I've been in "smaller" classes where there is only 4 other students in the class & it sucks...Im telling you 20-30 is a good number you just twidle your thumbs with only 4 kids in the class.
5 kids is crazy, but I have a class where we have only just enough seats for everyone--36 kids. It's an interesting class (Literature of Psychology), and it'd be a lot better if everyone could have a chance to talk.
During my on-and-off journey through special-ed in school, I've been in everything. Large classes in college of way more than 200 people, and small classes with no more than three students.
Honestly, I believe that I learned far more in these smaller classes than I could have ever learned in the larger ones, especially due to the nature of said large classes to spend far more time re-iterating materials which often were of no value to me or which I had understood quite easily. These smaller classes were far more personal, often leading to both myself and the other students getting rather well acquainted in our class time. Hell, I believe that it was because of special education's "smaller" class sizes that I was able to pull off some of the higher grades in the New York State Regents exams so easily. Each course taught me what *I* needed to learn, and because of fewer students being in each session, more time was available for the professor/teacher to assist individuals such as myself. I've often found myself lacking in larger classroom environments because of the exact opposite hapenning. Too little time was spent covering the materials I could not understand, and due to class sizes, time was unable to be found (however, this was not terribly severe until my larger liberal arts classes in college).
Overall, my favorite courses have always been those with the smallest class size. It's just so much more personal and that much more comfortable to me. One of my all-time favorites was a nanotechnology lab, in which I was one of three students. The small size of the class allowed each and every student the equal chances of understanding the material, as well as the possibility to spend as much time as wished exploring whatever it was that caught their eye (such as oh so very shiny single wall carbon nanotubes. Mmmm...nanotubes....)
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by sleepy_shadow [/i]
[B]Oops, I just noticed the first post.
Fairly strange. I want an extract of his writings! Only my own eyes can bring conclusion... on whether it was a story of fiction... or a plan of harming people.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Even if it really was a plan to do something there's absolutely nothing wrong in that as long as he doesn't try to carry out that plan. And that's what makes that story doubly insane if it is really true. In fact, that story makes mere imagining/thinking something bad illegal and bad, which itself is absolutely insane.
Somebody should actually arrest those police officers and everybody else involved against that kid. Those kind of people should not be free terrorising normal peoples lives with their absurd and irrational behaviour.
Growing up near a community (woodburn Oregon) that has many second generation mexican immigrants who still have yet to learn to speak english doesnt give me hope, especially since Im only three generations out of germany, and I know diddly about german.
As for the netherlands, there is some small tension between various groups if your near eindoven and make the mistake of calling Netherlands "holland" you might tick off a local. And they speak dutch down there.
As for Firisan being an offical language, its only been recognized as such in 1970 and wasnt eligible for use in government documents till like 1985. So lets see how this goes on.
Switzerland is the ONLY multilingual polity with a long history, and that only came out as a result of switzerland having a very decentralized goverment, and that was a result of one of very bloody civil war that occured along religious and linguistic lines, essentially all the sides ultimatly ended up collapsing in exaustion and called the war quits.
Secondly as for David of Macs argument that the language spoken by washinton et all was different from that spoken today.
Yes and no, the written langage was allot more formal, even in correspondance and dairys, that was the nature of writing, it was SUPPOST to be formal, commonly spoken vernacular wasnt that different from today.
Secondly I dont know about you, but I still can easily read the founders documents, if you cant I suggest you revisit your education.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PJH [/i]
Even if it really was a plan to do something there's absolutely nothing wrong in that as long as he doesn't try to carry out that plan. And that's what makes that story doubly insane if it is really true. In fact, that story makes mere imagining/thinking something bad illegal and bad, which itself is absolutely insane.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for adding. I forgot that.
Absolutely correct. For something to be criminal, it must harm someone. Thoughts and unpublished writings harm nobody.
No law should prohibit thought... and unless the relevant officials intend to start confiscating brains... they should not even bother attempting to incriminate thought.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JackN [/i]
[B]I'm waiting for the day when a bill or law is written in Ibonics for example, and is accepted. That'll be an interesting day.[/B][/QUOTE]
Not interesting so much as tragic, since if it ever happens, it'll be because legislators are afraid that if they don't pass it, they will be politically and personally crucified for what will be called their "racism and cultural bias against blacks."
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B] Secondly I dont know about you, but I still can easily read the founders documents, if you cant I suggest you revisit your education. [/B][/QUOTE]
You know, I have the oddest feeling that this isn't the first time you've not-so-subtly called me stupid. If only I could get that confounded search feature to work so I could confirm it. Darn. Oh, well.
But, you're right. I would have to be pretty dumb not to be able to easily understand, oh, [i]"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."[/i] It's a little stuffier than our friendly little chats, but that fits the context. It ain't [i]Ulysses[/i] or anything like that.
But then I thought, "Wait! I [i]can[/i] understand those!" Clearly, my meaning must have been something else. Looking back, I see instead the problem was a sloppy compound sentence. Apparently, I was dumb enough to address two dispirit topics in one sentence. When I made mention of the language of the Founding Fathers, I was most certainly not continuing to refer to them and their speech when I wrote of "legalistic mumbo-jumbo." Frankly, I am shocked and ashamed that I could so fail to clearly communicate my ideas. It seems I will be forever cursed to poorly parse my ideas.
For the record, when I refereed to "legalistic mumbo-jumbo," the image I had in my mind was this referendum that was voted on in South Carolina some years ago. It regarded whether or not to abolish the Sunday "Blue Laws", which control what hours businesses may open on Sundays. Two counties, Charleston and Greenville, had already abolished the Blue Laws.
