WestCoastRunner Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 Sure. Did you get thise off a government web site, btw? Why do you figure the multiculturalism practiced in France, the UK and Sweden didn't work, but that somehow or other ours works splendidly? I was just about to publish a bunch of links. I see that Jaycee beat me to it. Thanks! But I knew that regardless of the research, studies, facts, they would all be ignored, disputed and tossed aside. Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
-1=e^ipi Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 Sounds great! But is any perception not reality to the individual and we tend to see only what we want to see? Perception of reality != reality, so let's distinguish between the two. Furthermore, just because different people have different perceptions of reality does not mean that an objective reality does not exist. And yes some individuals have selectional perception and 'see what they want to see'. Quote
Argus Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 My position is that by dismissing any opinion as universally invalid is not only rude but arrogant. No one has the right to speak for others. They have the full right to express their personal disagreement with another opinion. It is after all, only an opinion. Well, yes, anyone can express any opinon. But what then happens on a web site which is dedicated to discussing and debating opinions? I.e., you have a right to hold an opinion, but you will never have a right to not have that opinion countered by others. More importantly, it isn't an opinion like, oh, I prefer the colour blue, or I like Coke more than Pepsi, or I prefer blondes to brunettes. Those aren't opinions which can really be refuted. Each individual has their own preferences, after all. But when you say, I believe dogs can fly, or the earth actually revolves around the planet Neptune, then your opinion is a factually incorrect interpretation of reality. It is, in other words, demonstrably and absurdly false. Your statement that religions which have been around for a long time must be pacifistic is demonstrably wrong in that same way. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
-1=e^ipi Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 These are good points, in general, diversity is a strength. Multiculturalism and our current immigration policies have worked for Canada. The supporting evidence is that the standard of living and life satisfaction of Canadians has been steadily increasing and has out-paced most OECD countries. Canada is consistently rated as the one of the best countries to live in. It is possible that Canada would be an even better country with different policies, but given our progress relative to others, I would think that it is up to those that argue against multiculturalism to describe its disadvantages and provide evidence to support their claims. You are sort of setting up a false dichotomy here. It's not multiculturalism vs non-multiculturalism. There are many options and many different types of multiculturalism. Canada could completely stop immigration and would remain multicultural for example. Advocating modifications to Canada's immigration system is not going against multiculturalism because multiculturalism and immigration are not the same thing. It's mostly multiculturalism combined with cultural relativism that is problematic. Quote
Argus Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) It's a discussion on "What unites Canadians?" And as I pointed out to you, one of those things suggested was multiculturalism, and the discussion has flowed from there despite the bitterness of left wing zealots who don't have the ability to discuss things without growing angry and insulting towards anyone who disagrees with them. Edited July 9, 2014 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 You have to choose whether to argue that the policy is ineffectual, or that it does damage. It can't be both. ie. People either listen to the message of multiculturalism or they don't. Well, we know, to some extent, what the situation is in a number of European countries which thoroughly embraced multiculturalism, embraced it to even more of an extent than Canada did. That situation is not enviable. We see large ethnic groups made up of newcomers and then their children, growing up outside the mainstream and often filled with resentment and anger towards the natives of that country. We see interracial violence, race riots, etc. We see much less of that here, but how can we say that's because of multiculturalism if that was what the Europeans tried too? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) I was just about to publish a bunch of links. I see that Jaycee beat me to it. Thanks! But I knew that regardless of the research, studies, facts, they would all be ignored, disputed and tossed aside. You can't argue they were ignored or tossed aside, since I responded to each of them. Do you believe anything you put here ought to not be disputed? What you posted were not 'facts', you know. They were statements of fact but without any supporting basis or evidence. Edited July 9, 2014 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
