Conservatives Just Don't Get Diversity

[OscarB63]

I think conservatives for the most part think each individual should be equal based on their individuality as individual Americans. Where as liberals tend to put people into groups and stress equality and social justice for the groups. Simply put, conservatives care for people as individuals and not group rights and liberals care for group rights and not the individual.

to use the marxist example:

I believe that conservatives focus more on: from each according to his ability
and liberals focus more on: to each according to his need

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

diversity just for the sake of diversity is pointless.

Well it's not bad in salads but other than that, you're right.

 

[Voxx]

Oh, so by "diversity" raging racism. I should have thought your question was from your perspective.

The question to you is obvious. Since you believe "diversity" is wrong, why are you on this forum? It is diverse.

By diversity, I meant culturally. I didn't know you were a Stormfront white supremacist or segregationist and meant you have total opposition to racial "diversity." Now I, we, all know.

Does that mean you then only want the legal right to impregnant little white girls per you voluminous messages on that thread?

I include cultural diversity in my statements about diversity. All kinds of diversity will bring conflict. My remark about ethnicity was in response to 'inbreeding can be very harmful.'

Answer the question. What knowledge is gained? What use is it?

 

[Perotista]

to use the marxist example:

I believe that conservatives focus more on: from each according to his ability
and liberals focus more on: to each according to his need

Rather simplistic, but probably true for the most part. It is like one side thinks rates a successful welfare system according to the number of people on it, the other sides thinks a successful welfare system is how many people that were on it rose above it. It goes back, do we give people a hand out, or do we give people a hand up. There is a big difference.

 

[Hard Truth]

Enjoyment doesn't matter here, that's what I meant by 'expanded cuisine.' What are the actually benefits to a state?
What use is it? If you look at the data, it appears only to be a source of trouble and tension. Unity is far more useful than diversity.
I would also say that I don't believe someone will have more fun in a diverse society as opposed to in a homogenous society. I think people can be quite satisfied with their ethnic cultures, and the introduction of foreign cultures can be interesting but it will not provide any greater satisfaction.

In a democratic republic, anything that benefits the public also benefits the government, so the benefits I previously mentioned are not irrelevant.

Culturally diverse regions attract more foreign trade. Cities that are culturally diverse attract more tourists and more prosperous residents, which adds to everyone's prosperity in the region. Diverse viewpoints can result in new solutions to old political and social problems and new opportunities. Living with diversity makes people more understanding of other viewpoints and more skilled at interacting with others, skills that can lead to financial success for both the individuals and the region. People who live without diversity tend to be narrow-minded, culturally ignorant, ethnocentric and bigoted, characteristics that make innovation and adapting to change more difficult.

Unity does not result in harmony. It is human nature for people to divide themselves into separate factions, even when the differences are only minor. I

 

[American]

to use the marxist example:

I believe that conservatives focus more on: from each according to his ability
and liberals focus more on: to each according to his need

Sorry Oscar, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. I don't believe in "from" anything. That doesn't mean I'm completely against taxes sufficient to pay for govt within constitutional limits, but I think we've been miles beyond that for over half a century. So I don't support "from".

 

[American]

Why wont conservatives vote for Democrats?

Because we think the American people are overtaxed and there are too many laws.

 

[wbcoleman]

Charles Blow, writing for the New York Times:



That's the difference between us and them. They hate people who are not like them whereas we don't hate people who are like us.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/opinion/blow-terms-of-art.html?_r=0

Best of the Web Today: The New Nixon - WSJ.com

Yeah. Of course, the NYT is a great advocate of diversity in political thought, isn't it?

 

[Deuce]

So you are an intolerant liberal. Which is exactly what I said. Add hypocrite to that.

I want you to confirm that you think unscientific material should be taught in a science classroom. At least have the balls to admit to your opinion.

 

[Deuce]

Because we think the American people are overtaxed and there are too many laws.

And liberals don't want to slash social safety nets or suppress the rights of homosexuals. :2wave:

 

[Fletch]

I want you to confirm that you think unscientific material should be taught in a science classroom. At least have the balls to admit to your opinion.

This thread isnt about what is being taught in classrooms; it is about tolerance. And you have demonstrated how it is the left that is intolerant of anyone who doesnt swallow the leftist world view.

