Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6 ... 14  Next

   

The short answer is that you're free to do what you want up to a certain point, and that point is reached why you engage in insurrection or violence against the state or encourage others to engage in insurrection or violence against the state. At that moment, the boundaries of freedom are breached and we enter into the realm of crime, treason, or war.

The general assumption is that, even in democracies, the state has a monopoly on coercion, including the ability to use violence, in order to enforce collective stability and appropriate individual behaviour. A violent individual, whether a mere criminal or an ideology-driven terrorist, that crosses this line loses their right to freedom. This is necessary because the alternative is anarchy. Not the cutie-pie type of anarchy that university eggheads discuss too much. The real kind, the law of the jungle, survival and triumph of the worst type of people, where your odds of being a victim are about a million times greater than that of you being one of the alleged "winners" sitting on a new throne atop a heap of human skulls.

Don't diss the right of the state to be the sole employer of coercive violence either. If, for example, the Weimar Republic in the Germany of the 1920's had ordered the army to shoot to death anyone wearing a brownshirt or a swastika armband instead of arresting them, putting them on trial, and allegedly "disbanding" their organization, millions of innocent lives would have been saved over the following two decades. Sometimes overwhelming state violence against the absolutely unreasonable and lethally dangerous types of ideologues and demagogues is the only effective solution to these kinds of problems.

   

   

^^^^^^^ serious mom's basement post.

   

   

Your ideal of freedom is an utopian joke. It's never existed and it never will exist.

You have far more in common with the anarcho-capitalists that you'd ever want to admit. You may consider yourself as far away from them on the spectrum as you can possibly get but you're really just daydreaming the same type of silly fantasy that they do.

   

You seem to know fuck-all about this subject.

Jeff, in the past you have posted some well thought out and reasoned arguments. This is not one of them.

My ancestors up until my Grandparents suffered under the British occupation. I don't bear any grudges against present day Brits for past atrocities.

This is attitude you have is a very silly way of looking at things and you don't seem to have an adequate knowledge of this subject to carry on a rational discussion.

   

My attitude is that multiculturalism is not a part of their history that can just be swept away, as a colonial power they forced their culture on other while at the same time opened their doors to easier immigration of people from different background. They spent hundreds of years with a growing multiculturalism but have decided that now only British culture matters, basically reversing their history in what is an obvious attack on all Muslims instead of just the extremists. I am completely of rooting out the extremists and sending them home but when you spent hundreds of years letting multiculturalism develop you don't get to all of a sudden decide that you must become fully British and only accept their culture.

It's completely hypocritical regarding the things they claim to stand for, instead of saying they stand for freedom of speech it should say "freedom of speech....as long as it is in English", or "freedom of religion.....as long as it is Christian"


Nations don't have the luxury of simply trying to erase the past, as a colonial power they opened themselves to the immigration and instead of finding actual solution they are just trying to solve it in one sweeping motion. They could easily have changed it to require an increased level of English proficiency, do background checks for belonging to more extreme groups, shutting them down for hate speech. Instead they chose a policy that hurts all the immigrants because of the actions of a few.

By going colonial they accepted the chance that they may have the local culture make it into their homeland by proxy. Everything carries risks, this is just an example of the British completely overreacting to the actions of a select few and punishing everyone. If Canada somehow managed to set up a colony in China and all of a sudden got an influx of Chinese people it would be our own fault and instead of telling them all "you have to learn how to be Canadian or leave" it would be teaching them English and how not to annoy the hell out of everyone by marching down the street demanding that we add Chinese as an official language.

What's done is done, trying to backtrack infringes on the very rights they are claiming to try and protect.

   

Yup. It was one of the rules covered in, Imperium for Dummies.....guess they shouldn't have glossed over that chapter in such a cavalier fashion when they were contemplating creating their empire

   

If you had any grasp of English and British history, you would see that Christianity played a major and pivotal role in the nation’s development. Pre the Catholics landing in England in the 6th Century, the English kingdoms had a vibrant and distinct form of Christianity that was intertwined with their identity.


England has always been a melting pot, but a common thread of shared culture and religion is what kept the English together. Secularism is a very recent trend. Only since the 1960's has this tenet of English-ness been disparaged by overly educated toffs who thought they knew better.

I'm no bible basher but Christianity, especially the specific brand that has grown out of 2000 years of British history is something worth preserving. Multi-cult as a new god has failed.

You are looking at 40 years out of 2000 and making wrong assumptions. Just because Canada is a nation of immigrants, don't apply your experiences and knowledge to the UK.

Peoples in their own country have a right to preserve their culture. A culture that has grown out of 35,000 years of settlement, the bloody Romans, the bloody Normans and few other notables.

For you to give the 'tough shit Brit's' approach just shows your ignorance on the subject.

   

I'm sure his opinion would be different if we were talking about preserving native culture.

   

When you do anything you accept that there may be side effects, for their colonial period they prospered but also got a bunch of new issues in the form of immigrating extremists. Instead of accepting that it happens and trying to find a real solution that doesn't boil down to becoming British or leaving they decided to take the shortcut and create a policy that will likely create a hilarious backlash when they decide to criticize a nation for being close minded and not accepting foreign cultures.

   

I don't think there is anything wrong with accepting immigrants from the UK's former colonies. But any immigrants should remember that the UK has a well established culture that has been around for thousands of years. A respect for that culture should be shown or don't bother going there.

These changes are very popular in the UK and it's about time.

   

Not the same, I am all for Britain spending money to keep their culture flourishing, it is when they shove it down the throats of people that haven't fully assimilated that I have a problem. Native culture is different in the fact that we aren't planning to tell every immigrant they must understand native culture and live by it, instead we give them money and a little help setting up festivals that you can choose to attend and experience it.

   

Umm, I hate to be the one to point this out but the other policy, you know the one where they just let the immigrants do whatever the hell they want, the one that they've had for the last so many years, ya well that really hasn't been all that successful.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6 ... 14  Next