The debate "Religion race & colour is nothing every countries border should be draw on basis of languages.n" was started by
June 5, 2019, 2:43 am.
21 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 29 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
sagarparab posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 2 arguments, Nemiroff posted 4 arguments, HobNobTheHob posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
sagarparab, Aditya_17, kadijatu, sakshi and 17 visitors agree.
historybuff, Nemiroff, Potatochiper, HobNobTheHob, synopsis, Allirix, MADHURA, boispendaddy and 21 visitors disagree.
Language is a part of culture but not the only thing. If we were to redraw borders it would be around distinct cultures, not languages. I'd say that'd create very little change to world borders though
fired by a private employer is not the same as state penalties.
Umm that pronoun thing happens in the states. Below is a link to a story about a teacher in Virginia who was fired for refusing to refer to a student by the correct pronoun. So why do you think this is a problem in Canada?
we are talking about Canada, not other countries. can you give me an example of pronoun prosecution in Canada?
what, in you opinion, is the primary purpose of freedom of speech?
Borders should be built around laws and National Sovereignty. That is in fact if you wish to have a society within them.
Many nations speak multiple languages throughout history and functioned just fine.
But they were under one rule of law, and unaffected by the laws of other nations
Yes, in several parts of Canada and other countries, you can be prosecuted for saying the wrong thing. The most popular one right now to bring up is pronoun laws
you are looking India from far away.....i am living in India. here one official language tring to be forced upon people of other languages. we are not happy with this. hope this stops or we have another option is end up like Europe.
I didnt ask what you think the definition is, I asked for the actual definition.
and most, likely all, slave owners knew their slaves were people. they simply enjoyed the convenience. concessions were made to placate a population. if they felt bad about keeping people as property, wouldn't the logical solution be to not keep them as property?
what is your issue with Canadian speech laws? are you forbidden from voicing any opinion?
I would say that treating slaves better would be beginning to humanize them, which would be taking a step to end slavery.
But, no, I would say that socialism is also more government and that's what I don't want. If there's government healthcare, not only are taxes higher, but also I don't get a choice in what healthcare I actually get, the government decides. And, yeah, I could just get a private insurer, but I will already be paying higher taxes for something I'm not even using.
But, again, my biggest issue with Canada is the lack of freedom of speech.
socialism is an opposite of capitalism. they are economic systems, and none of them have anything to do with government policy. taking a step towards socialism would involve taking steps towards the public OWNERSHIP of production. ownership of the means of production is the defining aspect of socialism, with the end goal of complete elimination of money.
providing healthcare does not promote public ownership of production. in fact it may placate a population so that it wont demand ownership of production.
your claim that providing services is a step towards socialism is like saying providing better treatment to slaves is a step towards ending slavery. if anything it's a way to prevent revolts and protect the current system. it isnt a step towards a new system. One shouldnt take right wing propaganda at face value, they twist definitions for their convenience. governments interfering in private sector is as old as the private sector. it's well before socialism. this is nothing but kool aid, and its depressing when intelligent people fall for it.
please provide a comprehensive and official definition of socialism because I don't think you understand what it means.
Well, you don't have "sensible" gun control and governmental healthcare is just a step in the direction of socialism. But, my biggest problem with Canada is that you do not have freedom of speech in the same way that the U.S. does.
I guess that would make Spain the biggest country in the world
Yeah, why would you want lower crime rates, sensible gun control, healthcare for all, actual good beer, a political system that doesn't deadlock between the senate and parliament, being seen in most of the world as good and decent people?
I agree. We (the U.S.) want no part of Canada XD
Umm why? The US and Canada both speak english primarily. Canadians are absolutely not ok with being the same country as the US. The US is seriously messed up and we don't want any part of that.
Why do you think language is a better system of deciding what should be a country? I think India has like 14 official languages in a single country. Canada has 2. The UK has like 8 officially recognized languages.