Now, as to what I think should be taught in schools: personally, I think all schools should be private and run by the market. That leaves it up to the parents to decide what sort of eduction they wish their children to have. If one parent wants his children to learn that the Earth is flat, he can send him to a school that teaches such a thing--if he can find one. And parents who want their kids to grow up to be pathetic leftists can send their kids to a school that teaches the virtues of stealing from and dictating to their fellow man. Leftists, of course, reject this sort of freedom of choice, because they cant tolerate that level of diversity of thought.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Charles Blow, writing for the New York Times:



That's the difference between us and them. They hate people who are not like them whereas we don't hate people who are like us.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/opinion/blow-terms-of-art.html?_r=0

Best of the Web Today: The New Nixon - WSJ.com

Wow...

Really?

Most of us who have some conservative viewpoint are impressed by how hard working illegal immigrants are. We don't hate them, we just want to protect this nation from endless numbers of low income people relying on subsidies, and taking away jobs from US citizens.

As for diversity?

Are we so bad because we dislike those who have social structures that allow the killing of family for family honor? You liberals speak of multiculturalism, and cherry pick what is good and bad. i suppose this means you liberals are OK with Sharia law.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I think conservatives for the most part think each individual should be equal based on their individuality as individual Americans. Where as liberals tend to put people into groups and stress equality and social justice for the groups. Simply put, conservatives care for people as individuals and not group rights and liberals care for group rights and not the individual.

Yep.

Screw that union mentality. Collective bargaining is good for the LCD, but not for someone like me. I want to have my individual bargaining with an employer, and not be held back by others.

Ooops... Did I stray off topic...

 

[Perotista]

Yep.

Screw that union mentality. Collective bargaining is good for the LCD, but not for someone like me. I want to have my individual bargaining with an employer, and not be held back by others.

Ooops... Did I stray off topic...

It doesn't bother me. I have been military my entire life, either active duty or working for the army as a civilian. Promotions etc are based on merit by the individual soldier, not group bargaining. I think unions has a place in the private sector, it is sort of a counter balance, but not in the public sector. My opinion.

 

[hidingrpolitics]

Why is this concept preached nonstop and then backed up with salacious anecdotal evidence? This the equivalent of saying not supporting affirmative action is racist. Somehow, wanting to eliminate race from the equation altogether is now "racist". Please, please tell me why this is the case. If one truly believed in equality, it would be the liberal laws, such as affirmative action and other race-discriminatory laws (just against the majority), that would be abolished.

 

[Masada]

Fundamentalist practice relativistic morality when they decide that it is OK to kill certain people for political or religious reasons. They also practice it every time they cheat on their wife, steal at work etc. The actual behavior of conservative religionists is no better than people with other world views.

Although individuals of all world views make excuses for their bad acts, it is not true that liberals/non-religious people feel that there is no morality. They just don't believe it comes from an authority figure. Just like a fundamentalist may decide that it is OK to kill a murderer or invading soldier for the greater good in certain situations, liberals do the same thing. Liberal morality is not based on what feels good, it is based on what is best considering all the known facts. There are many examples of liberals/non-religious people taking risks and putting their lives on the line for good causes, which is the opposite of a "what feels good" morality.

How is my spinach analogy any more preposterous than the actual religious rules against pork, eating meat on Fridays, having sex during menstruation, requiring or prohibiting hats in places of worship etc.? Those arbitrary and useless rules are the ones that liberals reject, they are not true morals, they are cultural rules.

I'll tackle your last point, which was accurate. Those aren't examples of moral law, but examples of cultural rules. Therefore, let me trounce the arguments for moral relativism. Cultures and societies DO formulate rules and practices, but they do not define morality. Moral law is not the product of man's mind. If it is, please refer me to it's author and creator.

Moral law is not subjective, it's universal. Therefore, any personal interpretation of it is futile. While, as humans, we do have the ability to CHOOSE between right and wrong, we often confuse that freedom to choose, with the authority to define. Just because you can choose between right and wrong, does not mean, in any way, that you are defining right and wrong.

This is a truth, but unfortunately, a truth that the vast majority of people reject.

 

[ReformCollege]

And liberals vote for liberal Republicans. There just tend to be very few of those. The GOP has been purging them.

There are Christian Democrats, by the way. Liberals wont vote for the bible-thumping, gay bashing, science-denying evangelical types. Sorry, the Big Tent doesn't include people who hold views in direct opposition to scientific reality and demand that those views be taught in a science classroom.

I'm talking about these people

These people? These people can stay out of the Big Tent. I wont lose any sleep. You can have them, GOP.

And these people:


No, I wont vote for these people. I'm sorry if this spoils your image of the Democratic Party.

Sadly enough, I'd agree with you. I'd prefer the the religious fundamentalists break off into their own party, and the Republicans can attract the more libertarian minded moderates who are repulsed by conservative positions on things like abortion.

