[carbondummy]

Financial situation can influence decisions to start a family, but if you can afford some sort of home, food and schooling I'd start a family. You still want to love and stuff. I guess what i'm saying is it'd be terrible to be poor AND lonely.

[thomaskurian89]

(Original post by . . .)
You've just told everybody on this thread.

Fail.

I want to conceal it in general, as I'm not proud of it. This thread is an exception.

[Formerly Helpful_C]

(Original post by Retrodiction)
You're another great example of the quest for the unearned. You think an accident of birth suddenly morally entitles you to live in a nice place more than somebody born in a different part of the world.

This is probably one of the stupidest viewpoints I hear perpetuated by liberals. It's just so illogical.

The only reason I live in a 'nice place' is because of development. Instead of people migrating, why don't they improve where they live? Then they, too, could live in a 'nice place'. I don't disagree with controlled immigration, but when it results in over 3 million people - who reproduce faster than the existing population - then there is a clear problem.

We are defined by our environment, which means that immigrants seldom fully integrate with their new country, leading to social tension.

So, please, take your viewpoint and bother someone else.

[mosley0305]

Nooooo

[effofex]

(Original post by Formerly Helpful_C)
This is probably one of the stupidest viewpoints I hear perpetuated by liberals. It's just so illogical.

The only reason I live in a 'nice place' is because of development. Instead of people migrating, why don't they improve where they live? Then they, too, could live in a 'nice place'. I don't disagree with controlled immigration, but when it results in over 3 million people - who reproduce faster than the existing population - then there is a clear problem.

We are defined by our environment, which means that immigrants seldom fully integrate with their new country, leading to social tension.

So, please, take your viewpoint and bother someone else.

Humans are quite a nomadic species when the situation permits. If people followed that premise the Slavs would still be exclusively confined to what is now central Russia.

[effofex]

(Original post by carbondummy)
Financial situation can influence decisions to start a family, but if you can afford some sort of home, food and schooling I'd start a family. You still want to love and stuff. I guess what i'm saying is it'd be terrible to be poor AND lonely.

You would still be able to have lots of friends.

[thomaskurian89]

(Original post by effofex)
Not even the IIMs and IITs? Most people here beg to differ.

IIMs and IITs are not universities, they are institutes that provide specialised training in just one discipline: management and engineering respectively. There isn't a single decent university that has courses in all disciplines.

[de_monies]

(Original post by thomaskurian89)
I live in Bangalore, but I never learnt Kannada (the predominant language here) because we speak only English and Malayalam (my parents are "Malayalees") at home. However, I cannot read or write in Malayalam as we didn't learn it at school. I can read and write in Kannada and Hindi, because I was forced to learn them at school. But I cannot speak them (Kannada and Hindi) and can understand them only to an extent. Moreover, Hindi is not spoken much in South India. (Bangalore is in South India.)

I hate the fact that there are literally something like 15 different languages across the country. If there was just one language spoken throughout, I would have bothered learning it. In Bangalore, most people who are well off speak English in the workplace/schools, but it's nothing like the American English I hear on TV.

Due to the language barriers, I've never understood the national culture and despise my heritage. I prefer Western culture and I'm secretly happy that you don't think I'm India based on my posting style; it shows that my standard of English is better than most Indians.

Fair enough. That seems feasible

[geetar]

Well, probably. In countries with no welfare system, you would need to rely on your family to provide that safety net. High mortality rates and low life expectancies mean that larger families are better. And anyway, people have the desire for love and companionship whatever their circumstances - poverty isn't going to make a difference to that.

And for people who think it's selfish, you're pretty naive. Someone said that they would move and start a family elsewhere. Do you really think it's that simple? I doubt people living in refugee camps in Darfur would stay there if there was a realistic prospect that they could go someone nicer.

[effofex]

(Original post by thomaskurian89)
I live in Bangalore, but I never learnt Kannada (the predominant language here) because we speak only English and Malayalam (my parents are "Malayalees") at home. However, I cannot read or write in Malayalam as we didn't learn it at school. I can read and write in Kannada and Hindi, because I was forced to learn them at school. But I cannot speak them (Kannada and Hindi) and can understand them only to an extent. Moreover, Hindi is not spoken much in South India. (Bangalore is in South India.)

I hate the fact that there are literally something like 15 different languages across the country. If there was just one language spoken throughout, I would have bothered learning it. In Bangalore, most people who are well off speak English in the workplace/schools, but it's nothing like the American English I hear on TV.

Due to the language barriers, I've never understood the national culture and despise my heritage. I prefer Western culture and I'm secretly happy that you don't think I'm India based on my posting style; it shows that my standard of English is better than most Indians.

