|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Hotwire
Joined: 29 Aug 2010 Location: Multiverse
|
Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2010 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you watch foodinc you'll see that farmers are actuallly NOT free to use old seed lines and will likely lose thir livelyhood if they do not kowtow to tha facist corporations all of whom are backed by the lobbyist loving govt.
The rest of your response is empty platitude and opinion at best so I'll leave it alone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2010 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hotwire wrote: |
| And why do you have to say 'holidays' now instead of just calling them 'Easter' or 'Christmas.' |
How it is "empty platitude" to consider it an important distinction between when "have to" means there are social conventions involved and when "have to" means you'll be put in jail otherwise?
The former is you being free to make an ass of yourself in public. The latter is jail time for what should be free speech.
EDIT:
Also, I don't know what documentaries you've watched, but none of my farming family members have this issue. Maybe they "have to" use genetically modified seeds to compete effectively against other farmers... oh wait, but that would mean that the cost of using the special seeds is less than the benefit of choosing to use them! Damn that complicated "have to" phrase... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2010 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hotwire wrote: |
If you watch foodinc you'll see that farmers are actuallly NOT free to use old seed lines and will likely lose thir livelyhood if they do not kowtow to tha facist corporations all of whom are backed by the lobbyist loving govt.
|
Whoa, dude. You, like, watched a documentary. You're, like, an expert in patent law and shit now!!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mc_jc

Joined: 13 Aug 2009 Location: C4B- Cp Red Cloud, Area-I
|
Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 2:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
I hope some of you know that some, if not many, muslim women are in fact forced to wear a veil or some type of headscarf out of familial or communal pressure put on them.
The French see the veil as a kind of barrier to full integration into their society and that wearing one, whether voluntarily or by force, keeps a segment of their society from fully integrating.
Muslims try their best to integrate into American and Canadian societies because there is no close ties between North America and the Muslim world while France, and Europe as a whole, are close to North Africa and the Middle East- the closer a segment of a population is to their roots, the chances of their integration become slim.
You also have to look at historical relativity- about 50 or 40 years ago, most Muslims didn't take their religion very seriously and wanted to integrate into western society. However, within the last 20 or 30 years, many Muslims are identifying with their faith since they seemingly feel 'marginalized'.
The sad thing is, some Muslims quietly see 9/11 as 'a high point of their civilization'; an event that shows the developed world that they still have some strength and sign of their emerging strength and assertiveness.
Until 2000, Muslims saw themselves as beleagered people (the fighting in Bosnia, the Gulf War and elsewhere) and it wasn't until 9/11 that some of them saw some pride to show their religious pride.
Sick and twisted, but true.
As more muslims enter Europe, the more they could seek a voice in the countries they live. This is evidently becoming a threat to the people already living or are citizens in those countries.
Remember, they are already threatening free-speech by making death threats against people who speak out against islam.
The ban on veils is supposed to give people the security of thinking, "you can dress any way you want without pressure from your community."
But the ban is also a security measure- as you know about the threats of a Mumbai-style attack happening in Europe, a ban on the veil and burqa is to help the police identify people easily.
A good example why would be the Moscow subway bombings earlier this year. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
young_clinton
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
|
Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wishmaster wrote: |
| Yeah, well if the Muzzies want to live in a developed country, then they have to accept the rules. Pretty simple. I mean, can a chick go to a country like Saudi Arabia or Iran and wear a bikini in public? What's that, you say? No? Well, then why should these poor deluded Muzzie women have the right to wear that ridiculous veil? You want to live in France...adapt. You want to live in your lovely Middle East, then go back there. Pretty simple. |
Think about it. What makes the West the West is the right to wear what you think is right thing to wear or want to wear. Banning the full veil goes against the values that the West holds dear: The right to pursue happiness and well being (If that's what does it for these women), Separation of church and state (In France that is supposed to be a big priority, the french state is not supposed to give recognition to any religion, so shouldn't that mean that the state doesn't care what someone wears out of religious beliefs?) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 8:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mc_jc wrote: |
The French see the veil as a kind of barrier to full integration into their society and that wearing one, whether voluntarily or by force, keeps a segment of their society from fully integrating. |
And that's an interesting point... Can you legally force people to integrate into your society (or feign it) after they choose to move there? My instincts would say "no, everyone should be free to be whatever they would be".
And yet, what if this "non-integrated" segment of society becomes larger than the "integrated" segment of society in a region. That has effectively changed the nature of the society itself. And should a group of people immigrating to a country have the right to change the nature of its society?
It's quite the dichotomy between the rights of the group (that is, the native group) and the rights of the individual. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mc_jc

Joined: 13 Aug 2009 Location: C4B- Cp Red Cloud, Area-I
|
Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Those are VERY interesting questions.
A good example of this on the opposite side of the spectrum are the Gulf countries like UAE and Kuwait. Both of them have very large expat populations that dwarf the native populations. However, both the Kuwaitis and the Emiratis keep a tight reign over their foreign workers and residents. It is not uncommon for Kuwaiti police to pull a public transit bus over and inspect the passengers visas. Not to mention the raids they do on expat neighborhoods for illegal residents.
Europe has been known for its somewhat liberal immigration policies but they are also infamous for their pressure for those immigrants to adopt local customs and traditions.
Also, many nations are looking for ways to curtail immigration right now as a way to help their citizens find work.
A possible theory behind the veil ban is to make France such an inhospitable place for muslims to come that it would prevent a flood of migrants that would endanger their livelihood. Your theory might hold true in some aspects. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|