Now, put yourself in the place of a Greenville voter. Your Blue Laws are no longer in effect. Here is the referendum. [quote][i]From an actual South Carolina referendum[/i]
[b]Shall the prohibition on Sunday work continue in this county subject to an employee's right to elect not to work on Sunday if the prohibition is not continued after certification of the result of this referendum to the Secretary of State?[/b][/quote]
You like being able to buy things at the local store on Sundays, so you want to vote against the Blue Laws. What do you punch, "Yes" or "No"? No peaking at the answer!
Answer: Spoiler: In the case of Greenville, a "No" vote would have the county be exempt from the Blue Laws (as it already was). A "Yes" vote would put them back into practice.
Now, tell me that wasn't unnecessarily complex and difficult to understand.
By the way, it didn't literally make my eyes bleed. That was just a joke. You probably got that, but after you though I was talking about the Constitution and the Declaration when I refereed to "legalistic mumbo-jumbo," I think I should make sure.
[quote][i]Originally posted by MT[/i]
[b]Not interesting so much as tragic, since if it ever happens, it'll be because legislators are afraid that if they don't pass it, they will be politically and personally crucified for what will be called their "racism and cultural bias against blacks."[/b][/quote]
You know, I just had a thought. It might have happened already (not with ebonics, mind you, but in general). Are there alternate-language versions of American legal documents? If so (and I'm betting there are) wouldn't it be just like a treaty between countries, where each party has a copy written in its native language? If the United States became a true multilingual nation (that'll be the day), would it not be possible that for each language-of-record there was a translated compendium of the laws of the land?
Actually, I tend to think ebonics is a poor example, since most people don't even think it counts as a language (but that's another topic). It'd probably be more useful to speculate on a bill authored in, say, latin. Would it be translated into english before it was passed? Afterward? Ever?
Speculation is all it would be, though. As I mentioned, English is the [i]lingua franca[/i] of the United States. Our country runs on it. It is, for most practical intents and purposes, the official language of the country. And its a good thing, too. A country needs a common language to run. We can't have people running around unable to communicate. And it's simply impractical to expect everyone to learn multiple languages ([i]Firefly[/i] notwithstanding), unless you live in Europe.
Now, I know what you're thinking. You're thinking "WTF? Didn't he just say that it wasn't a good thing a few posts ago?" (Yes, amazingly, I know you think in 'net abbreviations. Don't ask how, I don't understand it either) To explain further, I think we'd have to decide what would be the effect of English as an official language, rather than the default.
Would you have to know English to obtain citizenship? Well, of course; you have to as is. Would noncitizens have to know English to remain in the country, or risk deportation? How about illegals, or asylum seekers? Would they be given a time limit to learn English, lest they be deported back to whatever hellhole they came running from? What about immigrants who know english, but continue to speak their original language by default because of some sort of inexplicable nationalistic chauvinism that the native-born citizens of the gloriously egalitarian Unites States could never sink low enough to understand? Would they be punished for conducting their affairs in another language?
Frankly, none of those is particularly appealing to me (save the citizenry requirement). And I'm suspect of the motivations of those that endorse it. Before those of you that do support it crucify me for insulting your honor, though, I should explain that I suspect a decent part of this is because my first exposure to the idea was as a tender young lad of nine, when a friend said his favorite thing about presidential candidate Bob Dole was that he would make English the official language.
Why did my friend support this?
[i]Because it would mean he wouldn't have to take Spanish anymore[/i]. So now, I automatically think someone's reason for supporting the idea is the simple fact that they're sick to hell of having to put up with people who tell them "No habla inglais" and would much prefer being able to communicate with everyone around them, guaranteed (actually, given what such a law would entail, that would more properly be that they "would much prefer everyone around them being able to communicate with them," a subtle but important distinction). By itself, I don't think that's a good reason. Heck, I'm sick to hell of a great many things. Doesn't mean I'm going to support laws against all of them.
---
As an aside, I'm glad my friend didn't have anything against third-grade Art class. He might've thrown his lot in with the Dadaists. ;)
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]Id like to challenge people to name one mutilingual state that isnt having some kind of obnoxious time holding togeather[/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by bobo [/i]
[B]India? [/B][/QUOTE]
Considering the fact that india was nothing but a mess of squabbling states that was only unified by an islamic dynasty, the Mugahls, who conquered most of the country, then the British rajh which unified all of what is modern india.
India inpenedent of foreign occupation has only existed for 57 years, and they have been forced in oder to deal with the amazing plethora of languages to adopt english as the basic official language for government documents.
And India has large amounts of not only sectarian strife but other issues.
The Tamils (yes there are Tamils in mainland india too, not just Sri Lanka) and Sikhs have often tried to break off their respective parts of india.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
Id like to challenge people to name one mutilingual state that isnt having some kind of obnoxious time holding togeather[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by bobo [/i]
India?[/QUOTE]
India is a poor example. But the challenge... is accepted. Switzerland has 3 official languages, and has managed to stay together for a healthy 700 years -- during which a reputation of stability has made it pretty rich too.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by David of Mac [/i]
[B]You know, I have the oddest feeling that this isn't the first time you've not-so-subtly called me stupid. If only I could get that confounded search feature to work so I could confirm it. Darn. Oh, well.
[/B][/QUOTE]
I dont rember calling you stupid before, I generaly stick to insulting Reaver, ocassionaly I get nasty to ET, but thats because he's a commie :D
[QUOTE][B]
But, you're right. I would have to be pretty dumb not to be able to easily understand, oh, [i]"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."[/i] It's a little stuffier than our friendly little chats, but that fits the context. It ain't [i]Ulysses[/i] or anything like that.
[/B][/QUOTE]
I prefer [i]Charge of the Light Brigade[/i] but [i]Ulysses[/i] is definatly in the top ten list of my favorite poetic works.
