Only a Brit can say it so gracefully - what a great video ~~ Very Interesting

[feyenoord]

Also, do not forget that past actions are the ones that shape our world today. When a certain country commits these acts, the feelings of resentment, mistrust and ill intentions are being past from generation to generations. The new generations are mistrusting the aggressor based on what they have heard from their past generations.

Again, as i said before, many colonial powers have created fancy lifestyles for their generations by doing that. And the actions of their forefathers are the ones that have effect one the mentality and of many people around the world. These actions continue to efect the lives of people who's land has been colonized.

A good example of this are the Aboriginals in Australia, whom prime minister of Australia apologized to, a couple months ago ( stolen generation).

[Behrooz_C]

Originally Posted by Iranpaak

I wonder why the government of Japan has apologized for its role in WWII,more than once. After all, some members of the government that apologized for its WWII legacy, were not even alive during the WWII.

The government of Japan has apologised for the actions of pervious governments of Japan. That's fair.
But this is not the argument here. You have picked out 'a person' and said he has no moral right to complain because his government did this and that to so and so some decades ago.
If the a past Japanese government has done horrible things to other countries, it doesn't mean an individual Japanese citizen today should have no right to complain about certain situations in his society and world today in which he lives and is affected by it.

Originally Posted by feyenoord

YEP
When you colonize a country, you exploit its resources and use its people in your military, then, they basically are the citizens of your country. Why? because they have fought and sacrificed for Britain.
This happened to many people around the world who were colonized. In fact, those Hindus who were protesting the laws which obliged them to wear helmets in 1972, were protesting and saying: when our forefathers were fighting for Britain, it did not matter whether they were helmets or not, but now it does and we have to wear it

The same goes for North Africans who fought for France ok?

But laws change my friend and everyone, I mean everyone, should be equal in the eyes of the law. The helmet law was brought in for a good reason, which was to provide safer driving for motorists. It was NOT brought in to intentionally discriminate against Hindus or other ethnic miniroties.
What you seem to be suggesting is that because these people's ancstors fought for Britain some decades ago there should be different laws for them today. If the law about helmets did not exist in war in those years, it doesn't mean there should be no laws about wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle today.
The absurdity of that suggestion is beyond comprehension.
You can't tell a whole nation of 80 million people that we can't introduce a safety law to wear helmets because a small minority, whos ancestors fought for us last century, can not wear it. You can't apply the law to some and not to others either. It won't be a fair and civil society anymore.

[feyenoord]

Originally Posted by Behrooz_C

But laws change my friend and everyone, I mean everyone, should be equal in the eyes of the law.

Says who?
This has been a big issue in political theory, specially with regards to multicultural societies. Many political theorists dispute what you are suggesting and regard it as being shallow and in many ways ideological device which can be used to drive societies in certain direction.
Bhikhu Parekh, a very well known political theorist says, "since human beings are supposed to be basically the same only a particular way of life is deemed to them, and those failing to live up to it either do not merit equality or do so only after they are suitably civilized. The idea of equality thus becomes an ideological device mould humankind in a certain direction. A theory of equality grounded in human uniformity is both philosophically incoherent and morally problematic."

Equality in front law is the same thing. You can not make everyone to be equal before law without taking into account their differences. And by differences i mean cultural differences. This is because culture, partly shapes a person's mindset.

In many cases, if equality before law, does not take into account cultural differences, it can be a disadvantage to certain groups and therefore, it might lead to injustice.

Now, this might lead to a chaotic situation, but most of these theorist believe that there should be compromise in situations where the new laws do justice to both the majority and the minority. And if the laws disadvantage the majority people in a country ( in this case Britain),then, they should not be adopted.

The helmet law was brought in for a good reason, which was to provide safer driving for motorists. It was NOT brought in to intentionally discriminate against Hindus or other ethnic miniroties.

No, it was not. But in many ways it does restrict them from prospering. At least, that is what they were suggesting.

What you seem to be suggesting is that because these people's ancstors fought for Britain some decades ago there should be different laws for them today. If the law about helmets did not exist in war in those years, it doesn't mean there should be no laws about wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle today.
The absurdity of that suggestion is beyond comprehension.

First of all, I am not suggesting anything. This is one of Hindus arguments to change to get their rights.
The point is that no one forced them to wear helmets during war. They were allowed to fight with their own uniforms. Therefore, they believe that they should be left alone so that they can prosper in the way that they want.

Of course, the British parliament did not exempted them from wearing helmets just like that. It was suggested that their turbans were giving some level of protection anyway. And if not, if they are involved in accidents, they were responsible for the costs and other things.

You can't tell a whole nation of 80 million people that we can't introduce a safety law to wear helmets because a small minority, whos ancestors fought for us last century, can not wear it. You can't apply the law to some and not to others either. It won't be a fair and civil society anymore.

I did not say that. The law only exempted Sikhs from wearing safety helmets. You can in fact do that as it worked out in Britain for both the minority and the majority.

