PS - I don't know if you wrote the piece on diversity or cut and pasted, but
either way it was an excellent post.

Thank you.

Alas, I have nobody to blame for the style or content of said post except
myself. IMO, he who has to cut and paste his philosophy and values probably
doesn't have a firm grip on either.

Cutting and pasting news is different. Sort of.

"Don" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Don" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote
"Don" wrote
"basskisser" wrote
"Don" wrote
"basskisser" wrote
Well, every human being migrated from somewhere, at some
time.

Nope.
I was born in the US, I am native.

Earliest humanoid remains have been found in Africa, therefore,
you're
African.

Nope.
I have never been to Africa.
I was born in the US, I am a native.

Take us back to the first generation of your ancestors who touched
this
soil. Where were THEIR grandparents from?

How is that relevent to, well, anything at all?
They are all dead.
I, however, was born here in the US and am a native.
Aren't you?

It's relevant to me, and nobody needs to know why.

Lemme get this straight, you ask me a question, then I ask you for the
relevency and you tell me I don't need to know why?

Relative to this
question, you are behaving like Dave Hall, refusing to answer a question

Well, if refusing to answer a question makes one like Dave Hall, then you
might consider yourself like him as you haven't answered my question about
relevency.

which may erode your stance in this discussion. That's a Very Bad Thing.

sigh
Doug, my grandparents were born in the US, Pennsylvania.
So was my mom and dad and myself and brothers and sisters.
I do not know where any relatives before my grandparents were from, nor do
I
really care.

But, you DO know that it's relevant to this discussion about diversity. The
word, as you're using it, clearly means "people from someplace else". Based
purely on population numbers, it's a virtual certainty that you have
ancestors who were not native Americans. If you have a problem with
diversity, your reasons are probably general enough that they would've
applied to your ancestors, too.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Don" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Don" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote
"Don" wrote
Why is diversity a good thing?

1) Because it exposes you to different types of people.

shred
Well, duh.
But you still haven't explained WHY that is a good thing.

Au contraire. I have offered several reasons, although certainly not
all.

You explained why *being exposed to different types of people* is a good
thing?




Did you read ALL of reason #1, or stop after the first sentence?

This is TWICE now that you have failed to answer a question.
Either address the question directly Doug, or drop it.
At least Gould offered a reasonable reply.
Wrong, but reasonable.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news
"Don" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Don" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote
"Don" wrote
"basskisser" wrote
"Don" wrote
"basskisser" wrote
Well, every human being migrated from somewhere, at some
time.

Nope.
I was born in the US, I am native.

Earliest humanoid remains have been found in Africa,
therefore,
you're
African.

Nope.
I have never been to Africa.
I was born in the US, I am a native.

Take us back to the first generation of your ancestors who touched
this
soil. Where were THEIR grandparents from?

How is that relevent to, well, anything at all?
They are all dead.
I, however, was born here in the US and am a native.
Aren't you?

It's relevant to me, and nobody needs to know why.

Lemme get this straight, you ask me a question, then I ask you for the
relevency and you tell me I don't need to know why?

Relative to this
question, you are behaving like Dave Hall, refusing to answer a
question

Well, if refusing to answer a question makes one like Dave Hall, then
you
might consider yourself like him as you haven't answered my question
about
relevency.

which may erode your stance in this discussion. That's a Very Bad
Thing.

sigh
Doug, my grandparents were born in the US, Pennsylvania.
So was my mom and dad and myself and brothers and sisters.
I do not know where any relatives before my grandparents were from, nor
do
I
really care.

But, you DO know that it's relevant to this discussion about diversity.

Look, I have asked you several times now WHY diversity is a good thing and
you have yet to answer it.
All you have done is parrot the same old stuff I see everywhere, with no
REAL answer.
It isn't about ME, Doug. It is about YOU, and your unsupported claim that
diversity is good.

Remaining hysterical tripe snipped.

"Gould 0738" wrote
Why is diversity a good thing?

The value of diversity:
In a society where we were all the same color, same religion, same
political
party,
same social values, etc.....some of the best and most creative parts of
each
individual member would atrophy for lack of use.

