Jophiel wrote:
Still no reasons on the whole country-name thing, huh?
It's incredibly simple: If you think there's legitimate reasons why a nation using the name of a multi-nation region is okay or even a continent with several nations is okay, but it's not okay at a certain point, explain exactly why that is.
If you can't explain it, the logical conclusion is that there is no reason (even in your own mind) and you're only making the distinction to serve your own argument and nothing more.
Edited, Apr 5th 2011 11:39am by Jophiel
It's incredibly simple: If you think there's legitimate reasons why a nation using the name of a multi-nation region is okay or even a continent with several nations is okay, but it's not okay at a certain point, explain exactly why that is.
If you can't explain it, the logical conclusion is that there is no reason (even in your own mind) and you're only making the distinction to serve your own argument and nothing more.
Edited, Apr 5th 2011 11:39am by Jophiel
Still going to ignore defining your "arbitrary" counter?
It's incredible simple: You made an argument on numbers being arbitrary yet you contradicted that same thought process on the drinking age analogy. Either you think the numbers are arbitrary with no reason, with reason or some combination. You can't just keep changing your stance depending on the debate.
If you can't explain it, the logical conclusion is that this is not a debate on being arbitrary, but the actual number in discussion and you're only making the distinction to serve your own argument and nothing more.
Arip wrote:
Yes I'm aware I'm just repeating myself. Yes, I just ignored your big long reply to me by cutting it all out.
Yes, I disagree with Joph in that I think it is correct to say "they were speaking American", "they were speaking Quebecois" and "they were speaking Pidgeon".
Yes, I disagree with Joph in that I think it is correct to say "they were speaking American", "they were speaking Quebecois" and "they were speaking Pidgeon".
If you disagree with him, then why are you quoting me? Why not quote him and the others (i.e. Belkira) who contradict your claim?
Belkira wrote:
Show me what you're talking about, please.
1. Education laws.
2. Minor-labor laws.
3. Minimum wage laws.
4. Drinking laws
5. Marriage laws
6. Child support/ Alimony laws
7. Just about every freakin other law out there.
I know you're probably thinking " How does Education or minor laws have anything to do with beliefs". These laws are based on what we believe are right and just. These laws are not the same across the world, they are merely OUR beliefs. "We" think it's morally wrong to force a child to work on a farm instead of going to school.
Belkira wrote:
Yeah, you still haven't proven that we're changing these big important laws because one guy got offended. Try harder.
I'm not necessarily talking about a single guy, but people involved in law making not representing the country as a whole. What does the country think about abortion and SSM? How involved are the citizens when making these decisions? You have incidents like a homosexual homicide or 911 and society changes.
Belkira wrote:
That damn freedom of speech. Gets you every time, doesn't it? Smiley: frown
/smh
You just don't get it. The laws are one thing, social acceptance is another. If you can't grasp the difference and how they play a part in defining your nation, then that's a failure on your part.
Belkira wrote:
No, I don't see where you're going with this. Other than to say that, as a society, we have differing opinions on subjects, and the loudest voice gets heard. And...? What does that mean, exactly? What's your point?
Read above, it's not the loudest voice, but the certain voices. Once the media is involved, all is done. Media controls our politics and if the media focuses on certain issues or certain things, that will play a change in our nation.