Someone explain to me why "diversity" is good.

[Caligastia]

I stand behind the principle, despite the deceptions of those who claim to adhere to it.

[Cort Haus]

Getting away from the sovereignty debate and strictly back on-topic, I feel I can offer a couple of examples of how diversity can be positive.

I mentioned on the other thread about a company I used to work at which was very diverse in terms of nationality and to an extent, religion. Colleagues there were working towards a common goal, and the wealth of language options within the company did no harm when it came to securing business in various international markets. In addition, people got to forge friendships with people of different nationalities and cultures, and this helped to develop positive feelings. It's harder to be negative about nationality/culture/religion XYZ when you have friends from that grouping.

Likewise, I'd argue that this place we're posting at has positive diversity too. OK, so we don't exactly all agree and get on with each other about everything, but we do have the chance to find agreement with people of diverse backgrounds and maybe even develop friendships. We're not a cross-section of the whole planet by any means but I suspect we're more international than many/most online communities, and for those of us that seek to develop positive understandings with those we meet here and discuss things with, I think it's a good thing.

[Caligastia]

Diversity can be good or bad, depending on what kind of diversity you're talking about. Based on my experience of different groups, I'd rather have East Asians, Indians, and Jews as neighbours than Blacks and Islamic Arabs.

Meeting people from other cultures is usually something that results in personal growth, and is mostly a positive thing. However, there are certain principles that must be shared by all, and a common language is an enormous help too.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Caligastia
I stand behind the principle, despite the deceptions of those who claim to adhere to it.

But who has the moral authority to be the worlds' policeman?

[Blake]

Ethnic diversity is neither good nor bad.

Tolerance is good.

What is really good, is when people can move wherever they want, and be accepted so long as they do no harm.

There's absolutely no need to tolerate people who do harm, in fact it must NOT be tolerated.

It's not that ideologies of harm are bad per-se, it's just that they shouldn't be accepted in any society which exists to improve the welfare of all those who participate in the society*. If someone believes in an ideology of harm, they should have to abandon that ideology BEFORE joining a humane society.

The reason for that is if someone does harm to another, that may give a very slight improving in the welfare of the harmer, but it definitely has a large negative effect on the welfare of the harmee, the average welfare is thus reduced by the presence of harmers, and that is not compatible with the purpose of the society.

It's an interesting exercise to reflect on a society which exists for OTHER reasons, like maybe to minimize the average welfare of it's members... we'd probably vehemently deny that such beasts exist, but anyone with a healthy sense of cynicism would have to at least wonder...

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


But who has the moral authority to be the worlds' policeman?

Tough question. I would say the ideal situation would be an organization that transcends national boundries and adheres strictly to well-defined, basic principles.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Blake
It's not that ideologies of harm are bad per-se

[Blake]

Originally posted by Caligastia

It's not that ideologies of harm are bad per-se

That's not as inane as you think.

Do you think that wolves are bad animals because they eat deer?

The wolf has an ideology of harm, but that doesn't make it bad.

Okay?

You either accept that, or you're the type who would slay all the wolves so the deer population runs rampant and decimates the forest...


But most human societies are built in such a way that they don't need wolves for regulation and thus the wolves in such a society only serve a destructive/disruptive role.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Tough question. I would say the ideal situation would be an organization that transcends national boundries and adheres strictly to well-defined, basic principles.

But then you have the problems of propaganda and corruption. If powerful country X wishes to smash poor country Y for its own nefarious purposes, it might have the power to create a media firestorm which depicts Y in a bad light. It might also have the power to influence the hypothetical transnational body.

Who guards the guards?

The system of sovereignty was devised precisely to stop powerful imperialist countries abusing small, weak ones. Historically, imperialists have always dressed their campaigns in morally righteous clothes, and they have the diplomatic and media power to generate support.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
The system of sovereignty was devised precisely to stop powerful imperialist countries abusing small, weak ones. Historically, imperialists have always dressed their campaigns in morally righteous clothes, and they have the diplomatic and media power to generate support.

Yep. One need only to remember how imperialism was cloaked in the garb civilizing the barbarians.

Oh, as for aneeshm's statement smacking of moral relativism, I hope so, for that means he's rejected bull**** of moral absolutism .

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
But then you have the problems of propaganda and corruption. If powerful country X wishes to smash poor country Y for its own nefarious purposes, it might have the power to create a media firestorm which depicts Y in a bad light. It might also have the power to influence the hypothetical transnational body.

Who guards the guards?

Most of the problems you describe can occur on the national level as well though.

The system of sovereignty was devised precisely to stop powerful imperialist countries abusing small, weak ones.

Well, it stems from the end of the 30 yrs war, so it's much older than classic imperialism.

[dannubis]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Oh, as for aneeshm's statement smacking of moral relativism, I hope so, for that means he's rejected bull**** of moral absolutism .

Only if it is not upper cast hindi...

[faded glory]

melting pots are good. Mixed Salads are not. Divesity is only good if assimilation occurs.

oh hello apolyton.

[Whoha]

Why isn't this a babe thread yet?

[Vesayen]

Opressed Arabian Girls Gone Wild!

Watch as these totaly out of control Saudi women go in public without a male relative as an escort!