Wrong. Opinions that differ from mine are incorrect. Opinions that differ from yours are incorrect. Diversity is bad for societies because it produces stress which should be obvious to everyone. People prefer to be with others like themselves. It is human nature. But we are already a diverse country so we need to deal with it.
What are you talking about? Diversity is only good for you and not others? Rather egotistical of you, wouldn't any normal person say what with you denouncing diversity while claiming to embrace it?
Diversity means black people deserve special treatment because white people are racist from birth. Unless of course they are black Trump supporters in which case we are back in the 1950's and you are not allowed to sit in our restaurant. http://www.youtube.com/w/z5LUiQUPxq4
@Arjay51 __________________________________ fmw said: Opinions that differ from mine are incorrect. Opinions that differ from yours are incorrect. Diversity is bad for societies because it produces stress which should be obvious to everyone. People prefer to be with others like themselves. It is human nature. But we are already a diverse country so we need to deal with it. __________________________________ (Arjay's reply) What are you talking about? Diversity is only good for you and not others? Rather egotistical of you, wouldn't any normal person say what with you denouncing diversity while claiming to embrace it? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Do you wish to know what fmw is saying, or are you only interested in arguing? Was that, by the way, my supposed, "lie," that I should admit telling (from your previous reply to me, post #102), told when I said : "...clearly neither one having any interest in hearing, or understanding the origins of, the other's view...?" (Post # 71) Just curious. So if you do think there may be some value in others' opinions, fmw's meaning seems very clear to me. He's actually making 2 points. The first is that, in his mind, his opinion is correct; and, in your mind, your opinion is correct. Is that not so, Arjay? You do not sound as though you suffer much doubt, as to whether or not you are right. Naturally, fmw who, like you, has put in effort & had experiences to support his ideas of truth, trusts in those. Problem is: your ideas of truth are not all the same as his ideas of truth. So who's gonna change? Who's supposed to change? Fmw also stated a 2nd truth, & I call it that because I know of facts-- or, "facts," if you prefer-- to support the veracity of what he was trying to express to you. Here it may be helpful to keep in mind that fmw never says that this is the way he believes things should be. He is merely stating the way he thinks human nature makes them: "People prefer to be with others (who are) like themselves." It's also good to keep in mind that any time a statement is made about a large group of individuals, it almost cannot help but be a generalization. This means that even if you, Arjay, find that the more different from yourself be the company you're with, the greater do you savor it, that does not mean that what fmw maintains cannot, in general, still be true. What springs to my mind to support this idea are the annual psychological surveys that rate the happiness levels in countries all around the world. The last I heard, #1 was Denmark, which is highly uniform in ethnic background, religion, peoples' political views, morals, and so forth. That pattern holds in good stead, I believe, amongst all the top finishers, year after year. But, then, it only makes sense, to anyone willing to acknowledge that humans spent the better part of our history in a more primitive state, living in small tribes. And in these small units, like in a Navy SEAL team, it was vital to survival that everyone be on the same page. Diversity wasn't prized back then, sameness was. Everyone needed to be trusted by the group; & the more your ideas were the same as everyone else's, the more comfortable the group was trusting you, relying on you, because they fully knew you. So, even though our species & cultures have advanced, this is now a permanent part of human (generally) psychology. Differences mean unpredictability, and so almost autonomic anxiety. Sure, individuals can overcome this, but it happens 1 person at a time, in most cases fighting against their genetically programmed nature. Sorry to go on so long. There was just a supplemental part to fmw's 2nd point. Since it's not a realistic goal to return the United States to a nation of White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, the REALITY is that we DO live in a diverse nation. And even if that isn't the situation for which we are most ideally suited, or at least not the circumstance humans find most idyllic, the only pragmatic thing to do about it is to make the best of that situation. The way things should be, in any individual's mind, if it's utterly unattainable, is a profitless thing on which to dwell. What's of prime importance, is the way things are.
Why do you believe that poverty causes crime? Who told you that? And did you measure it against the reality that the world is full of poor people who don't do crime?
Keep your eyes on the big picture. Whenever these things are studied, they MUST be inclusive of different cultures and conditions. We need that to give us a truer picture of the human element. That's what we're looking for, after all. We're looking to see how much of it is human nature, and how much is external conditions. Unfortunately these very limited studies (especially those predicated upon a preferred answer) are not much use without that broader context.
That is fiction. There are thousands of studies, hundreds of history studies, we have more knowledge than what we need, for the most part. You'll need to find your excuse elsewhere.
Are you saying most crime happens against rich people? That's inane. Look at the crime on the South Side of chicago, are you saying that rich people go there and have crime committed against them. I worked there back in the 70's at a small manufacturing plant. It;s no longer there helping people stay out of poverty BECAUSE OF THE CRIME, the people were poorer after it left. Most of the crime there is against their fellow citizens.
What we need is to get rid of the crime so businesses and jobs will come back, it is the crime that drove them away. Do that and watch the poverty disappear.
Wow, that statement is so ridiculous and historically-ignorant, it's actually comical. Like 10 minutes after the Big Bang, whitey was running around colonizing the black, brown, green and purple people in the galaxy. European colonialism d didn't even start up until around 1500, and there were plenty of colonizing civilizations that had rose and fell for thousands of years before that. The notion that imperialism, conquest, slavery, and colonialism didn't exist until they were invented by whitey is just silly. Crack open a history book already.
If they are not inclusive of ALL iterations of human nature within a context of poverty, then they are not measuring anything like what they think they're measuring. The only way we can determine whether crime is a function of poverty, or a function of culture, is to remove all cultural context. Human nature is the same everywhere, but culture certainly isn't. That's why we need to measure the HUMAN response to poverty, to understand how much of that poverty informs criminal activity. As it turns out, poverty itself (material lack of resources) has almost no influence on criminal activity, while culture has enormous influence on it. Meantime, excuses? I'm not the one trying to make excuses for criminal behaviour.
And Blacks in Africa haven't even to this day killing each other is civil wars trying to control areas and enslave the people they are fighting?