Is it racism?

[Trace2010]

Totally not racisim. If they move to lets say x country they should have to abide by x country's laws or get the hell out.

I absolutely agree...as does Michael Fay. Remember him??

EDIT: And if you are not smart enough to know the rules going in, don't leave home.

"I misinterpreted the rules..." does not work well in any other prison...why should it work well in MY country...

 

[s0denone]

I have a question for you though. What is so wrong with Collectivism? I'm not saying Individualism is bad, but I believe everything must be kept away from the extreme. (for example Socialism as a form of government is bad, but a small amount of it can be beneficial. Which is probably why we have some, think of Welfare and "free" health care (it's paid through taxes)

Quick questions: Why do you state that socialism is bad, as if it's a fact? If you're thinking extreme socialism, sure, but that's otherwise known as "Communism". Socialism in itself just mean that we(Humans red.) should be solidary towards eachother, help each other out, and help those less fortunate than ourselves.

That fact that whenever "Socialism" is mentioned by or to an American(Excuse me, if you're not) it's aften accompanied or followed by stated it's communism.
While they are similar, they are still very different. Communism is extreme, socialism is what you make of it. You mean welfare and "free" health care yourself; That's socialism!


Oh, and I agree with you completely on your stance on this so-called "Racism" issue.

Umm...no-

It is not racist to want to have someone's face on a Driver's Liscence or a personal ID card (or a passport)...it is common sense...
It is not racist to decide what type of image you want the people who work in your company to present...it is good business sense...
It is not racist to want to know how many people are actually in your country...as long as you make the SAME rule applicable to everyone (yes, I know what Carlos Mencia says on THAT subject)...

AND relating to the guy with the turban...whether or not you believe in God, you will want every indication that "I'm a good guy, don't shoot me" if you happen to get into a fire-fight with the bad guys...

You're asking me to give you a job/rights/benefits/all of the above, yet you want to tell me HOW to do this? *&^% off.

Excuse me, but you just blew me away. First example you bring forth has little to do with the subject, nor is it ANYWHERE in the same league as not wearing a motorcycle-helmet.
The second example is entirely off-topic, and also very shallow(?), isn't it? You're claiming that "ugly" people shouldn't have jobs? You're a complete asshole.
The example, is as off-topic as the second; How does this example relate to anything, how does any of the examples, for that matter? Oh, and the U.S.A doesn't know how many live there, since not everyone has social security. If homeless people die, no-one cares, no-one knows they're alive anyway.

 

[xxcloud417xx]

I have a question for you though. What is so wrong with Collectivism? I'm not saying Individualism is bad, but I believe everything must be kept away from the extreme. (for example Socialism as a form of government is bad, but a small amount of it can be beneficial. Which is probably why we have some, think of Welfare and "free" health care (it's paid through taxes)

Quick questions: Why do you state that socialism is bad, as if it's a fact? If you're thinking extreme socialism, sure, but that's otherwise known as "Communism". Socialism in itself just mean that we(Humans red.) should be solidary towards eachother, help each other out, and help those less fortunate than ourselves.

That fact that whenever "Socialism" is mentioned by or to an American(Excuse me, if you're not) it's aften accompanied or followed by stated it's communism.
While they are similar, they are still very different. Communism is extreme, socialism is what you make of it. You mean welfare and "free" health care yourself; That's socialism!


Oh, and I agree with you completely on your stance on this so-called "Racism" issue.

I mean Socialism as the actual form of Government is bad because equal repartition of every citizens funds is not a good way to maintain a country (That's Socialism) Communism is that the Proletariat must seize control through revolution & blood and that they should share all and destroy Bourgeoisie (Capitalists)(it's similar but still different). Free health care and welfare is not socialism, they are socialist ideas.

The reason that Socialism is a bad idea as the dominating form of government is that the people who do the hard jobs or the jobs that pay better than others, should be getting their due. The people that flip burgers (for example) shouldn't be getting paid as much as a company executive, that's just not right. Otherwise who would want to be a company exec.? too much responsibility with little salary. Thus the country would crumble upon itself because all the jobs that are necessary to maintain it will be underpaid and no one will want all that responsibility for so little money.

 

[I Stomp on Kittens]

Gay is a race? I was not aware

 

[s0denone]

Free health care and welfare is not socialism, they are socialist ideas.[/quite]
That's true, what I should have written was "That's socialist!"; That would have been the correct wording.