-1=e^ipi Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 My position is that by dismissing any opinion as universally invalid is not only rude but arrogant. What is relevant is not if something is 'rude or arrogant' or not, but if something is true. If someone tells me 1+1 = 3 in the real numbers, I will tell then that is wrong and if their feelings are hurt so be it. You appear to suffer from a strong case of Truth Relativism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism#Criticisms The honest posters here are not attempting to dissuade, intimidate or anger another who opposes their particular opinion. Honest people don't try to lie or omit reality in order not to hurt people's feelings. And dissuade? lol wtf. Everybody's opinion and view is valid Nope. To try to trash an opposing view, opinion or attitude as "nonsense" does nothing to allow the thread to evolve or encourage more discussion. In this thread, when I have claimed a position to be nonsense, I've justified it with evidence and reasoning. What really prevents productive discussion is having people avoid saying things that might harm people's feelings even when those things are relevant to the discussion. I still wonder why there are so many angry posters out there who elicit anonymous confrontation. It's called using evidence and reasoning to justify one's position. Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 Is that what the end game is to posting opinions? No. Asking people to justify their claims isn't an 'end game'. Personally, I would encourage someone posting an opinion based on a premise on which I would disagree. Look, if you disagree or are unconvinced of a premise that someone uses in their argument then you will not agree with the argument. Asking the claimer to justify their premise in order to determine if the premise is true or not can help resolve disagreements and get people closer to the truth. Why would a poster be expected to "justify" something that they believe? They aren't obligated. If they want to come on an online forum and just post what they believe without justification because it makes them feel like a special cupcake or whatever, then they can do that. Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 I believe that all humans are born gentle Your original claim wasn't that all humans are 'born gentle'. Are you changing your claim? Because of this premise, to suggest that a culture, nationality or religious group exhibits a negative homogeneous attitude is unacceptable to me. I am more concerned with the environment influences that takes a "gentle" human being and causes him/her to become violent towards themselves and others. But culture, nationality and religion are part of those environmental influence that affect behaviour... Your claims here are inconsistent. I do not believe that there is some dominant or recessive gene or DNA strand or ... that a person is born with that dictates their behaviour in a society. And I stand by that opinion. So now you are claiming that genes do not affect behaviour? What next? The Earth is flat? Quote
carepov Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 You are sort of setting up a false dichotomy here. It's not multiculturalism vs non-multiculturalism. There are many options and many different types of multiculturalism. Canada could completely stop immigration and would remain multicultural for example. Advocating modifications to Canada's immigration system is not going against multiculturalism because multiculturalism and immigration are not the same thing. It's mostly multiculturalism combined with cultural relativism that is problematic. Argus asked "what are the benefits of multiculturalism?" a good question with good answers in response. My question is: in Canada, what are the problems with multiculturalism (with or without cultural relativism)? A list of specific and quantifiable problems with supporting evidence would be a great help for me to understand your and Argus' position. Quote
Argus Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) Argus asked "what are the benefits of multiculturalism?" a good question with good answers in response. My question is: in Canada, what are the problems with multiculturalism (with or without cultural relativism)? A list of specific and quantifiable problems with supporting evidence would be a great help for me to understand your and Argus' position. I'm pretty sure those have already been stated on a number of occasions. Unity is achieved through newcomers joining in and adopting Canada's culture and values, most notably of tolerance, openness, compromise and responsibility. If newcomers who come from a culture which instilled in them a value set which is radically at odds with that then encouraging them to retain that culture discourages social cohesion, and encourages anti-social, even violent behaviour. We don't want the proliferation of foreign ghettos in Canada filled with people who don't speak our language, don't understand us and don't care to. We especially don't want the numbers of such people rising in a democratic society where the rising number of their votes will be able to influence government policy in directions we would not want it to go. What we have are people who immigrated to this country decades ago yet still can't speak either English or French. Why? Because they don't have to. They live in their Little Italy, their Chinatown, their Little India or their Little Arabia -- you name an ethnic group and an ethnic enclave will exist -- and they don't have to venture outside it because the screws have not been tightened on who we will accept as contributing immigrants. http://www.torontosun.com/comment/editorial/2011/02/09/17212031.html Cameron said: "Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the mainstream. We have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run completely counter to our values." http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/1869/british-multiculturalism-failure Politicians from Paris to Perth have proclaimed their nations' 'multicultural' immigration policies to be "a failure" as newspaper headlines detail violence, isolation, poverty and rising welfare costs in their countries. