 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Nowadays, the Mexican immigrants around here (20 miles north of Mexico)
> want their kids to learn English, and the prejudiced fools who think
> Mexicans can't learn try to pass laws making it required to teach school
> classes in spanish.
That's one of the contradictory thinking I have never understood:
On one hand they (ie. multiculturalists) complain how difficult the
hosting society is making it for the immigrants to integrate, but then,
on the other hand, they demand all kinds of special arrangements, such
as teaching in the immigrant's own language in schools, which can only
cause difficulties in integration.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > I oppose immigration policies which result in segregation and animosity
> > between groups. Careless immigration policies just do that, and the worst
> > thing is that the people who pass those immigration policies can't see it.
> Basically, you oppose immigration policies which, in the name of
> reducing racism, actually encourage racism. :-)
Some people have presented the theory that many prominent
multiculturalists, even if only at a subconscious level, *don't want*
racism to stop. They want racism to be perpetuated. That's because
if racism was somehow completely eliminated, their own purpose would
cease to exist as well. They would become obsolete. Their "15 minutes
of fame" would end.
That's the reason why they are so desperate to find symptoms of
racism everywhere, even at places where there is none. If everything
else fails, then they claim people at least *think* in a racist way
(which in their view is a thoughtcrime, of course) even if they don't
show it in any way.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Or the first amendment, I suppose. :-)
"Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want."
If it doesn't mean that, then what does it mean then?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Or the first amendment, I suppose. :-)
>
> "Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want."
>
> If it doesn't mean that, then what does it mean then?
It means you don't have to pay for it.
*ducks*
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Some people have presented the theory that many prominent
> multiculturalists, even if only at a subconscious level, *don't want*
> racism to stop. They want racism to be perpetuated. That's because
> if racism was somehow completely eliminated, their own purpose would
> cease to exist as well. They would become obsolete. Their "15 minutes
> of fame" would end.
This somehow reminds me of the Swedish movie Kopps, in which cops of a
small town start making crimes to make themself needed and to keep
theier jobs.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2008/01/01 05:25:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Or the first amendment, I suppose. :-)
>
> "Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want."
>
> If it doesn't mean that, then what does it mean then?
>
Freedom of speech stops when you start telling lies, or you throw around false
accusations or start difaming peoples. You can use freedom of speech, but you
can't abuse it.
Like for any freedom, your freedom stop where your neibour's freedom start.
Also, with every freedom comes some duty and obligations.
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Don't cry because it is over, smile because it happened.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> Freedom of speech stops when you start telling lies, or you throw around false
> accusations or start difaming peoples. You can use freedom of speech, but you
> can't abuse it.
> Like for any freedom, your freedom stop where your neibour's freedom start.
> Also, with every freedom comes some duty and obligations.
Thus "freedom of speech" is the same type of oxymoron as "free speech
zone".
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> That's one of the contradictory thinking I have never understood:
Yeah. A lot of the laws around here are clearly counter-productive. :-/
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Thus "freedom of speech" is the same type of oxymoron as "free speech
> zone".
Not really. "Freedom of speech" means you can't pass laws about the
content of speech.
For example, you can be stopped from shouting loudly while standing in
the middle of a residential street in the middle of the night,
regardless of what you're shouting about. You can't be stopped for
talking about religion or economic theory, regardless of what the
religion or theory is, because that would be based on content rather
than delivery.
Defamation (i.e., lying about someone to damage them) is a civil
problem. In other words, the government isn't trying to stop you from
doing it. The person you're lying about can say "your lies cost me
money, so pay me back and stop doing it." In the USA, truth is an
absolute defense to defamation charges; i.e., if you actually did sleep
with a prostitute, me making that public cannot get me in legal trouble.
A "free speech zone" is an oxymoron (in the USA) because free speech is
guaranteed everywhere. Hence, the existence of a zone where it's
permitted implies there are places where it isn't.
BOCTAOE.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Tue, 01 Jan 2008 04:23:11 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
did spake, saying:
> Warp wrote:
>> Tim Cook <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> wrote:
>>> "ho hum, I don't really like these immigrants, they're taking our jobs
>>> and diluting our culture the way cultures have been being diluted and
>>> turned into what are really other cultures since forever"
>> Btw, I find this cliche quite curious, given that the real problem is
>> more or less the exact opposite.
>
> I expect immigration in earlier decades in the USA differ from modern
> immigration in Europe (and possibly the USA).
>
> Earlier generations in the USA wanted to be Americans, not Irish or
> Germans or whatever living in America. Both my sets of grandparents
> refused to teach their children (my parents) their native languages, as
> they wanted the kids to learn English well so as to better integrate,
> for example.
>
> Nowadays, the Mexican immigrants around here (20 miles north of Mexico)
> want their kids to learn English, and the prejudiced fools who think
> Mexicans can't learn try to pass laws making it required to teach school
> classes in spanish.
Here in the UK we provide free language lessons for immigrants and then
make sure that all government information is available in English, Polish,
Urdu,...
Trouble is the cost of providing said pamphlets is quite high prompting a
lot of tabloids to complain about this waste of taxpayers money (ignoring
the fact that a lot of these immigrants are themselves taxpayers too); if
they come over here, they write, they should learn the language.
Then the cost of these free English lessons are released and the very same
tabloids then complain about this waste of money.
Then people are turned away from the lessons because the staff can't cope
with the numbers coming in (unless they get more funding) and the tabloids
then complain about immigrants who are 'trying to do the right thing'
being let down.
It'd all be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
