Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkov
I don't think anyone had issues with the old anthem. Why change it?
|
The proposal at today's outcome proves that you were mistaken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by underGRADFlame
Waste of time and tax payers money.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dino7c
waste of time and money as usual
|
I disagree. This is the progression that society is taking and it is inevitable. No reason to postpone it and be behind the sociocultural curve.
Time and cost is irrelevant when it would have been done at some point in the near future regardless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dino7c
it was a waste of time and money all those times too...look around at the ####ing world around us right now, an anthem that offended nobody until they were told to be offended is the least of our worries.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DomeFoam
Pretty stupid and unnecessary imo. Not the principle of gender equality, but just the fact they decided to do it all. Isn't their more pressing issues at hand?
|
There is no need for a false dichotomy argument. The legislature works and discusses many more issues that do not make it into the daily news.
I assure you, through common sense alone, this was not done at the expense of another pressing or important issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashasx
Maybe I'm a biased white male, but I don't really get this.
It's like the word "mankind". Do people really get confused or upset when the human race is referred to as "mankind"? Should we say man- and womankind as instead, to be politically correct? These terms are not used to isolate genders, but to unify them under one term.
Were people really upset about this?
|
Humanity or humankind is probably less cumbersome while appeasing developing societal norms.
I would not say that people were necessarily upset by it in the traditional sense of the sentiment. I think more that it was a proactive measure to line up with modern social attitudes favoring inclusiveness.