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/elisabethmeinecke/2011/10/03/how_multiculturalism_failed_europe “The policy of multiculturalism in Europe has failed. Immigrants are not integrating into the Western society; on the contrary, they do everything to lead a segregated lifestyle and establish closed communities with their own rules. They use the material luxuries that the Western countries provide, but they want to live according to their own laws and beliefs.” http://voiceofrussia.com/2013_05_07/Policy-of-multiculturalism-in-Europe-has-failed-expert/ Edited July 9, 2014 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
carepov Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 I'm pretty sure those have already been stated on a number of occasions. Unity is achieved through newcomers joining in and adopting Canada's culture and values, most notably of tolerance, openness, compromise and responsibility. If newcomers who come from a culture which instilled in them a value set which is radically at odds with that then encouraging them to retain that culture encourages anti-social, even violent behaviour. We don't want the proliferation of foreign ghettos in Canada filled with people who don't speak our language, don't understand us and don't care to. We especially don't want the numbers of such people rising in a democratic society where the rising number of their votes will be able to influence government policy in directions we would not want it to go. Where is this "anti-social" and "violent" behaviour? Where are these "foreign ghettos"? Quote
Big Guy Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 ... So now you are claiming that genes do not affect behaviour? What next? The Earth is flat? Thank you for your opinion. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Michael Hardner Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 Your statement that you don't care about Holy books because 'reasonable' people don't pay attention to them is ludicrous in the context of this discussion. The undeniable fact is that other groups, massive numbers of them, most certainly DO care very much what they say, believe them to be the word of God, and govern their actions accordingly. My question stands. You don't care about murder rates when assessing risk - how is that more ludicrous than me not wanting to talk about Holy Books ? I don't see how discussion of Holy Books is going to have any impact on the discussion given the facts we've already established about fanaticism etc. Thus their violencen THERE is not much of a concern to me compared to the violence inspired by religion since that can be exported to places where I live and travel. It's not much of a difference, though. I don't see why murder rates shouldn't be considered the prime criteria. Your assessment that gangs are involved isn't proven, and if true is irrelevant. The kind of world violence that matters to me(in the context of this discussion) is violence which might be imported here. See my above point. It all comes down to a judgement by you, based on what concerns you, based on your decisions as to what is relevant. Every step of this analysis is subjective. I've seen that you get extremely defensive and snarky whenever people start talking too openly of the drawbacks of Islam and its people. Cite ? Okay, but I'm not discussing cultural biasess or prejudices. I'm discussing government evidence of their economic performance in Canada, along with cultural traits they bring to Canada. The second part of that is imbued with your subjectivity. You are bad at figuring out what is subjective and what is objective. I have acknowledged that there is some basis for evaluating immigrants based on factors such as country of origin, but I had to give up my subjective feelings that such an approach is inhumane. That's a value that I hold, not based on objective facts but based on my own ingrained beliefs. You seem to have trouble separating what you believe and what are facts, that others can understand. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
-1=e^ipi Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) Where is this "anti-social" and "violent" behaviour? Where are these "foreign ghettos"? Gee, I can't think of any. It's so hard... Edit: go to 5:00. Edited July 9, 2014 by -1=e^ipi Quote
guyser Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 Wow Canada now includes London England ! Woot ! Gonna get me some chips after work Quote
