Support NeoGAF

[JordanN]

Just felt like chiming in since I feel like OP is giving Canada an unfairly negative rep, it sounds like you really don't care about what Canada has to offer and really admire what USA does. If so then I really hope that you do find a place you feel more happy in .

The U.S.A is a model for success. The Cold War showed what happened when other countries tried to bet on the opposite direction and look at the result? Literally every country that ever accepted Socialism has collapsed and now their citizens only want to run to the U.S.A to live instead of trying to fix what they left behind.

I definitely have fears of the same thing happening at home and sadly, our political system is starting to look that way. Our "free medicine" still comes at a cost, and the more people vote for free services, the higher debt will be occured.

I'm also opposed to the idea that unlimited diversity is a good thing. It's just not possible since we still live in a world that has multiple religions or multiple ethnic groups, who are in constant conflict with each other. And sadly, even attempts at trying to force these religions or different ethnic groups to co-operate only leads to charges of "racism" or "bigotry". See for example, Islam having a history of murdering Atheists & Homosexuals, or the Toronto police no longer allowed to use "carding" despite it's proven effectiveness.

There's a such thing as being "too nice" and I'm disappointed Canada has sacrificed its roots to chase after a Utopian dream that's 100% guaranteed not to happen. Even the idea that Canada was naturally "diverse" is a lie. We have a big ass province called "Quebec" that literally exists as a major French enclave that refuses to assimilate. The same province also runs it's own political party each election that explicitly puts Quebec interests first or pushes to separate. That is not diversity.

In my opening paragraph, I asked why didn't Canada opt to venture into Space instead? We are one of the only countries on Earth that shares a direct border with the U.S. The other being Mexico (and look at the state of their nation). We could have taken the chance to request the same technology the U.S had and send our own people to land on the Moon or go to Mars. I think that would have been a far more honorable goal and benefit for humanity instead of caring about how much different food we could eat.

 

[Chromata]

The U.S.A is a model for success. The Cold War showed what happened when other countries tried to bet on the opposite direction and look at the result? Literally every country that ever accepted Socialism has collapsed and now their citizens only want to run to the U.S.A to live instead of trying to fix what they left behind.

I definitely have fears of the same thing happening at home and sadly, our political system is starting to look that way. Our "free medicine" still comes at a cost, and the more people vote for free services, the higher debt will be occured.

I'm also opposed to the idea that unlimited diversity is a good thing. It's just not possible since we still live in a world that has multiple religions or multiple ethnic groups, who are in constant conflict with each other. And sadly, even attempts at trying to force these religions or different ethnic groups to co-operate only leads to charges of "racism" or "bigotry". See for example, Islam having a history of murdering Atheists & Homosexuals, or the Toronto police no longer allowed to use "carding" despite it's proven effectiveness.

There's a such thing as being "too nice" and I'm disappointed Canada has sacrificed its roots to chase after a Utopian dream that's 100% guaranteed not to happen. Even the idea that Canada was naturally "diverse" is a lie. We have a big ass province called "Quebec" that literally exists as a major French enclave that refuses to assimilate. The same province also runs it's own political party each election that explicitly puts Quebec interests first or pushes to separate. That is not diversity.

In my opening paragraph, I asked why didn't Canada opt to venture into Space instead? We are one of the only countries on Earth that shares a direct border with the U.S. The other being Mexico (and look at the state of their nation). We could have taken the chance to request the same technology the U.S had and send our own people to land on the Moon or go to Mars. I think that would have been a far more honorable goal and benefit for humanity instead of caring about how much different food we could eat.

Canada isn't becoming socialist. There are plenty of tax funded programs available, but socialism goes far beyond that. I agree Canada should be more debt conscious, but there are nuances to that argument which I'm not knowledgeable enough to speak on. From what I understand, there are different aspects and indicators of debt which are good/bad, but I'll leave that debate to those who know better.

In regards to diversity, I can only speak with my personal experience which entails that people of completely different religions and cultures get along splendidly in Canada. There's more to religion than simple incompatibilities, just as there's more to Islam than hating those specific populations. There's community segregation, sure, but on the whole people practice their beliefs while also respecting those of others.

I'm not sure I follow your point about being too nice or sacrificing their original identity. Identities change over time and you can just keep tracing identities back over time, so different people have different conceptions of what an 'original' identity is.

I agree the whole situation with Quebec is messy. Not sure why someone would claim Canada was naturally diverse.

So long as the public views space travel as a futuristic and 'cool in theory' concept, it will be kept as a distant priority. There's a reason why space progress slowed to a crawl after the cold war.

Issues such as managing the logistics of immigration, public health, climate change, and the ongoing wheel of consumerism are things that directly impact daily life. The majority of spending will go there as it should be. I love reading astrophysics and I love space, but we need to be realistic about our priorities here. Increasing quality of life, finding a way to manage globalization, and gathering a better understanding of how we're impacting Earth are far more important issues.

 

[JordanN]

Canada isn't becoming socialist. There are plenty of tax funded programs available, but socialism goes far beyond that. I agree Canada should be more debt conscious, but there are nuances to that argument which I'm not knowledgeable enough to speak on. From what I understand, there are different aspects and indicators of debt which are good/bad, but I'll leave that debate to those who know better.

Canada has more left-wing parties than right. Even the current "Conservative" party might as well pass for left-wing too.

While not socialist yet, it's pretty alarming that there doesn't actually exist strong enough opposition to resist increasing government influence.

For example, Trudeau may not be a card carrying socialist, but has made similar moves by attempting to ban guns and push for more censored speech. In Ontario 2018, the province nearly elected the NDP who are even more farther to left than the Liberals are. The government can keep promising more and more free stuff and sadly, people gullible enough will fall for it.

Also, thanks to mass immigration, there is an even more greater likelihood of people coming in and wanting to vote for more free government services and welfare.

I compiled a map last month that tried to track left vs right leaning nations, and I think we should get a good idea that maybe there are nations where these people are coming from that almost always vote left-wing or even directly for Socialism.

In regards to diversity, I can only speak with my personal experience which entails that people of completely different religions and cultures get along splendidly in Canada. There's more to religion than simple incompatibilities, just as there's more to Islam than hating those specific populations. There's community segregation, sure, but on the whole people practice their beliefs while also respecting those of others.

Keep in mind what the current demographics are. No, I don't expect gays and atheists to be slaughtered in the streets today, but... if demographics begin to shift where one religion does become the majority or has enough sway in elections, then I do believe we have a direct issue with diversity on our hands.

For further proof, where do you think Sharia law is practiced? In countries where Islam is always the minority, or in countries where Islam is the majority? Unless we in Canada actually pass laws that are meant to put a handicap on such beliefs becoming widespread, than the mass acceptance of any religion no matter the doctrine will backfire.

I'm not sure I follow your point about being too nice or sacrificing their original identity. Identities change over time and you can just keep tracing identities back over time, so different people have different conceptions of what an 'original' identity is.

When they change, it's because they are often done by force.

Tibet was always Tibet before China invaded.
Mexico use to be Native Indian before the Spanish invaded.
Palestine use to be Palestinian before Israel moved in.

In fact, when a nation changes it's identity, ask "why" did they do it? What was wrong with the old Canada that it somehow needed to "change"? It's not like Canada was ever struggling financially. In fact, right after WW2, we were in fact one of the most powerful countries left standing. I would argue everything Canada needed to succeed already existed back in 1945.

But when our identities change, so does our culture with it. I believe Canada's identity was always suppose to be British & French.
That is what the official languages are, that is what many cities and streets are currently named after, that is what our original flag looked like before we went independent. But the history of this country is very much European inspired.

And when identities do change, they can change for the worse. Again, I mentioned the story of Jamaica that use to be British ruled (just like Canada). After independence, all the problems people complain about (safety, education, wealth) was not a problem when Jamaica kept its British roots. Whyshouldn't I be concerned that this same type of "change" could come to Canada and make us worse off?

I agree the whole situation with Quebec is messy. Not sure why someone would claim Canada was naturally diverse.

Well I guess the point is when people look at Canada and believe the country is suppose to be diverse and everyone gets along, misses a key part of our history. The Quebecois were actually oppressed. There was horror stories during the two world wars when we tried to force our languages on them and they refused. I don't blame Quebec if they don't feel like apart of Canada, but because completely assimilating means they lose their own history and culture in the process.

I also hadn't even brought up the actual Aboriginals. Again, there wasn't any peace or harmony. They were outright conquered and then forced to live on the reservation as the only means of preserving their heritage. Different cultures compete against each other all the time, it is just not possible to really look forward to a multicultural future without expecting the same fragmentation again.

So long as the public views space travel as a futuristic and 'cool in theory' concept, it will be kept as a distant priority. There's a reason why space progress slowed to a crawl after the cold war.

That's not true. The USA still sends people into outer space. They've also successful landed multiple rovers on the Planet Mars. We're also seeing the rise of private space corporation like Elon Musk's Space Musk.
All in all, I think the USA pulled a tremendous amount of weight on their end. The only reason it feels slow is because the Soviet Union collapsed, but this is why I believe Canada should have been in the race in the very beginning. Canada & the U.S racing towards Space would have been a lot more exciting than watch a Socialist country do it but then run out of money.

Issues such as managing the logistics of immigration, public health, climate change, and the ongoing wheel of consumerism are things that directly impact daily life. The majority of spending will go there as it should be. I love reading astrophysics and I love space, but we need to be realistic about our priorities here. Increasing quality of life, finding a way to manage globalization, and gathering a better understanding of how we're impacting Earth are far more important issues.

Back in 1945, where where these issues? As I've stated earlier, Canada was already highly successful right after WW2, we definitely should have seized the opportunity to focus our culture on Science & technology instead of diversity.

And you know what? If we did, we could have answered those other issues you brought up. I'm sure climate change or public health would have been seen as challenges scientists would have already solved had they decided to visit multiple planets and figure our human survivability.

 

[Later Alligator]

Outside of a few short spikes, the Canadian dollar has been worth less than the US dollar by like 25% for a very long time. Here's a 45 year history for context:
https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/bank-of-england-spot/historical-spot-exchange-rates/usd/USD-to-CAD


How much travelling have you done? West coast looks nothing like central

 

[JordanN]

Outside of a few short spikes, the Canadian dollar has been worth less than the US dollar by like 25% for a very long time. Here's a 45 year history for context:
https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/bank-of-england-spot/historical-spot-exchange-rates/usd/USD-to-CAD


How much travelling have you done? West coast looks nothing like central

I'm willing to concede that the East & West do have some visual differences.

I would also throw in the Northern territories as well.

I feel a greater sense of Canadian culture looking at an Inukshuk as opposed to looking at strip malls and boring grey concrete clad buildings.
This is what the government should be doing to promote instead of everyone just going to live in cities and only focus on money.

 

[Chromata]

Canada has more left-wing parties than right. Even the current "Conservative" party might as well pass for left-wing too.

While not socialist yet, it's pretty alarming that there doesn't actually strong enough opposition to resist increasing government influence.

For example, Trudeau may not be a card carrying socialist, but has made similar moves by attempting to ban guns and push for more censored speech. In Ontario 2018, the province nearly elected the NDP who are even more farther to left than the Liberals are. The government can keep promising more and more free stuff and sadly, people gullible enough will fall for it.

Also, thanks to mass immigration, there is an even more greater likelihood of people coming in and wanting to vote for more free government services and welfare.

I compiled a map last month that tried to track left vs right leaning nations, and I think we should get a good idea that maybe there are nations where these people are coming from that almost always vote left-wing or even directly for Socialism.

Keep in mind what the current demographics are. No, I don't expect gays and atheists to be slaughtered in the streets today, but... if demographics begin to shift where one religion does become the majority or has enough sway in elections, then I do believe we have a direct issue with diversity on our hands.

For further proof, where do you think Sharia law is practiced? In countries where Islam is always the minority, or in countries where Islam is the majority? Unless we in Canada actually pass laws that are meant to put a handicap on such beliefs becoming widespread, than the mass acceptance of any religion no matter the doctrine will backfire.



When they change, it's because they are often done by force.

Tibet was always Tibet before China invaded.
Mexico use to be Native Indian before the Spanish invaded.
Palestine use to be Palestinian before Israel moved in.

In fact, when a nation changes it's identity, ask "why" did they do it? What was wrong with the old Canada that it somehow needed to "change"? It's not like Canada was ever struggling financially. In fact, right after WW2, we were in fact one of the most powerful countries left standing. I would argue everything Canada needed to succeed already existed back in 1945.

But when our identities change, so does our culture with it. I believe Canada's identity was always suppose to be British & French.
That is what the official languages are, that is what many cities and streets are currently named after, that is what our original flag looked like before we went independent. But the history of this country is very much European inspired.

And when identities do change, they can change for the worse. Again, I mentioned the story of Jamaica that use to be British ruled (just like Canada). After independence, all the problems people complain about (safety, education, wealth) was not a problem when Jamaica kept its British roots. Whyshouldn't I be concerned that this same type of "change" could come to Canada and make us worse off?



Well I guess the point is when people look at Canada and believe the country is suppose to be diverse and everyone gets along, misses a key part of our history. The Quebecois were actually oppressed. There was horror stories during the two world wars when we tried to force our languages on them and they refused. I don't blame Quebec if they don't feel like apart of Canada, but because completely assimilating means they lose their own history and culture in the process.

I also hadn't even brought up the actual Aboriginals. Again, there wasn't any peace or harmony. They were outright conquered and then forced to live on the reservation as the only means of preserving their heritage. Different cultures compete against each other all the time, it is just not possible to really look forward to a multicultural future without expecting the same fragmentation again.



That's not true. The USA still sends people into outer space. They've also successful landed multiple rovers on the Planet Mars. We're also seeing the rise of private space corporation like Elon Musk's Space Musk.
All in all, I think the USA pulled a tremendous amount of weight on their end. The only reason it feels slow is because the Soviet Union collapsed, but this is why I believe Canada should have been in the race in the very beginning. Canada & the U.S racing towards Space would have been a lot more exciting than watch a Socialist country do it but then run out of money.


Back in 1945, where where these issues? As I've stated earlier, Canada was already highly successful right after WW2, we definitely should have seized the opportunity to focus our culture on Science & technology instead of diversity.

And you know what? If we did, we could have answered those other issues you brought up. I'm sure climate change or public health would have been seen as challenges scientists would have already solved had they decided to visit multiple planets and figure our human survivability.

There are many individuals who have opposed the changes you've mentioned in Canada's governmental system publicly (one being Jordan Peterson) and I don't believe NDP is anywhere near running (at least on the federal level) as proven by the 2019 election. Regardless, I largely stay out of politics because I don't like how cruel and controversial it can get. Often times politics splits people apart and also contains some of the worst of human history. Some examples being what you mentioned (treatment of Indigenous people and Quebecois).

