Being that I am on a college campus I see signs and posters advertising "Diversity" everywhere I go. My school even has a an office for 'Student Diversity and Multicultural Affairs' and the student body president who was just elected used diversity as one of her platforms.
I wanted to get the guys' input on 'diversity'. From what I've read (admittedly from conservative sources) 'diversity' carries with it the inherent flaw that racism is made up of, namely that the color of one's skin or one's ethnic background determines a person's thoughts. In other words, a black person will have 'black' thoughts, an Asian will have 'Asian' thoughts, and so on. And the more I think about this, the truer it is. The people who push 'diversity' on campus truly believe in this school of thought that a person's worldview is determined by their skin color or ethnicity. Truer still, at least in my mind, is how similar this is to the blatant racism this country once knew- that blacks were different, and had a different mental capacity, by virtue of being black.
The more I read into 'diversity' the more flawed I see it. However, I believe that people have bought into it and actually do think they have a different world view because they're different. There are undoubtedly black people on my campus who believe they have a different thoughts because they are black; the same goes for other groups who aren't white. But how absurd this is- "you think differently because you're black"- crazy! We're all human- we think the same! Our mental capacity is not different based on our skin color and to think otherwise is insane as I see it.
Here's a good (conservative) source on the subject: http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?news_iv_ctrl=1076&page=NewsAr...
What do you gentleman think of diversity? Is it a good thing or should it be done away with? Thoughts?
The point is that one's thoughts are not predetermined because of your skin color or ethnicity
I agree with that, DJ. But I do think ones thoughts are INFLUENCED by your culture. I won't go so far as to say predetermined, but certainly in some cases very strongly influenced by your culture and your language.
Thoughts are articulated in words, and some languages bend thoughts like a prism.
Arabic, I think, is a very poetic strange language. An American gets cut off in traffic, and he unleashes a torrent of bizarre obscenity. A Saudi might scream out "A thousand Pestilences upon your children", or in Beirut the man might say "God Curse the boat that brought your forefathers here"..... Sounds equally bizarre to a Merican.
Well, as an actual example this article describes how having a name for a color in your language helped you see it.
In short, the range of stimuli that for Himba speakers comes to be categorized as "serandu" would be categorized in English as red, orange or pink. As another example, Himba children come to use one word, "zoozu," to embrace a variety of dark colors that English speakers would call dark blue, dark green, dark brown, dark purple, dark red or black.
More feel good, politically correct B.S. By the way I'm not a racist, I hate everybody equally.
Assuming you're being serious in this post, and I can't really tell, can you explain your view a little more?
Serious about the politically correct BS part, tongue in cheek on the racism part.
Shields, I do not mind proving both to you. I just can't bring myself to believe you care.
That's a cop out if I've ever seen one.
Shields 1 Titus 0.
Kid, don't make a fool of yourself. Shields & I have been quarrelling for years? Do you have any reason to enter this quarrel? I don't mind calling him names I would not use in polite company. I'd mind having to do it to you, too.
At any rate, if you have an interest in the question, does it not strike you that you could find out whether or not it's a cop out without annoying me by asking in your own name for the proof? You would allow me to show my precious superiority without the unpleasantness of Shields & you would find out whether I can do what I claim to do without annoying me in advance. That's your first lesson in searching scepticism - take it to heart-
I can't think straight due to your ego. Excuse me while I attempt to recover my thoughts.
Only men of a very narrow age spectrum are capable of rising to Titan intellect. You're a kid, I'm an old fool - we should know better.
It's not my ego that gets in your way - it's your ego. I was right: all you had to do was ask in your own name the question to which you wanted an answer. Your ego caused you not to do it.
As for the problem raised before, it is fundamental. We are emphatically on the side of the individual who promote or defend individual rights. The argument behind those rights is that thinking is done individually; the mind is not a collective author. There is a kind of collective authority: the laws of the land. But in America, there is a Father of the Constitution; all the men who sat on the committee who wrote the final draft are also known, as is the conspiracy of the Philadelphia Convention. All collective authorities: the Congress, the Courts, are answerable individually for breaches of the public trust. But the most precious jewel of modern republicanism, the executive, is one alone. One of two reasons advanced is accountability.
But as you move away from this understanding of the individuals who matter, you move toward mob rule, where no individual is individually answerable, or to a cult that enslaves the members. Americans were once an unusual people. When they fought for Washington, the officer corps could hardly put an army together, because the men were volunteers - temporary soldiers, not under full officer authority. The German officer who taught Americans to drill noted that when he drilled the world's most professional army, the Prussian, he'd give orders & the troops would obey; but when he gave orders to Americans, they would first ask why.
The question of the individual & the group is the question of rulers & ruled. Americans believe that they obey the rules with their consent & that they could become rulers, if they so chose. This allows them to live their lives without becoming servile to gov't. A man can judge by his own best lights what's what & if he dislikes the way things are done, he can try to change it. He need not bow before any group or popular opinion or majority.
Is that your reasoning? Wow, I can understand now why you didn't want to put it in writing, you never understood what I even said. So sad
Shields, you have a way of suggesting that what you said is so stupid that no man with a head on his shoulders could think there is any sadness in not understanding it... I suppose you can say you are only returning the favor: in that what I said had nothing to do with what you said, your meaningless answer is only fitting. But there is this difference: I forward an argument that should gain by its perspective of the most important things whatever it must lose from my lack of ability or talent. You forward none...