Cultural diversity is only possible within a society when the groups which make up that society can co-exist without conflict.
Without too much conflict would be more apt.Pubic wrote:
Cultural diversity is only possible within a society when the groups which make up that society can co-exist without conflict.
In any case I'd disagree slightly. Conflict is not really an issue. You will find conflict all over the place and any differences from the norm make people potential targets. Obviously this is not only true of immigrant communities and ethnic minorities, but all sorts of other minorities too.
The real cultural divide is the self imposed segregation which is all too prevalent in many immigrant communities. It is this segregation which provides the biggest barrier to effective cultural integration. This segregation is not absolute and over time becomes less and less widespread. The longer an immigrant community has been around, the more their culture gets integrated into the local culture and more harmonius cultural relations become more typical. West Indian, Indian and to some extent African immigrants in the UK are an example of this. They've been here a long time, they bring a lot to the country culturally and cultural conflict is not an issue (racial tensions may be at times, but that's a separate (though not unrelated) issue). A counter example would be communities who seem less motivated to integrate with society (at times it seems they are more motivated to segregate themselves in fact), such as Muslim, Jewish and East Asian communities - though there are more moderate examples from each of these.
I know the definition of diversity, and I also am well aware of how the term "diversity" is being exploited in the real world for various agendas. This is the point. If you do not accept a groups version of diversity IE give in to what they want for themselves, then you will be labeled a racistAries_37 wrote:
That definition is your alone. Diversity has nothing to do with forcing anything on anyone. If everyone were 'forced' to accept one thing then that would be the opposite of diversity.lowing wrote:
Nope, I don't like the version of cultural diversity as it is in our PC nation. Diversity here is forcing special interest and special rights on everyone else. If you don't accept it you are a racist. It has nothing to do with assimilation into a community.AussieReaper wrote:
Loud and clear. You don't like cultural diversity because it apparently offers nothing. But at the same time you don't like "mini-nations" where there is little diversity.
Does that about sum up your view so far?
the "mini nations" is merely proof of everyone else being guilty of what white people are accused of on a daily basis.
You cannot say that there is no diveresity by picking on such geographically restricted examples as Chinatown. Over here Chinatown is a couple of streets tops. Moreover you need to learn to distinguish wanting to enjoy your own culture with wanting to shield yourself from other cultures. A localised concentration of one culture arises due to practical reasons. They aren't scared or wanting to avoid diversity, if that were the case they would have stayed in their home country.
1. Ahhh here we go again with the "progressive" defensive argument number 3 attack the source not the fact.AussieReaper wrote:
1. Well that unbiased source "lol" does nothing but provide a "they are working towards pushing this idea" there is nothing concrete at all. Such extreme teachings would not make it into the curriculum at any stage and you know it.lowing wrote:
1. http://www.jeremiahproject.com/trashing … ucate.html
because it is not normal behavior, and you pretty much know it. It ihas nothing to do with homophobia it is a fact.
2. discrimination lawsuits. IE using being fired because your gay when you were caught sleeping on the job or stealing. the equivalent of the race card. Or are you now going to deny knowing anything about that.
3. Hate crime legislation punishes crimes against gays or a race more severely than non-hate crimes of the same violent attributes. Guess who rarely gets to impose hate crime legislation white people.
2. The race card can be changed to the gay card? Being fired because you were caught sleep on the job or stealing and taking the employer to court claiming you were fired due to sexual orientation would be thrown out. Reason? They were fired for sleeping or stealing on the job. Evidence and rule of law doesn't magically disappear because you are gay.
3. Hate crimes should be punished more severely. They are far more dangerous. You know this. It causes huge tension in any society when hate crimes flare up. White people rarely get to impose hate crime because they are not hated on as much, seeing as they are the majority. Who is going to hate on them? Fellow caucasians? Of cause your going to see more hate crimes against africans, mexicans, non-whites etc in the courts. They are minorities.
2. I assume by your assumption that the race card has no affect, or someone screaming discrimination, warranted or not, gets no attention, that you are not in the work force yet.
3. I see so if a white person gets murdered by a black person the black person should get a lesser sentence then the reverse scenerio. I love the way you think. So consistant, equal and level. I am left wondering if you really believe that or if you are just trying to make an argument.