Japan, for example, is a largely homogenous society. One race.
Yet the Japanese constantly out do the US in just about every endeavor,
education, technology, medicine, crime prevention, etc.
China and India too are both mainly homogenous societies yet are beating the
pants off the US in the manufacturing arena.
I'll submit that diversity, in itself, is what is eroding the core values of
the US, the rights and freedom of the individual, regardless of race, color
or creed.
The US public schools are dismal as a result of its focus on *diversity*
rather than education.
The proof abounds that diversity in and of itself does more harm than good.
Further proof is provided that for the past few days my question, *Why is
diversity a good thing?*, has went way over the heads of many people, like
Doug Kanter for example, and are thus left to flounder in their own confused
words.
Here's my take on the whole thing:
Diversity alone is not a good thing, and there is no proof to show
otherwise.
People should be free to associate with whom they please.
All things should be addressed in a moderate manner as there is more wrong
than good in a singular mentality.
To claim that diversity is universally good is disingenuous on its face.
I thank you for your reasoned reply, Gould.

Japan, for example, is a largely homogenous society. One race.

This is about race? I thought it was about diversity vs. confromity.

Japan has five or six opposing political parties. The Japaneses follow
Shintoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Christianity, and Islam. By no means do the
Japanese conform with one another. They have formed an *inclusive* society
around a number of diverse elements.


Yet the Japanese constantly out do the US in just about every endeavor,
education, technology, medicine, crime prevention, etc.

Which has nothing to do with racial homogeny. It has much to do with American
economic colonization of Japan following WWII, American experts modernizing
Japanese industries, etc.
Japan got a "clean start" in many respects
60 years ago. The cultural values of Japan, particularly the emphasis on thrift
and education served the country well during
the last gasp of claissic industrialism, the late 20th Century. Japan has been
in a very deep recession for many years, partially due to a lack of diversity
in investment and industry. Part of the recent economic downturn in the US was
due to a lack of diversity in investment choices. Far too much capital
following the herd into the dot.com economy. Ouch.

Recall my comment that creative energies are often spawned by the tension
between dissimilar interests. Such was the case in Japan following the Second
World War. There was tension between the traditional
Japanese culture and the new, more Americanized ways. It could be said that it
was during the period of this cultural tension that Japan experienced
sensational growth.

The relative racial homogenity of Japan would be impossible to achieve in
America by any acceptable means. Nor would it be desirable.

China and India too are both mainly homogenous societies yet are beating the
pants off the US in the manufacturing arena.


China is not at all homogenous. There are several *languages* spoken in China,
for heaven's sake! There are signficant and important ethnic differences
between northern, southern, and coastal Chinese.

Racial homegenity is not responsible
for the rapid growth of Chinese manufacturing. Plain old supply and demand.
Umpteen zillion people willing to work for a few US dollars a day- because its
ten times what they'd have otherwise.
That, and the fact that the Peoples Republic of China refuses to let its
currency float so that the laws of economics would eventually level the playing
field....(China moving up in cost as wages in the US increase less rapidly than
before or decrease due to increased labor supply here).


I'll submit that diversity, in itself, is what is eroding the core values of
the US, the rights and freedom of the individual, regardless of race, color
or creed.

Diversity, rather than conformity *is* the core value of the United States. Why
would we need freedom of speech, if we all were going to thing alike? Why would
we need freedom of religion, if we are going to worship alike? Why would we
need periodic elections, if we all supported the same political party and
ideals? Why would we need freedom of assembly, if we weren't going to recognize
differences between people and choose to associate, or not, with people of
various types and characteristics? If we eliminate diversity, freedom of
association is a moot point.


Enforced conformity is not an American ideal.

The US public schools are dismal as a result of its focus on *diversity*
rather than education.

The US Public Schools are less than they might be for a number of reasons. We
pay teachers substantially less the equally educated professionals with equal
responsiblities in other fields, (insert the rare exception to the general rule
here.............), thereby mixing the truly inspired, dedicated, altruists
with the washouts and underachievers. The American family all too often sees
education as something that goes on only at school. "Family time" in the
American household often involves no more interaction that everybody staring at
a common TV program, or watching 5 separate shows in five separate rooms.
We idolize athletes and musicians, not scholars. We're more likely to take
pride in our kids for being on a State Champion basketball team than for
winning debates, scoring well on the SAT, or being named Valedictorian.

