Democracy & Cultural Diversity W2017
71 | 3 | 0
121 | 4 | 0
116 | 7 | 0
94 | 6 | 0
186 | 8 | 0
151 | 14 | 0
89 | 4 | 0
101 | 5 | 0
172 | 12 | 0
96 | 4 | 0
86 | 2 | 0
121 | 5 | 0
133 | 5 | 0
The summary of the article is very clear and presents the different point of view. I like the way you explained the different worldviews!
I somewhat agree with you. Canada is doing a lot for Syrian habitants. Our government is helping them without being involved in the war. It really matters for Syrian refugees!
However, we could surely do more. As br1amb3r explained before, we can’t accept every single Syrian refugees in our country. We should help the Syrian community to stop the war in their country and to help them “rebuild” it. But how could we do that without being involved in this war? The situation is really tricky.
Canada is considered as a peaceful country and as a “humanitarian” helper rather than a “military” helper. We had the chance to grow up in a country where there is no armed conflict and no war. We were taught to be respectful and non-violent. So are we ready to get involved in a war? Some could argue that the war is far away from our country and that Canada could deploy few military force in Syria. But a war is a war, and if we are involved, we are involved until the end.
On the other hand, most of the canadians were taught that we should protect people who are in distress and who are in minority, which means that our country should protect Syrian from the war.
There are two basic beliefs that are in conflict. The belief that we should not get involved in armed conflict, and the one that we should protect minorities from danger.
My opinion is divided. What do you think? Which belief should “win”?
I like the way you summarized the article. The topic you’re talking about is very interesting. I wrote an article about another issue surrounding First Nations. Even though the issues are completely different, they have something in common: the disrespect of the indigenous community.
Not long ago, I read an article about the wearing of First Nations traditional headdresses in music festivals. At first, I believed that wearing them was a good way to promote the indigenous community. I also thought that the final look was pretty cool. Then, I read the article and I felt ashamed. Without even noticing it, I approved the disrespect of the indigenous community.
As you explained in your article, the indigenous community do not wear headdresses to attend music festival. And they do not wear them into their daily life. Headdresses are a sign of respect and of responsability. The one wearing it is usually a chief or someone with good influence. Moreover, headdresses are a gift and are not given to everybody. Therefore, someone who is wearing one of these traditional headdresses at Osheaga is disrespecting the beliefs and the values of the indigenous community. In my opinion, this is inadequate. I have been taught to respect others, not to use their traditional clothing to look fashion.
As you can see, I agree with you. I think that banning First Nations traditional headdresses was a good decision. The people at music festivals wearing them were not doing so by belief: they were wearing them because it was a great fashion accessory. I believe that people can have a great look without these headdresses.
I like the way you expressed yourself and how you ended up your article. It's true, origins are what makes us unique and nobody should be deprived of opportunity because of their uniqueness!
I strongly agree with you. The travel ban was not justified at all. As I understood the issue, President Trump wanted to protect the american population from terrorism. He thought that banning 7 muslim majority countries would solve the problem. But how?
This ban does not protect the population from terrorists who are actually on the USA territory. And as I read in an article about this issue, no terrorist attacks were done by refugees from these countries. Therefore, the USA travel ban may have banned “potential terrorists”, but the odds were not really high.
It is weird to think that in the USA, some people are trying to keep the refugees away, while, in Canada, we are welcoming them with open arms. I have grown up with people with different cultural background and I have acknowledge that I should not fear what is different from me. On the other hand, some American did not have that chance and still believe that fearing what is unknown is the best thing to do.
Could the travel ban of Donald Trump be justified by this fear of the unknown?
Simply by looking at the title of your post, I knew it would be discussing the controversy around vegetarianism, which is whether vegetarianism is linked to eating disorders. I have been a vegetarian for 3 years now and could not be happier to make my part for the earth and the animals. Personally, I have never experienced eating disorders due to my new lifestyle. In fact, I have been very careful to get all the nutrients that I needed to stay healthy. Consequently, I chose to comment your post to share my opinion on the link between vegetarianism and eating disorders, to prove there are many other reasons to become a vegetarian than to lose weight and also because I feel very concern with this lifestyle, like you already probably noticed.
