'Diversity is a strength' - an analysis

[Undying Poster]

Europe had homogeneous states long before WW1 & 2. lol



... which only strengthens my argument. lol

It destroys your lie about ancient civilizations being homogenous, they didn't have border controls like today and if people invaded, they invaded.

Europe had some homogenous states but they also had some diverse states and lots of places in Eastern Europe had Germans, Jews, Italians, etc

 

[HOLA]

Why did you make that paragraph in bold, yet respond with something irrelevant? I'll ask you again: When did any of those civilisations flood their lands with immigrants?

When they imported Greeks to educate their children?

For God's sake, they even imported Emperors. Septimius Severus was Libyan.

 

[Undying Poster]

Note I'm not necessarily disagreeing that diversity isn't a good thing, but if you want to be taken seriously, don't post incorrect shit like Israel and Argentina being homogenous. What type of comeback is "Does that make Argentina stronger?" To me pointing our that you're wrong?

You're conceding that I'm right but switching goal posts. Yeah, Argentina IS diverse, but does it benefit them?

Next thread you should fact check your post.

 

[goldennirvana]

youre comparing modern nation states to ancient egyptians.....

The argument is that diversity is a strength. Why is this only the case in the last few decades, but wasn't the case in antiquity & the middle-ages?

also, how long were the ancient egyptians around? 2.5k years? they accomplished a lot, but look at the time they needed to do it.

Are you suggesting that if they'd flooded their civilisation with a load of foreigners they could've achieved all that in a shorter amount of time?

also, lets not pretend they did what they did in a vacuum. the cultural diffusion that occurred between mesopotamia, the indus valley, and egypt benefited all of them.

I'm sure there was some cultural exchange between those civilisations back then, that's obvious. But that's NOT what we're talking about (now who's working with a strawman, eh?). I am talking about the modern left's argument that diversity VIA MASS IMMIGRATION strengthens a society. So, why is it that the greatest civilisations to ever exist never figure out that flooding their civilisation with foreigners would strengthen it?

without cultural exchange along the silk road, youd probably not be here today.

Again, this is not the topic we're discussing. Cultural exchanges have been happening from the earliest hominids with stone tools. Obviously that's a positive thing. Stop being dishonest.

also, i dont think most people who value multi cultural societies generally attempt to suggest that you cant have a successful society that isnt diverse.

But the left argues that diversity strengthens a society, so by definition a homogeneous society would have to be weaker than a diverse one.

youre making so many generalizations here that it might as well be nonsensical. there are many types of liberals, who believe many different things, and for different reasons. outgroup homogeneity at work here.

I'm not talking about "many types of things", I am talking about the dominant view of diversity via mass immigration that the left holds: that it's ONLY ever a positive thing and any rejection of it is racist.

riiiiiiight. all liberals believe this...........good thread.

That is the dominant opinion on the left. And actual liberals don't exist anymore. They're 'progressives' aka Marxists & Communists.

 

[goldennirvana]

It destroys your lie about ancient civilizations being homogenous

How does it do that? lol

Also, I never said ancient civilisations were perfectly homogeneous meaning absolutely NO diversity, my argument is simply that you never saw ancient civilisations flooding their lands with foreigners, like you see the West doing today. The left says diversity via mass immigration strengthens a society. Really? Why didn't the great ancient civilisations figure that out then?

they didn't have border controls like today and if people invaded, they invaded.

They had giant walls around their cities you silly billy. They didn't allow just anyone in... but 'diversity is a strength'. lol

Europe had some homogenous states but they also had some diverse states and lots of places in Eastern Europe had Germans, Jews, Italians, etc

And did any of those states try to flood their nations with a load of foreigners to 'strengthen' them?

 

[goldennirvana]

When they imported Greeks to educate their children?

How many Greeks did they import, exactly?

For God's sake, they even imported Emperors. Septimius Severus was Libyan.

Again, this is not what we're talking about. Your desperation only goes to prove how right I am. Did any ancient civilisations flood their civilisations with masses of foreigners to 'strengthen' them - yes or no?