[Motori]

Originally Posted by Iranpaak

Rasoul Jan, please read my initial reply to you again, I did not extent this person's position to entire nation. I specifically was addressing to that person in the video, not the nation as a whole. Here is the part of my reply to your post:
The main point is a person from a country which has committed countless misdeeds and crimes against others up until recently (and was forced to stop its actions), has no moral ground to cry foul of actions that in comparison to his country's records, look insignificant.

Amir jAn,
That is where you and I think so different in this specific matter. Unless this man has been personally a participant in these misdeeds and crimes which you are so keen to focus on we can't expect him to shut his kisser and refrain from expressing his opinion, other wise the infamous word Tyranny comes to mind.

[Iranpaak]

Originally Posted by Motori

Amir jAn,
That is where you and I think so different in this specific matter. Unless this man has been personally a participant in these misdeeds and crimes which you are so keen to focus on we can't expect him to shut his kisser and refrain from expressing his opinion, other wise the infamous word Tyranny comes to mind.

Rasoul JAn, the response you quoted from me was to your post #90, where you asked me why am I painting the whole nation with a same brush. Now you are raising a different issue here.
I did not say he should shut up, I have said (and do not know how to be clearer) that he does not have a moral ground to criticize other nations unless he admits the evils of colonialism that his country inflicted on other nations. I trust you appreciate the difference. He is after all comparing his nations to others, even if he was not personally involved (which we do not know ), since he is bringing his country into the discussion, it is just fair to bring in Engalnd's past into the discussion as well.
Of course there is comparison of what England has done as late as 1950s (in our nations) with KSA or any other countries the man in the video has problem with.
chak

[Zob Ahan]

Animal welfare by the Koreans? This guy has an issue with everyone. But he only addresses his problem with the Moslems & Koreans who have the least organization and pull in the govenment & legal system. Try saying something about jews or blacks & several organizations will be on your ass. Alot of what he says is true but tell us something we haven't heard a million times.

[IranZamin]

Originally Posted by Iranpaak

It appears in your book, labeling someone else as "safsateh baz", "looking like a hypocrite" "having double standard" or "nonsense" are not considered insulting, will not in mine.

None of those words are insults when the person has engaged in "safsateh baazi" and based his arguments on "double standards". That kind of "nonsense" will make anyone look like a "hypocrite".

This sensitivity tactic didn't work with Behrouz, and I can assure you it won't dissuade me either.

I did not say he should shut up, I have said (and do not know how to be clearer) that he does not have a moral ground to criticize other nations unless he admits the evils of colonialism that his country inflicted on other nations.

Would you have said the same thing if this was a German opposing the Iraq war? Would he have to preface his comments with a condemnation of Hitler?

You have been given numerous examples why this logic of yours is invalid and racist. The more you try to rationalize it, the worse it looks. You lost this argument a long time ago and you know it.

[Kaz]

Originally Posted by Iranpaak

Rasoul JAn, the response you quoted from me was to your post #90, where you asked me why am I painting the whole nation with a same brush. Now you are raising a different issue here.
I did not say he should shut up, I have said (and do not know how to be clearer) that he does not have a moral ground to criticize other nations unless he admits the evils of colonialism that his country inflicted on other nations. I trust you appreciate the difference. He is after all comparing his nations to others, even if he was not personally involved (which we do not know ), since he is bringing his country into the discussion, it is just fair to bring in Engalnd's past into the discussion as well.
Of course there is comparison of what England has done as late as 1950s (in our nations) with KSA or any other countries the man in the video has problem with.
chak

I've missed a lot of the thread, but I read this so bare with me if I am missing something relevant.

What you just said in the above is incorrect. The man has every bit of moral ground as he needs to criticise Saudi Arabia. When comparing, he is doing so using the situation that both England and Saudi Arabia are at present. So, in all fairness, the comparison is apt and morally acceptable. The past considerations are irrelevant here.

[Kaz]

Originally Posted by feyenoord

A good example of this are the Aboriginals in Australia, whom prime minister of Australia apologized to, a couple months ago ( stolen generation).

Government introduced it, government should apologise.

Anyway, by the logic going on in this thread, that means if an Australian were telling someone from country X that "stealing a generation" is wrong, he'd have no moral ground to do so. Hmm.

[Iranpaak]

Originally Posted by IranZamin

You have been given numerous examples why this logic of yours is invalid and racist. The more you try to rationalize it, the worse it looks. You lost this argument a long time ago and you know it.

LOOOL, Self congratualting yourself again as you have done here many times before.
Now let's see, what kind of مغلطه you have been engaged in:
First you falsely tell me that I have changed my tune which I had not, you then go to find another fault. You fail to prove your point
Second, you again falsely and knowingly, say that I have suggested a son responsible for the sins of his father which I have never suggested.
Thirdly, you mock holding the countries for their past misdeeds responsible and when I provide you with a historical precedence, you throw in a lame rejection that because the comfort ladies are still alive Japan apologized, what kinda of ridiculous argument was that? What about the Chinese, Philipino and other nations suffered because of Japan's aggression. What about Austrila's recent apology to the natives?
Lastly, you bring in a lame مغلطه قیاس مع الفارق by comparing Nader Shah's invasion and Saddam Hossien's trying very hard to find inconsistencies in my position which you could not find and failed. In spite of all the these مغالطه you have the audacity to come here and claim my agrument is invalid and racist. That is really funny, coming from you.
Now if I have lost the agrument long time ago, why are you still here discussing this issue with me? Who you appointed the judge and jury to decide whose winning or losing? Why do you view expressing different views as winning or losing? Why did you get frusterated and start to turn the debate personal (which is not your first time)?
Bottom line is any discussion with you is total waste of time and will get nowhere, therefore, consider this my last post in response to you.