[QUOTE][B]
For the record, when I refereed to "legalistic mumbo-jumbo," the image I had in my mind was this referendum that was voted on in South Carolina some years ago. It regarded whether or not to abolish the Sunday "Blue Laws", which control what hours businesses may open on Sundays. Two counties, Charleston and Greenville, had already abolished the Blue Laws.
Now, tell me that wasn't unnecessarily complex and difficult to understand.
By the way, it didn't literally make my eyes bleed. That was just a joke. You probably got that, but after you though I was talking about the Constitution and the Declaration when I refereed to "legalistic mumbo-jumbo," I think I should make sure.
[QUOTE][B]
I thank you for your efforts and increasing the clarity of the discussion.
Yes the particular law you cited is amazingly complex, however that was done [I]as a deliberate attempt at obfuscation[/I] such abuses will happen no matter what language is used.
Most legal language is rather formal, this is true, but this is do to the fact that it must be [i]as precise as possible[/i] quite the opposit of what your claiming. Now however do to politics on both sides of the political spectrum, Obfuscation does increasingly come into play, but at this juncture I think that has more to do with the past 20 years have seen america become increasingly polarized.
And even if laws are fairly straight forward how they are portrayed by media and others also makes things convoluted. I dont rember how many times I had to explain to people that the Assualt weapons ban had nothing to do with fully automatic weapons. But these should be recongnized for what they are, blanant attempts to lie to people. Not just using convoluted language to use it.
[QUOTE][B]
You know, I just had a thought. It might have happened already (not with ebonics, mind you, but in general). Are there alternate-language versions of American legal documents? If so (and I'm betting there are) wouldn't it be just like a treaty between countries, where each party has a copy written in its native language? If the United States became a true multilingual nation (that'll be the day), would it not be possible that for each language-of-record there was a translated compendium of the laws of the land?
[/QUOTE][/B]
Possible but quite difficult actually. Translation between even related languages is never precise and the more languages you add in the more difficult things get.
Words have meanings, and nuiancess attached to them, so that while on the surface the sentances may appear to say the same thing, they can often mean something entirely different.
Having poored through the UN treaty series at times, and seeing how often treaty situations do end up in dispute in front of the World Court, I would think you might be over simplifying things.
The shear effort in putting forth the laws of the land and the any given state in the land is huge, you now want to as many as what, a half dozen or more other languages that are common in the US into the mix? the effort necessary for that would be huge.
especially since once it gets to court due to a variety of actors involved, its all going to be done in english anyways!
[QUOTE][B]
Would you have to know English to obtain citizenship? Well, of course; you have to as is. Would noncitizens have to know English to remain in the country, or risk deportation? How about illegals, or asylum seekers? Would they be given a time limit to learn English, lest they be deported back to whatever hellhole they came running from? What about immigrants who know english, but continue to speak their original language by default because of some sort of inexplicable nationalistic chauvinism that the native-born citizens of the gloriously egalitarian Unites States could never sink low enough to understand? Would they be punished for conducting their affairs in another language?
[/QUOTE][/B]
Usually when the phrase "national language or official languge" is bandied about it simply means that the majority of goverment documents plus things like street signs and addresses are too be done in english, everything else is a private manner.
I mean its not like were plotting to act like France in this regard. In all practicality the movement to adopt english as a national language would not change the current status quo, but is intended as a hege against future waves of imigration that do not intergrate with the rest of society, I will discuss why this is necessary later
[quote][b]
Frankly, none of those is particularly appealing to me (save the citizenry requirement). And I'm suspect of the motivations of those that endorse it. Before those of you that do support it crucify me for insulting your honor, though, I should explain that I suspect a decent part of this is because my first exposure to the idea was as a tender young lad of nine, when a friend said his favorite thing about presidential candidate Bob Dole was that he would make English the official language.
Why did my friend support this?
[i]Because it would mean he wouldn't have to take Spanish anymore[/i]. So now, I automatically think someone's reason for supporting the idea is the simple fact that they're sick to hell of having to put up with people who tell them "No habla inglais" and would much prefer being able to communicate with everyone around them, guaranteed (actually, given what such a law would entail, that would more properly be that they "would much prefer everyone around them being able to communicate with them," a subtle but important distinction). By itself, I don't think that's a good reason. Heck, I'm sick to hell of a great many things. Doesn't mean I'm going to support laws against all of them.
[/quote] [/b]
Ahh see thats the crux of the argument in that you are generalizing your views of a few individuals to color everybody who argues for such a thing.
My basic premis about humanity and such is closer to Hobbes then to Locke, to put it bluntly "people suck". Now to why this matters. I have a political science degree. One of the things I am concerned with is the stability of polities.
Polities, (meaning any social structure, they all develop some form of political overtones) have a problem. during prosperous times the polities seem fairly stable, however during lean times the polities naturaly destablize. when they destabilize fractures start occuring along lines of [I] group identity[/I] In essence you have factions form and in the end, they go to war, people die, bad stuff happens. Languages can represent one of these ways that people end up deciding "us" and "them" and then deciding that the "them" is expendable or an obstacle to the goals of "us"
I am not a fan of "diversity" either, and by this I dont mean "everybody should be white!" hell no, in fact the notion or "race" is an artifical construct. people look different yes, have some minor differences of behavior, tastes what ever. But in general we should spend time focusing on homogeneity.
Why? because doing the opposit WILL eventually cause a society to factionalize and then go to war with itself over resources. Inherent in a notion of ANY group identity is an element of chauvanism. Your group IS somehow better then the others. Its special somehow.
Im looking at 3000 years of history here. People seem to assume that the world changed, that humanity changed. after VJ day and the founding of the UN.
