Discrimination

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by inked

Speaking of discrimination, what do you make of this article about the perils of diversity in practice in America?

I've never thought about diversity much, to be honest . I've always bought into the "more diversity is better," because that's what everyone says, but I've never really thought about it. I'll certainly keep the contents of that article in mind, as I do start to think about it.

Originally Posted by inked

What do you do when research discovers an inconvenient truth and you are a liberal from Harvard who has to publish?

Gloss over your own work, from the look of it . . .

Originally Posted by The Boston Globe: The downside of diversity

When he finally published a detailed scholarly analysis in June in the journal Scandinavian Political Studies, he faced criticism for straying from data into advocacy. His paper argues strongly that the negative effects of diversity can be remedied, and says history suggests that ethnic diversity may eventually fade as a sharp line of social demarcation.

"Having aligned himself with the central planners intent on sustaining such social engineering, Putnam concludes the facts with a stern pep talk," wrote conservative commentator Ilana Mercer, in a recent Orange County Register op-ed titled "Greater diversity equals more misery."

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

One group of kids getting a different education as another group of kids should be minimised as much as humanly possible.

Don't you favor greater diversity of culture and opinion? How does that jive with this kind of education program?

Also, why do you assume that this single education that is taught is the right one? There are a lot of opinions out there. The education that is taught today is exceedingly politically correct and is going ever more liberal. Which is in tune with the values of the day, but those might not be correct. Politically correct, yes, but not necessarily actually correct. So how do you know that the single education is not steering everybody together into the dungeon of a single incorrect perspective?

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Interesting article, inked. It very much surprises me that a commission would come to that conclusion in France. France's values are overall so off that it is very wierd to me to see that kind of decision made there.

Exactly what values of the French are so off? "Invading Iraq is a bad idea?"

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

True, is what you should call it.

http://www.teenpregnancy.org/resourc...e/absfacts.asp

I don't see what that link has to do with your "achievement" claims.

But, back on topic, defining an entire population (i.e. those who do not abstain from high school sex) via statistical trends of a subset of that population is discrimination.

It's like saying blacks are generally less well-educated (which is true), and thus being black causes you to be more stupid (which is not true).

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Exactly what values of the French are so off? "Invading Iraq is a bad idea?"

No, I was thinking of extreme secularism, of their cracking down on religious groups, of their permissiveness of public nudity, sexual immorality, prostitution and homosexuality. I was also thinking of the disintegration of marriage there, of the liberalism that has consumed much of France's Christianity, of the rebellious spirit in the country toward authorities that manifests itself in acts of violence, of the demonic presence in their art, high culture and intellectual thought, and I was thinking of the atheistic guidance of the intellectual elite, the strong presence of racism in France that creates division, inequality and the conditions for violence, and of course there's always abortion which kills one in five of France's children.

France's morality, from my perspective, keeps getting worse and worse off. Their kinds of views are pretty common throughout Europe, but they do tend to stand out to a certain extent.

[hectorberlioz]

I hate to brown-nose so much, being too lazy to argue myself...but well-put Lief

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

No, I was thinking of extreme secularism, of their cracking down on religious groups, of their permissiveness of public nudity, sexual immorality, prostitution and homosexuality.

In case you haven't heard, the French Supreme Court was one of the few institutions in recent years to REJECT same-sex marriage...

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by BBC News

A recent poll suggested that 64% of French people supported same-sex weddings.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3775847.stm

And that's not the number of French people who find homosexuality itself to be fine; that number is bound to be far larger. So even though France doesn't allow homosexual marriage under law, the perspective that homosexuality is fine is very widespread in the population.

Ah, I found a source:

Originally Posted by Gallup World Poll

Muslims in London, Paris, and Berlin tend to be more socially conservative than the general public on questions of morality. For example, at least two-thirds of the general public in France (81%), Germany (68%), and the United Kingdom (66%) say homosexual acts are morally acceptable; among Muslims in the countries’ capitals, the corresponding figures are just 18%, 26%, and 4%, respectively.

http://media.gallup.com/WorldPoll/PD...ope3050707.pdf

The number of French people who see homosexuality as morally acceptable is far higher than the percentage in the UK or Britain. It's interesting to see the difference of perspective in the Muslim populations, too.

[inked]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I don't see what that link has to do with your "achievement" claims.

But, back on topic, defining an entire population (i.e. those who do not abstain from high school sex) via statistical trends of a subset of that population is discrimination.

It's like saying blacks are generally less well-educated (which is true), and thus being black causes you to be more stupid (which is not true).

BJ, I linked you to the home page of information, not a specific quotation allegedly validating my point. However, since relativism has apparently rendered you incapable of using the search function or mouse (would that be premarital self-flagellation rendering blindness or postmarital overindulgence rendering languor? ) here's the link to the WHY IT MATTERS (it was on the left sidebar along with other interesting information locations).

http://www.teenpregnancy.org/wim/default.asp

And, for the record, BJ, I was not defining one population in the rather inelegant manner you propose, I was discriminating on the basis of outcome the effect of a causal relation in a given population of high school aged people. So I readily admit to PROPER discrimination and overtly reject your errant nonsense about race as even being related to the question at hand.

[GrayMouser]

Percentage of pregnancies ended by abortion:

France- 21.5%
US- 23.9%

As well, the US has higher rates of STDs among both teens and the general population, higher teen pregnancy rates, and American teens start having sex younger and have more partners than teens in other developed countries.

And note the UK and Canada are among the "moderate rate countries"; the "low rate" countries are places like France, the Netherlands and Sweden.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_teens.html

Teenagers' Sexual and Reproductive Health: Developed Countries

Motes, beams, eyes.

[The Gaffer]

The Boston article is not surprising at all.

Areas with greater diversity are also likely to be poorer. Minorities are, by definition, likely to be less engaged with civic institutions.

There's your answers.

And (one of) the great conservative lie(s) is further perpetrated on this thread: that equality equals homogeneity. This is not the case.

[Lief Erikson]

GrayMouser, the link you posted doesn't work.

[inked]

Here's a fine case of discrimination for you Mooters!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20893732/