PDA

View Full Version : The Ever-Changing Definition of Diversity




bobbyw24
05-22-2010, 02:39 PM
by Ken Eldib on May 21, 2010
EldibDNA

“Variety is the spice of life”—American Proverb

The definition of diversity is a moving target, controlled by opinion makers and social engineers. What is the ideal goal of diversity? Is it best exemplified by people of different ethnicities living together, or by all these peoples blending together to make a single race? We are encouraged to prefer the latter, but once that’s achieved, will there be any diversity left?

We’re encouraged to believe that if we eventually look more alike, society will be more peaceful. Unfortunately, one need only look as far as Rwanda or Cambodia to see that people who look alike can still be quite keen on killing each other.

The government should not have an agenda regarding race, other than promoting peace and prosperity. If it is determined to racially re-engineer society, it is exceeding its authority. Nor should we be bullied by squeaky wheels who threaten violence or expensive court battles if they don’t receive the quotas or other forms of special treatment they feel entitled to.

If a group of people is being out-competed and feels threatened with extinction, they’re unlikely to play fair. Those who are losing may consider the stakes too high to be good sports, it will become a case of all is fair in love and war.

We are not all one race; we are all one species. At this point in time however, it’s politically incorrect to mention this fact.

Did you know there’s a list of “threatened peoples”? These are relatively distinct small populations in danger of being diversified out of existence. In most cases, they consist of thousands, to hundreds of thousands of individuals—the Yakuts of Siberia are one example.

Can you like people of other races or ethnicities without supporting their “agenda”? Certain activists think not and imply that if you’re against their agenda, you’re against their people.

“If someone feels justified in hitting me over the head because he believes my ancestors did his people wrong, should I hold all of my attackers’ people responsible for the assault?”

http://www.takimag.com/article/the_ever-changing_definition_of_diversity/

tangent4ronpaul
05-22-2010, 03:18 PM
HOT DANG! - I guess our kids will be assigned great new tiles in school like "Me and my Ewe" to go along with "Why Tommy has two Mommies". :rolleyes:

Reminds me a a college bio class I took. The prof started out talking about what a horrible, debilitating disease sickle cell anemia was and mentioned that 1 in 4 blacks either had it or carried the gene. He then went on to state that it was RACIST to even test for the disease because we would all be one race eventually. This segway'd into his encouraging mixed race marriages because mixed race babies were so cute... His swooning across the room rocking an imaginary baby in his arms came to an abrupt stop when he saw me - as my jaw had visibly dropped in disbelief. Something I think all the girls in the class that doe eyed, going aaawwwwww! missed. I was thinking - let me get this strait - it's a GOOD idea to condemn your decedents to a horrible, debilitating disease because for a year or two you get to have a "cute" baby??? Really wish I'd spoken up at the time, but didn't. That it is ever OK to IGNORE a disease and let it run rampant because it would be politically incorrect not to do so? Hay - by that measure, why not run out and have unprotected sex with the first HIV or herpes infected person you can find? I mean they need love too and we don't want to discriminate - do we?

The prof did everything in his power to flunk me after that.

-t

BlackTerrel
05-22-2010, 04:02 PM
The government should not have an agenda regarding race, other than promoting peace and prosperity. If it is determined to racially re-engineer society, it is exceeding its authority. Nor should we be bullied by squeaky wheels who threaten violence or expensive court battles if they don’t receive the quotas or other forms of special treatment they feel entitled to.

Perhaps. But if you look at the way things were in the 60's and before that was unacceptable in a free society. Whether government was the solution or something else is debatable.

At this point it doesn't matter much. It's 2010 and the vast majority of people have moved on. Which is why I wish Rand would just try and avoid the issue.

SociallyRenderedImage
05-22-2010, 04:20 PM
The definitions of diverse seemed to be too varied to define. [/end quip]