Quote:
Originally posted by valkyrie
I don't think I've ever tried to advocate for the benefits of not doing something that didn't seem necessary -- but I'll try. Not having an official language is nice and hippie-wonderful inclusive -- how's that?
In all seriousness, if many people in a given area speak a particular language that isn't English, governmental offices having signs/employees/recordings/websites in said language makes things easier for everyone -- for the people who speak that language and for the people who don't want to stand behind them in line at the DMV. Would taking down the signs in whatever language really make the people who need them go out and learn English at that very second? If not, it's just going to complicate things, isn't it? So what's the point?
I'm pulling that out of the air because I don't think of this as a question of benefits v. benefits -- I still think it's benefits v. costs.
|
Do you think that there would be a benefit in incurring the cost requiring people to learn (and facilitating that learning) english?
It certainly could be a benefit vs. benefit argument. Is it hard to see the inherent advantages when everyone in the same workforce speaks the same language? How about all of the people voting for candidates seeking offices? Many candidates are forced to run dual language campaigns...
I'm not sure the cost vs. benefit is as clear as you make it out out to be. Like you though, my 'thought' here is pure conjecture.
I can definitely see your side of things here -- and I will agree, your view is much more hippie and inclusive