But, I'd like to know what your source is for that picture.

 

[Masada]

Sadly enough, I'd agree with you. I'd prefer the the religious fundamentalists break off into their own party, and the Republicans can attract the more libertarian minded moderates who are repulsed by conservative positions on things like abortion.

But, I'd like to know what your source is for that picture.

Repulsed by the "conservative positions on things like abortion"......Interesting.

perhaps you agree with the more liberal positions on abortion, that create men like Gosnell?? When all else fails, DECAPITATE THE BABY OUTSIDE THE WOMB THEN FLUSH IT IN A TOILET!!!! Perhaps those "moderates" are more in line with THAT position???

get a life....you're idea has been tried, and it led to McCain, then Romney, both "moderates" who got their ass beat.

 

[ReformCollege]

Repulsed by the "conservative positions on things like abortion"......Interesting.

perhaps you agree with the more liberal positions on abortion, that create men like Gosnell?? When all else fails, DECAPITATE THE BABY OUTSIDE THE WOMB THEN FLUSH IT IN A TOILET!!!! Perhaps those "moderates" are more in line with THAT position???

get a life....you're idea has been tried, and it led to McCain, then Romney, both "moderates" who got their ass beat.

I cannot possibly deal with all of the strawman arguments in your post without my head exploding.

 

[Deuce]

This thread isnt about what is being taught in classrooms; it is about tolerance. And you have demonstrated how it is the left that is intolerant of anyone who doesnt swallow the leftist world view.

Now, as to what I think should be taught in schools: personally, I think all schools should be private and run by the market. That leaves it up to the parents to decide what sort of eduction they wish their children to have. If one parent wants his children to learn that the Earth is flat, he can send him to a school that teaches such a thing--if he can find one. And parents who want their kids to grow up to be pathetic leftists can send their kids to a school that teaches the virtues of stealing from and dictating to their fellow man. Leftists, of course, reject this sort of freedom of choice, because they cant tolerate that level of diversity of thought.

What you call "diversity of thought," most people call "the incorrect answer."

2+2 isn't 5, dinosaurs didn't live with humans, and the earth is far older than 10,000 years. These are facts, not thoughts. Keep whining about intolerance all you want, liberals don't think everything should be tolerated no matter what it is, just like conservatives don't believe that.

It's a religious school. It's not like the bible's creation story is going to go untaught just because it's not in a science classroom. "Genesis 101" will cover that material just fine. Why lie to children and call it science? You're hurting their future.

 

[Masada]

I cannot possibly deal with all of the strawman arguments in your post without my head exploding.

What's strawman about choosing a side on the abortion issue? What, you're now gonna tell me you're somewhere in between Jerry Falwell and Gosnell? Ok, that's fine. Then just clarify, at what point are you comfortable with terminating a potential human being in the womb?

To me, this is a red line issue. I don't understand people's thought process when they say, "I support abortion in the first tri mester, but not the third" .....???? Doesn't even get close to passing the smell test with me. What, did you not know what was in that woman's womb in the first trimester, and now you do? Was it not a potential human being in the first trimester, and now all of a sudden it is?

No, these aren't strawmen arguments, it's called logic. You want REpublicans to reject conservatives to embrace moderates. Fine, we've done that for 2 Presidential elections in a row. What happened? They got trounced. But ironically, when you run CONSERVATIVE candidates, they win! SHOCKER!!! So, excuse me if I poo poo the stupid idea of rejecting conservative roots for moderate politics. Moderates are the luke warm people that BOTH sides spit out of their mouths come election time.

 

[Hard Truth]

...Moral law is not subjective, it's universal. Therefore, any personal interpretation of it is futile. While, as humans, we do have the ability to CHOOSE between right and wrong, we often confuse that freedom to choose, with the authority to define. Just because you can choose between right and wrong, does not mean, in any way, that you are defining right and wrong.

This is a truth, but unfortunately, a truth that the vast majority of people reject.

I actually agree that there is a a universal morality of "do no harm" or do unto others," but I don't believe it is from a supernatural being. I suspect that it is an instinct that has evolved because it is beneficial to the species. Similar "moral" behavior has been observed in several animals.

No matter the source of morality, in humans there is always a thought process on when and how to apply it. Killing is prohibited, but exceptions are made for self defense, wars and executing criminals by even the people who consider themselves the most "morally righteous." Individuals have to interpret how to apply their morality almost daily. It is a myth that only non-religious people practice situational morality, everyone does.