There are efforts being made to condone for what happened to Indigenous people and Quebecois, but I believe that more should (and can) be done. These are still modern issues that need to be resolved. I strongly disagree with your statement that a multicultural future without fragmentation is not possible. History has no precedent to prove this. The level of scientific proof unifying humanity, the internet connecting the world together, and the amount of intermixing of cultures we see today are things that have never happened before. Humanity has always had 'us' vs 'them', with an ever-increasing definition of 'us' and an ever-decreasing definition of 'them'. The cultures and countries which you are calling fragments once used to be divisions of tribes which learned to coexist (whether through violence or peace). We're learning to do this as we speak on a global scale, primarily through peaceful means.

Canada has a central identity of being welcoming and diverse. Those who go to Canada usually do so with that expectation. It takes more than a demographic change to illicit substantial shifts in government (such as Socialism or upholding Sharia Law). Islam and Sharia Law are both complex and separate entities. Pointing out a correlation does not imply causation insofar as Islam directly leading to Sharia Law. Canada may have had a history of being a French and British nation, but that does not mean it must be frozen in that state. Not all change has to occur because something is wrong (although I'm sure there were issues in place during 1945, there always is). Ever since the invention of airplanes, internet, and mass media, the world was bound to unify in some form. You're giving people the means to connect to each other across the globe and travel around the world in less than a day, in that system there is no way old divisions/fragments will stay the same. Also, context is important in determining whether change might be for the better or worse, and I would wager that the context surrounding Jamaica vs Canada is different (but that's just a wager because I don't know much about the topic, feel free to prove me wrong if that's not the case).

The last time USA landed a human on the moon was in the 1970s using computers less powerful than a modern day smartphone. With technology that limited, humanity went from sending a missile outside of Earth for the first time ever to landing a human on the moon in the span of ~20 years. Technology overall advances exponentially, so the rate of advancement today is even faster than it was back then. So what has happened in the last 50 years? Rovers which are slowly built and funded over many years? One of George Bush and Obama's major goals for space travel was to get a human back on the moon by 2020. That's not my idea of progress. I'm not blaming them either, my point is that it's not in the public eye anymore and they had more pressing issues. You'll see faster progress from private space corporations which, as you said, are on the rise but are separate from governmental entities.

The modern issues I brought up are completely different from space travel and landing on Mars probably won't help us (for example) cure cancer or extend human lifespan. We're not even close to solving those issues but with advancements in stem cell technologies, increasing utilization of AI in medicine, and gene editing experiments via CRISPR, we're getting there. That's just on the research end too and not even referring to policy changes/modern technology adoption. None of these things are monopolized by the US either, it's a global effort. Places like Canada, Japan, and Switzerland have some of the most advanced medical research centers on the planet with ongoing projects that will revolutionize our understanding of medicine.

 

[eot]

Last time I went to Canada I fucked a dudes wife while he was upstairs. He was fine with it as he fucked someone else earlier in the day while I was watching TV on her couch. Then we drunk beer and smoked weed on the drive back to Calgary. Strange people.

I can confirm Canadians say Eh! a lot.

Unexpected hotwife post.

Didn’t think I’d get to use that word so soon after learning it.

 

[TrainedRage]

Does it matter?

 

[Urprobablyright]

Lol ye to the world at large to find solace, eh? This is happening everywhere. If you don't want to deal with these problems, i recommend you move to an Asian country where the gap between earning for foreigners and cost of living is so relatively high that you don't care about elevated food prices.

 

[JordanN]

There are many individuals who have opposed the changes you've mentioned in Canada's governmental system publicly (one being Jordan Peterson) and I don't believe NDP is anywhere near running (at least on the federal level) as proven by the 2019 election. Regardless, I largely stay out of politics because I don't like how cruel and controversial it can get. Often times politics splits people apart and also contains some of the worst of human history. Some examples being what you mentioned (treatment of Indigenous people and Quebecois).

The NDP may not lead Canada yet but the truth is, they don't actually need to, to get their agenda across. In fact, I believe Trudeau even said after the election he literally doesn't need to work with the Conservatives because NDP + Bloc Quebec + Greens have more than members in Parliament to pass whatever he wants. In which case, Conservatism might as well be extinct in Canada since the influx of immigrants and refugees to the urban areas directly benefits the left and not the right.

And I understand you may want to avoid politics but I will tell you something. I was just like you 5 years ago. I didn't care what was actually happening in Ottawa and thought the country will be ran fine forever. But then I made this thread and clearly brought up issues that are indeed affecting everyday life for Canadians. It becomes impossible to avoid politics when politics is directly having an affect on your life.

It's just a shame though I found out about this too late. If I was younger or had a time machine, I would definitely go back and warn Canadians that the changes happening in their country might not exactly be the type of change they're after.

There are efforts being made to condone for what happened to Indigenous people and Quebecois, but I believe that more should (and can) be done. These are still modern issues that need to be resolved. I strongly disagree with your statement that a multicultural future without fragmentation is not possible. History has no precedent to prove this.

Is that so?
What do you think all wars in human history have been about? When you take two very different human tribes and force them together, has history really shown peace is aquired, or that one tribe conquers the other into submission?
This was certainly true about the U.S Civil War. Or WW2. Or the Crusades. Or the many many wars in the Middle East and Africa. Or Pakistan and India. The list goes on.

With multiculturalism, this type of peace always breaks down. Statistics proves it. Not everyone in life will make the same money. Not everyone in life will hold the same educational background. Not everyone in life will go to jail or have a criminal record. And the liberal solution will always say "but we can make things equal! We just have to end discrimination!" but then these programs still fail. Because equality literally means making everyone the same, and thus we don't actually have diversity anymore.

The level of scientific proof unifying humanity, the internet connecting the world together, and the amount of intermixing of cultures we see today are things that have never happened before.

There's a difference between both Canada and Saudi Arabia talking over the internet, and then both Canada and Saudi Arabia mixing their cultures. Was it not in the news last year that some girl fled to Canada because she was wanted for death in Saudi Arabia? Do you think Canada should have respected their culture and do the execution for them, or let her live because we don't share the same values of capital punishment?

All technology has really done is highlighted how different parts of the world really is, instead of keeping us in the dark about it.

The cultures and countries which you are calling fragments once used to be divisions of tribes which learned to coexist (whether through violence or peace). We're learning to do this as we speak on a global scale, primarily through peaceful means.

To this day, many cultures still don't exist peacefully.
China still hates Japan and would probably love to bomb them if it wasn't for the U.S acting as shield for them.
Israel & Palestinians still don't get along.
In South Africa, Whites and Blacks still accuse each other of being "racist".
Pakistan and India nearly threaten each other with nuclear war over the smallest offenses.

The real reason why "peace" exists today is because the USA is pretty much the apex predator. They have the power to stop other countries from stepping too far out of line but even still the U.S cannot even solve it's own race based problems at home.

Canada has a central identity of being welcoming and diverse. Those who go to Canada usually do so with that expectation.

Funny you say that. Canada does not actually have a law that makes this enforceable.
For example, in my own city, I have seen "soft" discrimination against those who aren't Indian. Using words like "Vegetarians only" or "Speak Hindu only" there are many signs posted that clearly state landlords will only rent to Indian people only. In other parts of the country, it is much more brazen. You can definitely find craigslist or kijijij ads that would say "Muslims only" or "Chinese only".

And this stuff becomes impossible to challenge because as the demographics continue to shift, the government wont ever have the balls to actually shut down ads that clearly state preference for one ethnic or religious group over the other.

By the way, I got proof of this just in case you think I'm making this up.

I censored out the phone number but it's not unusual to come across these ads that say only for "Indian people" where I live.

Islam and Sharia Law are both complex and separate entities. Pointing out a correlation does not imply causation insofar as Islam directly leading to Sharia Law.

Well I never heard of the Amish leading a Sharia government. Nor do I see many Christians asking for it either.
Maybe just maybe, I grow a little bit suspicious that whenever Islam does begin to flourish, that secularism also dies with it?

In both Canada and Europe, there already does exist some cultural conflicts like bans on the Hijab/Burqa or even France causing controversy because of a handshake ceremony some found religiously offended by?

I'm not saying no muslims can't live in Western countries or that all of them must support Sharia, but I'm also not happy taking the risks with it either. Especially as a person who is Atheist and Islam does pose a threat to safety. Hell, I would even extend that to Homosexuals as well. Again, pretty much every Islamic country says they have to die. How is that compatible with Canada?

Not all change has to occur because something is wrong (although I'm sure there were issues in place during 1945, there always is). Ever since the invention of airplanes, internet, and mass media, the world was bound to unify in some form. You're giving people the means to connect to each other across the globe and travel around the world in less than a day, in that system there is no way old divisions/fragments will stay the same. Also, context is important in determining whether change might be for the better or worse, and I would wager that the context surrounding Jamaica vs Canada is different (but that's just a wager because I don't know much about the topic, feel free to prove me wrong if I'm not right).

It's not just Jamaica. In fact, look at nearly every country that did gain independence from Britain. Don't you notice that some colonies like Canada or Australia were well off but then places like South Africa, India, Hong Kong have been worse off after they left?

There is definitely a theme and I think the topic of immigration cannot be divorced that maybe some of these countries made a bad choice with how they changed their cultures?

The last time USA landed a human on the moon was in the 1970s using technology less powerful than a modern day smartphone. With technology that limited, humanity went from sending a missile outside of Earth for the first time ever to landing a human on the moon in the span of ~20 years. Technology overall advances exponentially, so the rate of advancement today is even faster than it was back then.

Well even though the technology is old, the real truth is the USA has only went to space because they did invest the time and resources into making Space Exploration a thing.

If all we could was just "throw money at it" then why have other countries failed? Israel tried to land on the moon recently and they crashed. So did India? Both countries lack the years of experience and trial and error that the U.S.A is now much ahead of the world is.

But see, this is where Canada should have played a role too. If we had already invested in Space in the 1950s, then we wouldn't have to worry as much about actually failing it. This also says nothing about the many many innovations that would have came from spending R&D on Space technology. If we get started today, we would have to catch up to even the simplest tasks the USA did half a century ago because the talent needs to raised first.

I'm not blaming them either, my point is that it's not in the public eye anymore and they had more pressing issues.

I disagree that they had more "pressing" issues. In fact, look at what has happened to the U.S in recent years? They gone to war with several countries over inconsequential stuff. They also got caught up in a drug war or immigration crisis.

Basically, these "pressing" issues had to be manufactured whereas the U.S could have chose to avoid them and continue their excellency into exploring Space.

The modern issues I brought up are completely different from space travel and landing on Mars probably won't help us (for example) cure cancer or extend human lifespan.

I think you're misunderstanding my point.

If we send humans to Space, why wouldn't we also want them to live longer or survive cancer? In fact, the two go perfectly together. Human astronauts need to be healthy. It would be up to research to find ways to extend their lifespan. This then has the trickle down effect on us regular folks. Anything that benefits mankind in Space will just as easily benefit our every day lives on earth.

You even brought up climate change in an older post. Tell me this. If humans where to colonize a planet that had a really toxic atmosphere, don't you think the technology that purifies the air or reduces global temperature would also work on Earth as well?

This is exactly the giant loss humanity has now taken by ignoring Space. Any modern issue would have easily been solved had we already developed the technology that would have made humans be able to survive in Space anyway.

 

[The Pleasure]

Canada is a place where if brap asks for sex, they'll say thank you for asking me politely eyy but, I'm more interested in that fart noise.

 

[JordanN]

Does it matter?

Absolutely.

I don't want my country to become like Mexico, who also borders the U.S but is a dangerous place to live with even less opportunities. I also don't want it to be a bland place that has no culture outside of "shopping malls".

I want my country to rival the U.S. We should be just as powerful with a reason for people to actually live here and not run away. When people stop caring, then it's no surprise why so many countries around the world crumble like a house of cards. It takes a nation of like-minded individuals who actually want to rebuild and promote a stronger future, not those who are only in it for money and nothing else.

 

[The Pleasure]

Absolutely.

I don't want my country to become like Mexico, who also borders the U.S but is a dangerous place to live with even less opportunities.

I want my country to rival the U.S. We should be just as powerful with a reason for people to actually live here and not run away. When people stop caring, then it's no surprise why so many countries around the world crumble like a house of cards. It takes a nation of like-minded individuals who actually want to rebuild and promote a stronger future.

Your country will never rival the US because moose jerky, beaver belts and Ann Murray are not considered valuable commodities. But slide me that maple syrup. Us yanks can't get enough of that shit to take to waffle house.

 

[TrainedRage]

Absolutely.

I don't want my country to become like Mexico, who also borders the U.S but is a dangerous place to live with even less opportunities. I also don't want it to be a bland place that has no culture outside of "shopping malls".

I want my country to rival the U.S. We should be just as powerful with a reason for people to actually live here and not run away. When people stop caring, then it's no surprise why so many countries around the world crumble like a house of cards. It takes a nation of like-minded individuals who actually want to rebuild and promote a stronger future, not those who are only in it for money and nothing else.

It was kind of a joke about Canada being irrelevant.

 

[Chromata]

The NDP may not lead Canada yet but the truth is, they don't actually need to, to get their agenda across. In fact, I believe Trudeau even said after the election he literally doesn't need to work with the Conservatives because NDP + Bloc Quebec + Greens have more than members in Parliament to pass whatever he wants. In which case, Conservatism might as well be extinct in Canada since the influx of immigrants and refugees to the urban areas directly benefits the left and not the right.

And I understand you may want to avoid politics but I will tell you something. I was just like you 5 years ago. I didn't care what was actually happening in Ottawa and thought the country will be ran fine forever. But then I made this thread and clearly brought up issues that are indeed affecting everyday life for Canadians. It becomes impossible to avoid politics when politics is directly having an affect on your life.

It's just a shame though I found out about this too late. If I was younger or had a time machine, I would definitely go back and warn Canadians that the changes happening in their country might not exactly be the type of change they're after.


Is that so?
What do you think all wars in human history have been about? When you take two very different human tribes and force them together, has history really shown peace is aquired, or that one tribe conquers the other into submission?
This was certainly true about the U.S Civil War. Or WW2. Or the Crusades. Or the many many wars in the Middle East and Africa. Or Pakistan and India. The list goes on.

With multiculturalism, this type of peace always breaks down. Statistics proves it. Not everyone in life will make the same money. Not everyone in life will hold the same educational background. Not everyone in life will go to jail or have a criminal record. And the liberal solution will always say "but we can make things equal! We just have to end discrimination!" but then these programs still fail. Because equality literally means making everyone the same, and thus we don't actually have diversity anymore.