The reason that Socialism is a bad idea as the dominating form of government is that the people who do the hard jobs or the jobs that pay better than others, should be getting their due. The people that flip burgers (for example) shouldn't be getting paid as much as a company executive, that's just not right. Otherwise who would want to be a company exec.? too much responsibility with little salary. Thus the country would crumble upon itself.

I'm from Denmark myself, with the Scandinavian welfare-model, the most "extreme" in the world. Since I'm a humanitarian I'm not bothered by it, I'd rather pay a few extra bucks a month than to see people living in cardboard boxes or dying in the street from starvation.

I just commented on your statement that socialism was bad, stating it as fact, and as such I'd more than like to get into a quick discussion about it Although I feel like I'm drawing this away from the topic, and as such we should stop, wouldn't want the thread locked.

 

[JMeganSnow]

I have a question for you though. What is so wrong with Collectivism? I'm not saying Individualism is bad, but I believe everything must be kept away from the extreme. (for example Socialism as a form of government is bad, but a small amount of it can be beneficial. Which is probably why we have some, think of Welfare and "free" health care (it's paid through taxes so it's not really free, nothing is ever "free", but it's just easier to say free health care))

Regarding individuals as parts of some super-organism (society) leads inevitably to considering them *dispensable* parts of that super-organism, just as you might regard one of your toenails as dispensable should it become diseased. In practice, this leads to mass murder and destruction as the "diseased" humans are "removed" for the "good of society".

Extremism means acting on principle and avoiding it means sometimes doing one thing and sometimes doing another thing. How the heck do you decide when to do what if you have no principles?

 

[clericalerror]

You can't complain you're being shot at if you walk in the way of a firing range. The guy is an immigrant to your country, you can only assume he wants to live in that country. If he wants to live in your country, he has to abide by the countries laws. If not, then he can just move back where he came from. Certain religions believe that women are not allowed to walk in the street. He can't say his rights are being oppressed because women are allowed to go shopping on their own.

His choices are move back to a country he can ride a bike without wearing a helmet, ride a bike with a helmet, or break the law.

Ball is in your court.

 

[Soigieoto]

Well its not racism.

Most seemed to do with safety.(excluding the stickers/pin anti-gay one, god i hate ignorant people who want to impose there ideas on others)

See though with the safety things it seems logical i mean airport security(especially in america lol) isn't going to allow a knife though security.

or in schools.

... thats not clean but still you get my drift

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Err, laws are just as much opinions as religious beliefs are.

I summation=Crap. Laws may be based on opinions, but are themselves inviolate save outside of the judicial process. Read: You may not change them outside of the judicial process. Secondly, laws are meant to be the cons

Does the government have any business dictating what you can and cannot carry around with you in school?

If the school in question is a state school, then a resounding YES. Private Schools have the right to dictate what students may and may not carry, and yet you do not extend the same priviledge to instiututions provided by the state? Hmmmmm.....

The problem here isn't racism, it's the collectivist mindset that you somehow have title to all of Canada because you're a Canadian. Collectivism in any form leads inevitably to such problems. The solution is individualism and the recognition of individual rights. If you knew and understood what rights you should and shouldn't have, you wouldn't have any problems dealing with "outsiders" of any stripe, because group affiliation would be meaningless to you.

Thus neatly sidestepping the entire concept of the nation-state, social responsibilty...etc.

 

[Dele]

Free health care and welfare is not socialism, they are socialist ideas.[/quite]
That's true, what I should have written was "That's socialist!"; That would have been the correct wording.

The reason that Socialism is a bad idea as the dominating form of government is that the people who do the hard jobs or the jobs that pay better than others, should be getting their due. The people that flip burgers (for example) shouldn't be getting paid as much as a company executive, that's just not right. Otherwise who would want to be a company exec.? too much responsibility with little salary. Thus the country would crumble upon itself.

I'm from Denmark myself, with the Scandinavian welfare-model, the most "extreme" in the world. Since I'm a humanitarian I'm not bothered by it, I'd rather pay a few extra bucks a month than to see people living in cardboard boxes or dying in the street from starvation.

I just commented on your statement that socialism was bad, stating it as fact, and as such I'd more than like to get into a quick discussion about it Although I feel like I'm drawing this away from the topic, and as such we should stop, wouldn't want the thread locked.

