|
| quote: | Originally posted by fayraree
Based on your definition, GQ is definitely a racist. By referring to Canada as "his" he is projecting a sense of superiority.
[snip]
Also, I don't see the relevance of your comment re: "slight discomfort" when this kid wants to leave the country. That's not "slight discomfort" by any definition that I've heard of  |
No, sorry, you aren't getting away with that one. Asserting ownership of land is not asserting superiority, even if the assertion is ownership by some race. No statement was made about the character, intelligence, or other personal characteristics of any race in particular.
| quote: | | The British monarchy has fuck-all to do with running the UK or any of the Commonwealth nations. They are simply a side freak-show whose isolated wealth should be repatriated as far as I'm concerned. |
Yes, I hear this canard a lot. There is no shortage of Canadians who are either truly ignorant about our country's history and heritage, or simply like to play dumb. Regardless of your personal feelings, however, the Queen does have executive power in Canada and can use it. It doesn't happen often, but as EvilTree points out, it's another check in our system.
Personally, I'd prefer a constitutional republic like the U.S. system, but neither one is without its problems.
| quote: | | Obviously, I am arguing that the concept of ownership of a nation is not as simple as you are making it to be, and that one aspect of determining ownership is the activeness of said "owner" in maintaining the nation. |
Yes, clearly you're arguing this, but you aren't supporting your argument with anything. This belief certainly isn't reflected in the Canadian civil legal system; ownership is ownership, regardless of what said owner does. Where exactly does your definition (which you haven't even stated in concrete terms) apply, other than your own imagination?
| quote: | | No one can argue against Canada's global reputation as a nation of tolerance and multicultural peaceful co-existence, which is much more relevant to the immigration issue than an over-simplified discussion of the British monarchy. |
Said reputation is really fairly new, as EvilTree also pointed out. Just over half a century ago we had Japanese internment, and a Chinese head tax. I won't delve into the issue of rationale or justifiability as that's a whole other debate in and of itself; however, this "global reputation as a nation of tolerance", in the utterly multi-culti way you're clearly implying, has absolutely nothing to do with the principles on which this country was founded. Civil liberties were an important theme at the time, which almost always leads to cultural diversity when put into practice, but it's important to distinguish between cause and effect.
More to the point, how this country is viewed from the outside really is not pertinent to the question of ownership. The independent value of diversity makes for a nice little philosophical debate after a couple of beers, but no matter how diverse a population or group is, even if diversity and "tolerance" are core values, it still doesn't make any difference as to who wears the pants.
| quote: | | I'm seeing the pattern of your posts, Diginut: you spend a lot of time redefining concepts in an attempt to change the premise of the argument to favour your own over-simplified pespective. |
I've redefined nothing. I'm using standard "over the counter" definitions and I think that is abundantly clear to most readers. It seems to be you who is using a purposefully vague definition of "ownership" in order to muddy the waters.
| quote: | | A more refined argument (which I can't be bothered to write up right now) would be to acknowledge the weakness of GQ's concept of "ownership" and then to point out how no such concept can exist in the liberal democratic system we have in Canada. |
With all due respect, it would have to be a lot more refined than this one was to be very convincing, but by all means, if you think you'd be able to qualify such an argument, then please do. I'm definitely interested in hearing how you think liberal democracy now equates to anarcho-socialism.
___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here
|
. First thing I thought of. And god damn, I have a hard time believing this isn't an alt/troll, there's no way someone could be that thick.