Oh I have absolutely no doubt that they would agree with you.Aries_37 wrote:
I think they would agree with me. They would probably wonder how or why I'm even making such a big deal of it. Only someone with a real racism complex could see something malicious in it. If there are racists anywhere they are bound to be a minority. Last time I checked not every non-white person was a member of the NAACP. You cannot say there is no diversity or no desire for diversity based on the existence of a few groups and individuals. I do indeed find it somewhat ignorant that you assume that all the black people in Harlem, all the Italians in Italy Town etc. think the way about white people as you believe white people have been accused of thinking about them all these years. Whatever their reasons for living there I somehow doubt it involves an outright refusal and rejection to mix with others.lowing wrote:
ya might wanna tell it to the NAACP and CAIr for example. You also might wanna tell it to the blacks in Harlem, the Italians in Little Italy. the greeks in Greektown or the Koreans in Korea town. Lets also not forget the Cubans in Little Havana. they might buy your bullshit but I am not.Aries_37 wrote:
That definition is your alone. Diversity has nothing to do with forcing anything on anyone. If everyone were 'forced' to accept one thing then that would be the opposite of diversity.
You cannot say that there is no diveresity by picking on such geographically restricted examples as Chinatown. Over here Chinatown is a couple of streets tops. Moreover you need to learn to distinguish wanting to enjoy your own culture with wanting to shield yourself from other cultures. A localised concentration of one culture arises due to practical reasons. They aren't scared or wanting to avoid diversity, if that were the case they would have stayed in their home country.
The self imposed segregation is desired by all groups. This is my point. No one wants to co-exist unless it benefits them. Unfortunately, whomever that co-existence benefits, it probably does little to benefit anyone else.Bertster7 wrote:
Without too much conflict would be more apt.Pubic wrote:
Cultural diversity is only possible within a society when the groups which make up that society can co-exist without conflict.
In any case I'd disagree slightly. Conflict is not really an issue. You will find conflict all over the place and any differences from the norm make people potential targets. Obviously this is not only true of immigrant communities and ethnic minorities, but all sorts of other minorities too.
The real cultural divide is the self imposed segregation which is all too prevalent in many immigrant communities. It is this segregation which provides the biggest barrier to effective cultural integration. This segregation is not absolute and over time becomes less and less widespread. The longer an immigrant community has been around, the more their culture gets integrated into the local culture and more harmonius cultural relations become more typical. West Indian, Indian and to some extent African immigrants in the UK are an example of this. They've been here a long time, they bring a lot to the country culturally and cultural conflict is not an issue (racial tensions may be at times, but that's a separate (though not unrelated) issue). A counter example would be communities who seem less motivated to integrate with society (at times it seems they are more motivated to segregate themselves in fact), such as Muslim, Jewish and East Asian communities - though there are more moderate examples from each of these.
1. Find a credible source and I'll argue it more vehemently.lowing wrote:
1. Ahhh here we go again with the "progressive" defensive argument number 3 attack the source not the fact.AussieReaper wrote:
1. Well that unbiased source "lol" does nothing but provide a "they are working towards pushing this idea" there is nothing concrete at all. Such extreme teachings would not make it into the curriculum at any stage and you know it.lowing wrote:
1. http://www.jeremiahproject.com/trashing … ucate.html
because it is not normal behavior, and you pretty much know it. It ihas nothing to do with homophobia it is a fact.
2. discrimination lawsuits. IE using being fired because your gay when you were caught sleeping on the job or stealing. the equivalent of the race card. Or are you now going to deny knowing anything about that.
3. Hate crime legislation punishes crimes against gays or a race more severely than non-hate crimes of the same violent attributes. Guess who rarely gets to impose hate crime legislation white people.
2. The race card can be changed to the gay card? Being fired because you were caught sleep on the job or stealing and taking the employer to court claiming you were fired due to sexual orientation would be thrown out. Reason? They were fired for sleeping or stealing on the job. Evidence and rule of law doesn't magically disappear because you are gay.
3. Hate crimes should be punished more severely. They are far more dangerous. You know this. It causes huge tension in any society when hate crimes flare up. White people rarely get to impose hate crime because they are not hated on as much, seeing as they are the majority. Who is going to hate on them? Fellow caucasians? Of cause your going to see more hate crimes against africans, mexicans, non-whites etc in the courts. They are minorities.
2. I assume by your assumption that the race card has no affect, or someone screaming discrimination, warranted or not, gets no attention, that you are not in the work force yet.