There's a difference between both Canada and Saudi Arabia talking over the internet, and then both Canada and Saudi Arabia mixing their cultures. Was it not in the news last year that some girl fled to Canada because she was wanted for death in Saudi Arabia? Do you think Canada should have respected their culture and do the execution for them, or let her live because we don't share the same values of capital punishment?

All technology has really done is highlighted how different parts of the world really is, instead of keeping us in the dark about it.


To this day, many cultures still don't exist peacefully.
China still hates Japan and would probably love to bomb them if it wasn't for the U.S acting as shield for them.
Israel & Palestinians still don't get along.
In South Africa, Whites and Blacks still accuse each other of being "racist".
Pakistan and India nearly threaten each other with nuclear war over the smallest offenses.

The real reason why "peace" exists today is because the USA is pretty much the apex predator. They have the power to stop other countries from stepping too far out of line but even still the U.S cannot even solve it's own race based problems at home.


Funny you say that. Canada does not actually have a law that makes this enforceable.
For example, in my own city, I have seen "soft" discrimination against those who aren't Indian. Using words like "Vegetarians only" or "Speak Hindu only" there are many signs posted that clearly state landlords will only rent to Indian people only. In other parts of the country, it is much more brazen. You can definitely find craigslist or kijijij ads that would say "Muslims only" or "Chinese only".

And this stuff becomes impossible to challenge because as the demographics continue to shift, the government wont ever have the balls to actually shut down ads that clearly state preference for one ethnic or religious group over the other.

By the way, I got proof of this just in case you think I'm making this up.

I censored out the phone number but it's not unusual to come across these ads that say only for "Indian people" where I live.


Well I never heard of the Amish leading a Sharia government. Nor do I see many Christians asking for it either.
Maybe just maybe, I grow a little bit suspicious that whenever Islam does begin to flourish, that secularism also dies with it?

In both Canada and Europe, there already does exist some cultural conflicts like bans on the Hijab/Burqa or even France causing controversy because of a handshake ceremony some found religiously offended by?

I'm not saying no muslims can't live in Western countries or that all of them must support Sharia, but I'm also not happy taking the risks with it either. Especially as a person who is Atheist and Islam does pose a threat to safety. Hell, I would even extend that to Homosexuals as well. Again, pretty much every Islamic country says they have to die. How is that compatible with Canada?


It's not just Jamaica. In fact, look at nearly every country that did gain independence from Britain. Don't you notice that some colonies like Canada or Australia were well off but then places like South Africa, India, Hong Kong have been worse off after they left?

There is definitely a theme and I think the topic of immigration cannot be divorced that maybe some of these countries made a bad choice with how they changed their cultures?


Well even though the technology is old, the real truth is the USA has only went to space because they did invest the time and resources into making Space Exploration a thing.

If all we could was just "throw money at it" then why have other countries failed? Israel tried to land on the moon recently and they crashed. So did India? Both countries lack the years of experience and trial and error that the U.S.A is now much ahead of the world is.

But see, this is where Canada should have played a role too. If we had already invested in Space in the 1950s, then we wouldn't have to worry as much about actually failing it. This also says nothing about the many many innovations that would have came from spending R&D on Space technology. If we get started today, we would have to catch up to even the simplest tasks the USA did half a century ago because the talent needs to raised first.


I disagree that they had more "pressing" issues. In fact, look at what has happened to the U.S in recent years? They gone to war with several countries over inconsequential stuff. They also got caught up in a drug war or immigration crisis.

Basically, these "pressing" issues had to be manufactured whereas the U.S could have chose to avoid them and continue their excellency into exploring Space.


I think you're misunderstanding my point.

If we send humans to Space, why wouldn't we also want them to live longer or survive cancer? In fact, the two go perfectly together. Human astronauts need to be healthy. It would be up to research to find ways to extend their lifespan. This then has the trickle down effect on us regular folks. Anything that benefits mankind in Space will just as easily benefit our every day lives on earth.

You even brought up climate change in an older post. Tell me this. If humans where to colonize a planet that had a really toxic atmosphere, don't you think the technology that purifies the air or reduces global temperature would also work on Earth as well?

This is exactly the giant loss humanity has now taken by ignoring Space. Any modern issue would have easily been solved had we already developed the technology that would have made humans be able to survive in Space anyway.

I'm sorry to hear about the discrimination, I've faced similar situations myself (I'm in no way saying things are perfect), but by and large my experiences have been the opposite. Enforcing this via law is shaky ground since you're starting to infringe on free speech, that's another debate in and of itself. I'm an optimist and I believe in the good of people, perhaps that influences or biases me to an extent, but it's a similar attitude of what I've seen in the communities I've been a part of.

I believe you misunderstood my point about this degree of multiculturalism being unprecedented in history. Different nations have been in contact historically, but usually it's superficial or short lived. For example, propaganda was heavily utilized in WW1 and 2 which was effective due to limited contact with outsiders. Ancient societies didn't even have contact with many nations outside their own. If the vast majority of your population has never seen anyone beyond their community, then antagonizing others is very easy. It's much harder to do today since there's people of different nations everywhere and we have the internet (which came after every world event you just mentioned). In regards to your Saudi Arabian girl example, she wouldn't even know Canada existed (or what kind of nation it is) if it weren't for globalization. I didn't pen globalization as a finished process, I said it was a modern day phenomenon. The world is heading towards unionization, the conflicting nations that you mentioned still meet in the UN and there have been attempts at reconciliation for some of them. Will it take 100 years? 200? 1000? I don't know, but I believe we're heading there.

We're starting to get pretty far into political territory so I would rather steer the conversation away from that. I understand your position about the importance of politics and I do respect it, but I still prefer staying out of such discussions. To address some of your points though so it's not left hanging, your logic regarding Islam and Sharia Law can be likened to Tsunamis. Tsunamis occur in coastal regions, but a coastal region itself is not the cause of a Tsunami. There are numerous other factors which go into it. Sharia Law may be enforced in many Islamic places, but Islam itself is not going to lead to enforcement of Sharia Law. We can agree to disagree on this point since, again, I prefer not to get into these sorts of discussions. Also, colonization of India and Canada, the geography of the land, the surrounding countries they're involved with, and the events undergone within their borders are all entirely different. Your point about cultural decisions may be a factor, but it's not the only factor.

Any governmental body is going to have mishaps, controversies, and wasted spending. No governing system is perfect. Fighting wars in other nations doesn't make curing cancer any less of a priority. These are two completely different fields and the factors involved in making such decisions are also entirely different. In terms of the pecking order for research spending, space is way down the list, and medicine is way up. This is true in USA too. The spending on medicine and space are also largely unrelated, so USA spending on space research doesn't directly influence or inspire its spending on medical research.

Canada has helped in some regard with inventions like the Canadarm, but I agree USA is far beyond Canada in terms of space exploration. Ideally, space exploration should be a united effort because the challenge of making another planet habitable exceeds the capabilities of any one nation alone. I'm happy that other countries are putting in the resources towards this goal and on many fronts this is done cooperatively, I just wish that was always the case.

The research being done to extend lifespan or cure our biggest health issues just has no connection with astronauts. Sure you can say that we would want astronauts to live longer, but we're not going to invest billions into astronaut health just to then trickle it down to everybody else. There are many things that are learned from tests done on astronauts (such as decreases in bone density and impact on mental health) but again these are secondary to research done on Earth for everybody. They might also be specific to conditions in space and largely irrelevant to what's experienced on Earth.

I agree with your point about colonizing a planet with a toxic atmosphere. Many advancements were done in exactly this way. For example, gunpowder was discovered centuries before guns even existed, it was used ceremonially. The united/immediate goal of war is what allowed people to make the connection of how useful gunpowder can actually be. Same case with the cold war. Many advancements were made during that time because of the challenges brought on by a prioritized goal. However, prioritizing space travel to gain advancements in health/climate change is incredibly inefficient. There are so many hurdles you need to clear first, which would not even give that much in return immediately, before you can even start to make such advancements. Instead of spending money towards space travel on the chance that we might learn something about cancer too, it makes much more sense to just invest the money in places where we know we'll make some kind of progress in curing cancer.

 

[Later Alligator]

I feel a greater sense of Canadian culture looking at an Inukshuk as opposed to looking at strip malls and boring grey concrete clad buildings.
This is what the government should be doing to promote instead of everyone just going to live in cities and only focus on money.

i think it's an ontario thing.... i've lived in vancouver for 3 years, various places in ontario for ~30, and now live in the US (seattle)

vancouver, montreal, quebec, calgary, are all very unique feeling cities. and a lot of the smaller cities around them as well.

ontario suburbs all feel and look very similar

 

[JordanN]

I'm sorry to hear about the discrimination, I've faced similar situations myself (I'm in no way saying things are perfect), but by and large my experiences have been the opposite. Enforcing this via law is shaky ground since you're starting to infringe on free speech, that's another debate in and of itself. I'm an optimist and I believe in the good of people, perhaps that influences or biases me to an extent, but it's a similar attitude of what I've seen in the communities I've been a part of.

It's not even about Free Speech. Just look at every non-European country and tell me how many actually have laws meant to protect minorities? The truth is, I don't believe these values are really all that common to begin with. They were originally laws drafted by Canadians before a huge multicultural shift took place. In some cases, it's even the complete opposite.

India had their own caste system way before Britain even colonized the continent. If I expect equality to preserved, then maybe these foreign countries should get a headstart on it first?

And humans are tribal. Even more so when it falls on ethnic/religious lines. They're not going to support legislature if it strips away their own power from them.

I believe you misunderstood my point about this degree of multiculturalism being unprecedented in history. Different nations have been in contact historically, but usually it's superficial or short lived. For example, propaganda was heavily utilized in WW1 and 2 which was effective due to limited contact with outsiders.

Well Humans have always traded with one another. The U.S sent out propaganda about the Soviet Union and vice versa, yet they still were always in close contact with each other. But if say the U.S started sending people to Russia and Russia sent people to the U.S and they don't get along for ideological reasons, then is forcing diversity really a good idea? I wouldn't blame America for wanting to protect its Capitalist values and I wouldn't blame Soviet Russia if they wanted to remain Communist.

In regards to your Saudi Arabian girl example, she wouldn't even know Canada existed (or what kind of nation it is) if it weren't for globalization. I didn't pen globalization as a finished process, I said it was a modern day phenomenon. The world is heading towards unionization, the conflicting nations that you mentioned still meet in the UN and there have been attempts at reconciliation for some of them. Will it take 100 years? 200? 1000? I don't know, but I believe we're heading there.

The Saudi Arabia girl had to abandon her own culture for a foreign one. That's the point I'm making. I really doubt the Saudi's even had a change of mind. It had the opposite reaction. They were tweeting pictures of a subtle 9/11 attack on Canada in response to the situation.

We're starting to get pretty far into political territory so I would rather steer the conversation away from that. I understand your position about the importance of politics and I do respect it, but I still prefer staying out of such discussions. To address some of your points though so it's not left hanging, your logic regarding Islam and Sharia Law can be likened to Tsunamis. Tsunamis occur in coastal regions, but a coastal region itself is not the cause of a Tsunami. There are numerous other factors which go into it. Sharia Law may be enforced in many Islamic places, but Islam itself is not going to lead to enforcement of Sharia Law.

Sharia Law is Islamic law. It does come from their holy book. You can even ignore the "law" part and still read commandments that still tell Muslims how they should behave. The reason I said they aren't chopping people's heads off in the Western street is because they are a demographic minority. But if that minority becomes a majority, the risks are impossible to reverse, since you can never tell a majority group to leave...

Also, colonization of India and Canada, the geography of the land, the surrounding countries they're involved with, and the events undergone within their borders are all entirely different. Your point about cultural decisions may be a factor, but it's not the only factor.

So let me understand something:
These countries voted or declared independence because they didn't like Britain, correct? Thus this implies they wanted to rid themselves of all things British and its influence, correct?
So why then, would they want to move back to the same countries that previously ruled them?

Again, it was only AFTER these countries took control of the government did we start hearing about rampant crime, corruption, deteriorating infrastructure etc, in which case, why shouldn't I be weary that the same is going to happen again? Shouldn't they at least prove they can rebuild their country first before moving somewhere off that has better living conditions?

I think this is the topic many people are scared to answer because it seriously questions the responsibility everyone has for their mistakes.

Any governmental body is going to have mishaps, controversies, and wasted spending. No governing system is perfect. Fighting wars in other nations doesn't make curing cancer any less of a priority.

The USSR went bankrupt because of failures involved with invading Afghanistan and scandals related to Chernobyl. Basically, they failed to actually keep their house in order and collapsed.
For the USA, I believe they run into a similar risk when it comes to illegal immigration and the welfare state. The USA never needed illegal immigration to survive or go to Space and yet it's only now they're desperately trying to plug the hole that's at the Southern border. Otherwise, what's going to happen? Too many people come to the U.S demanding free welfare and government services = the debt will continue to grow and grow until America has no money to afford it all.

Canada has helped in some regard with inventions like the Canadarm, but I agree USA is far beyond Canada in terms of space exploration. Ideally, space exploration should be a united effort because the challenge of making another planet habitable exceeds the capabilities of any one nation alone.

Before we could have a United group effort, we still need individual nations to actually come up with ground breaking inventions first that can get us off this rock.

Imagine if at the end of WW2, America would only go to Space if the Soviets agreed to? Considering how both countries were 1 button away from nuclear disaster, it's possible Space travel would have been even farther behind than it is today, just because America had their own ambitions to do it.

The research being done to extend lifespan or cure our biggest health issues just has no connection with astronauts. Sure you can say that we would want astronauts to live longer, but we're not going to invest billions into astronaut health just to then trickle it down to everybody else.

Improving Astronaut health is the same as improving human health. That's what I mean when there's an incredible amount of overlap with Space research. It only benefits us, one way or another.
Kinda like how when the U.S Army got involved with creating the internet, sending emails around different campuses is still the same as ordinary civilians sending email to their friends. The difference is, research in this stuff would always be top prioritized and create a competition to make this tech stronger.

Imagine if the government created email but stopped research there because they think that's good enough? Since Space is something meant to be conquered, it becomes an endless project where there is no limit to how well Human life could survive in Space. Maybe by accident, they discover how to make humans breathe underwater just because someone tossed up a scenario? For everyday humans, we wouldn't care because we only think about what's possible now as opposed to the distant future.

 

[Punished Miku]

In the ultimate plot twist, JordanN slowly realizes he wants to emigrate to another country.

Just teasing you lol, this thread has actually been really interesting to read honestly.

 

[JordanN]

In the ultimate plot twist, JordanN slowly realizes he wants to emigrate to another country.

Just teasing you lol, this thread has actually been really interesting to read honestly.

I personally believe the world is caught in a war right now.

A battle between preserving cultures vs. trying to merge them all.

The side that argues for merging them all believes it will lead to peace and harmony. I believe that it transforms the world into a monolithic grey state where no one acts or thinks differently.