We havent. Yeah I guess its because Im a pessimist. But when you have encountered throughly dispicable and inhumane things, hell when you have met a man who took part in [I]genocide[/I] who otherwise seems to be very nice and intellgient individual (I had a philosophy proffessor who fought on the Serbian side in Bosnia) you start thinking that hume was onto something, that in the end were still animals and our rationalizations are just shallow coverings for us acting on instinct.
Editing error -- apologies. Real post where it originally was.
However, noticing a few interesting comments by Tyvar regarding diversity... I think I can recycle this post into something more.
[quote]when they destabilize fractures start occuring along lines of group identity[/quote]
Therefore any union of different groups... should upon formation... foresee the possibility of splitting back up.
To avoid the fate of multiple federations and confederations which split in violent fashion... the formation should be carefully designed. Designed to split easily, without harm. Societies should design their frameworks to be sustainable in face of change. If a constitution is employed to lay groundwork... it should include a clearly formulated "exit clause".
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by sleepy_shadow [/i]
[B]India is a poor example. But the challenge... is accepted. Switzerland has 3 official languages -- and has managed to stay together for a healthy 700 years. [/B][/QUOTE]
Switzerland is the exception, and your stay healthy is only 500 years with a bit of a hickup in the 1840's
Switzerland while politicaly neutral visa vis the other states during the reformation saw some strife, and its mercenary forces were engaged in a series of proxy wars.
lastly the 1847 civilwar with the Sonderbund occured along religious/political lines. However the Italian elements of the confederation were some of the main supporters of the caholic church in switerzland in general.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by sleepy_shadow [/i]
[B]
To avoid the fate of multiple federations and confederations which split in violent fashion... the formation should be carefully designed. Designed to split easily, without harm. Societies should design their frameworks to be sustainable in face of change. If a constitution is employed to lay groundwork... it should include a clearly formulated "exit clause". [/B][/QUOTE]
That would mean that polity stablity is an illuson. Any time somebody disagreed they could split. While a nice theory, in practicallity what this means is insulting/injuriying other parties then claiming "independance" And then you have just changed an internal problem into one of externaialities, not actually remove the source of conflict.
All in all, It falls under the line by George Santayana "Only the dead have seen the end of war"
Switzerland while politicaly neutral visa vis the other states during the reformation saw some strife, and its mercenary forces were engaged in a series of proxy wars.
lastly the 1847 civilwar with the Sonderbund occured along religious/political lines. However the Italian elements of the confederation were some of the main supporters of the caholic church in switerzland in general.[/quote]
Point taken. It has not enjoyed complete peace. However, permit me to quote Wikipedia:
[quote][i]Someone at Wikipedia wrote:[/i]
In 1847, a civil war broke out between the Catholic and the Protestant cantons (Sonderbundskrieg). Its immediate cause was a 'special treaty' (Sonderbund) of the Catholic cantons. It lasted for less than a month, causing fewer than 100 casualties. Apart from small riots, this was the latest armed conflict on Swiss territory.[/quote]
Despite mentioned mishaps, the Swiss assembled a treaty... followed it up with a constitution... managed to stay different, yet stay together... and *not* by force, oppression or occupation.
Besides, even the 500 previous years... generously exceed the stability of most homogenous societies.
(Well, you could name ancient Egypt, but social and technical development flowed at different pace back then -- ancient Egypt simply faced long stretches of time with no particularly pressing challenge.)
[QUOTE]But in general we should spend time focusing on homogeneity.[/QUOTE]
I think you might be over-simplifying it.
Diversity permits evolution (no matter if genetic, social or technical) to try out more options. Trying more options yields more solutions, permitting timely avoidance of breaking pressure. The question is merely... which degree of diversity a particular social framework can safely carry.
History contains plentiful examples of both stagnant and oppressive homogenity... and unbalanced, hazardous diversity. Yet also balanced diversity, and development-capable homogenity.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
That would mean that polity stablity is an illuson. Any time somebody disagreed they could split.[/QUOTE]
This is indeed... what I envision the future calls for. But human kind is not yet ready. Feasible anarchy... would require far different levels of independence than our kind can hope anytime soon.
[quote]While a nice theory, in practicallity what this means is insulting/injuriying other parties then claiming "independance"[/quote]
You are forgetting the "soft" but inevitable costs of severing economic ties, and non-violent tit-for-tat playable with trade policies.
Societies which realize early that they must currently split... can act out their differences in less hurtful manner. They will pay for restructuring... can still double their customs tariffs, enact trade sanctions...
...and some would call it "war by other means"... but if notable reduction in violence can be achieved this way... then might it be worth trying?
[quote] And then you have just changed an internal problem into one of externaialities, not actually remove the source of conflict.[/quote]
Depends on the source of conflict. If the source of conflict was leftover animosity from a previous conflict... simple smothering of opportunist sources of ignition, and withdrawing fuel from oxidizer... may well make a difference.
Can you name a source of conflict in former Yugoslavia... which couldn't have been smothered... by timely yet peaceful hyper-attentive interference, a broadside of pork and help for peaceful splitting? It is all... a matter of degree. With sufficient investment, what worked in other places... could have worked there.
Even in a world with uneven allocation of resources... most wars don't have "objective" or "un-circumventable" reasons. Cutting a fraction of those from the total pool of wars... would improve things... and I think we might agree that despite inherent flaws in human nature... it should be attempted using all acceptable means (including the best of game theory).
[quote] All in all, It falls under the line by George Santayana "Only the dead have seen the end of war"[/QUOTE]
For eternity... yes, only the dead. But for a sufficiently long time... I think the very independent might enjoy a similar privilege.
