Fox News says boycott Canada

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Frankychan
Well....um......Ok ok, you got me there. CNN also uses leading questions, but they seem less biased than FauxNews.

Both a paragons of evenhandedness in comparison to interviewers from the BBC.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by St Leo

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Gravity?

Actually, gravity is the weakest of the four forces. Strong nuclear, weak nuclear, and electromagnetic all kick gravity's ass.

What a heavy burden for Gravity to bear.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Gentlemen, our secret plan is working. First Drake, then another Yank and we'll soon have another couple of provinces.

Gentlemen, our secret plan is working! Once they have a couple more provinces a majority of Canadians will be republicans!

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Why? Because you don't agree with it?

Because it's inconsistent. And paradoxal. You think that private buisnesses - who obviously have an introspective view - are more suited to making cultural decisions than governments are. Do you not see the reasons why a city would have an interest in funding an art gallery/museum, or why they would want to encourage local artists?

Duh... that's kinda obviously what I meant . It's government discrimination based on favored art.

Discrimination is a negative, this is a postive. They aren't stoping works from being made, they are encouraging them to be made.

You mean it would have to be worth something to the people to survive? Wow... what a thought!

Culture doesn't have monetary value.

[Atahualpa]

Well, if Japan has advanced to the point where it has computers...it seems kind of obvious that Canada would have TVs

Actually Japan houses the world's fastest computer. Faster than the 3 fastest US computers combined.

[Kuciwalker]

Discrimination is a negative, this is a postive. They aren't stoping works from being made, they are encouraging them to be made.

No, discrimination is making a choice based on information. There's positive discrimination and negative discrimination.

If you're going to quibble about the use of the term, don't be a ****ing ****** and get it right!.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
NOOOOO there wouldn't be any incentive. We call it cultural steamrolling, a process which has always existed. However the law of markets are making it even harder to overcome it, especially since the ********* in Washington and in the WTO want to make culture a PRODUCT.

The law of markets don't make it more difficult... it just removes government backing. There isn't any other system (without government funding) that would make it easier, either.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kucinich

If you're going to quibble about the use of the term, don't be a ****ing ****** and get it right!.

I'm not quibbling, I'm pointing out that funding something isn't discrimination.

[Kuciwalker]

Of course it is! Didn't you read my post?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Of course it is!

I think you're the one quibbling over words. Rather than listening to my point, you try to play semantics just for the sake of disagreeing with me.


Funding art is no more discrimination than funding science and military is. Or a buisness doing the same, or even paying it's employees. Paying someone to do somethign is not, to any reasonble person, discrimination.

[Kuciwalker]

Then, by your reasoning, subsidies to white people wouldn't be discrimination either.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Then, by your reasoning, subsidies to white people wouldn't be discrimination either.

If you want to talk rascism, start another thread. It's quite a bit different than anything we've been talking about here. Or if you want a comparison that works, feel free to use one of the ones I offered - military or scientific funding.

[Kuciwalker]

Military funding is obviously not intereference in the market, it's that the government actually has to buy the stuff. Same with, say, asphalt for roads.

Scientific funding is, but at least in its case it provides a direct economic benefit for the money.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Military funding is obviously not intereference in the market, it's that the government actually has to buy the stuff. Same with, say, asphalt for roads.

Just as the government needs to buy equipment, or has an interest in funding science, it also needs to promote culture. You do see the benefits of things like museums and art gallerys, don't you?

Scientific funding is, but at least in its case it provides a direct economic benefit for the money.

This, by the way, is what I was arguing against Imran. He thinks that it is not justifiable regardless of the benfits that might result. (and specifically econmic benefits, as evident in the LoTR example that started this)

[Kuciwalker]

Just as the government needs to buy equipment, or has an interest in funding science, it also needs to promote culture. You do see the benefits of things like museums and art gallerys, don't you?

1) There's a difference between needing to do something and having an interest in something. Having a military, for instance, is a vital part of the government's function. Art is not.

2) The government isn't funding all art, is it? And since (according to you) art can't survive, at least not much, without government funding, the government is choosing which art will be made and which won't. This is not in any way the proper domain of the government.