First off, the article states that some people become vegetarian to lose weight. However, I believe turning to vegetarianism results in so much more. In fact, most vegetarians, including myself, want to reduce environmental impacts from the industries producing omnivore food. For instance, meat production uses much more water than vegetable production. According to the P.E.T.A website: "Chickens, pigs, cattle, and other animals raised for food are the primary consumers of water in the U.S.: a single pig consumes 21 gallons of drinking water per day, while a cow on a dairy farm drinks as much as 50 gallons daily. It takes more than 2,400 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of cow flesh, whereas it takes about 180 gallons of water to make 1 pound of whole wheat flour." As a matter of fact, my parents always taught me that I should do my part to preserve our precious earth in any way possible. Therefore, being a vegetarian is my part to save our environment. Also, most vegetarians, including myself again, enjoy this way of life to support animal rights. In truth, the life of an animal on a factory farm is horrible. They are poorly treated like a simple food supplier and without any respect. According to the P.E.T.A website: "Animals on factory farms are treated like meat, milk, and egg machines. Chickens have their sensitive beaks seared off with a hot blade, and male cattle and pigs are castrated without any painkillers. Farmed chickens, turkeys, and pigs spend their brief lives in dark and crowded warehouses, many of them so cramped that they can’t even turn around or spread a single wing. They are mired in their own waste, and the stench of ammonia fills the air." How does it feel now? Could anyone feel guilty to eat meat again after knowing that? I personally always loved animal; they’ve been in my daily life since I was a child. Consequently, when I learned a few years ago how terribly they were treated in farm factories, I stopped eating meat progressively and then none. I do understand that it is hard to stop eating meat suddenly overnight. However, if more people were conscious of the harm these poor animals are going through, maybe they would reduce their meat consumption, which is already a good step. Furthermore, turning to a vegetarian diet reduces heart diseases and chronic illnesses. According to a Harvard Medical School study: “Compared with meat eaters, vegetarians tend to consume less saturated fat and cholesterol and more vitamins C and E, dietary fiber, folic acid and phytochemicals… As a result, they’re more likely to have lower total and DLD cholesterol, lower blood pressure, and lower body mass index”. Finally, I disagree that vegetarianism is directly causing eating disorders. In my opinion, people claiming that being a vegetarian leads to eating disorders are actually not eating the nutrients necessary when you are a vegetarian. In fact, we need to make sure that we eat enough sources of iron including beans, broccoli, raisins, wheat, and tofu. Also, we need enough proteins found in rice, beans and corn. Therefore, I think some people are putting the blame on a vegetarian diet when they are not consuming these essential nutrients and thereby dealing with eating disorders.
Now, I would like to know more about your worldview as a vegetarian by asking you some questions that require reflection… Would the world be a better place if everyone was a vegetarian? Do you think vegetarians lead better lives than non-vegetarians? What would happen to the cow population if we stopped eating them? Please let me know!
I read your article because because it's a controversial topic and I like the way you write and how you organise your ideas.
I also agree with the legalisation of marijuana. I believe that it will be good for our economy and I think that it's a better thing that marijuana is controlled by the government instead of being controlled by criminals. The drug will be less hard and less dangerous for the society! The on'y problem I see is that people will tend to smoke it in public places because it's not an illegsl drug anymore so they won't hide to smoke it...
Marijuana isn't a bad thing when it's consumed with moderation!
I decided to post my opinion on this issue because of this particular sentence of your original post: “Taking off the protection is not a pro or anti transgender decision is explaining the author of the article.” I find that the author demonstrates a blatant lack of understanding of the issue by saying that this was a neutral decision. It clearly isn’t.
Also, I was shocked when reading the other comments on your post. Some of those are in direct contradiction with my core values, such as having an open-mind, accepting others like they are and empathising. It feels natural for me to believe that transgenders are born in a body of the wrong sex. We have no control over what sex we identify with in the same way we don’t choose our sexual orientation.