But even before notable independence becomes possible... if mere scarcity of resources could be diminished... un-adaptive features in our inflexible minds... might automatically be suppressed.
With humans, some problems are recursive... and the determinant factor to whether they can be solved... may not be objective. Some things don't happen because they simply never get started... and other things happen simply because they never get stopped.
Comments
Honestly, I believe that I learned far more in these smaller classes than I could have ever learned in the larger ones, especially due to the nature of said large classes to spend far more time re-iterating materials which often were of no value to me or which I had understood quite easily. These smaller classes were far more personal, often leading to both myself and the other students getting rather well acquainted in our class time. Hell, I believe that it was because of special education's "smaller" class sizes that I was able to pull off some of the higher grades in the New York State Regents exams so easily. Each course taught me what *I* needed to learn, and because of fewer students being in each session, more time was available for the professor/teacher to assist individuals such as myself. I've often found myself lacking in larger classroom environments because of the exact opposite hapenning. Too little time was spent covering the materials I could not understand, and due to class sizes, time was unable to be found (however, this was not terribly severe until my larger liberal arts classes in college).
Overall, my favorite courses have always been those with the smallest class size. It's just so much more personal and that much more comfortable to me. One of my all-time favorites was a nanotechnology lab, in which I was one of three students. The small size of the class allowed each and every student the equal chances of understanding the material, as well as the possibility to spend as much time as wished exploring whatever it was that caught their eye (such as oh so very shiny single wall carbon nanotubes. Mmmm...nanotubes....)
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by sleepy_shadow [/i]
[B]Oops, I just noticed the first post.
Fairly strange. I want an extract of his writings! Only my own eyes can bring conclusion... on whether it was a story of fiction... or a plan of harming people.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Even if it really was a plan to do something there's absolutely nothing wrong in that as long as he doesn't try to carry out that plan. And that's what makes that story doubly insane if it is really true. In fact, that story makes mere imagining/thinking something bad illegal and bad, which itself is absolutely insane.
Somebody should actually arrest those police officers and everybody else involved against that kid. Those kind of people should not be free terrorising normal peoples lives with their absurd and irrational behaviour.
Simply unbelievable story.
- PJH
As for the netherlands, there is some small tension between various groups if your near eindoven and make the mistake of calling Netherlands "holland" you might tick off a local. And they speak dutch down there.
As for Firisan being an offical language, its only been recognized as such in 1970 and wasnt eligible for use in government documents till like 1985. So lets see how this goes on.
Switzerland is the ONLY multilingual polity with a long history, and that only came out as a result of switzerland having a very decentralized goverment, and that was a result of one of very bloody civil war that occured along religious and linguistic lines, essentially all the sides ultimatly ended up collapsing in exaustion and called the war quits.
Secondly as for David of Macs argument that the language spoken by washinton et all was different from that spoken today.
Yes and no, the written langage was allot more formal, even in correspondance and dairys, that was the nature of writing, it was SUPPOST to be formal, commonly spoken vernacular wasnt that different from today.
Secondly I dont know about you, but I still can easily read the founders documents, if you cant I suggest you revisit your education.
Chill out man, nothing to get worked up about.
<!--green-->
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PJH [/i]
Even if it really was a plan to do something there's absolutely nothing wrong in that as long as he doesn't try to carry out that plan. And that's what makes that story doubly insane if it is really true. In fact, that story makes mere imagining/thinking something bad illegal and bad, which itself is absolutely insane.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for adding. I forgot that.
Absolutely correct. For something to be criminal, it must harm someone. Thoughts and unpublished writings harm nobody.
No law should prohibit thought... and unless the relevant officials intend to start confiscating brains... they should not even bother attempting to incriminate thought.
[B]English is the national language of the USA.[/B][/QUOTE]
Hasn't any bill that actually declared English as the national language of the USA fail to make it too far? Odd, that.
It confuses me too, yes.
[B]I'm waiting for the day when a bill or law is written in Ibonics for example, and is accepted. That'll be an interesting day.[/B][/QUOTE]
Not interesting so much as tragic, since if it ever happens, it'll be because legislators are afraid that if they don't pass it, they will be politically and personally crucified for what will be called their "racism and cultural bias against blacks."
[B] Secondly I dont know about you, but I still can easily read the founders documents, if you cant I suggest you revisit your education. [/B][/QUOTE]
You know, I have the oddest feeling that this isn't the first time you've not-so-subtly called me stupid. If only I could get that confounded search feature to work so I could confirm it. Darn. Oh, well.
But, you're right. I would have to be pretty dumb not to be able to easily understand, oh, [i]"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."[/i] It's a little stuffier than our friendly little chats, but that fits the context. It ain't [i]Ulysses[/i] or anything like that.
But then I thought, "Wait! I [i]can[/i] understand those!" Clearly, my meaning must have been something else. Looking back, I see instead the problem was a sloppy compound sentence. Apparently, I was dumb enough to address two dispirit topics in one sentence. When I made mention of the language of the Founding Fathers, I was most certainly not continuing to refer to them and their speech when I wrote of "legalistic mumbo-jumbo." Frankly, I am shocked and ashamed that I could so fail to clearly communicate my ideas. It seems I will be forever cursed to poorly parse my ideas.
For the record, when I refereed to "legalistic mumbo-jumbo," the image I had in my mind was this referendum that was voted on in South Carolina some years ago. It regarded whether or not to abolish the Sunday "Blue Laws", which control what hours businesses may open on Sundays. Two counties, Charleston and Greenville, had already abolished the Blue Laws.