I assume you must have migrated to Bangalore after the age of 11 - because I am fairly sure that Kannada is compulsory for all children until the 6th Standard regardless of the type of school they are attending.

Also, surely you would be able to speak some Kannada if you have lived in Bangalore for such a long period of time? I live in Amsterdam (I have done so for just over a year), and even though I did not need to use Dutch in the workplace and did not study here, I am still able to speak some Dutch.

Why do you hate linguistic diversity across the Subcontinent? Do you really expect that everyone MUST speak Hindi (with the same accent they have in Delhi)? In the Netherlands some people in the north speak Frisian (rather than Dutch) - I don't think they are hated for that.

Since you are from Kerala, I expect you should already know that there is no uniform 'culture' in India. People in Assam will often speak, eat, dress, work and think very differently to you. Likewise, there is no uniform 'culture' in the West either - if you compared a farmer from Den Helder (north Holland) to a financier from Amsterdam you would notice a huge amount of difference in mannerisms, education level, multilinguistic ability, dress sense, possibly culinary taste, lifestyle choices etc.

[de_monies]

(Original post by Formerly Helpful_C)
This is probably one of the stupidest viewpoints I hear perpetuated by liberals. It's just so illogical.

The only reason I live in a 'nice place' is because of development.

We can't really say that in this country. Much of our wealth was made in the Industrial revolution and much of that wealth came from empire building, and empire also made Britain money in itself as well

It might be true for the cases of Dubai and Japan, but we can't really have that argument. Our success has been at the heavy exploitation of others; in this country and abroad

[effofex]

(Original post by thomaskurian89)
IIMs and IITs are not universities, they are institutes that provide specialised training in just one discipline: management and engineering respectively. There isn't a single decent university that has courses in all disciplines.

On a global level they are considered to be universities (or specifically engineering schools/management schools). For example, in France, EDHEC is specifically a 'business school', but to most non-French people would just fall under the bracket of 'university'.

I don't see why a university must offer specialized courses in all disciplines? It is well known that some insitutitons will specialize more in the natural sciences, some in engineering, some in informatics, some in medicine, some in liberal arts, some in humanities, some in management studies, etc.

[thomaskurian89]

(Original post by effofex)
I assume you must have migrated to Bangalore after the age of 11 - because I am fairly sure that Kannada is compulsory for all children until the 6th Standard regardless of the type of school they are attending.

Also, surely you would be able to speak some Kannada if you have lived in Bangalore for such a long period of time? I live in Amsterdam (I have done so for just over a year), and even though I did not need to use Dutch in the workplace and did not study here, I am still able to speak some Dutch.

Why do you hate linguistic diversity across the Subcontinent? Do you really expect that everyone MUST speak Hindi (with the same accent they have in Delhi)? In the Netherlands some people in the north speak Frisian (rather than Dutch) - I don't think they are hated for that.

Since you are from Kerala, I expect you should already know that there is no uniform 'culture' in India. People in Assam will often speak, eat, dress, work and think very differently to you. Likewise, there is no uniform 'culture' in the West either - if you compared a farmer from Den Helder (north Holland) to a financier from Amsterdam you would notice a huge amount of difference in mannerisms, education level, multilinguistic ability, dress sense, possibly culinary taste, lifestyle choices etc.

I came to Bangalore when I was 2. I did have Kannada at school (I said so in the post) for 4 years. So I can read and write it, but I cannot speak it and can understand it only to an extent.

I like the fact that in the US, UK etc. there is (for the most part) just one language: English. I really wish everyone in India spoke the same language, it would make life so much easier. The reason I hate linguistic diversity is because it severely limits the number of people you can interact with.

I don't see why a university must offer specialized courses in all disciplines? It is well known that some insitutitons will specialize more in the natural sciences, some in engineering, some in informatics, some in medicine, some in liberal arts, some in humanities, some in management studies, etc.

If a university offered courses in all disciplines, students would be able to get a well-rounded education.

[Formerly Helpful_C]

(Original post by de_monies)
We can't really say that in this country. Much of our wealth was made in the Industrial revolution and much of that wealth came from empire building, and empire also made Britain money in itself as well

It might be true for the cases of Dubai and Japan, but we can't really have that argument. Our success has been at the heavy exploitation of others; in this country and abroad

How did Britain get in a position to exploit other countries? Development.

[effofex]

(Original post by thomaskurian89)
I came to Bangalore when I was 2. I did have Kannada at school (I said so in the post) for 4 years. So I can read and write it, but I cannot speak it and can understand it only to an extent.

I like the fact that in the US, UK etc. there is (for the most part) just one language: English. I really wish everyone in India spoke the same language, it would make life so much easier. The reason I hate linguistic diversity is because it severely limits the number of people you can interact with.

If a university offered courses in all disciplines, students would be able to get a well-rounded education.

