Someone explain to me why "diversity" is good.

[OzzyKP]

Excellent points, aneeshm

But I too was looking forward to seeing Ves sputter.

[Japher]

Diversity is good because you get more options at the food court in the mall.

[OzzyKP]

I beat you to it:

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Can you imagine if all we had to eat in this country was English food?

[Japher]

then why is the discussion still going?

aneeshm just needs to keep his silly little, meaningless opinions to himself then...

[BeBMan]

Diversity: lots of different sorts of beer.

Anything else is inacceptable.

Hence diversity is good.

Case closed.

Beer

[Japher]

*unacceptable

(beat you to it LS)

[BeBMan]

Stop opressing me

Diversity of words

(Yeah ****, I thought you can use both "in" or "un" here, like in the German version of the word)

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Japher
Diversity is good because you get more options at the food court in the mall.

By that, I take it you mean white people food, white people food, black people food, pseudo-mexican food, and unknown food with high quantities of msg?

[Arrian]

NOOOOES! You ruined your joke!

QFT!

-Arrian

[C0ckney]

that no matter what we thing is good or bad, imposition of our ideas on another, specially another country, by means of force, is never, ever a good thing.

so when the british empire decided that slavery was wrong and sought to impose their will on other countries, sometimes through force, or at least the threat thereof, was that not a good thing?

[Q Classic]

Don't be a wanker, C0ckney. Everybody knows that Gay Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves.

This was shortly before you voted to become the US's *****es for the rest of your existence, right?

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by C0ckney
so when the british empire decided that slavery was wrong and sought to impose their will on other countries, sometimes through force, or at least the threat thereof, was that not a good thing?

Was it a good thing that Britain forcefully imposed its will on Iraq? Or if you don't think that was a good move, would it be a good thing for another country to invade Britain to enforce a regime change that stops it launching wars of aggression against small countries?

There is no such thing as a humanitarian war. Perhaps some still feel that the empire was a much needed enterprise - imposing civilisation on the barbaric Johnny foreigner.

I think Aneesh makes some good points on the principle of sovereignty, which I broadly agree with.

[C0ckney]

the british empire helped shape the world we see today, so in that sense it was certainly a much needed enterprise.

anyhoo, aneeshm's idea is very clear, simple, and probably something most people 'broadly agree' with. however, i feel that in reality, a more nuanced approach should be adopted.

[Caligastia]

To me, sovereignty comes second to the elimination of barbarism. I don't give a **** about your sovereignty if you're torturing, maiming, and raping your people. Aneeshm's statement smacks of moral relativism.

[Cort Haus]

Unfortunately Cali, those claiming the moral high ground wrt the right to invade other countries can be guilty of getting their facts wrong, to put it mildly.

Tony Blair was as utterly convinced of the moral righteousness of going into Iraq as the muslim invaders Aneesh referred to were about zapping the Indian temples. Perhaps Blair would have dismissed objectors to his adventure as 'moral relatavists'.