quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

~Fast Reply~

Nope. I am tired of celebrating diversity. I do not think that it is even healthy to do so.

Celebrating diversity means celebrating differences. So first those differences have to be enumerated. Which leads to stereotyping and pigeon-holing people into some one-dimensional view.

It also sets up an Us versus Them mentality. You see it all the time and does not lead to harmony and happiness. It leads to the demonization of the "other."

Uh.....remember that whole idea of a great melting pot?

And the inscription on the Statue of Liberty?

People like you astound me.

Diversity is what this country was built on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Uh.....remember that whole idea of a great melting pot?

And the inscription on the Statue of Liberty?

People like you astound me.

Diversity is what this country was built on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

FR

FR

This post is not in response to the previous post


Sorry, I forgot to put the "FR" thing in front of what I said.


I estimated that the general audience would be able to discern by content and context that a post having nothing to do with the immediately prior post but rather with the several posts by DYB, DS, and Aylee, so named in the post concerning here, that the post in fact was addressing and commenting on the posts thus identified, and not to the circumstantially immediate post.


I assumed too much, sorry.



PS

Aside from the small issue that "Welcome to   - - - - - -  " is a standard rhetorical device, meaning something along the lines of "this is how it is," not that one is actually welcoming or inviting a person into a place.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


"Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence."
John Jay, 1st Chief Justice of the United States, President of the Continental Congress, Federalist Papers, 1787

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

Its diversity that makes this country great. Take last week, we were all Irish for the day. Could go into a Irish bar and see people celebrating their "difference". I am not sure why everyone has to make it seem bad. 

DYB, diversity yes! Letting the *third world* into this country no!

I find it a bit rich that descendants of immigrants now say no to immigration, for it strikes me as a case of I'm Alright Jack

The invitation to come to America was extended to your ancestors for a better life, so why do you find it so hard to reciprocate, are you not American ?

If the boot were on the other foot, and you were living under oppression or in abject poverty, would you stay in that country or try to move elsewhere for a better life ?

Aneirin, and just how long do you think that can continue? In 1900 we had what, 50 million people?
We're a mature country of 300 million plus now and don't need immigration anymore, there's *no jobs!* Thanks to this "global economy" all the good manufacturing jobs went overseas.
That was then this is now. We don't have to let *anyone*into this country!
All the third world knows when it comes to the U.S. is, "gimme, gimme, gimme!"
The fairy tale days of starry eyed immigrants on wooden ships entering New York harbor and gazing whistfully at the statue of liberty are o-v-e-r!
You're living a fantasy Buddy.
Oh, and we don't use *buggy whips* anymore either we use car keys now and "Camelot" shouldn't ever be mentioned in the same sentance as that criminal, disgusting, Irish Clan of theives, murderers, child molestors, cheats, borderline retards and low i.q morons from Boston!
The Kennedys! Now THERE's one HELL of an argument against anymore immigration!

"That was than,this is now"...Didn't you quote George Washington just yesterday in support of your xenophobic views ?
You really do need to make up your mind.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

zenny
We're not.

Something like 6% difference between groups(races) in how our DNA manifests. And it's a very important 6%.
http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/Race.pdf

After reading the link you supplied I was left wondering if you had read it too.

My reading is that the figure of 6% (claimed in your post to account for genetically determined racial variation among humans) is twenty (20) times greater than the proper figure for comparison to Charles' figure of 0.5% The accurate figure is actually 0.03%.*

The linked paper makes no claims, nor does it offer any evidence about the importance of that 0.03%. Need I point out that 0.03% is hardly a substantial base on which to make a point?

The paper is a critique of current orthodoxy in the fields of philosophy, biology, genetics and anthropology re: race. It seeks to open a discussion of a possible relationship between race and genetics. Or, as the author puts it:

"My aim is to challenge the arguments that are usually thought to invalidate the biological concept of race."

No attempt was made to propose a biological concept of race. According to the most generous reading of the paper, such a concept remains, at this point, a theoretical possibility rejected out of hand by scientific consensus in all the relevant disciplines.

That doesn't necessarily invalidate it. It does necessitate some serious argument and evidence, both of which were lacking. So I'm sorry to say that you will have to offer far more compelling evidence than this if you wish your claims (opinions? prejudices?) to be given serious consideration.

As the rest of the post was equally uninformed and, at times, even wilder speculation I'm not going to bother taking it too seriously.

quote:

So I ask again, Why it is only EU and USA must be multicultural and diverse? Why not Australia, China, Japan, India, etc.?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


"Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence."
John Jay, 1st Chief Justice of the United States, President of the Continental Congress, Federalist Papers, 1787

Written at the time of slavery and native peoples displacement, so thanks for that insight as to how both were taken as a given at that time.