It is not to say all immigration must be banned or that humans of different creeds cannot get along, but I believe the discussion is stunted where we assume human beings should all merge as opposed to making every civilization prosperous.

 

[Punished Miku]

I personally believe the world is caught in a war right now.

A battle between preserving cultures vs. trying to merge them all.

The side that argues for merging them all believes it will lead to peace and harmony. I believe that it transforms the world into a monolithic grey state.

It is not to say all immigration must be banned or that humans of different creeds cannot get along, but I believe the discussion is stunted where we assume human beings should all merge as opposed to making every civilization prosperous.

Oh believe me, I am not in favor of merging it all. I am guessing I'm older than you from a couple of your posts, but I definitely have witnessed the homogenization of culture after the rise of the internet, and it's not a good thing.

The only thing I think you're maybe wrong about, is that individuals really have a lot of influence over that. As technology increases, it is inevitable that some things will homogenize. Travel becomes easier and cheaper. Access to information increases. Access to movies, music, is all global now.

Different cultures will still be around, different languages will still be around. But eventually, these things will slowly homogenize. Technology erased evolutionary effects on humans, since we don't have natural predators anymore or natural selection. Technology will start erasing cultural barriers too that only really emerged due to primitive knowledge isolating people into unique experiences. Hell, someone may eventually invent a universal language translation chip too and erase the barriers between language even.

Most of this stuff is going to be broad waves across generations, and not up to individual people. You can think you're a defender of culture, and then you'll have a kid who grows up completely differently from you and will think differently.

 

[Punished Miku]

Finite resources mean that's impossible. The winters here are a big reason why the country can't really get ahead. The soil's only good for half, maybe a third of the year and moving away from natural resources has stymied progress even though it's for ecological reasons.

Maybe global warming and the rise of the oceans will make Canada the future center of aggressive investment in 2100.

Joe Oliver: Here’s a truth few dare to utter: Canada will benefit from climate change

Our leadership needs this reality check

business.financialpost.com

 

[JordanN]

Oh believe me, I am not in favor of merging it all. I am guessing I'm older than you from a couple of your posts, but I definitely have witnessed the homogenization of culture after the rise of the internet, and it's not a good thing.

The only thing I think you're maybe wrong about, is that individuals really have a lot of influence over that. As technology increases, it is inevitable that some things will homogenize. Travel becomes easier and cheaper. Access to information increases. Access to movies, music, is all global now.

Different cultures will still be around, different languages will still be around. But eventually, these things will slowly homogenize. Technology erased evolutionary effects on humans, since we don't have natural predators anymore or natural selection. Technology will start erasing cultural barriers too that only really emerged due to primitive knowledge isolating people into unique experiences. Hell, someone may eventually invent a universal language translation chip too and erase the barriers between language even.

Most of this stuff is going to be broad waves across generations, and not up to individual people. You can think you're a defender of culture, and then you'll have a kid who grows up completely differently from you and will think differently.

Even when humans invented Ships & Cars of the past that could take them around the world and meet other people, there was still boundaries to preserve where they first came from.

The only exception I can think of, was the Spanish conquest of the Americas. The Spanish came to Mexico, slaughtered all the Men and burned their texts, and then they essentially mated with the Native Women to create an entirely new ethnic group. There's a reason they literally speak a language that's not even native to the Americas. They were conquered by a foreign group.

Now compare what happened to when the British & French came to the Americas. Generation after generation, there wasn't the same attempt to merge with Native Americans. They clearly set up borders and when it evolved, it always came at the expense of another group being slaughtered and replaced.

We can see the dramatic differences right away. Canada still has a province that is still French majority. Even with all the world wars and advancing technology, the French never said "You guys win, lets all merge and become the same". They still rather keep their own French speaking identity.

We can also look at East Asia and see the same thing. Japan, blown up by two atomic bombs, and completely occupied by the U.S. Yet Japanese people still stayed behind and opted to rebuild. Now go to Tokyo today and look at how much different it is compared to America & Canada?

Would Japanese anime or games even exist, if there wasn't serious culture differences between how Japan makes Art and the rest of the world?

When technology advances, it is not actually meant to displace people or make their culture somehow disappear. You will always need a group of people who reject what the rest of the world thinks to create a nation that is purely based on their image.

I posted a picture above of the Inukshuk . Where else can you find such stone monuments and why? No one would ever say "those rocks look Russian" or "Zulu" or "Mexican". The answer should immediately say "yeah, those are Canadian made". A thousand years from now, I should still expect the original people who made those rocks to still be around, because their culture originated from there. But if they all were to dissappear in some sort of "global merging" then people wont continue to build those rocks anymore than Donald Trump will announce the national dish is Sushi.

 

[Chairman Tickles]

Canada is in many ways still just a Dominion. Ownership passed from the British Empire to the American Empire. It does it's own cute little internal domestic things while the US runs its foreign policies abroad. Canada bores me greatly. It's a satellite/non-country, like Australia, but we are in the midst of being passed from US ownership to China. At least something is happening. But in Canada nothing is happening. Just some Quebec Supermarket Socialists battling it out with the rest of Canada which is slowly being colonized by Chinese home buyers. Boring.

 

[Chromata]

It's not even about Free Speech. Just look at every non-European country and tell me how many actually have laws meant to protect minorities? The truth is, I don't believe these values are really all that common to begin with. They were originally laws drafted by Canadians before a huge multicultural shift took place. In some cases, it's even the complete opposite.

India had their own caste system way before Britain even colonized the continent. If I expect equality to preserved, then maybe these foreign countries should get a headstart on it first?

And humans are tribal. Even more so when it falls on ethnic/religious lines. They're not going to support legislature if it strips away their own power from them.


Well Humans have always traded with one another. The U.S sent out propaganda about the Soviet Union and vice versa, yet they still were always in close contact with each other. But if say the U.S started sending people to Russia and Russia sent people to the U.S and they don't get along for ideological reasons, then is forcing diversity really a good idea? I wouldn't blame America for wanting to protect its Capitalist values and I wouldn't blame Soviet Russia if they wanted to remain Communist.


The Saudi Arabia girl had to abandon her own culture for a foreign one. That's the point I'm making. I really doubt the Saudi's even had a change of mind. It had the opposite reaction. They were tweeting pictures of a subtle 9/11 attack on Canada in response to the situation.


Sharia Law is Islamic law. It does come from their holy book. You can even ignore the "law" part and still read commandments that still tell Muslims how they should behave. The reason I said they aren't chopping people's heads off in the Western street is because they are a demographic minority. But if that minority becomes a majority, the risks are impossible to reverse, since you can never tell a majority group to leave...


So let me understand something:
These countries voted or declared independence because they didn't like Britain, correct? Thus this implies they wanted to rid themselves of all things British and its influence, correct?
So why then, would they want to move back to the same countries that previously ruled them?

Again, it was only AFTER these countries took control of the government did we start hearing about rampant crime, corruption, deteriorating infrastructure etc, in which case, why shouldn't I be weary that the same is going to happen again? Shouldn't they at least prove they can rebuild their country first before moving somewhere off that has better living conditions?

I think this is the topic many people are scared to answer because it seriously questions the responsibility everyone has for their mistakes.


The USSR went bankrupt because of failures involved with invading Afghanistan and scandals related to Chernobyl. Basically, they failed to actually keep their house in order and collapsed.
For the USA, I believe they run into a similar risk when it comes to illegal immigration and the welfare state. The USA never needed illegal immigration to survive or go to Space and yet it's only now they're desperately trying to plug the hole that's at the Southern border. Otherwise, what's going to happen? Too many people come to the U.S demanding free welfare and government services = the debt will continue to grow and grow until America has no money to afford it all.


Before we could have a United group effort, we still need individual nations to actually come up with ground breaking inventions first that can get us off this rock.

Imagine if at the end of WW2, America would only go to Space if the Soviets agreed to? Considering how both countries were 1 button away from nuclear disaster, it's possible Space travel would have been even farther behind than it is today, just because America had their own ambitions to do it.


Improving Astronaut health is the same as improving human health. That's what I mean when there's an incredible amount of overlap with Space research. It only benefits us, one way or another.
Kinda like how when the U.S Army got involved with creating the internet, sending emails around different campuses is still the same as ordinary civilians sending email to their friends. The difference is, research in this stuff would always be top prioritized and create a competition to make this tech stronger.

Imagine if the government created email but stopped research there because they think that's good enough? Since Space is something meant to be conquered, it becomes an endless project where there is no limit to how well Human life could survive in Space. Maybe by accident, they discover how to make humans breathe underwater just because someone tossed up a scenario? For everyday humans, we wouldn't care because we only think about what's possible now as opposed to the distant future.

Cultural issues are sensitive ones and I'm not surprised to hear about this situation. There's a difference between respecting one's culture and enforcing it. In Canada you're open to practice your beliefs and everyone should respect each other's culture/way of life, so long as it's within the bounds of legality (which execution is not). The girl is welcome to practice the beliefs of her people in Canada in a different way, culture is not static.

A law as we know it is a governing structure dictating what should be done, it is enforced and influenced by many factors beyond religion. One can be Islamic without living under one rigid structure which people believe constitutes Sharia Law, there is much more to the Quran than that. It's a philosophy not a legal system, a legal system involves much more. Similarly, many massacres have taken place based on interpretations of passages in the Bible. That does not mean that a majority Christian population will lead to such things. Religion is not an absolute determinant of behavior. There is tremendous diversity in the beliefs and actions of people who are Islamic, just as any other peoples. To transform a nation like USA or Canada into one centered around Sharia Law would involve so much more than a change in majority demographic.

Rebuilding one's own country isn't simple and often not in the path of the individual. Sometimes, people are happy just the way their country is. They don't want change. Others might disagree and want to move away. If people want their country rebuilt, it's usually done with spilled blood. I believe it's cruel to force people towards that fate rather than learning to live together.

Your last paragraph basically describes how research works, it's always an endless project. My point is that we just can't expect space to be the focal point of scientific research right now. I'm not saying space research shouldn't happen, I'm just saying it's not priority number 1. Or 2. Or 3. Even the USA, whom you're admiring for their advances in space travel, prioritizes it below many other avenues.

 

[Chromata]

Even when humans invented Ships & Cars of the past that could take them around the world and meet other people, there was still boundaries to preserve where they first came from.

The only exception I can think of, was the Spanish conquest of the Americas. The Spanish came to Mexico, slaughtered all the Men and burned their texts, and then they essentially mated with the Native Women to create an entirely new ethnic group. There's a reason they literally speak a language that's not even native to the Americas. They were conquered by a foreign group.

Now compare what happened to when the British & French came to the Americas. Generation after generation, there wasn't the same attempt to merge with Native Americans. They clearly set up borders and when it evolved, it always came at the expense of another group being slaughtered and replaced.

We can see the dramatic differences right away. Canada still has a province that is still French majority. Even with all the world wars and advancing technology, the French never said "You guys win, lets all merge and become the same". They still rather keep their own French speaking identity.

We can also look at East Asia and see the same thing. Japan, blown up by two atomic bombs, and completely occupied by the U.S. Yet Japanese people still stayed behind and opted to rebuild. Now go to Tokyo today and look at how much different it is compared to America & Canada?

Would Japanese anime or games even exist, if there wasn't serious culture differences between how Japan makes Art and the rest of the world?

When technology advances, it is not actually meant to displace people or make their culture somehow disappear. You will always need a group of people who reject what the rest of the world thinks to create a nation that is purely based on their image.

I posted a picture above of the Inukshuk . Where else can you find such stone monuments and why? No one would ever say "those rocks look Russian" or "Zulu" or "Mexican". The answer should immediately say "yeah, those are Canadian made". A thousand years from now, I should still expect the original people who made those rocks to still be around, because their culture originated from there. But if they all were to dissappear in some sort of "global merging" then people wont continue to build those rocks anymore than Donald Trump will announce the national dish is Sushi.

Homogenization is an interesting point, I think it's jumping the gun to assume originality would erode to such a significant degree. Keep in mind that, even within nations, dramatic changes happen over time. Heck, the way your own kids talk and the kind of music they listen to will be completely different than what you're used to (and that's just micro scale). Let's go even smaller in scale, you can pinpoint the work of modern artists or directors of the same culture and nation based on their unique attributes.

People will still live in different places all around the world, they'll still be inspired by different people or different events in their lives or different aspects of their local geography. These variations will not suddenly disappear just because we are capable of coexisting as an interconnected unit.

 

[JordanN]

Cultural issues are sensitive ones and I'm not surprised to hear about this situation. There's a difference between respecting one's culture and enforcing it. In Canada you're open to practice your beliefs and everyone should respect each other's culture/way of life, so long as it's within the bounds of legality (which execution is not).

The paradox is while there are Western countries that protect minority rights, the opposite doesn't exist when you seriously begin to look at non-Western country.
It's not a problem for someone to practice Islam non-violently. It is a problem when the demographics make it unstoppable to overturn an Islamic law that execution is legal.

Here's a challenge for you. Can you show me a single time Muslims have voted in Western countries in favor of anti-Islam legislation? France and Quebec have already put these ideas to the test. If I looked at who was against the Hijab ban or voted to stop showing religious symbols in public, should I see data that says Muslims support these things or oppose them?

Now, if there is a case of most Muslims voting against sharia law, then you might have a case. But if the majority do want then why should Atheists & Homosexuals be put at risk?

It's just like how, imagine if Nazis voted to bring back death camps? If 99% voted yes, do you think their numbers should go unchecked, just because they technically "have a right" to flourish?

The girl is welcome to practice the beliefs of her people in Canada in a different way, culture is not static.

That's the girl, not Saudi Arabia. Unless Canadian does become majority muslim, then both are cultures could remain static forever. Again, the chances of Canada suddenly embracing Saudi beliefs(without mass migration/birth rates) is the same as Trump proclaiming Sushi is the national dish. He could do it, but why? He's not Japanese....

A law as we know it is a governing structure dictating what should be done, it is enforced and influenced by many factors beyond religion. One can be Islamic without living under one rigid structure which people believe constitutes Sharia Law, there is much more to the Quran than that. It's a philosophy not a legal system, a legal system involves much more. Similarly, many massacres have taken place based on interpretations of passages in the Bible.

Bad comparison. Show me when have the Islamic countries learned to embrace secularism? No one travels to most Christian countries and expects to be killed for openly being gay or Atheist.
In the Middle East, the death penalty is the norm, NOT the exception.

Capital punishment for homosexuality - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That does not mean that a majority Christian population will lead to such things. Religion is not an absolute determinant of behavior. There is tremendous diversity in the beliefs and actions of people who are Islamic, just as any other peoples

Now tell me which beliefs are actually dominant?
I'm aware there are Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims. I'm pretty sure if I looked up the ratios of each, one of them is the more widespread than the other.