 

[Renard]

I thought this was interesting:

Harvard professor of political science Robert D. Putnam conducted a nearly decade long study on how diversity affects social trust.[91] He surveyed 26,200 people in 40 American communities, finding that when the data were adjusted for class, income and other factors, the more racially diverse a community is, the greater the loss of trust. People in diverse communities "don't trust the local mayor, they don't trust the local paper, they don't trust other people and they don't trust institutions," writes Putnam.[92] In the presence of such ethnic diversity, Putnam maintains that


[W]e hunker down. We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it's not just that we don't trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don't trust people who do look like us.[91]


Ethologist Frank Salter writes:


Relatively homogeneous societies invest more in public goods, indicating a higher level of public altruism. For example, the degree of ethnic homogeneity correlates with the government's share of gross domestic product as well as the average wealth of citizens. Case studies of the United States ... find that multi-ethnic societies are less charitable and less able to cooperate to develop public infrastructure. ... A recent multi-city study of municipal spending on public goods in the United States found that ethnically or racially diverse cities spend a smaller portion of their budgets and less per capita on public services than do the more homogeneous cities.[93]

If humans are meant to be tribal, and we function optimally when we are, why fight it?

 

[HOLA]

How many Greeks did they import, exactly?

Millions. Paulus himself was responsible for 150,000.

Again, this is not what we're talking about. Your desperation only goes to prove how right I am. Did any ancient civilisations flood their civilisations with masses of foreigners to 'strengthen' them - yes or no?

No, no. You're lying. You said Rome had its own "unique culture, religion and language." I pointed out they borrowed the Greek Gods, then Christianity, and educated Romans spoke Greek.

Then you just wanted to stick to "flooding their lands with immigrants." Rome did. They used many as tutors.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

The argument is that diversity is a strength. Why is this only the case in the last few decades, but wasn't the case in antiquity & the middle-ages?

errr. like i said, i dont know anyone who has suggested that a homogenous society CANT be successful. although, ill point out that those groups had PLENTY of problems.

Are you suggesting that if they'd flooded their civilisation with a load of foreigners they could've achieved all that in a shorter amount of time?

you keep coming to this idea of "flooding" one's country with foreigners. im not sure how many people are suggesting that this would be a good thing.....i think by virtue of the partisan media you follow, youve been told that this is what liberals want. i dont think its that simple.

cultural exchange is unquestionably a benefit to any society, ESPECIALLY the ancient ones. but letting in masses of people can cause problems, especially if they do not assimilate.

I'm sure there was some cultural exchange between those civilisations back then, that's obvious. But that's NOT what we're talking about (now who's working with a strawman, eh?). I am talking about the modern left's argument that diversity VIA MASS IMMIGRATION strengthens a society. So, why is it that the greatest civilisations to ever exist never figure out that flooding their civilisation with foreigners would strengthen it?

i dont think the modern left's (as if the left are one homogenous group themselves lol) argument boils down to this as you keep claiming. outgroup homogeneity again.

Again, this is not the topic we're discussing. Cultural exchanges have been happening from the earliest hominids with stone tools.

really? im not aware of that. writing and regional trade had to be developed first id though.

But the left argues that diversity strengthens a society, so by definition a homogeneous society would have to be weaker than a diverse one.

i cant speak for "the left," but i think there are societies who have absolutely benefited from being non-homogenous. there are also those who have been impacted negatively by being heterogenous (eg modern france). there are societies that do just find being homogenous. would they be better if they let some new blood and ideas in? probably, as long as they harness that new blood and steer it in a common direction.



I'm not talking about "many types of things", I am talking about the dominant view of diversity via mass immigration that the left holds: that it's ONLY ever a positive thing and any rejection of it is racist.

That is the dominant opinion on the left.

you speak for them then? impressive. news to me that "they" feel this way.