 

[ReformCollege]

What's strawman about choosing a side on the abortion issue? What, you're now gonna tell me you're somewhere in between Jerry Falwell and Gosnell? Ok, that's fine. Then just clarify, at what point are you comfortable with terminating a potential human being in the womb?

To me, this is a red line issue. I don't understand people's thought process when they say, "I support abortion in the first tri mester, but not the third" .....???? Doesn't even get close to passing the smell test with me. What, did you not know what was in that woman's womb in the first trimester, and now you do? Was it not a potential human being in the first trimester, and now all of a sudden it is?

No, these aren't strawmen arguments, it's called logic. You want REpublicans to reject conservatives to embrace moderates. Fine, we've done that for 2 Presidential elections in a row. What happened? They got trounced. But ironically, when you run CONSERVATIVE candidates, they win! SHOCKER!!! So, excuse me if I poo poo the stupid idea of rejecting conservative roots for moderate politics. Moderates are the luke warm people that BOTH sides spit out of their mouths come election time.

I want "Republican" to mean libertarian. More moderate on social issues, and more economic freedom. Modern day conservatives like big government way too much for my liking, just not as much as Democrats.

As for abortion, I'd say around 6-12 weeks should be the cut off point. That's when a majority of the vital organs start to come into form and we don't just look like a tadpole. In my opinion, if it has a beating heart, its human. But some conservative's positions that women who were raped should have to carry to term, that is just absurd.

 

[Masada]

I want "Republican" to mean libertarian. More moderate on social issues, and more economic freedom. Modern day conservatives like big government way too much for my liking, just not as much as Democrats.

As for abortion, I'd say around 6-12 weeks should be the cut off point. That's when a majority of the vital organs start to come into form and we don't just look like a tadpole. In my opinion, if it has a beating heart, its human. But some conservative's positions that women who were raped should have to carry to term, that is just absurd.

I'm going to quote you here so you don't think I'm putting words in your mouth for you:

"if it has a beating heart, it's human."

Well, this is why I think you're utterly ridiculous. First you say "6-12 weeks" should be the "cut off point". Hmmmmm....but then you say "if it has a beating heart, it's human".....

Well, a fetus develops a heartbeat at about 18 days, not "6-12" weeks, when a mother is 4 days late for her first period. By 21 DAYS that heart is pumping through a closed circulatory system.

So, you'll understand why I'm a little apprehensive to listen to people tell me that the REpublican party is "too conservative" on the issue of abortion. Pffff....you can't even get the science right. So basically, if I read your post right, you base your own opinions on abortion based on how much the fetus looks like a tad pole still....lol...boy, now that's a great platform right there.

I can picture your version of the GOP when they are debating abortion with liberals: "yep, we oppose abortion as soon as a fetus LOOKS LIKE a baby".

Libertarians have their own party in case you didn't already know that by the way. So, they can't win on their own ideas, so you want to co-opt the "Republican" party. Got cha.....Hey, at least you're honest.

This is precisely my point. Not only do you not know what you're talking about, but you expect "conservatives" to set aside their values under the "republican" party, and become "libertarian", even though there is already a Libertarian party. Are you serious????

 

[ReformCollege]

I'm going to quote you here so you don't think I'm putting words in your mouth for you:

"if it has a beating heart, it's human."

Well, this is why I think you're utterly ridiculous. First you say "6-12 weeks" should be the "cut off point". Hmmmmm....but then you say "if it has a beating heart, it's human".....

Well, a fetus develops a heartbeat at about 18 days, not "6-12" weeks, when a mother is 4 days late for her first period. By 21 DAYS that heart is pumping through a closed circulatory system.

So, you'll understand why I'm a little apprehensive to listen to people tell me that the REpublican party is "too conservative" on the issue of abortion. Pffff....you can't even get the science right. So basically, if I read your post right, you base your own opinions on abortion based on how much the fetus looks like a tad pole still....lol...boy, now that's a great platform right there.

I can picture your version of the GOP when they are debating abortion with liberals: "yep, we oppose abortion as soon as a fetus LOOKS LIKE a baby".

Libertarians have their own party in case you didn't already know that by the way. So, they can't win on their own ideas, so you want to co-opt the "Republican" party. Got cha.....Hey, at least you're honest.

This is precisely my point. Not only do you not know what you're talking about, but you expect "conservatives" to set aside their values under the "republican" party, and become "libertarian", even though there is already a Libertarian party. Are you serious????

Its actually 21 days, which is 5 weeks after the last menstrual period. I said 6-12 weeks, because generally those are the most strict restrictions currently. I support restricting abortion, just not banning it at conception.