Rebuilding one's own country isn't simple and often not in the path of the individual. Sometimes, people are happy just the way their country is. They don't want change. Others might disagree and want to move away

I have a question for you, why must we take the chance? Why introduce the risk of bringing people into a nation if not all of them are even here to work or worst of all, they quickly fallback to using welfare?

If you ever read a news report that says "crime is on the rise" and you find out that suspects may have been illegal immigration, whose fault is this? Do countries not have a right to be more cautious of who comes in, or should we just accept that crime is just "part and parcel" as one London mayor said it?

If people want their country rebuilt, it's usually done with spilled blood. I believe it's cruel to force people towards that fate rather than learning to live together.

So when America got destroyed by its own Civil War, should the USA have left the Southern half to decay? Again, it wasn't like the USA was always a warzone. They slaughtered each other, shook hands, and then got back to rebuilding the other half of the country.

Your last paragraph basically describes how research works, it's always an endless project. My point is that we just can't expect space to be the focal point of scientific research right now. I'm not saying space research shouldn't happen, I'm just saying it's not priority number 1. Or 2. Or 3. Even the USA, whom you're admiring for their advances in space travel, prioritizes it below many other avenues.

Maybe I should look up the history of NASA's budget? Would America have gone to the moon if the budget was less than funding new libraries?
Or what about the budget needed to make the Atomic Bomb? Did America back then not priotize building a super weapon in hopes it could save millions of lives sooner?

The reason I bring up all this Space stuff is because when we compare the U.S to other countries, people make up excuses for why they're not developing. As you say, maybe the other people around just don't care about this stuff. Who cares about having running water and plumbing, it doesn't matter? Well then, I hope this means when people ask why does U.S actually invest in their own education or is a safe place to live, it's not because these things where handed to them on a silver platter. It was because they directly took up the mantle and made their culture placed an emphasis on these things.

 

[Mistake]

The canadian dollar was worth half as much as the US before bush. That was the first time I went to visit. It was only 1-1 some time after during obamas term I believe, but being under the US in that regard is pretty normal. Canada actually has one of the best special forces in the world don’t they? I remember reading different articles about it, like that one guy that made a new sniping record. As for the rent, I thought that was because of foreign investors (especially chinese people) buying up all the city real estate. It wasn’t stopped soon enough, and now things are kinda stuck, just like other major cities.

 

[JordanN]

Homogenization is an interesting point, I think it's jumping the gun to assume originality would erode to such a significant degree. Keep in mind that, even within nations, dramatic changes happen over time. Heck, the way your own kids talk and the kind of music they listen to will be completely different than what you're used to (and that's just micro scale). Let's go even smaller in scale, you can pinpoint the work of modern artists or directors of the same culture and nation based on their unique attributes.

People will still live in different places all around the world, they'll still be inspired by different people or different events in their lives or different aspects of their local geography. These variations will not suddenly disappear just because we are capable of coexisting as an interconnected unit.

The issue with multiculturalism is that every country on earth has their own priorities.

I remember debating with someone that Japan absolutely loves foreign food. I'm sure they consider having a McDonalds or Pizza Hut to be just as important as their own native cultural dishes. And yet, what dishes do you think Japanese chefs commonly prepare? Should I believe if I open up a Japanese cookbook, the only cuisine available is literally all Western food? Why or why not?

I haven't actually seen an argument that says nations are so willing to change what currently exists, that their own history disappears with them.

People will change little by little, but I'm talking dramatic changes where the culture feels completely foreign. Even if Japan only drove U.S cars, ate burgers and wore Western suits, they still would be the only place on earth that would speak Japanese as a main language, or literally have a culture that says take your shoes off before entering your house, or inviting entire teams of employees to go meet other companies and shake their hands. These are basically traditions or customs that each generation continues to pass on as they opposed to simply giving them all up to become America Jr.

Now to keep this on topic with Canada, who can I expect to build the Inukshuks when I'm dead and gone? When the British & French even arrived on the continent, did they even attempt at rebuilding the art that the Natives had built? I'll be surprised if the answer is anything but "no". When I look at Canadian Art based on the Europeans, they were building monuments like the CN Tower or Parliament Hill. But I'm not actually aware of a time in my country's history where we made an effort to build Longhouses.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Canada is more left wing as a whole for a number of reasons.

- Lots of immigrants the past 30+ years. Doesn't matter if someone is a rich immigrant or barely scraped in. The basis of immigration is left leaning viewpoints...... freedom to move about and expecting governments to be generous with liberal policies. You're not going to get many immigrants getting into Canada suddenly do a 180 and say "Hooray! I got in! But I want to gov to lock the door for everyone else trying to come in, even family wanting to come over"

- Not sure when it got instituted, but way before we were we born, but unlike the US and some other countries in the world, Canada is similar to other western/democrat societies with universal healthcare. We all know it's not truly free as everyone's taxes get jacked up, but universal enough that a dirt poor person and a millionaire have access and not have to worry if getting an MRI will bankrupt a poor person for years. And I'm pretty confident even conservatives are fine with universal care as a whole

- The image of Canada (at least since I've been around) has always been this nice, free, helping hand, donate to foreign aid kind of thing. There is no way any foreigner reading about Canada in their local media can get a sense Canada is some mongering overlord like the US gets labeled, unless it's some corrupt state paper where every other country in the world is claimed to be shit but their own. Pretty sure this kind of image rubs off on people

- Quebec is an odd one. On one hand super conservative with protectionist laws regarding French culture and not liking other religions so much (if anyone wants to find places where locals hate people wearing head scarves, go to Quebec or France). But then super aggressive on government subsidies, the gov helping local companies, child care subsidies and taxes a bit higher than English speaking provinces

 

[black_13]

Canada is a massive country with very low population so obviously most of it is gonna look deserted but it has many beautiful things. Being a neighbor to the US and English as the main language does take away alot of the identity and morphs it with the US. I'd say Canada is mostly like an English version of Scandinavian countries. It's very cold most of the year so most people who don't like the cold move away or are not interested.

Canada is a great country but the one aspect that has been it's downfall is relying way too much on the US. Their economy, culture, major policies etc are all way too dependent. I wish they took a page out of Quebec's book and tried to make things a little different than the US.

 

[Scotty W]

I am a Canadian who has traveled quite a bit.

Most of the points that OP mentioned have always been like that. The dollar has always been low in comparison to the USD, except for when... the US housing market crashed (iirc).

It is sad that Canada does not have much of a homegrown food scene, but go to South America. You will be eating the food from that country, and will be searching for food from other countries. I recall sushi and Chinese food were very hard to find in Argentina.

Or south east Asia. In one of these countries, everything, everything is broken, and it is impossible to fix anything. Mostly because of the government, which is an obese corruption blanket which suffocates everything in corruption and mendacity.

New Zealand is very similar to Canada, but the meth problem is much more apparent. And, I think if you look at current NZ economic stats, it looks fine, but trust me, it is on the edge of a cliff. Their entire economy is reliant of foreign workers. The middle class is drying up, alcoholic, or addicted to meth. And the whole country is reliant on trade with China, which has spies in NZ.

Japan is going to have serious problems in a few years once all its senior citizens start dying.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Canada is a massive country with very low population so obviously most of it is gonna look deserted but it has many beautiful things. Being a neighbor to the US and English as the main language does take away alot of the identity and morphs it with the US. I'd say Canada is mostly like an English version of Scandinavian countries. It's very cold most of the year so most people who don't like the cold move away or are not interested.

Canada is a great country but the one aspect that has been it's downfall is relying way too much on the US. Their economy, culture, major policies etc are all way too dependent. I wish they took a page out of Quebec's book and tried to make things a little different than the US.

Most people cringe at Quebec lifestyle.

Out of all the provinces, Quebec is by far the most closed minded and racist of all. It's all about French culture and if any politician tries to promote harmony in an election by being inclusive with all people (Muslims with head attire are always the biggest target), good luck. The French people will shoot you down. They have big angst against people with head scarves and stuff.

That's why Montreal changed from Canada's biggest city to one which barely grew in 30 years. People left to Ontario when the French movement of the 70s tried to force everyone into a French life style.

Politics aside, French culture is also big into drinking and smoking. No thanks.

 

[MaestroMike]

Canada produces some funny as$ people so they must be doing something, right.

 

[SentientStone]

There seems to be a direct correlation between the number of Shen Yun ads I see in Vancouver and the perception of how much Canada sucks now.

 

[Rbk_3]

In Ontario 2018, the province nearly elected the NDP who are even more farther to left than the Liberals are.

No they never. The NDP only managed to get slightly more than half the seats than the Cons in the 2018 election. People preferred to vote for a bumbling dumbass without a platform than vote NPD.

 

[whitehawk]

Still one of the best countries in the world.

Things ain't perfect but I wouldn't want to love anywhere else.

 

[Sakura]

Japan is going to have serious problems in a few years once all its senior citizens start dying.

This is a problem all western countries are facing. Countries like Canada try to hide it by bringing in a ton of immigrants, but even then, our median age keeps rising, and birth rates keep falling. In fact fertility rate in Canada is about 1.5, while Japan is 1.4. Not much difference, yet we like to joke about how the Japanese aren't having kids. While it is true Japan will face these problems first because they are already a bit farther ahead, the problems aren't unique to Japan.

 

[JordanN]

I think the birth rates highlights just how useless our governments really are.

How come during the first sign of decreasing fertility (1966) did no one step in and say "woah woah guys, we gotta correct this"?

Whose idea was it to say "actually... we'll just start importing more immigrants instead"?

Humanity has existed for millions of years. It's really bizarre that all of a sudden, all these countries on earth just don't know or want to make babies anymore.
No, it's absolutely possible. But the governments of the world thought using cheap labor to replace people is a better idea.

 

[ProudClod]

If you're prone to complaining -- every country, city, and neighborhood you live in on this planet would suck. The grass is always greener.

I used to think like this when I was younger. And then I started traveling (a lot). For fun. For work. For no reason at all. I love traveling, but it's made my appreciate Canada so much more.

Despite all of the things you mentioned, I see Canada as the best country in the world, and Toronto as the best city.

1. Despite some retarted politics in the past few decades, it never feels like we're about to go to war against ourselves. We have our idiots, but on the whole, I love Canada's relatively easy-going take on politics. I've never been close to getting into a fist-fight talking about trump. I've never lost any friends disagreeing about abortion. I've never to avoid a part of the city because of potential riots.

I've visited a dozen metropolitan centres in the states over the past few decades (NYC, Chicago, Boston, Houston, LA, etc.), and it always feels like there's some sort of angry protest, scandal, or major conflict brewing. Everyone's always on edge. Every discussion I've had with US people about politics either boils down to a completely useless echo-chamber, or an argument that's one comment away from getting violent.

Maybe it's because of #2.

2. Despite some non-issues the media loves to talk about, Canada's a ridiculously stable country. We don't have major economic shifts. We don't have millions of people losing homes because of a recession. We don't have mass-murderers making headlines every few months. We don't attempt to restructure our entire healthcare system (only to fail over and over again).

This kind of stability makes Canada a great place to start a family, build wealth, and set real roots.

3. Canada is absolutely gorgeous. Ontario has some incredible provincial parks, natural formations, and views. But there's so much more to Canada -- and it's absolutely breathtaking.

4. Canada has beautiful seasons. This doesn't just apply to Canada, obviously -- but if you can make it out of the cities, Canada has the most beautiful fall and winter seasons. It also helps that I absolutely love winter activities (skating, tobogganing, skiing, snowboarding, etc.)

5. Toronto is easily the best metropolitan city in the world (I know, all y'all starbucks baristas trying to rent an apartment on the east-end are probably fuming). But seriously. There's so much opportunity for careers. There's a RIDICULOUS amount of really well paying professional jobs. There's so damn much to do in this city (we have amazing Jazz bars, shows virtually every day of the week, awesome festivals and events every season, top-notch museums, beautiful art galleries, etc.) and just outside the city (provincial parks, ski hills, vineyards, beaches, waterfalls, etc.). And it's just a beautiful city with a vibe I can't get enough of. A lot of hustle and energy with a welcoming culture.

But more than anything, it's THE FOOD.

I've been all over the world, and I haven't seen any city, anywhere, that has the same QUALITY and VARIETY of cuisines. We have first-class Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Thai, Vietnamese, Tibetan, Malaysian, Filipino, Indian, Pakistani, Iranian, Iraqi, Israeli, Uzbek, Kazakh, Georgian, Italian, Greek, French, German, Mexican, Brazilian, Chilean, and Cuban food -- all within the GTA. And that's just off the top-of-my head. You can spend an entire week eating amazing Korean food in one neighborhood (Yonge and FInch), without eating at the same restaurant twice.

In major US cities, for example, you might find 2 or 3 cuisines that are decent (because they happen to have a high population of a specific ethnicity) -- but that's it.

I honestly couldn't be happier with Canada.

I have an awesome job. An amazing wife. Great friends. Perfect apartment. And I have to deal with so little of the bullshit that my neighbours down south worry about.

Canada = waifu

 

[Chromata]

The paradox is while there are Western countries that protect minority rights, the opposite doesn't exist when you seriously begin to look at non-Western country.
It's not a problem for someone to practice Islam non-violently. It is a problem when the demographics make it unstoppable to overturn an Islamic law that execution is legal.

Here's a challenge for you. Can you show me a single time Muslims have voted in Western countries in favor of anti-Islam legislation? France and Quebec have already put these ideas to the test. If I looked at who was against the Hijab ban or voted to stop showing religious symbols in public, should I see data that says Muslims support these things or oppose them?

Now, if there is a case of most Muslims voting against sharia law, then you might have a case. But if the majority do want then why should Atheists & Homosexuals be put at risk?

It's just like how, imagine if Nazis voted to bring back death camps? If 99% voted yes, do you think their numbers should go unchecked, just because they technically "have a right" to flourish?


That's the girl, not Saudi Arabia. Unless Canadian does become majority muslim, then both are cultures could remain static forever. Again, the chances of Canada suddenly embracing Saudi beliefs(without mass migration/birth rates) is the same as Trump proclaiming Sushi is the national dish. He could do it, but why? He's not Japanese....


Bad comparison. Show me when have the Islamic countries learned to embrace secularism? No one travels to most Christian countries and expects to be killed for openly being gay or Atheist.
In the Middle East, the death penalty is the norm, NOT the exception.

Capital punishment for homosexuality - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Now tell me which beliefs are actually dominant?
I'm aware there are Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims. I'm pretty sure if I looked up the ratios of each, one of them is the more widespread than the other.



I have a question for you, why must we take the chance? Why introduce the risk of bringing people into a nation if not all of them are even here to work or worst of all, they quickly fallback to using welfare?