3. I see so if a white person gets murdered by a black person the black person should get a lesser sentence then the reverse scenerio. I love the way you think. So consistant, equal and level. I am left wondering if you really believe that or if you are just trying to make an argument.
2. As I said, evidence does not magically appear and rule of law does not magically evaporate when you yell discrimination.
3. No. How can I put this so you understand... Hate crime, does not always equal murder. But lets run with your case anyway. If a white man is murdered because of the colour of his skin, those responsible should be given a harsher punishment than simply the charge of murder. You do understand this concept, yes? No? A hate crime lowing, is still a hate crime even when committed by a minority or majority. I'm not arguing that only white people should be given a stricter sentence. What a stupid assumption to make.
1. instead of dismissing the source, argue against the factAussieReaper wrote:
1. Find a credible source and I'll argue it more vehemently.lowing wrote:
1. Ahhh here we go again with the "progressive" defensive argument number 3 attack the source not the fact.AussieReaper wrote:
1. Well that unbiased source "lol" does nothing but provide a "they are working towards pushing this idea" there is nothing concrete at all. Such extreme teachings would not make it into the curriculum at any stage and you know it.
2. The race card can be changed to the gay card? Being fired because you were caught sleep on the job or stealing and taking the employer to court claiming you were fired due to sexual orientation would be thrown out. Reason? They were fired for sleeping or stealing on the job. Evidence and rule of law doesn't magically disappear because you are gay.
3. Hate crimes should be punished more severely. They are far more dangerous. You know this. It causes huge tension in any society when hate crimes flare up. White people rarely get to impose hate crime because they are not hated on as much, seeing as they are the majority. Who is going to hate on them? Fellow caucasians? Of cause your going to see more hate crimes against africans, mexicans, non-whites etc in the courts. They are minorities.
2. I assume by your assumption that the race card has no affect, or someone screaming discrimination, warranted or not, gets no attention, that you are not in the work force yet.
3. I see so if a white person gets murdered by a black person the black person should get a lesser sentence then the reverse scenerio. I love the way you think. So consistant, equal and level. I am left wondering if you really believe that or if you are just trying to make an argument.
2. As I said, evidence does not magically appear and rule of law does not magically evaporate when you yell discrimination.
3. No. How can I put this so you understand... Hate crime, does not always equal murder. But lets run with your case anyway. If a white man is murdered because of the colour of his skin, those responsible should be given a harsher punishment than simply the charge of murder. You do understand this concept, yes? No? A hate crime lowing, is still a hate crime even when committed by a minority or majority. I'm not arguing that only white people should be given a stricter sentence. What a stupid assumption to make.
2. Again you obviously do not live in the real world or are in the real work force. Ever watch what happens to a persons life who is accused of child molestation with no evidence?. Same with discrimination. It is the magic word in the work force if you are a minority. I know, not very PC to say it, but true none the less.
3. Never said hate crime equal murder, but you are arguing in favor of thought crime. Murder is murder regardless of the reason. the victim is not any more or less dead because of motive.
I didn't assume it, you insinuated that white people could not impliment hate crime because they are the majority, and who in the world could hate a white guy? You wanna talk stupid assumptions?
I would imagine many, many people share this view lowing. I consider myself liberal, progressive and fairly open to foreign cultures but at the same time I hold tight to my own heritage and culture. I find it funny when I hear Irish people complaining about foreigners coming over here and diluting our culture while they themselves are quite happy to speak English and spend their Saturday afternoons watching the English Premiership... it's fucking hypocritical to be quite honest.lowing wrote:
This is because, truth be known, NOBODY wants real diversity. We all want to either keep things the way we like them or change them from what someone else likes to their own liking.Turquoise wrote:
True... which is less often than it should be.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Diversity is good when both the native population and the immigrants can work together in peace.
I do not want to be force feed culture I do not like. Of course in everyones eyes this makes me a bigot. Never mind it is fine when others do not want to be force feed western democracy. Calling someone a racist is the only way someone can deflect the truth of the matter and avoid devulging their own predjudices.
I give you the threads started by benefit as a perfect example of this. The man said nothing insulting or unreasonable but the usual suspects bashed him relentlessly to the point where his threads had to be closed, and he is the one that is supposed to need tp be more diverse and open minded? This does nothing but show diversity means changing from one way to another way. It does not mean compromise in the real world. If you do not "diversify" willingly ( IE, accept forced non beneifical change) you are a racist. Never mind the agenda of those accusing.
