• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Diversity Evil?

Is Diversity Evil?


  • Total voters
    41
1. I confess to the sin of not reading the whole thread before responding.

2. I am excused because there is no quoted post so who knows what I'm jumping into.

3. "Evil" implies a moral decision, as well as objective or quasi-objective morality*

4. "Evil" never means merely ignorant. It means a decision that defies the morality from #3, an act, non-act, or otherwise defined thing that fits the bill.

5. The bill involves concepts of maliciousnes, sadism, intentionality, etc. It is the infliction of some form intentional discomfiture without purpose other than maliciousness (perhaps without purpose too, therefore banal).


I fail to see how an objective measurement such as diversity, in any thing, can be "evil" absent a creator.

I fail to see how diversity, subjectively, can be "evil" without intent such as described above, unless it is something akin to intentionally deporting Jews to Germany in 1944.

_____
* social contract, whether implied or explicit.

* evil necessarily assumes an intention or a reckless and wilful failure to consider consequences in which evil inheres.





The allowance of there being diversity cannot possibly be evil by definition. The possibility of confrontation does not make diversity bad; it is a negative reflection on humanity in its current form.


If you knew better, then you wouldn't do 'evil', therefore it's ignorance.

Diversity based on genetics, circumstances and choice is a necessary evil, so that there can be variability within a system.

What can appear as moral ambiguity is often the truth.
 
If you knew better, then you wouldn't do 'evil', therefore it's ignorance.

Diversity based on genetics, circumstances and choice is a necessary evil, so that there can be variability within a system.

What can appear as moral ambiguity is often the truth.

For various reasons some people do not care if they do evil or not... nothing ignorant about their decision to be evil.
 
For various reasons some people do not care if they do evil or not... nothing ignorant about their decision to be evil.

I know what you're saying, they would do wrong even if they knew better? But if they really believed in knowing better, then they probably wouldn't do it. Emotionally not caring is another factor in the mental aspect of it all but it's still an overall conscientious decision and why most older people have more wisdom about life choices.
 
I know what you're saying, they would do wrong even if they knew better? But if they really believed in knowing better, then they probably wouldn't do it. Emotionally not caring is another factor in the mental aspect of it all but it's still an overall conscientious decision and why most older people have more wisdom about life choices.

Just to make sure we are on the same page... I am talking about sociopathic individuals as well as those that fall within the "normal" range that murder (for example) because the consciously make the decision to do so knowing it is wrong but not caring because it might benefit them in some manner.
 
Other:

Most aspects of diversity do not inherently cause conflict, but neither is there anything inherently beautiful about diversity. Diversity is fine so long as it does not include vulgar physical traits such as obesity, or sociopathic character traits, or any of the various sociopathic aspects of the abrahamic religions.

Said sociopathic aspects include non-consensual foreskin amputation and the lie that it does not decrease sexual sensitivity; the young-earth creationist lie which serves to disruptively destroy the extensive knowledge of evolution; the lie that the souls of non-believers will go to eternal fire when they die; made-up divine decrees calling for the execution of innocents such as blasphemers, apostates, and adulterers; and all of the religious texts which propagate such evils.
 
The goal of the left is to put people into categories and give them a common identity. 'Blacks' for example; all must be victims, all must need the left to defend them against their oppressors, all must think the same way - and, crucially, vote the same way. Any 'black' who points out that this categorising of people by their skin shade is a supreme example of racism is met by torrents of abuse. The same goes for latinos, Muslims, women (who MUST all vote for Hillary). The proponents of diversity deny the possibility of diversity within the boxes. "I mean, come on, 'White' American Males are bad by definition, everybody knows that".
 
That is not diversity... that is left wing *****'s being *****'s. It seems that you think what the left wing zealots call diversity is what diversity really is...

That is a shame.