And actual liberals don't exist anymore. They're 'progressives' aka Marxists & Communists.

yes......marxists. just like liberals claim that all conservatives and trump supporters are racists......well, thats what the dumb ones believe.

 

[goldennirvana]

Millions. Paulus himself was responsible for 150,000.

Evidence needed.

No, no. You're lying. You said Rome had its own "unique culture, religion and language." I pointed out they borrowed the Greek Gods, then Christianity, and educated Romans spoke Greek.

Still, it's irrelevant to the topic at hand - did ancient civilisations flood their civilisations with masses of foreigners to 'strengthen' them - yes or no?

I predict you're now going to cling to this 'Rome didn't have its own unique culture' argument, because you know you have nothing to respond with against my original argument.

The. You just wanted to stick to "flooding their lands with immigrants." Rome did. They used many as tutors.

How many? Evidence needed.

And I "just want to stick to that" because that's my entire argument. Duhh.

 

[Bald1]

I'll keep pushing this, because I think it's a plausible idea-

Diversity is a beneficial thing as long as it's centered around a core value system shared by the group. Imo that's where diversity can be successful, as opposed to multiculturalism where differing fundamental values try to coexist side by side.

 

[Amerikuracana]

There can be strength in both homogeneity and diversity. Depends.

 

[HOLA]

Evidence needed.



Still, it's irrelevant to the topic at hand - did ancient civilisations flood their civilisations with masses of foreigners to 'strengthen' them - yes or no?

I predict you're now going to cling to this 'Rome didn't have its own unique culture' argument, because you know you have nothing to respond with against my original argument.



How many? Evidence needed.

And I "just want to stick to that" because that's my entire argument. Duhh.

Actually, no, dummy. You wrote this.
"Ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, India, China, Phoenicia etc etc all had their own unique culture, religion & language."

But, you want to stick to the "flooding of immigrants" now. OK!

Here is Paulus

"3] But when the appointed day came, at one and the same time these all set out to overrun and pillage the cities, so that in a single hour a hundred and fifty thousand persons were made slaves"

Plutarch. Plutarch's Lives. with an English Translation by. Bernadotte Perrin. Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press. London. William Heinemann Ltd. 1918. 6.

Specific enough?

If you knew even the slightest bit about Ancient Rome, you'd know that educated Greek slaves were a requirement for wealthy Romans.

The slave-tutors were called paedagogus. Now go read a book.

 

[goldennirvana]

errr. like i said, i dont know anyone who has suggested that a homogenous society CANT be successful.

Yes... and like I said, if diversity is a strength, why didn't ancient civilisations figure out that by flooding their civilisations with foreigners it would make them stronger?

although, ill point out that those groups had PLENTY of problems.

Would they have had less problems if they'd flooded their civilisations with loads of foreigners?

you keep coming to this idea of "flooding" one's country with foreigners.

Because that's what's happening to the West today, all under the banner of 'diversity is a strength'. Why didn't ancient civilisations figure that out and do the same?

im not sure how many people are suggesting that this would be a good thing.....i think by virtue of the partisan media you follow, youve been told that this is what liberals want. i dont think its that simple.

Oh, it's that simple. Any opposition to mass immigration & multiculturalism today is immediately shouted down as 'racist'.

cultural exchange is unquestionably a benefit to any society, ESPECIALLY the ancient ones. but letting in masses of people can cause problems, especially if they do not assimilate.

So, diversity via mass immigration isn't a strength, but a weakness? Is that what you're saying?

i dont think the modern left's (as if the left are one homogenous group themselves lol) argument boils down to this as you keep claiming. outgroup homogeneity again.

Name some prominent left-wing politicians in the West that are against mass immigration & multiculturalism.

really? im not aware of that. writing and regional trade had to be developed first id though.

Why would you need writing & trade for stone tools? lol

Very early hominids had stone stools, then other groups in another part of the world had their own stone tools. As those two groups met, a cultural exchange would've occurred. I'm talking about very early hominids (hundreds of thousands to millions of years ago).

i cant speak for "the left," but i think there are societies who have absolutely benefited from being non-homogenous. there are also those who have been impacted negatively by being heterogenous (eg modern france). there are societies that do just find being homogenous. would they be better if they let some new blood and ideas in? probably, as long as they harness that new blood and steer it in a common direction.