A few extra bucks? 40% more than american living on Texas + everything costs a LOT. Becoming rich is shunned, envied and illegal by law (well not really but almost). Sure it's a decent system but only when there are not that many freeloaders around.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

A few extra bucks? 40% more than american living on Texas + everything costs a LOT. Becoming rich is shunned, envied and illegal by law (well not really but almost). Sure it's a decent system but only when there are not that many freeloaders around.

But 80% less likely to be murdered. Kudos there.

 

[xxcloud417xx]

Free health care and welfare is not socialism, they are socialist ideas.

That's true, what I should have written was "That's socialist!"; That would have been the correct wording.

The reason that Socialism is a bad idea as the dominating form of government is that the people who do the hard jobs or the jobs that pay better than others, should be getting their due. The people that flip burgers (for example) shouldn't be getting paid as much as a company executive, that's just not right. Otherwise who would want to be a company exec.? too much responsibility with little salary. Thus the country would crumble upon itself.

I'm from Denmark myself, with the Scandinavian welfare-model, the most "extreme" in the world. Since I'm a humanitarian I'm not bothered by it, I'd rather pay a few extra bucks a month than to see people living in cardboard boxes or dying in the street from starvation.

I just commented on your statement that socialism was bad, stating it as fact, and as such I'd more than like to get into a quick discussion about it Although I feel like I'm drawing this away from the topic, and as such we should stop, wouldn't want the thread locked.

Socialism isn't bad. But an Extremist Socialist government is. And I would like to point out that such a government has never before existed in all of the history of the Earth, so I'm not attacking anyone's government and saying that it doesn't work. Not even in the USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba, etc. those were Communist governments, not Socialist.

I have a question for you though. What is so wrong with Collectivism? I'm not saying Individualism is bad, but I believe everything must be kept away from the extreme. (for example Socialism as a form of government is bad, but a small amount of it can be beneficial. Which is probably why we have some, think of Welfare and "free" health care (it's paid through taxes so it's not really free, nothing is ever "free", but it's just easier to say free health care))

Regarding individuals as parts of some super-organism (society) leads inevitably to considering them *dispensable* parts of that super-organism, just as you might regard one of your toenails as dispensable should it become diseased. In practice, this leads to mass murder and destruction as the "diseased" humans are "removed" for the "good of society".

Maybe so, but individualism will lead to a socially detached society and breed chaos and anarchy. It's collectivism that breeds thought towards our "fellow man". Without that, atrocities wouldn't phase us, and would be committed much more often.

Extremism means acting on principle and avoiding it means sometimes doing one thing and sometimes doing another thing. How the heck do you decide when to do what if you have no principles?

Yes, but religious schools BREEDS extremists, which is the bad thing. Extremists like you describe (as people who act on principle) should learn their principles through living their life and acquiring lessons from that, not have them conditioned and programed with the principles of a certain social or religious group. That's why religious schools, rather than public schools, should be the ones abolished.

But an Extremist in the proper sense is a person with extreme views or opinions. That doesn't mean other people, who aren't extremists, don't have principles. They're just a bit less "extreme" in the application and teaching of those principles. The Extremist is likely kill a man for thinking differently, while a non-extremist will probably find a peaceful way to get rid of that person or maybe even try to reason with that person.

 

[JMeganSnow]

Maybe so, but individualism will lead to a socially detached society and breed chaos and anarchy. It's collectivism that breeds thought towards our "fellow man". Without that, atrocities wouldn't phase us, and would be committed much more often.

Where is the proof of this? The record of collectivism of all kinds has been abundantly clear--every time anyone has attempted to put ANY version of it into practice, the result was warring factions and mass graves. When the American Founders put individualist ideas into practice, the result was wealth, prosperity, good will, and a benevolent sense of life unequaled in any era. The current "alienation" in American culture is a result of the return of explicit collectivism to public policy.

No rational human being feels any good will of any kind toward their slave masters, whether those masters are commissars, gestapo, or "the poor".

Yes, but religious schools BREEDS extremists, which is the bad thing. Extremists like you describe (as people who act on principle) should learn their principles through living their life and acquiring lessons from that, not have them conditioned and programed with the principles of a certain social or religious group. That's why religious schools, rather than public schools, should be the ones abolished.