Therefore, I am in complete disagreement with the decision to take of transgender’s right to choose their bathroom. I don’t have any problem with transgender women using the same bathrooms as I do. Has there even been 1 recorded attack of a woman by a transgender woman in a bathroom? In a sense, I don’t even understand why there is a debate over who has the right to use which bathroom because I wouldn’t mind if men and women had joined bathrooms. What are we protecting ourselves from? Men and women are together everywhere else anyway.
Do you think that having separated bathrooms is overprotecting ourselves for nothing?
Many of the posts of our class explored issues related to the Middle Eastern crisis and Trump’s ban. Yours looked at Canada’s involvement in the war, which is the reason why I chose to comment. I feel like it is hard to judge how Americans handle their foreign affairs because they have different past experiences that have shaped their worldview with fear.
I partly agree with you when you say that you think that Canada’s implication in the war should stay strictly humanitarian, in the way that I don’t think we should get involved militarily. On the other hand, I think that giving food, shelter, money, and others will cause a long-term problem of dependency. Therefore, it would be better for Canada to open more spots to receive immigrants that will be able to start over in a new country. Those immigrants will eventually find a job and won’t be dependant to Canada’s humanitarian gifts. Offering a new life to those who want one is so much better than offering them food. I understand that the implications of immigration vs donation are deeply different, but in my worldview, it is better to truly help 1 person than to fail to help 100. Do you agree?
By reading your opinion on the issue, I feel like this subject is very close to you heart. Your title really grabbed my attention because of the word “confusion”. I think this term accurately describes the debate the author is telling us about.
Trumps’ power and the medias’ twisted bias against Muslims have brought a big part of the American population to believe in something that IS (in my opinion) unconstitutional. I have been raised in a family where justice is an important value. Since there is not a true cause and effect relationship between the number of terrorist attacks on the US and the number of immigrants coming from those 7 countries, this ban seems illogical to me. In fact, if Americans wanted to blame a country for all the terrorist attacks taking place over and over, they should blame themselves and look at the way they handle gun control. In summary, I think that the media has brainwashed Americans, which made them scapegoat Muslims instead of trying to figure out the true source of the problem.
Do you think the media is in part responsible for this ban?
The summary of the article and your ideas and views on the matter are very well written out. I think you have done a good job at looking at the Syrian conflict from two world views and the complications that come with military involvement. Like you, I do think the Canadian government should stay away from any form of violent action concerning the Syrian conflict, and such actions should be considered as a final option when all others have failed. However, as a "developed" country and an important figure on the international level, I do not think offering asylum to refugees is all the Canadian government can accomplish. They should consider on site humanitarian assistance, like you said, and adopt a more hands on approach to become more involved and more informed about the conflict and by the same, staying far from military actions. All this opinion of main is solely based on my very limited knowledge of the complexity that is the Syrian conflict. I am also not fully aware what Canada has accomplished to help put a close to this war. As of that, is there any type of somewhat effective solution that can actively help Syria and at the same time, keep countries from resorting to violence?
I found your topic very interesting because I have not really ever been exposed to this debate. I never felt like I would be judged by anyone in particular if I decided not to have children. By reading your summary of the article, I can understand that it’s not the case for all women.
In my opinion, being a good mom and having a great career is feasible. Many support systems have been put in place by our society to facilitate the unity of those two full-time jobs. Even though men and women are not yet totally equal when it comes to this issue, I think we are getting there.
I feel like I am the perfect example of how society teaches girls from a young age that it is their duty to procreate: I absolutely hate children, yet I feel like my life wouldn’t be “complete” if I failed to have kids. I am not scared of being judged for not wanting children, I am scared of missing out on something that everybody does. In other words, if it wasn’t so uncommon not to have children, I wouldn’t feel bad not having some. My guilt would not come from direct outside reprimands (like my parents shaming me for not wanting kids), but from inside because of how our society functions.
Although I think your opening question is worth reflecting on, I think that there is an important distinction to see between the debate on being able to conjugate motherhood and professional accomplishment, and the debate on whether or not to respect women’s choice of not having children. Do you agree?
- 1 of 9
- next ›
There no collaborative classes