Now, put yourself in the place of a Greenville voter. Your Blue Laws are no longer in effect. Here is the referendum. [quote][i]From an actual South Carolina referendum[/i]
[b]Shall the prohibition on Sunday work continue in this county subject to an employee's right to elect not to work on Sunday if the prohibition is not continued after certification of the result of this referendum to the Secretary of State?[/b][/quote]
You like being able to buy things at the local store on Sundays, so you want to vote against the Blue Laws. What do you punch, "Yes" or "No"? No peaking at the answer!
Answer: Spoiler: In the case of Greenville, a "No" vote would have the county be exempt from the Blue Laws (as it already was). A "Yes" vote would put them back into practice.
Now, tell me that wasn't unnecessarily complex and difficult to understand.
By the way, it didn't literally make my eyes bleed. That was just a joke. You probably got that, but after you though I was talking about the Constitution and the Declaration when I refereed to "legalistic mumbo-jumbo," I think I should make sure.
[quote][i]Originally posted by MT[/i]
[b]Not interesting so much as tragic, since if it ever happens, it'll be because legislators are afraid that if they don't pass it, they will be politically and personally crucified for what will be called their "racism and cultural bias against blacks."[/b][/quote]
You know, I just had a thought. It might have happened already (not with ebonics, mind you, but in general). Are there alternate-language versions of American legal documents? If so (and I'm betting there are) wouldn't it be just like a treaty between countries, where each party has a copy written in its native language? If the United States became a true multilingual nation (that'll be the day), would it not be possible that for each language-of-record there was a translated compendium of the laws of the land?
Actually, I tend to think ebonics is a poor example, since most people don't even think it counts as a language (but that's another topic). It'd probably be more useful to speculate on a bill authored in, say, latin. Would it be translated into english before it was passed? Afterward? Ever?
Speculation is all it would be, though. As I mentioned, English is the [i]lingua franca[/i] of the United States. Our country runs on it. It is, for most practical intents and purposes, the official language of the country. And its a good thing, too. A country needs a common language to run. We can't have people running around unable to communicate. And it's simply impractical to expect everyone to learn multiple languages ([i]Firefly[/i] notwithstanding), unless you live in Europe.
Now, I know what you're thinking. You're thinking "WTF? Didn't he just say that it wasn't a good thing a few posts ago?" (Yes, amazingly, I know you think in 'net abbreviations. Don't ask how, I don't understand it either) To explain further, I think we'd have to decide what would be the effect of English as an official language, rather than the default.
Would you have to know English to obtain citizenship? Well, of course; you have to as is. Would noncitizens have to know English to remain in the country, or risk deportation? How about illegals, or asylum seekers? Would they be given a time limit to learn English, lest they be deported back to whatever hellhole they came running from? What about immigrants who know english, but continue to speak their original language by default because of some sort of inexplicable nationalistic chauvinism that the native-born citizens of the gloriously egalitarian Unites States could never sink low enough to understand? Would they be punished for conducting their affairs in another language?
Frankly, none of those is particularly appealing to me (save the citizenry requirement). And I'm suspect of the motivations of those that endorse it. Before those of you that do support it crucify me for insulting your honor, though, I should explain that I suspect a decent part of this is because my first exposure to the idea was as a tender young lad of nine, when a friend said his favorite thing about presidential candidate Bob Dole was that he would make English the official language.
Why did my friend support this?
[i]Because it would mean he wouldn't have to take Spanish anymore[/i]. So now, I automatically think someone's reason for supporting the idea is the simple fact that they're sick to hell of having to put up with people who tell them "No habla inglais" and would much prefer being able to communicate with everyone around them, guaranteed (actually, given what such a law would entail, that would more properly be that they "would much prefer everyone around them being able to communicate with them," a subtle but important distinction). By itself, I don't think that's a good reason. Heck, I'm sick to hell of a great many things. Doesn't mean I'm going to support laws against all of them.
---
As an aside, I'm glad my friend didn't have anything against third-grade Art class. He might've thrown his lot in with the Dadaists. ;)
[B]Id like to challenge people to name one mutilingual state that isnt having some kind of obnoxious time holding togeather[/B][/QUOTE]
India?
[B]India? [/B][/QUOTE]
Considering the fact that india was nothing but a mess of squabbling states that was only unified by an islamic dynasty, the Mugahls, who conquered most of the country, then the British rajh which unified all of what is modern india.
India inpenedent of foreign occupation has only existed for 57 years, and they have been forced in oder to deal with the amazing plethora of languages to adopt english as the basic official language for government documents.
And India has large amounts of not only sectarian strife but other issues.
The Tamils (yes there are Tamils in mainland india too, not just Sri Lanka) and Sikhs have often tried to break off their respective parts of india.
Id like to challenge people to name one mutilingual state that isnt having some kind of obnoxious time holding togeather[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by bobo [/i]
India?[/QUOTE]
India is a poor example. But the challenge... is accepted. Switzerland has 3 official languages, and has managed to stay together for a healthy 700 years -- during which a reputation of stability has made it pretty rich too.
[B]You know, I have the oddest feeling that this isn't the first time you've not-so-subtly called me stupid. If only I could get that confounded search feature to work so I could confirm it. Darn. Oh, well.
[/B][/QUOTE]
I dont rember calling you stupid before, I generaly stick to insulting Reaver, ocassionaly I get nasty to ET, but thats because he's a commie :D
[QUOTE][B]
But, you're right. I would have to be pretty dumb not to be able to easily understand, oh, [i]"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."[/i] It's a little stuffier than our friendly little chats, but that fits the context. It ain't [i]Ulysses[/i] or anything like that.
[/B][/QUOTE]
I prefer [i]Charge of the Light Brigade[/i] but [i]Ulysses[/i] is definatly in the top ten list of my favorite poetic works.