So, according to you, indoctrination is fine and dandy as long as it's practiced by the government?

The fact that I don't approve of attempted religious indoctrination does not give me the right to dictate to parents the method by which they should teach their children. Such children, regardless of schooling, retain the ability to choose to think and critically evaluate what they are told, and that is all anyone needs.

But an Extremist in the proper sense is a person with extreme views or opinions. That doesn't mean other people, who aren't extremists, don't have principles. They're just a bit less "extreme" in the application and teaching of those principles. The Extremist is likely kill a man for thinking differently, while a non-extremist will probably find a peaceful way to get rid of that person or maybe even try to reason with that person.

There is no such thing as an "extremist" in the proper sense because there is no proper sense in which the term can be applied. A person that does not apply their principles as absolute, 100%, has *no* principles. A man who respects life 99.9% of the time, but then hires himself out as a hitman to the mafia *is* a killer operating on the premise of death, he is not a "moderate life-respecter". A man who steals "only a little bit" *is* a thief, he is not a "moderate property-respecter".

Extreme virtue and extreme vice are not *both* evil. The problem lies in the fact that people trumpet virtues that are impossible to practice fully and thus cut themselves off at the base. Such a person will *necessarily* come to believe that *extreme* virtue is a terrible thing because his virtues are horrible. If you have a proper idea of virtues, you will not come to believe that it's a good thing to lie, cheat, steal, and murder "sometimes".

 

[s0denone]

Free health care and welfare is not socialism, they are socialist ideas.

That's true, what I should have written was "That's socialist!"; That would have been the correct wording.

The reason that Socialism is a bad idea as the dominating form of government is that the people who do the hard jobs or the jobs that pay better than others, should be getting their due. The people that flip burgers (for example) shouldn't be getting paid as much as a company executive, that's just not right. Otherwise who would want to be a company exec.? too much responsibility with little salary. Thus the country would crumble upon itself.

I'm from Denmark myself, with the Scandinavian welfare-model, the most "extreme" in the world. Since I'm a humanitarian I'm not bothered by it, I'd rather pay a few extra bucks a month than to see people living in cardboard boxes or dying in the street from starvation.

I just commented on your statement that socialism was bad, stating it as fact, and as such I'd more than like to get into a quick discussion about it Although I feel like I'm drawing this away from the topic, and as such we should stop, wouldn't want the thread locked.

Socialism isn't bad. But an Extremist Socialist government is. And I would like to point out that such a government has never before existed in all of the history of the Earth, so I'm not attacking anyone's government and saying that it doesn't work. Not even in the USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba, etc. those were Communist governments, not Socialist.

We agree completely then, apart from the fact that there has been socialist government has existed several times in several countries, Denmark for example. No extremist socialist government, true; But socialist.

Fair play, and good day

 

[xxcloud417xx]

Free health care and welfare is not socialism, they are socialist ideas.

That's true, what I should have written was "That's socialist!"; That would have been the correct wording.

The reason that Socialism is a bad idea as the dominating form of government is that the people who do the hard jobs or the jobs that pay better than others, should be getting their due. The people that flip burgers (for example) shouldn't be getting paid as much as a company executive, that's just not right. Otherwise who would want to be a company exec.? too much responsibility with little salary. Thus the country would crumble upon itself.

I'm from Denmark myself, with the Scandinavian welfare-model, the most "extreme" in the world. Since I'm a humanitarian I'm not bothered by it, I'd rather pay a few extra bucks a month than to see people living in cardboard boxes or dying in the street from starvation.

I just commented on your statement that socialism was bad, stating it as fact, and as such I'd more than like to get into a quick discussion about it Although I feel like I'm drawing this away from the topic, and as such we should stop, wouldn't want the thread locked.

Socialism isn't bad. But an Extremist Socialist government is. And I would like to point out that such a government has never before existed in all of the history of the Earth, so I'm not attacking anyone's government and saying that it doesn't work. Not even in the USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba, etc. those were Communist governments, not Socialist.

We agree completely then, apart from the fact that there has been socialist government has existed several times in several countries, Denmark for example. No extremist socialist government, true; But socialist.

Fair play, and good day

cheers.