If you ever read a news report that says "crime is on the rise" and you find out that suspects may have been illegal immigration, whose fault is this? Do countries not have a right to be more cautious of who comes in, or should we just accept that crime is just "part and parcel" as one London mayor said it?



So when America got destroyed by its own Civil War, should the USA have left the Southern half to decay? Again, it wasn't like the USA was always a warzone. They slaughtered each other, shook hands, and then got back to rebuilding the other half of the country.


Maybe I should look up the history of NASA's budget? Would America have gone to the moon if the budget was less than funding new libraries?
Or what about the budget needed to make the Atomic Bomb? Did America back then not priotize building a super weapon in hopes it could save millions of lives sooner?

The reason I bring up all this Space stuff is because when we compare the U.S to other countries, people make up excuses for why they're not developing. As you say, maybe the other people around just don't care about this stuff. Who cares about having running water and plumbing, it doesn't matter? Well then, I hope this means when people ask why does U.S actually invest in their own education or is a safe place to live, it's not because these things where handed to them on a silver platter. It was because they directly took up the mantle and made their culture placed an emphasis on these things.

The problem with this is debate is that you're asking for information which I do not have. As I said, I'm not one that's interested in politics and I don't track political movements or votes across nations. My points regarding Islamic people stem from the many conversations I've had with close friends who are Islamic. Often times, the nuances of Islam are overly simplified and generalized by the larger public. There is no shortage of Islamic people who are largely secular (also known as Cultural Muslim) or even those who are religious but have no issues getting along with everyone. Now, you may argue that most Muslims vote for Sharia Law (which I don't know since, as I said, I don't follow these numbers). However, that begs the question, is this a majority or a vocal minority? Maybe the majority doesn't mind enough to vote but the minority does? Also we would need to know the context of how and why these votes were done. It isn't uncommon for numbers to be skewed and biased based on the desired outcome of the assessors or presenters.

Also, cultures do not remain static even when racial demographic composition is largely stagnant. Sure you can argue that it won't change as much, but over time every culture has changes. I understand that nobody would want a majority vote in favor of death camps, but the establishment of death camps was a complex issue in itself. It's not like Germany was majority Nazi and they all agreed death camps were the way to go. Germany was in a difficult position in that time, the populace was vulnerable to manipulation and being swayed by extreme beliefs. In that sense, you can't expect a large demographic of Germans (or even Nazis) to automatically mean they're going to vote in favor of death camps. A lot of Nazis claimed they were just following orders, something that was even replicated in the Milgram experiment on obedience. Had those same people been placed in another country in another situation, there is no guarantee they'd vote in favor of death camps. Context matters.

Immigrants don't just rely on welfare and disregard work. The immigrants I know have been some of the most hardest working people I've met. Moving to another country (or even worse, fleeing) is a monumental undertaking and requires no shortage of perseverance to survive. People want to build a life for themselves and their children, that's usually why they decide to move in the first place. You don't do that if you're lazy. Of course I'm not saying there should be no caution in who you admit, integrating large amounts of migrants into a society that's alien to them is not something easily done. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try at all, in my mind it's worth it. That also doesn't mean forcing others to adjust to your own culture, I think everyone can learn something from other cultures and that we need to find a way to harmonize first.

I'm not sure what your point is regarding USA's research budget. I never said it was small. The Manhattan Project was an important undertaking that clearly was a priority given the situation at the time. Going to Mars is not a priority, neither is searching Europa for markers of life, nor is creating more advanced telescopes. I mentioned those specific ones because all of those things are projects that are being worked on as we speak, but they are still not of paramount priority. This was only different during the space race, when NASA's budget was the highest relative to total spending than it's ever been, and that was only when going to space was a politically charged priority.

There is a book that you might be interested in called Guns, Germs, and Steel. It is one take on addressing the concern you bring up in your last paragraph (why some countries are so far ahead of others). It isn't as simple as USA being willing to spend on advancing their society and rebuild their land, while everybody else is just lazy or unwilling. I'm not making excuses for any nation, rather I'm saying that the answer towards a question as loaded as "why are some nations more developed than others?" is not something you can boil down to one simple answer. Nor am I taking away from the accomplishments of USA, because what USA has accomplished is extraordinary.

 

[Chromata]

This is a problem all western countries are facing. Countries like Canada try to hide it by bringing in a ton of immigrants, but even then, our median age keeps rising, and birth rates keep falling. In fact fertility rate in Canada is about 1.5, while Japan is 1.4. Not much difference, yet we like to joke about how the Japanese aren't having kids. While it is true Japan will face these problems first because they are already a bit farther ahead, the problems aren't unique to Japan.

Yes, handling the needs of an aging population is going to have an enormous strain on the medical system and the economy. I'm not aware of what Japan is doing, but Canada is preparing for it on the medical end. There's already greater emphasis being placed on preventative care than previous generations, outpatient medical services are being further developed to decrease the strain on hospitals, and there's talks of modifying the public system to manage what's coming. There's also some great progress being made on surgeries for the elderly to help manage mobility and injury concerns (such as hip and knee replacements). That's just some of the steps being taken, I'm not sure how it'll all turn out, but I'm sure it's going to be a big challenge that I'll need to face in my professional years.

 

[JordanN]

The problem with this is debate is that you're asking for information which I do not have. As I said, I'm not one that's interested in politics and I don't track political movements or votes across nations. My points regarding Islamic people stem from the many conversations I've had with close friends who are Islamic. Often times, the nuances of Islam are overly simplified and generalized by the larger public. There is no shortage of Islamic people who are largely secular (also known as Cultural Muslim) or even those who are religious but have no issues getting along with everyone. Now, you may argue that most Muslims vote for Sharia Law (which I don't know since, as I said, I don't follow these numbers). However, that begs the question, is this a majority or a vocal minority? Maybe the majority doesn't mind enough to vote but the minority does? Also we would need to know the context of how and why these votes were done. It isn't uncommon for numbers to be skewed and biased based on the desired outcome of the assessors or presenters.

I do not deny that secular muslims exist. What my concern is, nothing about Canada's multiculturalism involves a prerequsuite that says all Muslims in this country must be secular. I expressed that I consider this a threat, just because the current Muslim population is not beheading in the street, what protections do exist when the muslim population grows and it does become impossible to reverse the risk?

To me, I do not understand why any Western country would ever want to take the chance and get rid of their own religion in favor of an imported one. There are already plenty of Islamic countries around the world and we know what they're like, why is it that multiculturalism encourages the exact same thing to happen to us?

This is a type of change that could only harm non-believers like me, where funny enough, I consider Canada a safe place because it is majority non-Islamic. But if the government turns around and says "well sorry Jordan. Multiculturalism says we cannot stop the growth of Islam in this country because that would be offensive" then how am I, or even the LGBT community suppose to feel?

Also, cultures do not remain static even when racial demographic composition is largely stagnant. Sure you can argue that it won't change as much, but over time every culture has changes

But WHY do they change? What is so wrong with Canada now, or even 50 years ago that somehow it's more important to change hundreds of years of history in an instant?

We've seen countries change and often times, it leads to terrible results. And when these countries mess up, what do you think they do? We see people abandon them and move to the countries that didn't collapse.

The only time I think of change, is when it's actually suppose to benefit the population in a positive way. Like paying people more money. Ok, that's a change while not too radical, clearly benefits an individual's social standards. But imagine a change that said "everyone must poke themselves with knives". That's not a change that is really meant to help advance a culture.

I can apply the same thing with religion. I think having a completely secular society is a good thing. It means more people are free to believe what they want, without actually forcing their beliefs on others. Now lets say Canada did change and wanted to become majority Islam? Who does that benefit, and who does it screw over? We should oppose change when it's very likely to bring about bad results to the native population.

Immigrants don't just rely on welfare and disregard work. The immigrants I know have been some of the most hardest working people I've met. Moving to another country (or even worse, fleeing) is a monumental undertaking and requires no shortage of perseverance to survive. People want to build a life for themselves and their children, that's usually why they decide to move in the first place. You don't do that if you're lazy.

They're moving to countries that already have 1st world infrastructure in place. Immigration is a very simple task, because you aren't actually responsible for building the nation upon arrival. All the great amenities had been built by other people and maintained by them for hundreds of years.

Of course I'm not saying there should be no caution in who you admit, integrating large amounts of migrants into a society that's alien to them is not something easily done. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try at all, in my mind it's worth it. That also doesn't mean forcing others to adjust to your own culture, I think everyone can learn something from other cultures and that we need to find a way to harmonize first.

And what happens when these cultures completely contradict my own? We can still harmonize without transforming my country in one giant lab experiment. Every nation has their own ambassador or foreign embassy. What was wrong with using those instead of physically moving people here who might not even want to assimilate?

I'm not sure what your point is regarding USA's research budget. I never said it was small. The Manhattan Project was an important undertaking that clearly was a priority given the situation at the time. Going to Mars is not a priority, neither is searching Europa for markers of life, nor is creating more advanced telescopes. I mentioned those specific ones because all of those things are projects that are being worked on as we speak, but they are still not of paramount priority. This was only different during the space race, when NASA's budget was the highest relative to total spending than it's ever been, and that was only when going to space was a politically charged priority.

There is a book that you might be interested in called Guns, Germs, and Steel. It is one take on addressing the concern you bring up in your last paragraph (why some countries are so far ahead of others). It isn't as simple as USA being willing to spend on advancing their society and rebuild their land, while everybody else is just lazy or unwilling. I'm not making excuses for any nation, rather I'm saying that the answer towards a question as loaded as "why are some nations more developed than others?" is not something you can boil down to one simple answer. Nor am I taking away from the accomplishments of USA, because what USA has accomplished is extraordinary.

Is this the book that talks about geography being key to success? I already pointed out that Britain use to hold colonies all over the world and yet each country still chose to revolt regardless of the fact they were technically doing better under British rule.

I have no problems with what other countries want to do within their own borders, what I fear is why do our countries have to be caught up in this globalization experiment, when before all this focus on multiculturalism existed, we had a culture that was completely fine prioritizing science and space research.

 

[The Pleasure]

If you're prone to complaining -- every country, city, and neighborhood you live in on this planet would suck. The grass is always greener.

I used to think like this when I was younger. And then I started traveling (a lot). For fun. For work. For no reason at all. I love traveling, but it's made my appreciate Canada so much more.

Despite all of the things you mentioned, I see Canada as the best country in the world, and Toronto as the best city.

1. Despite some retarted politics in the past few decades, it never feels like we're about to go to war against ourselves. We have our idiots, but on the whole, I love Canada's relatively easy-going take on politics. I've never been close to getting into a fist-fight talking about trump. I've never lost any friends disagreeing about abortion. I've never to avoid a part of the city because of potential riots.

I've visited a dozen metropolitan centres in the states over the past few decades (NYC, Chicago, Boston, Houston, LA, etc.), and it always feels like there's some sort of angry protest, scandal, or major conflict brewing. Everyone's always on edge. Every discussion I've had with US people about politics either boils down to a completely useless echo-chamber, or an argument that's one comment away from getting violent.

Maybe it's because of #2.

2. Despite some non-issues the media loves to talk about, Canada's a ridiculously stable country. We don't have major economic shifts. We don't have millions of people losing homes because of a recession. We don't have mass-murderers making headlines every few months. We don't attempt to restructure our entire healthcare system (only to fail over and over again).

This kind of stability makes Canada a great place to start a family, build wealth, and set real roots.

3. Canada is absolutely gorgeous. Ontario has some incredible provincial parks, natural formations, and views. But there's so much more to Canada -- and it's absolutely breathtaking.

4. Canada has beautiful seasons. This doesn't just apply to Canada, obviously -- but if you can make it out of the cities, Canada has the most beautiful fall and winter seasons. It also helps that I absolutely love winter activities (skating, tobogganing, skiing, snowboarding, etc.)

5. Toronto is easily the best metropolitan city in the world (I know, all y'all starbucks baristas trying to rent an apartment on the east-end are probably fuming). But seriously. There's so much opportunity for careers. There's a RIDICULOUS amount of really well paying professional jobs. There's so damn much to do in this city (we have amazing Jazz bars, shows virtually every day of the week, awesome festivals and events every season, top-notch museums, beautiful art galleries, etc.) and just outside the city (provincial parks, ski hills, vineyards, beaches, waterfalls, etc.). And it's just a beautiful city with a vibe I can't get enough of. A lot of hustle and energy with a welcoming culture.

But more than anything, it's THE FOOD.

I've been all over the world, and I haven't seen any city, anywhere, that has the same QUALITY and VARIETY of cuisines. We have first-class Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Thai, Vietnamese, Tibetan, Malaysian, Filipino, Indian, Pakistani, Iranian, Iraqi, Israeli, Uzbek, Kazakh, Georgian, Italian, Greek, French, German, Mexican, Brazilian, Chilean, and Cuban food -- all within the GTA. And that's just off the top-of-my head. You can spend an entire week eating amazing Korean food in one neighborhood (Yonge and FInch), without eating at the same restaurant twice.

In major US cities, for example, you might find 2 or 3 cuisines that are decent (because they happen to have a high population of a specific ethnicity) -- but that's it.

I honestly couldn't be happier with Canada.

I have an awesome job. An amazing wife. Great friends. Perfect apartment. And I have to deal with so little of the bullshit that my neighbours down south worry about.

Canada = waifu

That's a Lotta hype for a country that never lays down the pipe.

 

[Chromata]

I do not deny that secular muslims exist. What my concern is, nothing about Canada's multiculturalism involves a prerequsuite that says all Muslims in this country must be secular. I expressed that I consider this a threat, just because the current Muslim population is not beheading in the street, what protections do exist when the muslim population grows and it does become impossible to reverse the risk?

To me, I do not understand why any Western country would ever want to take the chance and get rid of their own religion in favor of an imported one. There are already plenty of Islamic countries around the world and we know what they're like, why is it that multiculturalism encourages the exact same thing to happen to us?

This is a type of change that could only harm non-believers like me, where funny enough, I consider Canada a safe place because it is majority non-Islamic. But if the government turns around and says "well sorry Jordan. Multiculturalism says we cannot stop the growth of Islam in this country because that would be offensive" then how am I, or even the LGBT community suppose to feel?



But WHY do they change? What is so wrong with Canada now, or even 50 years ago that somehow it's more important to change hundreds of years of history in an instant?

We've seen countries change and often times, it leads to terrible results. And when these countries mess up, what do you think they do? We see people abandon them and move to the countries that didn't collapse.

The only time I think of change, is when it's actually suppose to benefit the population in a positive way. Like paying people more money. Ok, that's a change while not too radical, clearly benefits an individual's social standards. But imagine a change that said "everyone must poke themselves with knives". That's not a change that is really meant to help advance a culture.