Muslims don't want diversity, they want Islam
no race wants diversity either, which is why cities like NY or divided into racial or national mini nations.
I am feed up with everyones oneway street version of diversity.
The same could be said about non-native Americans who complain about a country that historically does not belong to them being diluted by "foreigners". It's even more laughable when they speak of their Christian values being eroded by Islam... one Middle Eastern religion being eroded by another Middle Eastern religion. But it's like you say - humans fear change, they always have and if change happens too fast it raises heckles.
I want to learn Welsh.
Last edited by Flecco (2009-05-29 03:18:43)
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
Or "code" as I like to call it!Flecco wrote:
I want to learn Welsh.
Explain in a PM.Braddock wrote:
Or "code" as I like to call it!Flecco wrote:
I want to learn Welsh.
I don't get it.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
Well, I had nothing to do with the conquering of the new world thing. In fact lets not forget that it was Europe that did it , and not Americans.Braddock wrote:
I would imagine many, many people share this view lowing. I consider myself liberal, progressive and fairly open to foreign cultures but at the same time I hold tight to my own heritage and culture. I find it funny when I hear Irish people complaining about foreigners coming over here and diluting our culture while they themselves are quite happy to speak English and spend their Saturday afternoons watching the English Premiership... it's fucking hypocritical to be quite honest.lowing wrote:
This is because, truth be known, NOBODY wants real diversity. We all want to either keep things the way we like them or change them from what someone else likes to their own liking.Turquoise wrote:
True... which is less often than it should be.
I do not want to be force feed culture I do not like. Of course in everyones eyes this makes me a bigot. Never mind it is fine when others do not want to be force feed western democracy. Calling someone a racist is the only way someone can deflect the truth of the matter and avoid devulging their own predjudices.
I give you the threads started by benefit as a perfect example of this. The man said nothing insulting or unreasonable but the usual suspects bashed him relentlessly to the point where his threads had to be closed, and he is the one that is supposed to need tp be more diverse and open minded? This does nothing but show diversity means changing from one way to another way. It does not mean compromise in the real world. If you do not "diversify" willingly ( IE, accept forced non beneifical change) you are a racist. Never mind the agenda of those accusing.
Muslims don't want diversity, they want Islam
no race wants diversity either, which is why cities like NY or divided into racial or national mini nations.
I am feed up with everyones oneway street version of diversity.
The same could be said about non-native Americans who complain about a country that historically does not belong to them being diluted by "foreigners". It's even more laughable when they speak of their Christian values being eroded by Islam... one Middle Eastern religion being eroded by another Middle Eastern religion. But it's like you say - humans fear change, they always have and if change happens too fast it raises heckles.
We only became American when we got sick of the abuse from Europe as well.
I do not think Christian values are being eroded by Islam. I think Islam is eroding western society and its belief in freedom and tolerance and equality.
I guess you've got a final solution to the "Islam problem"?lowing wrote:
I think Islam is eroding western society and its belief in freedom and tolerance and equality.
oooo ahahahahhahahahaha very cute. final solution. hitler. nazis. you so clever. very clever sir.AussieReaper wrote:
I guess you've got a final solution to the "Islam problem"?lowing wrote:
I think Islam is eroding western society and its belief in freedom and tolerance and equality.
Don't help the boy, I'm sure he could have picked that up all on his lonesome.usmarine wrote:
oooo ahahahahhahahahaha very cute. final solution. hitler. nazis. you so clever. very clever sir.AussieReaper wrote:
I guess you've got a final solution to the "Islam problem"?lowing wrote:
I think Islam is eroding western society and its belief in freedom and tolerance and equality.
Yup I do,AussieReaper wrote:
I guess you've got a final solution to the "Islam problem"?lowing wrote:
I think Islam is eroding western society and its belief in freedom and tolerance and equality.
The US should enact strict policy against ALL forms of special interest and special rights for anything that does not serve the needs of the general public as a whole.
I would also have to insist on assimilation and not expect to change our society to suit your needs.
And to be honest, it's a fair point (neglecting the obvious Nazi connotations). To all those condemning Islam unilaterally - what's the solution?AussieReaper wrote:
Don't help the boy, I'm sure he could have picked that up all on his lonesome.usmarine wrote:
oooo ahahahahhahahahaha very cute. final solution. hitler. nazis. you so clever. very clever sir.AussieReaper wrote:
I guess you've got a final solution to the "Islam problem"?