And you are misled and misinformed ! :lamo
 
If there is immigration, then migrants should assimilate.
I'm fine with different cultures existing. What I'm not fine with is multiculturalism, whereby a country has no culture of its own, but instead different people in the country have their own unique culture. Which leads to what you describe below:
And that's exactly what's happening in the US.
Sounds like you are Ok with cultures still celebrating their cultural traditions as long as they assimilate into their new culture. Which I agree with. Lean the language, participate with peoples of their new culture, etc.
If you mean they should completely forget all their cultural traditions to "transform" into their new culture that is not practical or likely to ever happen.
I'm guessing there are caveats. Much like we do not practice Native American culture in the U.S. and never assimilated into their culture though by your description we maybe should have.
Or maybe conquering a people precludes the idea that you should assimilate with them.

IMO:
Even if you wanted, you could not destroy diversity. Humans are just diverse, and will always be. That may be good or bad, but it doesn't matter, because it's just how things are.
So the good sides of diversity should be celebrated, encouraged and enjoyed, and the bad sides should be minimized.
When you look at the context of cultural diversity within a given state or society -- which is in which context this term is most often used, and which you probably are hinting at, too --, I'd say there had to be a frame, rules that allow the state and society to function, on which a maximum of people has to agree on.
Only when people are not diverse at all when it comes to agreement to this frame, diversity in all other fields can be a good thing, and one that can be embraced and celebrated.
This frame should IMO be constitutional, classically liberal values along the lines of "your freedom ends where the freedom of someone else begins". Neither the government nor any individual citizen or private actor must violate this principle: To each his own, as long as you don't harm someone else in the process.
It's nice to have a society as diverse as encompassing fundamentalist Christians, proud gays celebrating their gayness, faithful Muslims, leftist slackers, artists of all kinds, work-a-holics, right wing warmongers -- as long as they know that their rules only apply to themselves, and they have no right to force their idea of life on anybody else.
That means fundamentalist Christians and faithful Muslims have to learn that the government is not supposed to legislate morals binding even to non-believers, just like slackers have to learn they are welcome to just enjoy their lifes as they wish as long as they get their money by legal means, and people easily offended have to learn that a different opinion is no reason to feel rightfully offended, i.e. -- and that at any rate, violence is never justified to solve matters of politics or worldview within a society, but there are free and fair elections to do that.
This is the frame there must be no diversity on. A maximum of people has to agree on this frame. If not, diversity becomes chaos and violence.
A well written response. Thank You. I am not sure I agree that we always get a fair vote but, in theory....
Other than that, I cannot find fault with most of what you said.
 
And you are misled and misinformed ! :lamo

nope. I am simply a very intelligent and well educated person taht can differentiate. too bad you don't have that ability...
 
nope. I am simply a very intelligent and well educated person taht can differentiate. too bad you don't have that ability...

looks that way . :lamo
 
No, differences are fine, and actually pretty cool. Men and women, different skin colors, it's all fine. People should never harm another person though, including for religious beliefs, IMO. Of course the world is fallen so we have to deal with violence and hatred, but no, differences are not evil.
 
Sounds like you are Ok with cultures still celebrating their cultural traditions as long as they assimilate into their new culture. Which I agree with. Lean the language, participate with peoples of their new culture, etc.

Exactly. Things like Oktoberfest are cool, especially when we can all enjoy it. I also enjoy tasting foreign foods. What I can't get behind is people living separately, speaking their own languages, and never interacting with others who aren't in this group. That kind of attitude cannot be accepted in a country.

If you mean they should completely forget all their cultural traditions to "transform" into their new culture that is not practical or likely to ever happen.

All? Never. But what I hate is, for example, when immigrants from Latin America refuse to learn the language, live in their ethnic enclaves, watch only Spanish television, shop only from Hispanic stores, and thus never assimilate. There is no social cohesion, and it breeds resentment.

I'm guessing there are caveats. Much like we do not practice Native American culture in the U.S. and never assimilated into their culture though by your description we maybe should have.
Or maybe conquering a people precludes the idea that you should assimilate with them.

Surely assimilation, one way or another, would have prevented much violence.

A well written response. Thank You. I am not sure I agree that we always get a fair vote but, in theory....
Other than that, I cannot find fault with most of what you said.

Gracias, señor. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom