Why is Diversity Deemed to be A Good Thing?

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by Azazel
What do you think of one of the "races" dissappearing?

It depends what you mean by 'dissappear'. If you mean 'assimilate/merge with another race through natural breeding' - then I say that's fine. It's natural. Not necessarily a Good Thing, but not a Bad Thing either.

However, it would have to be natural - not happen as a result of deliberate policy on behalf of any group/government.

And I prefer brunettes.

[Az]

But wouldn't we be missing some diversity, something nice?

Oh, and personally, I don't think that Blondes are better than Brunnettes. But I'd rather have that choice.

[Ben Kenobi]

When my boss and I went over everything, I told him that I thought emphasizing diversity in the workplace was "PC silliness", and that it had absolutely nothing to do with my job, or anyone's job performance.

Emphasising Diversity is just PC madness, no better than discouraging diversity.

Just let things happen, people will miscegenate without encouragement.

As for the superiority of a 'culture' over another, pretty much everyone will say that their own has to be superior, or that none are. Not many look at the strengths and weaknesses, or why one particular region will develop a certain culture over another.
I'd like to hear people's thoughts along those lines since I haven't taken any anthropology classes.

[St Leo]

Why is Diversity Deemed to be A Good Thing?

Experience. Lack of diversity doesn't work. Multiculturalism is working very well in Canada. Reality shapes theories, not the other way around.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Boddington's

Let workers choose when they want to retire. But have the catch that the younger you retire, the less your pension will be. It's only fair.

I don't catch this meaning of fair. Giving people the same retirement age means everybody gets the same - this isn't "fair"?

You think claiming a pension means you can't work anymore? Oh no Bods. Plenty of pensioners are working now (my Dad among them). Not through choice but through necessity.

The problem is that pretty soon we won't have the cash to pay all the pensions because there won't be enough people working to pay the taxes to pay the pensions.

Originally posted by Boddington's

If the elderly work, they should be better off than if they were solely drawing on a pension.

Yes, I can really see you shovelling sh1t in your 80s. You can't even do a manual job now.

Originally posted by Boddington's
Don't see how this is relevant. If people decide to invest in an asset rather than consuming it (renting), that's their choice.

It's relevent because THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO SAVE during their working lives. What ends up happening is the financial institutions end up with the property when the pensioner dies. You spend your whole life working, for what?

For nothing.

Originally posted by Boddington's

It would give people the choice of the trade-off between health care and a comfortable retirement. Which would you prefer, if the supply was restricted to one? Economic decisions are tough, individual decisions, and hence governments should not be making them for us.

Like I've said before, tell me that when you're dying of skin cancer. Or some other disease that is beyond the means of the individual to treat.

We don't get a "comfortable" pension now.

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Boddington's ]/SIZE]

Basically it's adjusting the system so that individuals pay for their own pensions funds based on their own preferences, rather than the government trying to work out what is best for them and acting accordingly - a situation which currently ends up making the growing number of pensioners rely on a relatively falling number of workers.

Yes, but it's not the older generation's fault that the current workforce is a bunch of workshy potheads that couldn't find their arse with both hands, is it?

Originally posted by Boddington's

There are many, many ways.

Yes, and they all deny freedom of choice. You want me or anyone else to have less freedom? Prepare for combat.

Originally posted by Boddington's
Or alternatively we could poach the cream from developing nations and leave them in the ****ter even more. Our choice..

And what about the 200,000 "natives" that emigrate every year? Are they putting developing nations up the sh1tter as well? Or are they helping us? Or would you just gas them all as traitors to the Bods 1 Party State?

[Al B. Sure!]

the thing i never understood about diversity is that it don't seem to get rid of racial problems.

for example, the American South has always been very diverse (as in comparable populations of blacks and whites) and the typical white southernor, even during segregation, encountered dozens of more blacks daily than any northernor.

so diversity apparently did nothing to end racism.

[FrustratedPoet]

so diversity apparently did nothing to end racism.

Or, looking at it the other way round .... the blatant racism of large parts of the white population for a long time failed to end the diversity. That's a more positive outlook.

[Az]

Originally posted by St Leo
Why is Diversity Deemed to be A Good Thing?

Experience. Lack of diversity doesn't work.

Japan.

Multiculturalism is working very well in Canada. Reality shapes theories, not the other way around.

Well, once again, good for you. The fact that it "works" doesn't mean that it's better. I can show you many places where it doesn't work.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Azazel

Japan.

Japan is undergoing great changes.
The traditionalism the elder generations used to have isn´t present to this extent in the younger generations and they tend to assimilate many things of the western Civilizations, be it Music, be it certain behavior and else (although their workplaces and else still tend to obey a more traditionalistic codex)

[Solly]

Experience. Lack of diversity doesn't work.

See Scandinavia. As the number of immigrants starts to rise there, social problems are arising and economic growth is slowing.