Wouldn't most of your classmates have been speaking Kannada in your presence? Since you would have been in your formative years then, surely you would be able to learn it to a conversational level?

The UK is a small country compared to India. If you compare Europe (as a continent) to India (more comparable population size, more comparable geographical area - when you exclude the Russian part of Europe) then you will see a similar level of linguistic diversity.

If you have a 'lingua franca', then people from different ethnic groups can easily communicate with each other. In Europe this is usually English or French. In India I am sure there are a comparable number of people who will speak this English (not necessarily to the level of a native speaker) as in Europe.

For example, many Dutch people can speak English well, but will not understand certain English expressions/colloquialisms that a native speaker would - I do not find this a problem when communicating with them. I don't think you can expect the entire Indian Subcontinent's population to be absolutely fluent in the Queen's English (in the same way I cannot expect the European Union's population to be absolutely fluent in it).

[Luffy.]

I live in a poor country and scientist says my country will sink in this century so if I can migrate than I will and if I cant then I wont have a family.

[thomaskurian89]

(Original post by effofex)
Wouldn't most of your classmates have been speaking Kannada in your presence? Since you would have been in your formative years then, surely you would be able to learn it to a conversational level?

I went to an English-medium school and most of my classmates spoke English.

The UK is a small country compared to India. If you compare Europe (as a continent) to India (more comparable population size, more comparable geographical area - when you exclude the Russian part of Europe) then you will see a similar level of linguistic diversity.

The US is bigger than India, yet it has only one language for the most part.

If you have a 'lingua franca', then people from different ethnic groups can easily communicate with each other. In Europe this is usually English or French. In India I am sure there are a comparable number of people who will speak this English (not necessarily to the level of a native speaker) as in Europe.

For example, many Dutch people can speak English well, but will not understand certain English expressions/colloquialisms that a native speaker would - I do not find this a problem when communicating with them. I don't think you can expect the entire Indian Subcontinent's population to be absolutely fluent in the Queen's English (in the same way I cannot expect the European Union's population to be absolutely fluent in it).

Many people in India can speak English, but the vast majority cannot. It would be nice to be able to communicate with bus-drivers, postmen etc. like you can in the US or UK.

[RP-MRU.]

Depends. For example, many parts of India are wealthy where my children would be able to have a (relatively: in comparison to other Indians/ countries) comfortable life with good education and health care etc. However, I definitely see your point.

[effofex]

(Original post by thomaskurian89)
I went to an English-medium school and most of my classmates spoke English.

The US is bigger than India, yet it has only one language for the most part.

Many people in India can speak English, but the vast majority cannot. It would be nice to be able to communicate with bus-drivers, postmen etc. like you can in the US or UK.

Sure - the US may be geographically larger than India, but large parts of it are inhospitable.

In terms of population - India (approx. 1.2 billion) has nearly 4 times as many people as the United States (approx. 305 million).

The vast majority of people in Europe cannot speak fluent English. It is not the official or native language of most Europeans. I do not see why this is a problem, since an English speaker could always make the effort to learn the basics of the language of the person with whom he/she is communicating. Do you think it would be acceptable for me to *insist* that all Dutch people I meet always speak English in my presence?

Suppose you go to Kashmir, do you really expect them to have to speak English to you? What would be stopping you from learning a few words of Kashmiri?

I notice you comment on the UK, but never on Europe as a whole (the latter of which is more comparable to India).

Also, substantial numbers of Americans will communicate with each other in Spanish.

[thomaskurian89]

(Original post by effofex)
Sure - the US may be geographically larger than India, but large parts of it are inhospitable.

In terms of population - India (approx. 1.2 billion) has nearly 4 times as many people as the United States (approx. 305 million).

The vast majority of people in Europe cannot speak fluent English. It is not the official or native language of most Europeans. I do not see why this is a problem, since an English speaker could always make the effort to learn the basics of the language of the person with whom he/she is communicating. Do you think it would be acceptable for me to *insist* that all Dutch people I meet always speak English in my presence?

Suppose you go to Kashmir, do you really expect them to have to speak English to you? What would be stopping you from learning a few words of Kashmiri?

I notice you comment on the UK, but never on Europe as a whole (the latter of which is more comparable to India).

Also, substantial numbers of Americans will communicate with each other in Spanish.

As for the population, that's something else that disgusts me: most Indians breed like rabbits despite the fact that the country is grossly overpopulated.

While I certainly don't expect Kashmiris to speak English, I sure wish they did.

I comment on the UK, because it is a country, just like India. Perhaps India should partition itself into 15 smaller countries, each with a single language.

You speak about Spanish in the US but that's just one additional language. Do you really think it's feasible to learn 15 different Indian languages?