Going back to schools separated by ethincity or demanding that "all the rest of
those people better start acting white!" won't corect the underlying social
factors that challenge our schools.

I am in favor of single race schools. The human race. Within our single race,
there are many different customs and perspectives. I am enriched by learning
more about my neighbors, but I would be diminished if I demanded that all my
neighbors act, think, vote, speak, write, or worship exactly as I do.

The proof abounds that diversity in and of itself does more harm than good.

If so, I invite you to present some. You have so far expressed some opinons,
but shown no proof. I have expressed some opinions as well, but as always, the
burden of proof is on the plaintiff. That's you, Mr. Plaintiff. Diversity is
the accused in this debate.

As it is difficult to prove a negative, I'll even accept as "proof" examples
of how totalitarian, conformist societies with little or no diversity in
thought, speech, religion, or ethnicity have made significant contributions to
the advancement of the human condition.
In fact, I'll generously even overlook attempts at nationalizing a "master
race" in the last century.



Further proof is provided that for the past few days my question, *Why is
diversity a good thing?*, has went

"has went"?

All things should be addressed in a moderate manner as there is more wrong
than good in a singular mentality.

Ok, how'd we get so far off the track at this point? Diversity is the only
*option* to a singular mentality. We either all think alike, or we don't. If we
don't, we enjoy diversity of thought and opinion.

To claim that diversity is universally good is disingenuous on its face.

Based on the reasonable, (although in my opinion incorrect), tone of your
argument I am going to assume that you don't fully understand the nature of
your penultimate
comment.

No, I was not pretending to be ignorant
in order to deceive when I disagreed about
diversity. Some would think it rather arrogant to hold an opinion that any
person able to construct an argument for a position counter to you own really
knows better, but has chosen to be disingenuous.
Either the arrogance, or a lack of understanding about the meaning of a
powerful word.

I'll grant you the latter. It wears better than arrogance. :-)

"Gould 0738" wrote
Japan, for example, is a largely homogenous society. One race.

This is about race? I thought it was about diversity vs. confromity.

Nope.
The question, again, was: Why is diversity a good thing?
And still, there has been no concrete reason given.
Lots of nibbling around the edge though.

Yet the Japanese constantly out do the US in just about every endeavor,
education, technology, medicine, crime prevention, etc.

Which has nothing to do with racial homogeny.

But it certainly has everything to do with lack of diversity.

It has much to do with American
economic colonization of Japan following WWII, American experts
modernizing
Japanese industries, etc.

The relative racial homogenity of Japan would be impossible to achieve in
America by any acceptable means. Nor would it be desirable.

Compare the 2 paragraphs above, do you see a conflict there?

China and India too are both mainly homogenous societies yet are beating
the
pants off the US in the manufacturing arena.


China is not at all homogenous. There are several *languages* spoken in
China,
for heaven's sake!

Now you're picking nits.
While there are 2 basic languages in China (Mandarin and Cantonese), they
are closely assimilated so as to be more like dialects than languages.
Like someone from Boston conversing with someone from New Orleans.

There are signficant and important ethnic differences
between northern, southern, and coastal Chinese.

Racial homegenity is not responsible
for the rapid growth of Chinese manufacturing. Plain old supply and
demand.
Umpteen zillion people willing to work for a few US dollars a day- because
its
ten times what they'd have otherwise.
That, and the fact that the Peoples Republic of China refuses to let its
currency float so that the laws of economics would eventually level the
playing
field....(China moving up in cost as wages in the US increase less rapidly
than
before or decrease due to increased labor supply here).


I'll submit that diversity, in itself, is what is eroding the core values
of
the US, the rights and freedom of the individual, regardless of race,
color
or creed.

Diversity, rather than conformity *is* the core value of the United
States.

As of late.