[QUOTE][B]
For the record, when I refereed to "legalistic mumbo-jumbo," the image I had in my mind was this referendum that was voted on in South Carolina some years ago. It regarded whether or not to abolish the Sunday "Blue Laws", which control what hours businesses may open on Sundays. Two counties, Charleston and Greenville, had already abolished the Blue Laws.
Now, tell me that wasn't unnecessarily complex and difficult to understand.
By the way, it didn't literally make my eyes bleed. That was just a joke. You probably got that, but after you though I was talking about the Constitution and the Declaration when I refereed to "legalistic mumbo-jumbo," I think I should make sure.
[QUOTE][B]
I thank you for your efforts and increasing the clarity of the discussion.
Yes the particular law you cited is amazingly complex, however that was done [I]as a deliberate attempt at obfuscation[/I] such abuses will happen no matter what language is used.
Most legal language is rather formal, this is true, but this is do to the fact that it must be [i]as precise as possible[/i] quite the opposit of what your claiming. Now however do to politics on both sides of the political spectrum, Obfuscation does increasingly come into play, but at this juncture I think that has more to do with the past 20 years have seen america become increasingly polarized.
And even if laws are fairly straight forward how they are portrayed by media and others also makes things convoluted. I dont rember how many times I had to explain to people that the Assualt weapons ban had nothing to do with fully automatic weapons. But these should be recongnized for what they are, blanant attempts to lie to people. Not just using convoluted language to use it.
[QUOTE][B]
You know, I just had a thought. It might have happened already (not with ebonics, mind you, but in general). Are there alternate-language versions of American legal documents? If so (and I'm betting there are) wouldn't it be just like a treaty between countries, where each party has a copy written in its native language? If the United States became a true multilingual nation (that'll be the day), would it not be possible that for each language-of-record there was a translated compendium of the laws of the land?
[/QUOTE][/B]
Possible but quite difficult actually. Translation between even related languages is never precise and the more languages you add in the more difficult things get.
Words have meanings, and nuiancess attached to them, so that while on the surface the sentances may appear to say the same thing, they can often mean something entirely different.
Having poored through the UN treaty series at times, and seeing how often treaty situations do end up in dispute in front of the World Court, I would think you might be over simplifying things.
The shear effort in putting forth the laws of the land and the any given state in the land is huge, you now want to as many as what, a half dozen or more other languages that are common in the US into the mix? the effort necessary for that would be huge.
especially since once it gets to court due to a variety of actors involved, its all going to be done in english anyways!
[QUOTE][B]
Would you have to know English to obtain citizenship? Well, of course; you have to as is. Would noncitizens have to know English to remain in the country, or risk deportation? How about illegals, or asylum seekers? Would they be given a time limit to learn English, lest they be deported back to whatever hellhole they came running from? What about immigrants who know english, but continue to speak their original language by default because of some sort of inexplicable nationalistic chauvinism that the native-born citizens of the gloriously egalitarian Unites States could never sink low enough to understand? Would they be punished for conducting their affairs in another language?
[/QUOTE][/B]
Usually when the phrase "national language or official languge" is bandied about it simply means that the majority of goverment documents plus things like street signs and addresses are too be done in english, everything else is a private manner.
I mean its not like were plotting to act like France in this regard. In all practicality the movement to adopt english as a national language would not change the current status quo, but is intended as a hege against future waves of imigration that do not intergrate with the rest of society, I will discuss why this is necessary later
[quote][b]
Frankly, none of those is particularly appealing to me (save the citizenry requirement). And I'm suspect of the motivations of those that endorse it. Before those of you that do support it crucify me for insulting your honor, though, I should explain that I suspect a decent part of this is because my first exposure to the idea was as a tender young lad of nine, when a friend said his favorite thing about presidential candidate Bob Dole was that he would make English the official language.
Why did my friend support this?
[i]Because it would mean he wouldn't have to take Spanish anymore[/i]. So now, I automatically think someone's reason for supporting the idea is the simple fact that they're sick to hell of having to put up with people who tell them "No habla inglais" and would much prefer being able to communicate with everyone around them, guaranteed (actually, given what such a law would entail, that would more properly be that they "would much prefer everyone around them being able to communicate with them," a subtle but important distinction). By itself, I don't think that's a good reason. Heck, I'm sick to hell of a great many things. Doesn't mean I'm going to support laws against all of them.
[/quote] [/b]
Ahh see thats the crux of the argument in that you are generalizing your views of a few individuals to color everybody who argues for such a thing.
My basic premis about humanity and such is closer to Hobbes then to Locke, to put it bluntly "people suck". Now to why this matters. I have a political science degree. One of the things I am concerned with is the stability of polities.
Polities, (meaning any social structure, they all develop some form of political overtones) have a problem. during prosperous times the polities seem fairly stable, however during lean times the polities naturaly destablize. when they destabilize fractures start occuring along lines of [I] group identity[/I] In essence you have factions form and in the end, they go to war, people die, bad stuff happens. Languages can represent one of these ways that people end up deciding "us" and "them" and then deciding that the "them" is expendable or an obstacle to the goals of "us"
I am not a fan of "diversity" either, and by this I dont mean "everybody should be white!" hell no, in fact the notion or "race" is an artifical construct. people look different yes, have some minor differences of behavior, tastes what ever. But in general we should spend time focusing on homogeneity.
Why? because doing the opposit WILL eventually cause a society to factionalize and then go to war with itself over resources. Inherent in a notion of ANY group identity is an element of chauvanism. Your group IS somehow better then the others. Its special somehow.
Im looking at 3000 years of history here. People seem to assume that the world changed, that humanity changed. after VJ day and the founding of the UN.