 

[AgentZed]

Stuff like this always makes me wonder if the whole multiculturalism thing is a good idea. It's always made me think the country has some massive insecurity issues or something. "Hey, welcome to our country, this is our culture, these are our laws, but if you don't like them, we can change! I mean habeas corpus was always a pain anyway..." A country's laws, rules and regulations should be a take-it-or-leave-it proposition. Culture is far too nebulous to treat the same way, but so long as it doesn't break any laws, or conflict with the nations culture, then it's all well and good. In cases of conflict, the culture of the new country should always take precedent. Just because you did something a certain way in your country is no reason we should do it (or let you) in ours. In fact, if your wonderful country was so messed up that you were compelled to flee, that's a pretty good argument for not doing it your way right there.

As for the whole "Well the Europeans came over here and were all mean and nasty so who are you to complain now?" argument, it is entirely specious. People are complaining about the fact that people are coming to their country, violating the law, and then demanding special treatment, rather than accept the consequences. Now, I'm assuming the First Nations had some sort of "Don't kill us and take our stuff" law, perhaps unwritten, and when white folks showed up and started violating that law, thousands of Europeans died as a result. Unfortunately for the Natives, the Europeans were a lot better at violating their law than they were at dolling out consequences, and so things didn't turn out to well for them. Which sucks. But how much more would it have sucked if after the Europeans showed up and violated the crap out the "Don't kill us and take our stuff" law, they turned around and demanded reparations for all the money they had to spend killing Natives, since war reparations were a part of European culture at the time and all.

Regardless, if you use the logic that, some of your ancestors did something a long time ago, so now you can't complain about others doing the same thing, then nobody alive today should be able to complain about slavery. Or genocide. Or torture. Or spousal abuse. The list goes on...

 

[Silvertongue]

In the examples you cite that aren't your own experience, I feel as if the law needs to be upheld. After all, you are welcoming those people into your country, and in return they must abide by your rules and regulations.

But since the country I've always lived in and never physically left was built on the principle of free speech, as long as they're not actively working to hurt people who are gay or support gay marriage by organizing some kind of hate group, they should be allowed to think what they want to think, and to express their opinion, even though it puts down the opinions of others.

In short, let them display their ignorance for all the world to see.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

Certain allowances need to be made for different races, religions and cultures, but...

If you get a job as a pizza delivery driver, don't complain that you can't wear a helmet, get a different job.

Also, if you take a job in a bar, you don't get to sue because you have to deal with alcohol.

There comes a point where people are putting themselves in these situations then kicking up a stink, and that's a step too far imo.

Having said this, its all too easy to read the newspapers and just suck it up, when they do print an inordinate amount of bollocks.

Personally, if I found I had a fatal peanut allergy, I wouldn't be applying to work for Snickers in the morning. 'Heyyy, you guys have PEANUTS here! how dare you! You are disrespecting my medical condition! I DEMAND you remove all peanuts from your product!'

Of course, if I worked there and got the allergy, I shouldn't be penalised for leaving, either.

 

[cookyt]

Everything in this world exists in the state it does because we, as humans, agree it exists in that state. The same can be said about law.

If a person wanting to come to a new country wants to do something against that country's laws, then they must be willing to fight for their choice. In the old world, this was done on a battle field (the natives lost the battle, and the right to their land, along with much of their population, in this case). In the modern world, this is done (mostly) in a court of law.

If immigrant x wants to wear a turban on a motor bike, then see if he can get enough people to agree with him. If he does, then there is suddenly no problem with it (just as there was suddenly no problem with European rule of Canada after there weren't enough natives to oppose it). if he doesn't, then he has lost, and should stop riding motorbikes in Canada. Simple as that. This way, cultures become dynamic, and there are new and interesting things to experience for them as the grow and evolve.

Personally,
not wearing a helmet on a motor bike: not too good for your health in some cases

bringing a knife to school: bad idea should it be stolen, or the original bearer go crazy...
they could just bring a symbol of the knife.

not wearing a hat for a uniform: it is foolish to deny entrance to the RCMP simply because a person refuses to wear a single article of clothing (if it were pants, it would be a different story though)

At least that's what I think. And no, I don't think it's racism.

 

[Lord Beautiful]

No, that's not racism, that's common sense.

You don't want to wear a motorcycle-helmet? Then don't ride a goddamn moterbike.
You don't want to wear the RCMP uniform, then don't join the goddamn RCMP.

That goes for everyone, turban or no bloody turban.

I second this pithy statement.