Why
would we need freedom of speech, if we all were going to thing alike? Why
would
we need freedom of religion, if we are going to worship alike? Why would
we
need periodic elections, if we all supported the same political party and
ideals? Why would we need freedom of assembly, if we weren't going to
recognize
differences between people and choose to associate, or not, with people of
various types and characteristics? If we eliminate diversity, freedom of
association is a moot point.


Enforced conformity is not an American ideal.

You're the only one that has mentioned *force* so far.
Doesn't it seem that diversity is being enforced?

The US public schools are dismal as a result of its focus on *diversity*
rather than education.

The US Public Schools are less than they might be for a number of reasons.
We
pay teachers substantially less the equally educated professionals

Apples -Oranges
The proper comparison would be to compare the salaries and benefits of
*public* school teachers to *private* school teachers.
Public teachers reap more, while doing less, than private teachers.

with equal
responsiblities in other fields, (insert the rare exception to the general
rule
here.............), thereby mixing the truly inspired, dedicated,
altruists
with the washouts and underachievers. The American family all too often
sees
education as something that goes on only at school. "Family time" in the
American household often involves no more interaction that everybody
staring at
a common TV program, or watching 5 separate shows in five separate rooms.
We idolize athletes and musicians, not scholars. We're more likely to take
pride in our kids for being on a State Champion basketball team than for
winning debates, scoring well on the SAT, or being named Valedictorian.

Agreed.
google John Gatto, for more info.


Going back to schools separated by ethincity or demanding that "all the
rest of
those people better start acting white!" won't corect the underlying
social
factors that challenge our schools.

Social factors aren't the problem, they are just one of the symptoms.

I am in favor of single race schools. The human race. Within our single
race,
there are many different customs and perspectives. I am enriched by
learning
more about my neighbors, but I would be diminished if I demanded that all
my
neighbors act, think, vote, speak, write, or worship exactly as I do.

Well, so far, you seem to be difining *diversity* but you have yet to reveal
what that definition is.
What is diversity, in the sense that is seen in the mainstream today?

The proof abounds that diversity in and of itself does more harm than
good.

If so, I invite you to present some.

You have been offering my proof thus far.
I have been searching for an answer to my original question, "Why is
diversity a good thing?", and have yet to see an answer.
Even your post avoids anwering the question.

You have so far expressed some opinons,
but shown no proof. I have expressed some opinions as well, but as always,
the
burden of proof is on the plaintiff. That's you, Mr. Plaintiff. Diversity
is
the accused in this debate.

Accused of what?

As it is difficult to prove a negative,

What negative?
I asked a question.
The same question I have asked over and over, and no one seems to have an
answer except, "Just because, that's why."
Well, that's not good enough.

I'll even accept as "proof" examples
of how totalitarian, conformist societies with little or no diversity in
thought, speech, religion, or ethnicity have made significant
contributions to
the advancement of the human condition.
In fact, I'll generously even overlook attempts at nationalizing a "master
race" in the last century.

Uh-oh.
You know which law you are coming dangerously close to violating, don't you?

Further proof is provided that for the past few days my question, *Why is
diversity a good thing?*, has went

"has went"?

???

All things should be addressed in a moderate manner as there is more
wrong
than good in a singular mentality.

Ok, how'd we get so far off the track at this point? Diversity is the only
*option* to a singular mentality. We either all think alike, or we don't.
If we
don't, we enjoy diversity of thought and opinion.

To claim that diversity is universally good is disingenuous on its face.

Based on the reasonable, (although in my opinion incorrect), tone of your
argument I am going to assume that you don't fully understand the nature
of
your penultimate
comment.

Well, answer the original question directly and I will consider retracting
my comment.
Until then, it stands.


No, I was not pretending to be ignorant
in order to deceive when I disagreed about
diversity. Some would think it rather arrogant to hold an opinion that any
person able to construct an argument for a position counter to you own
really
knows better, but has chosen to be disingenuous.
Either the arrogance, or a lack of understanding about the meaning of a
powerful word.

There ya go again, you accuse me of arrogancy or lack of understanding, but
you yourself have not yet defined the word *diversity* nor have you
explained why it, in and of itself, is a good thing.