[Bi-honar]

Originally Posted by raminio05

bi-honar jaan i fault the system more than anything else. if the system is set up in a way where a new immigrant will have no problem making a pretty good living without learning the language, then what's the incentive for the majority of these people to learn the language? Respect for their new country? Most of them could care less. Who cares about respect when your new life is 100x better than your old one.

You're absolutely right Ramin jaan, the fault is with the system. Starting in the late 80's early 90's Canada took on just way too many immigrants from just about every corner of the world - each with their own way of doing things. If you don't give these groups enough time to incorporate themselves into a cohesive culture and learn the Canadian way of life and leave it completely open from the start that they can go to any city, live in small geographical pockets with their own kind, etc., we run into these kinds of problems. And after a while, being allowed to live their old way of life, of course they're going to want a choice to have everything they had plus everything they can extract from this system. It has gotten so bad that we have people coming into Canada from the villages in Sri Lanka or China, not even being able to live in Colombo or Beijing, but having all the right conditions to live in Toronto. Sure, just give some guy $100 and we'll give you a license. So what if you can't drive faster than 20, the speed you used to ride you bike, this is Canada and we accomodate everyone for anything. I've seen Canada go from being at the forefront of technology and engineering in the late 70's and early 80's to a country the looks more like a developing nation now, with bridges collapsing all over the place, propane depots blowing up, etc. To give you a personal example, we had a Chinese engineer at the city hold up our permit application for a simple retaining wall, designed by an engineer (myself), reviewed and drawn up by a certified architect and stamped by a professional structural engineer with 20+ years experience in this specific field, because he had never seen anything like it and didn't want to admit that he can't understand the structural engineers calculations!!! Sorry, I just had to vent a little bit.

P.S. Sorry I took so long to respond - we went away for a few days.

[feyenoord]

Originally Posted by Kaz

Anyway, by the logic going on in this thread, that means if an Australian were telling someone from country X that "stealing a generation" is wrong, he'd have no moral ground to do so. Hmm.

Not really. That was what Iranpaak saying. There are many other arguments for it. And i used couple. You interested to find out go back and read.

[IranZamin]

One more time, ladies and Gentlemen:

Originally Posted by Iranpaak

Second, you again falsely and knowingly, say that I have suggested a son responsible for the sins of his father which I have never suggested.

Originally Posted by Iranpaak

a country with such a past does not have a moral standing to criticize others when they have done much worst to others.

Be honest. Are you trying to embarrass yourself?

If your second statement is not blaming the son for the sins of the father, then what in the world is it?!

By this deranged logic, virtually every one from every country in the world should shut their mouths because their ancestors have done wrong at some point in history.

Give it up aziz. This is not a private conversation; other people are reading this thread, and by most of the responses it's quite obvious that I'm not the only one who understands what you're saying, and how wrong you are for saying it.

This has nothing to do with "winning" or "losing". It is about reason and fairness. And more importantly it's about hypocrisy, which is apparently something a few of us are disturbingly comfortable with.

[Iranpaak]

Originally Posted by IranZamin

If your second statement is not blaming the son for the sins of the father, then what in the world is it?!

I was not going to respond to you anymore, but in your desperation you have resorted to outright lying by posting a portion of of my post #58, and deleting the part which refuted your claim. Here is the complete statement in my post #58:

I do think you have read all my posts, or understood my point.I said, a country with such a past does not have a moral standing to criticize others when they have done much worst to others. I suggest you read my post number 37 in which I said I do not hold a son responsible for his father's misdeed.

This was in direct response to you so you could have not overlooked it. Besides here are other posts of mine"
Here is my Post #33

IMHO, the son has no moral ground to preach unless he condemns his fathers' misdeed. That is not to say that I hold the son responsible for his father crime.

Here is my Post #

As I said in my post number 36, I am not holding a son responsible for the action of his father.

As anybody can see I have consistently said the same thing. I do not hold a son responsible for the sins of his father. Your English is good enough to have understood me, neverthless you have resorted to dishonesty. You cannot prove your point by lying when the evidence is right here.

[payan]

if the past is not the issue then why in every each country in order to hire someone first they do is a back ground check,past record,they don't even care who you are now,you might be a great person in present time but still your past is important.the country with the most criminal record in the world still are the ones in un who have the say about other nation's fate.speaking of double standard .i think both sides of arguement here are entitled to their opinions.please give the rest to this subeject .