Aside from the fact that the original Declaration of Independence was written with primarily capitalized nouns, not just as to the assumption of speaking to a putatively German king who himself never spoke the language of his granddad, but because that deutsche mindset was actually still close at hand, along with the significant writings of French and British political theorists being therewith invoked, who in fact not always spoke the same language.


But I agree with the sentiment on one point ...

If only we had kept the Irish out!

quote:

What is needed, is a common language for all

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

I don't know spanish but I am positive I could learn it. We are the only country on earth that is too lazy to learn another language. Its pathetic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


"Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence."
John Jay, 1st Chief Justice of the United States, President of the Continental Congress, Federalist Papers, 1787

Written at the time of slavery and native peoples displacement, so thanks for that insight as to how both were taken as a given at that time.


Aside from the fact that the original Declaration of Independence was written with primarily capitalized nouns, not just as to the assumption of speaking to a putatively German king who himself never spoke the language of his granddad, but because that deutsche mindset was actually still close at hand, along with the significant writings of French and British political theorists being therewith invoked, who in fact not always spoke the same language.


But I agree with the sentiment on one point ...

If only we had kept the Irish out!

And just how do your comments show that this country was founded on diversity?

For your information, John Jay was anti-slavery.

And what in the hell does any of this have to do with keeping the Irish out?

I won't even explain the Romans to you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim

America's face looked just fine before the invasion of illegal Hispanics/Latinos and Muslims began.

This quote right here should be example number one the next time someone foolishly asks me why I dare refer to you as....racistjim.
The proof is in the pudding ....so to speak.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Nice rant pops....please do not have a stroke over anything I have posted.
As to me being a Republican...been there,done that.....and withdrawn my membership once the party moved too far right.I was thinking of perhaps becoming an "independent" ,but after viewing your stuff it seemed to me to be to similar to the Repubs....so I went Democratic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: zenny

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

zenny
We're not.

Something like 6% difference between groups(races) in how our DNA manifests. And it's a very important 6%.
http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/Race.pdf

After reading the link you supplied I was left wondering if you had read it too.

My reading is that the figure of 6% (claimed in your post to account for genetically determined racial variation among humans) is twenty (20) times greater than the proper figure for comparison to Charles' figure of 0.5% The accurate figure is actually 0.03%.*

The linked paper makes no claims, nor does it offer any evidence about the importance of that 0.03%. Need I point out that 0.03% is hardly a substantial base on which to make a point?

The paper is a critique of current orthodoxy in the fields of philosophy, biology, genetics and anthropology re: race. It seeks to open a discussion of a possible relationship between race and genetics. Or, as the author puts it:

"My aim is to challenge the arguments that are usually thought to invalidate the biological concept of race."

No attempt was made to propose a biological concept of race. According to the most generous reading of the paper, such a concept remains, at this point, a theoretical possibility rejected out of hand by scientific consensus in all the relevant disciplines.

That doesn't necessarily invalidate it. It does necessitate some serious argument and evidence, both of which were lacking. So I'm sorry to say that you will have to offer far more compelling evidence than this if you wish your claims (opinions? prejudices?) to be given serious consideration.

As the rest of the post was equally uninformed and, at times, even wilder speculation I'm not going to bother taking it too seriously.

Then you didn't read the article very well or at all. If you had then you would have notice it on page 6 (148) half way down and it's continual reference throughout the rest of the article.

"Lewontin estimated the inter-racial variation comprises only about 7% of the total genetic variation in the human species"

That is what I meant by 6% difference in manifestation. I guess it is difficult to understand without the proper frame of reference. Also, had you read it fully you would have also noticed it tearing philosophers a new one using scientific fact. Then tearing other scientists a new one for offhandedly dismissing results and ignoring research because its unpopular. The biological concept of race has already been established. However, it was been pigeonholed by bad research for the better part of 30 years. I also like how you don't address anything else I've said and simply pass off what I say as prejudice to avoid doing so.

But this was only intended to illustrate a point, not sidetrack. So I ask again, Why it is only EU and USA must be multicultural and diverse? Why not Australia, China, Japan, India, etc.? Why do people feel the need to move to other places for a better life and ask that place and their people to change? If they wanted change, why not change where they're at and better their home country? This is analogous to moving in with a stranger against their wishes and pushing them to renovate their home because it doesn't look like the one I previously lived in.

I ask again how would you like an influx of 22 million Aborigines?