I'll grant you the latter. It wears better than arrogance. :-)

Perhaps, but it is you that demonstrated the lack of understanding, not I.
I asked a seemingly very simple question.
Yet there doesn't seem to be an answer, at least not one based in any
semblence of logic.
When asked the question, "Why is diversity a good thing?", the common answer
is delivered angrily, "It just is, that's why!"

"Don" wrote in message
...

sigh
Doug, my grandparents were born in the US, Pennsylvania.
So was my mom and dad and myself and brothers and sisters.
I do not know where any relatives before my grandparents were from,
nor
do
I
really care.

But, you DO know that it's relevant to this discussion about diversity.

Look, I have asked you several times now WHY diversity is a good thing and
you have yet to answer it.
All you have done is parrot the same old stuff I see everywhere, with no
REAL answer.
It isn't about ME, Doug. It is about YOU, and your unsupported claim that
diversity is good.

Remaining hysterical tripe snipped.

I gave you MY answer. You didn't like it. And, for purposes of your own,
you've chosen not to discuss your ancestry. So, before I give up on this
subject, let's try this:

Do you think it would've been better for American if YOUR ancestors had
never come here?

There ya go again, you accuse me of arrogancy or lack of understanding, but
you yourself have not yet defined the word *diversity* nor have you
explained why it, in and of itself, is a good thing.

Actually, I did. Two posts back. The one you challenged in your rebuttal.

The fact that you do not agree with my opinion does not change the fact that
such an opinion was rendered.

Don't lose sight of the fact that this discussion revolves around "Is diversity
a good thing, or a bad thing?" Good and bad are subjective values. I might
think dark beer tastes "good", you might think it tastes "bad", but neither of
us will ever establish a truly objective proof to declare once and for all that
dark beer tastes "good" or dark beer tastes "bad".

In condemning diversity, you have offered examples of other countries that you
feel are less diverse than the US enjoying rapid industrial growth (from a zero
base). I read your post again, and again, but any specific representation of
the ill effects of a mixed race society with a wide variety of social
preferences upon the health and vitality of the US seems to be missing.

On balance, the position that remains underdeveloped is the statement that
diversity, in and of itself, is the single greatest factor threatening the
civil rights and liberties of all Americans. I'd like to hear more about
that......

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
There ya go again, you accuse me of arrogancy or lack of understanding,
but
you yourself have not yet defined the word *diversity* nor have you
explained why it, in and of itself, is a good thing.

Actually, I did. Two posts back. The one you challenged in your rebuttal.

The fact that you do not agree with my opinion does not change the fact
that
such an opinion was rendered.

Don't lose sight of the fact that this discussion revolves around "Is
diversity
a good thing, or a bad thing?" Good and bad are subjective values. I might
think dark beer tastes "good", you might think it tastes "bad", but
neither of
us will ever establish a truly objective proof to declare once and for all
that
dark beer tastes "good" or dark beer tastes "bad".

In condemning diversity, you have offered examples of other countries that
you
feel are less diverse than the US enjoying rapid industrial growth (from a
zero
base). I read your post again, and again, but any specific representation
of
the ill effects of a mixed race society with a wide variety of social
preferences upon the health and vitality of the US seems to be missing.

On balance, the position that remains underdeveloped is the statement that
diversity, in and of itself, is the single greatest factor threatening the
civil rights and liberties of all Americans. I'd like to hear more about
that......

Over and over again in my replies I mentioned *in and of itself* when
speaking of diversity.
Seems in many things, particularly the public schools, diversity is the
goal, to the detriment of an academic education.
( I have taught *AutoCAD* and *Elements of Design* at the 11th and 12th
grade levels in a public school)
The blind goal of *diversity* has stifled, or perhaps hindered, various
levels of creativity and contribution back to society as any state leveled
mandate is want to do. Call it an unintended consequence.
I am not against diversity, but believe that it should be held in
moderation, as with anything else, so as to not lose sight of the bigger
picture.
For years I have been disturbed by this trend and only during the past year
or so have done research into it.
Google is your friend. ;-)