We havent. Yeah I guess its because Im a pessimist. But when you have encountered throughly dispicable and inhumane things, hell when you have met a man who took part in [I]genocide[/I] who otherwise seems to be very nice and intellgient individual (I had a philosophy proffessor who fought on the Serbian side in Bosnia) you start thinking that hume was onto something, that in the end were still animals and our rationalizations are just shallow coverings for us acting on instinct.
However, noticing a few interesting comments by Tyvar regarding diversity... I think I can recycle this post into something more.
[quote]when they destabilize fractures start occuring along lines of group identity[/quote]
Therefore any union of different groups... should upon formation... foresee the possibility of splitting back up.
To avoid the fate of multiple federations and confederations which split in violent fashion... the formation should be carefully designed. Designed to split easily, without harm. Societies should design their frameworks to be sustainable in face of change. If a constitution is employed to lay groundwork... it should include a clearly formulated "exit clause".
[B]India is a poor example. But the challenge... is accepted. Switzerland has 3 official languages -- and has managed to stay together for a healthy 700 years. [/B][/QUOTE]
Switzerland is the exception, and your stay healthy is only 500 years with a bit of a hickup in the 1840's
Switzerland while politicaly neutral visa vis the other states during the reformation saw some strife, and its mercenary forces were engaged in a series of proxy wars.
lastly the 1847 civilwar with the Sonderbund occured along religious/political lines. However the Italian elements of the confederation were some of the main supporters of the caholic church in switerzland in general.
[B]
To avoid the fate of multiple federations and confederations which split in violent fashion... the formation should be carefully designed. Designed to split easily, without harm. Societies should design their frameworks to be sustainable in face of change. If a constitution is employed to lay groundwork... it should include a clearly formulated "exit clause". [/B][/QUOTE]
That would mean that polity stablity is an illuson. Any time somebody disagreed they could split. While a nice theory, in practicallity what this means is insulting/injuriying other parties then claiming "independance" And then you have just changed an internal problem into one of externaialities, not actually remove the source of conflict.
All in all, It falls under the line by George Santayana "Only the dead have seen the end of war"
Switzerland while politicaly neutral visa vis the other states during the reformation saw some strife, and its mercenary forces were engaged in a series of proxy wars.
lastly the 1847 civilwar with the Sonderbund occured along religious/political lines. However the Italian elements of the confederation were some of the main supporters of the caholic church in switerzland in general.[/quote]
Point taken. It has not enjoyed complete peace. However, permit me to quote Wikipedia:
[quote][i]Someone at Wikipedia wrote:[/i]
In 1847, a civil war broke out between the Catholic and the Protestant cantons (Sonderbundskrieg). Its immediate cause was a 'special treaty' (Sonderbund) of the Catholic cantons. It lasted for less than a month, causing fewer than 100 casualties. Apart from small riots, this was the latest armed conflict on Swiss territory.[/quote]
Despite mentioned mishaps, the Swiss assembled a treaty... followed it up with a constitution... managed to stay different, yet stay together... and *not* by force, oppression or occupation.
Besides, even the 500 previous years... generously exceed the stability of most homogenous societies.
(Well, you could name ancient Egypt, but social and technical development flowed at different pace back then -- ancient Egypt simply faced long stretches of time with no particularly pressing challenge.)
[QUOTE]But in general we should spend time focusing on homogeneity.[/QUOTE]
I think you might be over-simplifying it.
Diversity permits evolution (no matter if genetic, social or technical) to try out more options. Trying more options yields more solutions, permitting timely avoidance of breaking pressure. The question is merely... which degree of diversity a particular social framework can safely carry.
History contains plentiful examples of both stagnant and oppressive homogenity... and unbalanced, hazardous diversity. Yet also balanced diversity, and development-capable homogenity.
It all depends on how one assumbles the pieces.
That would mean that polity stablity is an illuson. Any time somebody disagreed they could split.[/QUOTE]
This is indeed... what I envision the future calls for. But human kind is not yet ready. Feasible anarchy... would require far different levels of independence than our kind can hope anytime soon.
[quote]While a nice theory, in practicallity what this means is insulting/injuriying other parties then claiming "independance"[/quote]
You are forgetting the "soft" but inevitable costs of severing economic ties, and non-violent tit-for-tat playable with trade policies.
Societies which realize early that they must currently split... can act out their differences in less hurtful manner. They will pay for restructuring... can still double their customs tariffs, enact trade sanctions...
...and some would call it "war by other means"... but if notable reduction in violence can be achieved this way... then might it be worth trying?
[quote] And then you have just changed an internal problem into one of externaialities, not actually remove the source of conflict.[/quote]
Depends on the source of conflict. If the source of conflict was leftover animosity from a previous conflict... simple smothering of opportunist sources of ignition, and withdrawing fuel from oxidizer... may well make a difference.
Can you name a source of conflict in former Yugoslavia... which couldn't have been smothered... by timely yet peaceful hyper-attentive interference, a broadside of pork and help for peaceful splitting? It is all... a matter of degree. With sufficient investment, what worked in other places... could have worked there.
Even in a world with uneven allocation of resources... most wars don't have "objective" or "un-circumventable" reasons. Cutting a fraction of those from the total pool of wars... would improve things... and I think we might agree that despite inherent flaws in human nature... it should be attempted using all acceptable means (including the best of game theory).
[quote] All in all, It falls under the line by George Santayana "Only the dead have seen the end of war"[/QUOTE]
For eternity... yes, only the dead. But for a sufficiently long time... I think the very independent might enjoy a similar privilege.
But even before notable independence becomes possible... if mere scarcity of resources could be diminished... un-adaptive features in our inflexible minds... might automatically be suppressed.
With humans, some problems are recursive... and the determinant factor to whether they can be solved... may not be objective. Some things don't happen because they simply never get started... and other things happen simply because they never get stopped.