I can apply the same thing with religion. I think having a completely secular society is a good thing. It means more people are free to believe what they want, without actually forcing their beliefs on others. Now lets say Canada did change and wanted to become majority Islam? Who does that benefit, and who does it screw over? We should oppose change when it's very likely to bring about bad results to the native population.


They're moving to countries that already have 1st world infrastructure in place. Immigration is a very simple task, because you aren't actually responsible for building the nation upon arrival. All the great amenities had been built by other people and maintained by them for hundreds of years.


And what happens when these cultures completely contradict my own? We can still harmonize without transforming my country in one giant lab experiment. Every nation has their own ambassador or foreign embassy. What was wrong with using those instead of physically moving people here who might not even want to assimilate?



Is this the book that talks about geography being key to success? I already pointed out that Britain use to hold colonies all over the world and yet each country still chose to revolt regardless of the fact they were technically doing better under British rule.

I have no problems with what other countries want to do within their own borders, what I fear is why do our countries have to be caught up in this globalization experiment, when before all this focus on multiculturalism existed, we had a culture that was completely fine prioritizing science and space research.

The point I made in my last post is that everything has its context. Muslims aren't violent people who believe in beheading people they disagree with, that's a steep generalization. The conditions people live in within the borders of other nations are different from the borders of Canada, making judgments from a direct comparison isn't accurate. I'll give you an example. Numerous scientists in decades past have gone on to proclaim that immigrants were less intelligent and less capable than the majority populace. They said this was objective because it was based off data conducted from psychological tests which provided standardized scores (like an IQ test). A lot of people suffered because of this and it's one of the most shameful misuses of power within the scientific community.

The numbers in these tests were heavily skewed by biases (such as observer bias and self fulfilling prophecies) and poorly designed tests (using culturally reliant questions, questionable standardization methods, and poor scoring methods). There are many ways that people can use numbers to back up their views but it's just as important to ask how those numbers were gotten in the first place and why they show those results. I have no doubt that you've used quantitative information to make your conclusions (or base your fears on), but that doesn't mean the right conclusions are drawn. You seem to have a very specific fear of Islam based off the conditions in numerous countries which have their own struggles that don't boil down to "because their religion is evil". Most of the people caught in these struggles are innocent people who just want to find a better life, but that doesn't mean Canada should force them to abandon their religion (that's what a secular prerequisite entails).

Forcing someone to be secular is not only disrespectful to their beliefs and traditions, it's cruel. The examples you gave before of prior injustices (Indigenous peoples) were brought on due to forced changes in culture and forced assimilation. These tragedies occurred because the ruling parties believed that the religions and beliefs of Indigenous people were savage and inferior (which seems to be your attitude towards Islam). What you're proposing is a dangerous line to walk since it can very easily get out of hand. Canada is not safe because it's majority non-Islamic, Canada is safe because it's got a solid legal system with a stable environment capable of fostering individuals without aggressive means.

Culture changes because life is not stagnant and humans are creative. Just like the music your kids listen to will be different, the customs that are held by those in the future will be different from those in the past. How do you think those customs you believe in right now came to be in the first place? New customs get added and changed all the time as they're passed through generations (almost like a game of telephone). Something doesn't have to be wrong for this change to happen, the music and traditions of our ancestors were not inferior to our own, they're different and based on the times of their lives.

I'm not sure how much experience you have with people who are immigrants, but I can promise you immigration is not a simple task. The infrastructure set in place was done by people you did not know, who speak a language you do not speak, who hold customs you do not hold, who have beliefs you do not believe, within a system you are not used to, and also across the world from a place you once called home. People don't just walk in and integrate, it usually takes at least 1 generation who face hardship. You might not believe multiculturalism and the difficulties that accompany it is worth it, but many people (including myself) do.

Canada is not undergoing a lab experiment, they're not the country with the most immigrants nor are they the country with the highest percentage of immigrants relative to their host population nor are they the country that accepts the most immigrants per year. Globalization is not exclusive to Canada, it's happening worldwide, and it doesn't even have to involve migration of people. The fact that we've got anime and McDonalds/Amazon operate globally are also facets of globalization.

Also, yes geography is noted as one factor among many more in why some nations are more developed than others in Guns, Germs, and Steel. This has nothing to do with Britain colonizing the world, the reason why Britain collapsed has to do with a lot more than that. Among these issues were restricted personal freedoms, forced war involvements, and excessive taxation.

To your point that the increase in multiculturalism involved a decrease in prioritizing science funding:

Science | AAAS

www.sciencemag.org

The Daily — Spending on research and development in the higher education sector, 2016-2017

Spending on research and development (R&D) activities in Canada's higher education sector totalled $13.8 billion in 2016/2017, up 4.3% from 2015/2016.

www150.statcan.gc.ca

The Daily — Spending on research and development, 2018 intentions

Canada's gross domestic expenditure on research and development (GERD) is expected to edge up 1.3% from the 2017 preliminary estimate to $34.5 billion in 2018. The anticipated increase is attributable to higher research and development (R&D) spending intentions of business enterprises and the...

www150.statcan.gc.ca

Both USA and Canada have been progressively increasing spending on research & development for decades, consistently at a high chunk of the total federal budget. Believe me, science is doing just fine. In fact, I can guarantee you that scientific progression is happening at a rate unprecedented in history and it's not even close to slowing down. The research being done today is not only held to higher standards, but it's also done with greater oversight than ever before (on the whole, of course). Science is a worldwide effort, publications in USA or Canada can reference publications in Japan or Germany, it happens all the time regardless of immigration.

 

[JordanN]

The point I made in my last post is that everything has its context. Muslims aren't violent people who believe in beheading people they disagree with, that's a steep generalization.

That doesn't change what I said.
Multiculturalism does not provide any limits to religious beliefs. When countries try and promote secularism, they also come under attack for suppressing freedom.

And yet, if a Muslim majority where to happen tomorrow, who am I suppose to trust will ensure protections for minorities exist? Again, I can literally look at all these countries where Muslims are in control and instantly know what my rights are. Death.

Why can't I rightfully assume Canada is only a safe space for Atheists & LGBT because we clearly are non-Islamic country? It is unlikely that Christians are going to oppress me because plenty of Christian countries exist who don't interpret their bible literally.

Forcing someone to be secular is not only disrespectful to their beliefs and traditions, it's cruel.

Then they have the choice to not move to these Western countries, do they not?
I wont ever go to Japan and tell Japanese people their religion is wrong. I wont travel to the Middle East and try to convince the people to be secular.

So why can't the same happen to Canada? When our identity is clearly a non-Islamic one, why on earth would we take the risk and lose our culture to one that is highly intolerant to non-believers, either because of what it's holy book says, or because the same pattern literally exists whenever there's a Muslim majority?

This is why multiculturalism is a paradox. If we cannot force people to reevaluate their religions that clearly say " "x" non-believer must be treated this way" then what do you expect will happen when the demographics start shifting where these same people will eventually have political power? That's no longer diversity, that's one group having all the power to subjugate others that never asked to be oppressed in the first place.

The examples you gave before of prior injustices (Indigenous peoples) were brought on due to forced changes in culture and forced assimilation.

The two are not comparable. The Natives should have been given their own country or given their own land so the Canadian government could not interfere with them. What you have is an example of one culture (European) trying to force another culture that had already existed for thousands of years.

Meanwhile, Muslim migration to the Western world is a much more recent phenomenon. If both the Indigenous people and European settlers say they do not want their societies to become Islamic, that is well within their right to tell them to live somewhere else.

And look at it this way, does this not avoid future problems? Why would you want to live in a society where you are a religious minority and thus at the complete mercy of the majority? If I was Muslim, I would live in countries that are historically and culturally Islamic.

Culture changes because life is not stagnant and humans are creative.

I can go back 100 years and still find culture that is the same.
Where there Canadians who still played Hockey in the past? Where there still Canadians that went to Church in the past? Was the articles of Canadian Confederation written in 1867 in both English and French?

You would be surprised but a lot of the groundwork for modern Canada already existed within the past century. For example, we still use the same railways built by Canada in 1881. How could this be possible, if we didn't always have a culture that was interested in science and engineering?

This is why we don't need change. It assumes that the people in the past built all this great stuff that none of their ancestors would care about in the future. How wrong is that. They knew or expected their culture to carry on because there aren't many places in the world that do consider all these to be important.

The infrastructure set in place was done by people you did not know,

It was set in place by the people who lived and built this country first. We can crack open any history book and definitely see who these people were in the beginning. The most easiest, being the founding fathers of Canada.

And before anyone rages at me, I could use the same example for non-European countries too.

If I moved to Japan, would anyone really believe I had a hand in creating the island, or did the island and its history exist way before I would even immigrate?
No, that credit would go to the Japanese who where always there first, and were responsible for creating a country that allows outsiders to visit.

An example: Emperor Meiji did a lot more for Japan by getting it to industrialize first as opposed to someone who immigrates and teaches english.

People don't just walk in and integrate, it usually takes at least 1 generation who face hardship.

My point was, immigrants only have to pass a test to become Canadian. This is completely different from talking about the people who came up with the tests and other social services that Canadians get to enjoy. In which case, yes, immigration is easy. No one who immigrants to Canada [today] is literally expected to settle the land and start a new city from scratch. When you move here, all the 1st world ammenities already exist for you.

But when the first Canadians came here in say the 1500s (if we go by explorers like Samuel Champain), then no, they didn't go straight to an immigration office and immediately start a new life. The country itself had to be built from scratch based around tremendous labor and brainpower.

Canada is not undergoing a lab experiment, they're not the country with the most immigrants nor are they the country with the highest percentage of immigrants relative to their host population

I can find the data but I recall that Canada actually imports 1% of its population each year. This is backed up by other studies that say that by 2030 or 2040, the majority of Canadians will actually be a foreign born population. Compare that to estimates like France or Britain where studies say its expected to happen in 2060 or 2070.


And yes, I consider this an experiment because this level of multiculturalism is unprecedented. Given that most of the world still fights wars based on religion or other cultural conflicts, taking a country like Canada that was historically British/French/Indian and having the entire world move in screams shortsighted to me.

What do we do if this all backfires? Where exactly is the exit plan from this? Even the topic of immigration is incredibly hard to bring up and debate because a lot of people are conditioned to believe it is not something you are allowed to question. For proof, there was the Prime Minister debate last year where Maxime Bernier brought up immigration and every other candidate completely objected to wanting to look into it.

Both USA and Canada have been progressively increasing spending on research & development for decades, consistently at a high chunk of the total federal budget. Believe me, science is doing just fine. In fact, I can guarantee you that scientific progression is happening at a rate unprecedented in history and it's not even close to slowing down. The research being done today is not only held to higher standards, but it's also done with greater oversight than ever before (on the whole, of course). Science is a worldwide effort, publications in USA or Canada can reference publications in Japan or Germany, it happens all the time regardless of immigration.

I can still worry that a potential culture shift could also entail a reduced focus on the sciences. Or that Canada and other Western countries might see their input reduced because more people vote for left-wing or wealth redistribution policies that leaves no money left.

After all, you bring up examples like Germany or Japan as great examples of scientific development. Why not tell me what the level of scientific development in Brazil or Guatemala is?

 

[Chromata]

That doesn't change what I said.
Multiculturalism does not provide any limits to religious beliefs. When countries try and promote secularism, they also come under attack for suppressing freedom.

And yet, if a Muslim majority where to happen tomorrow, who am I suppose to trust will ensure protections for minorities exist? Again, I can literally look at all these countries where Muslims are in control and instantly know what my rights are. Death.

Why can't I rightfully assume Canada is only a safe space for Atheists & LGBT because we clearly are non-Islamic country? It is unlikely that Christians are going to oppress me because plenty of Christian countries exist who don't interpret their bible literally.


Then they have the choice to not move to these Western countries, do they not?
I wont ever go to Japan and tell Japanese people their religion is wrong. I wont travel to the Middle East and try to convince the people to be secular.

So why can't the same happen to Canada? When our identity is clearly a non-Islamic one, why on earth would we take the risk and lose our culture to one that is highly intolerant to non-believers, either because of what it's holy book says, or because the same pattern literally exists whenever there's a Muslim majority?

This is why multiculturalism is a paradox. If we cannot force people to reevaluate their religions that clearly say " "x" non-believer must be treated this way" then what do you expect will happen when the demographics start shifting where these same people will eventually have political power? That's no longer diversity, that's one group having all the power to subjugate others that never asked to be oppressed in the first place.


The two are not comparable. The Natives should have been given their own country or given their own land so the Canadian government could not interfere with them. What you have is an example of one culture (European) trying to force another culture that had already existed for thousands of years.

Meanwhile, Muslim migration to the Western world is a much more recent phenomenon. If both the Indigenous people and European settlers say they do not want their societies to become Islamic, that is well within their right to tell them to live somewhere else.

And look at it this way, does this not avoid future problems? Why would you want to live in a society where you are a religious minority and thus at the complete mercy of the majority? If I was Muslim, I would live in countries that are historically and culturally Islamic.


I can go back 100 years and still find culture that is the same.
Where there Canadians who still played Hockey in the past? Where there still Canadians that went to Church in the past? Was the articles of Canadian Confederation written in 1867 in both English and French?

You would be surprised but a lot of the groundwork for modern Canada already existed within the past century. For example, we still use the same railways built by Canada in 1881. How could this be possible, if we didn't always have a culture that was interested in science and engineering?

This is why we don't need change. It assumes that the people in the past built all this great stuff that none of their ancestors would care about in the future. How wrong is that. They knew or expected their culture to carry on because there aren't many places in the world that do consider all these to be important.


It was set in place by the people who lived and built this country first. We can crack open any history book and definitely see who these people were in the beginning. The most easiest, being the founding fathers of Canada.

And before anyone rages at me, I could use the same example for non-European countries too.

If I moved to Japan, would anyone really believe I had a hand in creating the island, or did the island and its history exist way before I would even immigrate?
No, that credit would go to the Japanese who where always there first, and were responsible for creating a country that allows outsiders to visit.

An example: Emperor Meiji did a lot more for Japan by getting it to industrialize first as opposed to someone who immigrates and teaches english.


My point was, immigrants only have to pass a test to become Canadian. This is completely different from talking about the people who came up with the tests and other social services that Canadians get to enjoy. In which case, yes, immigration is easy. No one who immigrants to Canada [today] is literally expected to settle the land and start a new city from scratch. When you move here, all the 1st world ammenities already exist for you.

But when the first Canadians came here in say the 1500s (if we go by explorers like Samuel Champain), then no, they didn't go straight to an immigration office and immediately start a new life. The country itself had to be built from scratch based around tremendous labor and brainpower.


I can find the data but I recall that Canada actually imports 1% of its population each year. This is backed up by other studies that say that by 2030 or 2040, the majority of Canadians will actually be a foreign born population. Compare that to estimates like France or Britain where studies say its expected to happen in 2060 or 2070.