I would've thought leave them alone and stay well clear would be the obvious response - but with the levels of support for going over their and invading them that doesn't seem consistent.
So what would the Islam haters like to see done about Islam?
Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-05-29 06:29:20)
I chose to ignore this stupidity, it instead of entertain it.AussieReaper wrote:
Don't help the boy, I'm sure he could have picked that up all on his lonesome.usmarine wrote:
oooo ahahahahhahahahaha very cute. final solution. hitler. nazis. you so clever. very clever sir.AussieReaper wrote:
I guess you've got a final solution to the "Islam problem"?
just like all religions....abolish it.Bertster7 wrote:
So what would the Islam haters like to see done about Islam?
Diversity is bullshit.
no uCybargs wrote:
Diversity is bullshit.
I thought it was about taxes, sound familiar?lowing wrote:
We only became American when we got sick of the abuse from Europe as well.
I see, so when bad things happen in the past Americans suddenly become Europeans?lowing wrote:
In fact lets not forget that it was Europe that did it , and not Americans.
When good things happen you're suddenly Americans again?
Pretty sure Americans did a lot of conquering too, wasn't that part of what the revolution was about?
1776 Declaration of Independence
1830 Indian removal act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act
1848 Mexican War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican-American_War
1857 Rutherford Birchard Hayes, U.S. President "What a prodigious growth this English race, especially the American branch of it, is having! How soon will it subdue and occupy all the wild parts of this continent and of the islands adjacent. No prophecy, however seemingly extravagant, as to future achievements in this way [is] likely to equal the reality. ”
1871 Indian Appropriations Act "That hereafter no Indian nation or tribe within the territory of the United States shall be acknowledged or recognized as an independent nation, tribe, or power with whom the United States may contract by treaty: Provided, further, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to invalidate or impair the obligation of any treaty heretofore lawfully made and ratified with any such Indian nation or tribe."
Please point out where Europeans played any part in the above.
Fuck Israel
1. yup it was about the abuse of taxes, and yes it does sound familiar. not sure what the point is, you against Obama as well?Dilbert_X wrote:
I thought it was about taxes, sound familiar?lowing wrote:
We only became American when we got sick of the abuse from Europe as well.I see, so when bad things happen in the past Americans suddenly become Europeans?lowing wrote:
In fact lets not forget that it was Europe that did it , and not Americans.
When good things happen you're suddenly Americans again?
Pretty sure Americans did a lot of conquering too, wasn't that part of what the revolution was about?
1776 Declaration of Independence
1830 Indian removal act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act
1848 Mexican War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican-American_War
1857 Rutherford Birchard Hayes, U.S. President "What a prodigious growth this English race, especially the American branch of it, is having! How soon will it subdue and occupy all the wild parts of this continent and of the islands adjacent. No prophecy, however seemingly extravagant, as to future achievements in this way [is] likely to equal the reality. ”
1871 Indian Appropriations Act "That hereafter no Indian nation or tribe within the territory of the United States shall be acknowledged or recognized as an independent nation, tribe, or power with whom the United States may contract by treaty: Provided, further, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to invalidate or impair the obligation of any treaty heretofore lawfully made and ratified with any such Indian nation or tribe."
Please point out where Europeans played any part in the above.
2. I am pretty sure I made myself clear when I said it was Europe that conquered the New World. This is a fact. The Indians were as good as gone the second the first boat hit the shore. Many of the cities on the Est coast today stand as European settlements from the past.
I also have made no excuses for the treatment of the native Americans after the US won its independence from GB. but please continue to ignore the point and the context in which it was made.
asked and answered.Bertster7 wrote:
And to be honest, it's a fair point (neglecting the obvious Nazi connotations). To all those condemning Islam unilaterally - what's the solution?AussieReaper wrote:
Don't help the boy, I'm sure he could have picked that up all on his lonesome.usmarine wrote:
oooo ahahahahhahahahaha very cute. final solution. hitler. nazis. you so clever. very clever sir.
I would've thought leave them alone and stay well clear would be the obvious response - but with the levels of support for going over their and invading them that doesn't seem consistent.
So what would the Islam haters like to see done about Islam?