religions through careful compromise.