And yes, I consider this an experiment because this level of multiculturalism is unprecedented. Given that most of the world still fights wars based on religion or other cultural conflicts, taking a country like Canada that was historically British/French/Indian and having the entire world move in screams shortsighted to me.

What do we do if this all backfires? Where exactly is the exit plan from this? Even the topic of immigration is incredibly hard to bring up and debate because a lot of people are conditioned to believe it is not something you are allowed to question. For proof, there was the Prime Minister debate last year where Maxime Bernier brought up immigration and every other candidate completely objected to wanting to look into it.


I can still worry that a potential culture shift could also entail a reduced focus on the sciences. Or that Canada and other Western countries might see their input reduced because more people vote for left-wing or wealth redistribution policies that leaves no money left.

After all, you bring up examples like Germany or Japan as great examples of scientific development. Why not tell me what the level of scientific development in Brazil or Guatemala is?

Again, you keep looking at other countries and assuming that demographics are the sole reason for their conditions. Do not look at another country and assume that moving there would be like having that country’s immigrants move to your country. Context plays an enormous role in this, that’s what I was explaining with the Milgram experiment example. My statement does change what you said because your statement relies on a majority Muslim population translating to death. There are Christians that interpret the bible one way, and those that do it another. There are Muslims that do the same, no one population holds a monopoly on massacres. If you were a racial minority in Nazi Germany, you’d probably be in danger, not because all Germans were racist people, it’s because ruling parties and situational context gave power to extreme Nazi ideals. It doesn’t mean moving Germans to America during that time would result in an instant minority hunt, the context would be completely different.

Nobody is telling Canadians that their culture is wrong. Canada didn’t even really have its own culture, it’s a country that’s only ~150 years old. Canada’s culture can be called a mix of a bunch of cultures which existed before it (most of which was formed by killing the people of other cultures and phagocytizing its values/customs) and even then that's pushing it considering today’s youth is largely raised on modern American values. There is not one culture on this planet that’s static. 100 years of time is nothing, Homo Sapiens is ~200 000 years old. Cultures have been shaping and forming throughout that entire length of time. Of course you’ll see similarities if you look back in time, everything had a starting point and everything came from something, it doesn’t mean nothing changes.

There is no exit point for multiculturalism, you're giving people the ability to connect intimately with others around the world and travel the globe in 1 day, then expecting everything to be just as it was. That's not happening. You're also assuming the world would be as advanced as it is today if these communication systems weren't as developed as they are. It wouldn't. Countries in their current form are not independent, they are reliant on communications and trades from other countries in order to function. Corporations involve individuals cooperating across the globe and moving by plane around the world to meet each other regularly. People will not stay put in that system. If everybody stayed put, people only superficially communicated, and culture never changed, what kind of progress do you expect to happen in the human race?

Immigrants are not expected to have a hand in creating the structures that came before them. Nobody is. You had nothing to do with the people who built all the systems that came before you, you just happen to follow the same way of life, and even then that's only to a point. Your way of life is nothing like the way of life of your distant ancestors who first created the technologies you use every day. Everything can be traced back like this to the point of irrelevancy. It's a completely pointless exercise. What's important is how we can carry humanity forward and immigration is mandatory for that to happen. If you removed all the work put into Canada by immigrants to make it what it is today, Canada would be decimated. We can't be stuck in the past because of some arbitrary rule of who made what hundreds of years ago. You notice that this level of multiculturalism is unprecedented, but then don't also notice that this level of cultural growth and scientific advancement is also unprecedented. It all goes hand in hand.

Scientific development has been accelerated by globalization and immigration. Better education opportunities are given to people around the world which fosters the worlds best minds into doing amazing things, research institutions around the globe co operate on projects, and professional competencies are accessible on a grander scale than ever before. Science isn't something that only right-wing people value, it's also not something that only western societies value. You almost make it sound like immigrants and other cultures don't value science, only your people do. The core scientific concepts we hold today were founded by different nations across history which were only shared thanks to migration patterns (leading to shared knowledge, culture, and customs).

I'm not sure why you're concerned about the scientific development in Brazil or Guatemala, it's completely irrelevant to my point that science isn't a western concept. I know you may not mean to come off this way, but your attitude towards other countries seems like you think they're savages and that all of the accomplishments of USA/Canada are purely due to its own people.

 

[HarryKS]

I think the birth rates highlights just how useless our governments really are.

How come during the first sign of decreasing fertility (1966) did no one step in and say "woah woah guys, we gotta correct this"?

Whose idea was it to say "actually... we'll just start importing more immigrants instead"?

Humanity has existed for millions of years. It's really bizarre that all of a sudden, all these countries on earth just don't know or want to make babies anymore.
No, it's absolutely possible. But the governments of the world thought using cheap labor to replace people is a better idea.

Governments can only encourage so many things through tax breaks. Other things such as sexual liberation, feminism, the West's obsession with indivualism and the systematic destruction of the nuclear family have led to this.

These are forces that have prevailed even since the dawn of modern civilization. When you hit an apex, population expansion rates stabilize then start to decline. It's a worldwide pattern currently.

Canada has everything to gain from a larger population density. It just so happens that it's hard to control.

 

[JordanN]

Again, you keep looking at other countries and assuming that demographics are the sole reason for their conditions.

I do not expect a 100% atheist country to pass anti-Atheist laws. I do not expect a 100% Christian country to pass anti-Christian laws.
Common sense should tell anyone that groups look out for their own interests. Why wouldn't they?

An Islamic society isn't going to give a damn what some heretic thinks because to them, anything that goes against Islam is considered a fringe idea. Just as how, in Communist China, the reverse scenario exists. The Chinese government would view religion as fringe or a threat to their society and either suppresses or ostracizes it.

Canada's demographics tells us a similar story. When it was founded in 1867, the country was overwhelming centered around Christianity. We have many examples of Christian based countries who either didn't care or stopped enforcing rules found in the bible. Meanwhile, several Islamic countries still exist who interpret their religion more strongly than the Christian West.

Given these raw truths, I am not sure why it's hard to understand that a demographic shift away from Christendom to that of an Islamic majority does pave the way for the West to become exactly like all these other countries in the Middle East.

The proof is in the pudding, when countries try and promote a secular lifestyle but it comes in direct conflict with Islam, it is not Islam followers who are cheering on these laws. In which case, the demographics directly supports what's going to happen when a religious majority takes over, they are 100% guaranteed to not pass any laws meant to protect the non-muslim minorities.

There are Christians that interpret the bible one way, and those that do it another. There are Muslims that do the same, no one population holds a monopoly on massacres.

Ok, so why aren't they leading the charge in their own countries then? I already pointed out, plenty of Christian majority countries have undergone movements that remove strict interpretations of the bible. They were also the first to even push for "separation of church and state". In Islamic countries, how many are already theocracies or promote Islam is the law of the land?

If you were a racial minority in Nazi Germany, you’d probably be in danger, not because all Germans were racist people, it’s because ruling parties and situational context gave power to extreme Nazi ideals. It doesn’t mean moving Germans to America during that time would result in an instant minority hunt, the context would be completely different.

Germans were never Nazis by default. They could have enlisted in the Nazi Party and actually spread their party's message, in which case, I would still be weary of a room of Nazis being able to vote on human rights issues.

In your example, Muslims obviously choose to follow their faith. Unless they actually leave their beliefs, we already know based on group pattern behavior that there are still assimilation issues or opposition to secular laws.

Nobody is telling Canadians that their culture is wrong. Canada didn’t even really have its own culture, it’s a country that’s only ~150 years old.

How do you come up with this?
There certainly was a culture. Look at every building that was erected. Does Canadian architecture have any relation to Asian Architecture, or African, or Indigenous?
Did Canadians not play sports? Did they not build their own schools and universities? Didn't Canada have their own entertainment industry?

Being a 150 years old is not an excuse for saying there was no culture. There are countries that were founded much later, would you say a country like Israel has no culture, just because it started in 1948?

. Canada’s culture can be called a mix of a bunch of cultures which existed before it (most of which was formed by killing the people of other cultures and phagocytizing its values/customs) and even then that's pushing it considering today’s youth is largely raised on modern American values. There is not one culture on this planet that’s static. 100 years of time is nothing, Homo Sapiens is ~200 000 years old. Cultures have been shaping and forming throughout that entire length of time. Of course you’ll see similarities if you look back in time, everything had a starting point and everything came from something, it doesn’t mean nothing changes.

And yet when we look around the world, there are still certain boundaries or differences that demonstrate cultures can remain the same when put up against other ones.
The most spoken language in the world is Mandarin, which is 3,000 years old. I'm not sure how one can interpret that is going to change any soon. Or if it does, why? If the Chinese feel comfortable speaking the same tongue their ancestors from millennia ago were using, what exactly is the pressure to ditch that?

There is no exit point for multiculturalism, you're giving people the ability to connect intimately with others around the world and travel the globe in 1 day, then expecting everything to be just as it was.

That's exactly how the world was before the 1970s. What do you believe immigration control is? When countries are free to put up quotas or literally deny entrance, they did have control over how "diverse" a nation should really be. Some countries still practice to be honest. It's the mostly the West though that is now taking the brunt damage of it. Illegal immigration for example, is being treated as a topic where anyone who opposes it must also support "concentration camps" or "nazism". All nuance is now lost, because the media has succeeded in painting a picture where unlimited immigration can only be a good thing, and anyone who is against this must be a bad person. Even though I believe in the opposite. Uncontrolled immigration + importing a mix of non-native cultural backgrounds = lack of assimilation or worse, actual ethnic or religious conflict.

Corporations involve individuals cooperating across the globe and moving by plane around the world to meet each other regularly. People will not stay put in that system. If everybody stayed put, people only superficially communicated, and culture never changed, what kind of progress do you expect to happen in the human race?

If people want to visit different countries as a tourist, that's a whole different story. Tourists are universally seen as outsiders, who generally don't even stay long in a foreign country, nor do they actually participate in the local politics. The actual cultural conflict of interest is much more minimized, because no tourist is considered a legal citizen of a foreign country they visit. So you can be expected to be on your best behavior or you literally get back on the plane and have to leave. IMO, that is how far globalization should go. It doesn't actually disrupt how a nation continues to run itself. But when you do import people with completely different history or beliefs and they soon get to vote in elections, then that's when things start to look a little chaotic.

What's important is how we can carry humanity forward and immigration is mandatory for that to happen. If you removed all the work put into Canada by immigrants to make it what it is today, Canada would be decimated.

I see zero evidence of this. If you're talking about the recent migration waves, then no, Canada would not collapse without their contribution. The country is much older, and once Canada hit Industrialization status, it already solidified its place as being a world power.

Immigrants are not expected to have a hand in creating the structures that came before them. Nobody is. You had nothing to do with the people who built all the systems that came before you, you just happen to follow the same way of life, and even then that's only to a point.

Nonsense, they pass on what they built in the past to those they believe would take care of them once they left this earth. That is what inheritance is all about. And when you look at a nation, its those citizens who come first and are expected to carry on their legacy or traditions of their ancestors before them. Pretend we lived in a world where Canada completely closed its borders. Do I believe that all the railways or government buildings would fall apart if Canada never opened its door again to outsiders? Absolutely not. As long as the people still exist, with the same culture of hard work and scientific progression, it is quite possible the country itself would look nearly identical to how it is today.

Scientific development has been accelerated by globalization and immigration. Better education opportunities are given to people around the world which fosters the worlds best minds into doing amazing things, research institutions around the globe co operate on projects, and professional competencies are accessible on a grander scale than ever before. Science isn't something that only right-wing people value, it's also not something that only western societies value. You almost make it sound like immigrants and other cultures don't value science, only your people do. The core scientific concepts we hold today were founded by different nations across history which were only shared thanks to migration patterns (leading to shared knowledge, culture, and customs).

Let us separate individuals from nations. If we do know there are nations that for example, have built many libraries and scientific institutions, and maintained them for hundreds of years, then yes, it is completely rational to believe that on a national level, there are countries or places on earth that place a higher level of importance on the sciences than compared to somewhere else.

On an individual level, then the variation is much more different. Yes, we'll get scientists from all around the world who are interested in pursuing the same fields. However, if these same scientists find themselves travelling to the countries I mentioned above that had years of building up their own scientific community, then the conclusion I reach is there are places on earth where people who want the to be apart of the most ground-breaking research clearly do so in the same countries that value it more than others. If this was not the case, then I would expect a sort of "reverse migration" where the complete opposite happens (people leave very advance countries to go to research in less developed ones).

I'm not sure why you're concerned about the scientific development in Brazil or Guatemala, it's completely irrelevant to my point that science isn't a western concept.

It's relevant because when you brought up "science is progressing at unprecedented rate" I asked you in which countries do we see so much interest in it for it to take place? Your first examples where even Germany & Japan, telling me you went with those examples clearly because they are 1st world or that those are cultures that will always place an emphasis on scientific advancement, whereas the same cannot be said Brazil or Guatemala, for whichever reason, are much further behind in this aspect.

If it's in my country's interest to not slowdown or become like the rest of the world where certain cultures do not have as much priority on scientific development, then I would expect my nation to do everything it can to protect this status in fear that it could be "changed" one day. I also never said other people are savages. How else are we suppose to criticize other groups or countries if they do have different interests compared to the West?

 

[haxan7]

This thread must be one of the frontrunners for most text per post.

I can’t even bring myself to read this page.

 

[JordanN]

Governments can only encourage so many things through tax breaks. Other things such as sexual liberation, feminism, the West's obsession with indivualism and the systematic destruction of the nuclear family have led to this.

These are forces that have prevailed even since the dawn of modern civilization. When you hit an apex, population expansion rates stabilize then start to decline. It's a worldwide pattern currently.

Canada has everything to gain from a larger population density. It just so happens that it's hard to control.

This is still the government's fault. Especially when you bring up the destruction of the nuclear family or obsession with individualism.

A country with no people means the end of your own civilization. If you are not campaigning to actually resurrect your nation's birth rate then it shows how much the leaders actually care about their own people and fostering over the nation.

It means they don't want their native population to continue existing or they are complicit with seeing them go away. Or both.

I believe I'm asking the hard questions that many haven't actually given a second thought about. Why should any country see their own native stock disappear? How are we suppose to know any of the alternatives will be better, especially as we'll be long dead to actually witness it? It to me does not sound right, that literally all these countries that built themselves after hundreds of years, now refuses to make more children who can actually inherit where there ancestors left off.

If you were truly a leader, you should be getting up on TV everyday and warning your citizens "look, we are actually facing the largest existential crisis in human history. If we all don't do our part to raise the birth rate, nothing will be left in the end". It is that serious, but very if any modern heads of state even want to address such message to a large audience.