The modern left says any kind of restrictions on immigration are racist, borders are racist, and that the West should take in an unlimited amount of immigrants from anywhere in the world because all cultures & religions are equal. That is the dominant view on the left.

news to me that "they" feel this way.

You've not been paying attention.

yes......marxists. just like liberals claim that all conservatives and trump supporters are racists......well, thats what the dumb ones believe.

The Marxist POV is the dominant POV on the left. Actual liberals no longer exist and the left has moved so far to the left that they're no different from self-identifying Marxists.

 

[goldennirvana]

Actually, no, dummy. You wrote this.
"Ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, India, China, Phoenicia etc etc all had their own unique culture, religion & language.

But, you want to stick to the "flooding of immigrants" now. OK!

I want to "stick to that" because that's my original argument silly billy. You proved me right when I said this, though... I predict you're now going to cling to this 'Rome didn't have its own unique culture' argument, because you know you have nothing to respond with against my original argument.

Here is Paulus

"3] But when the appointed day came, at one and the same time these all set out to overrun and pillage the cities, so that in a single hour a hundred and fifty thousand persons were made slaves"

Plutarch. Plutarch's Lives. with an English Translation by. Bernadotte Perrin. Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press. London. William Heinemann Ltd. 1918. 6.

Specific enough?

If you knew even the slightest bit about Ancient Rome, you'd know that educated Greek slaves were a requirement for wealthy Romans.

The slave-tutors were called paedagogus. Now go read a book.

That's slaves you dummy. LOL! What Rome didn't do was just flood its civilisation with a load of foreigners so its own religion, culture & language became just one of many, like the West is doing today.

Like I said - your desperation only goes to prove me right. Keep clutching.

 

[goldennirvana]

I'll keep pushing this, because I think it's a plausible idea-

Diversity is a beneficial thing as long as it's centered around a core value system shared by the group. Imo that's where diversity can be successful, as opposed to multiculturalism where differing fundamental values try to coexist side by side.

The terms 'diversity' and 'multiculturalism' are used interchangeably by the left.

Leftists have zero understanding of human nature & history.

 

[HOLA]

I want to "stick to that" because that's my original argument silly billy. You proved me right when I said this, though... I predict you're now going to cling to this 'Rome didn't have its own unique culture' argument, because you know you have nothing to respond with against my original argument.



That's slaves you dummy. LOL! What Rome didn't do was just flood its civilisation with a load of foreigners so its own religion, culture & language became just one of many, like the West is doing today.

Like I said - your desperation only goes to prove me right. Keep clutching.

You:
"What Rome didn't do was just flood its civilization with a load of foreigners so it's own religion, culture and language became just one of many"

Me:
Actually they wanted foreigners so badly they enslaved them to teach them their language, philosophy, religion, etc etc.

You:
"That doesn't count! You're desperate!"

Okay.

 

[Bald1]

The terms 'diversity' and 'multiculturalism' are used interchangeably by the left.

Leftists have zero understanding of human nature & history.

And that's why I make a nuisance of myself in these threads trying to make the distinction.

 

[goldennirvana]

You:
"What Rome didn't do was just flood its civilization with a load of foreigners so it's own religion, culture and language became just one of many"

Me:
Actually they wanted foreigners so badly they enslaved them to teach them their language, philosophy, religion, etc etc.

You:
"That doesn't count! You're desperate!"

Okay.

So they assimilated a load of slaves which meant the Roman culture didn't turn into a minority in its own land. Ya, that's totally the same as what the West is currently doing with allowing non-stop third world immigration, especially Muslim immigration, with those migrants setting up parallel societies within the host society.

Yeah, it doesn't count, and you're REALLY desperate.

As you were.

 

[melvinj0]

Not in Basketball