Black Dog Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) I have watched how people react to government and media prodding on things like multiculturalism for decades, and have noted this sort of smug sense of confidence in those whose weak minds are simply empty holes which obediently regurgitate whatever the CBC and the Heritage Ministry pour down on them. No thinking required. Must be so peaceful for them. The British Prime Minister has admitted multiculturalism has been a huge failure. The French Prime Minister has admitted multiculturalism has been a huge failure. The Nordic countries are now backtracking on their own multiculturalism after discovering, like the British and French, that they now have large native born citizens who bear them little love, do not feel part of them, and have sympathies elsewhere. Canada, fortunately, has done much better, almost entirely because people like me have strenuously objected to much about multiculturalism, and tried to push things more towards the melting pot, towards where newcomers blend into the mainstream and become part of us, rather than sitting on the outskirts in the quaint ethnic villages the Left so cherishes. I would love to hear what specific things you and people like you did to make Canadian multiculturalism a success. Taking credit for the success of something you have always completely opposed is pretty hilarious, I must say. If the mindless set had been allowed to get their way and we'd fully implemented the kind of multiculturalism they have in other countries we too would have riots in the streets now. Drivel. None of the other countries you listed practiced multiculturalism in anything but the strictest literal definition of the term (that is: the existence of different cultures within one society). They have riots and whatnot because they make absolutely no attempts to integrate people who differ from the longstanding cultural majority, instead relegating them to the margins of society as basically cheap sources of labour. Basically, the European model is non-inclusive and heavily privileges the dominant culture. Edited July 9, 2014 by Black Dog Quote
Black Dog Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 What we have are people who immigrated to this country decades ago yet still can't speak either English or French. Why? Because they don't have to. They live in their Little Italy, their Chinatown, their Little India or their Little Arabia -- you name an ethnic group and an ethnic enclave will exist -- and they don't have to venture outside it because the screws have not been tightened on who we will accept as contributing immigrants. http://www.torontosun.com/comment/editorial/2011/02/09/17212031.html This is so wrong it's amazing. Ethnic enclaves were a fact of life everywhere different cultures mixed for centuries before there was even such a term as multiculturalism. Such enclaves existed and continue to exist even in that great melting pot to the south. Why, it's almost as if the pull of like to like is a natural human impulse and not some scheme cooked up by lefty do gooders. Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 Wow Canada now includes London England ! Woot ! Gonna get me some chips after work You think that Canada is immune to what has happened in England, France or Sweden if immigration policy is not designed properly? You want some Canadian examples? Quote
guyser Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) You think that Canada is immune to what has happened in England, France or Sweden if immigration policy is not designed properly? You want some Canadian examples? No you can save yourself the hassle. We have virtually zero examples in this country anyhow. We do things different, we dont make refugee camps, nor do we isolate immigrants in the netherlands without support which normally leads to forment. (see France) Edited July 9, 2014 by Guyser2 Quote
Argus Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) Wow Canada now includes London England ! Woot ! Gonna get me some chips after work Our lovely ethnic groups getting along in splendid fashion... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhvZoUh3ibQ Our multicultural input into politics. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfEmXjh680k Edited July 9, 2014 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
guyser Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 Oh my god ! An ambulance had to be called. The horror. Want to see a riot full of CDN born kids? The plain truth is we dont have the unrest others you like to compare to have. We simply dont. Why? We do things the right way. Quote
WestCoastRunner Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 If we want a riot, we can do better than any old ethnic group. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/riots-erupt-in-vancouver-after-canucks-loss-1.993707 Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
Argus Posted July 9, 2014 Report Posted July 9, 2014 Oh my god ! An ambulance had to be called. The horror. Want to see a riot full of CDN born kids? The plain truth is we dont have the unrest others you like to compare to have. We simply dont. Why? Quite possibly because those ethnic groups which are most determined to retain their old angry cultures tend to be in smaller numbers here than in those other countries. Muslims make up just under 1% of the population here. They are 5% in Sweden, the Netherlands and the UK, between 5-10% in France. However, their numbers here are doubling every ten years. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.