What is the Moral Imperative That We All Live Together?

[William Joyce]

Diversity seems to be our new god. It is said that we must all live together in peace.

But why?

Maybe we should live apart.

The world is huge. The planet has plenty of space. Why do non-whites all need to crowd into white nations?

Has anyone ever wondered why China, which has population and landmass similar to the U.S., isn't "diverse"? Does it get attacked for being xenophobic for having a population that is 98 percent Han Chinese? Does it have one single refugee? Is it doing poorly as a result of its lack of racial diversity? How about Japan? Would Japanese be happier if we dropped a million black Africans into Tokyo?

 

[RodISHI]

Diversity seems to be our new god. It is said that we must all live together in peace.

But why?

Maybe we should live apart.

The world is huge. The planet has plenty of space. Why do non-whites all need to crowd into white nations?

Has anyone ever wondered why China, which has population and landmass similar to the U.S., isn't "diverse"? Does it get attacked for being xenophobic for having a population that is 98 percent Han Chinese? Does it have one single refugee? Is it doing poorly as a result of its lack of racial diversity? How about Japan? Would Japanese be happier if we dropped a million black Africans into Tokyo?

China actually has a vary diverse ethnic population if you look into to it.

I prefer to judge people on their character rather than the color of their skin. There are some whites I don't want anywhere near me.

If like you someone wants to each should be free to live in those segregated neighborhoods. Maybe you can buy a whole town somewhere and do that?

 

[PurpleOwl]

Diversity seems to be our new god. It is said that we must all live together in peace.

But why?

Maybe we should live apart.

The world is huge. The planet has plenty of space. Why do non-whites all need to crowd into white nations?

Has anyone ever wondered why China, which has population and landmass similar to the U.S., isn't "diverse"? Does it get attacked for being xenophobic for having a population that is 98 percent Han Chinese? Does it have one single refugee? Is it doing poorly as a result of its lack of racial diversity? How about Japan? Would Japanese be happier if we dropped a million black Africans into Tokyo?

America is not a white nation asshole, you love white penis so much move back too germany

 

[OldLady]

If "we" means the U.S., we were founded by white Europeans and black African slaves doing the heavy lifting, without which the white guys in charge would have been an economic failure and the dream would have died with them. The Native Americans who were here first, that we conveniently ignored when possible and decimated when they got in our way, were also part of that original mix. Lots of Han Chinese and Japanese folks have come here to work and to live, as have lots of people from every other country on the planet, I suppose. Huge influxes of Italians and Irish and Polish and Germans at different times. A lot of Hispanics didn't even move here--they just got taken into the U.S. when the place they lived suddenly became America, and any Cuban with a row boat was welcomed here for decades if they could cross the water. We are a quilt, a patchwork quilt of many many different pieces and patterns all sewn together to create one blanket. The work of all those nationalities that have come here have contributed to what this country has achieved. Every. Single. One. They have contributed to what we are. The Christmas tree came from Germany and England. Pizza came from Italy. St. Patricks Day is enjoyed by all. Our laws are based on British Common Law.
Why would you even consider separating us all into little groups? If certain people feel they're being slighted, they will complain because that is what this nation is about. Instead of shutting them out, try listening to what the problems are and see if there is a way to fix them.
No one can defend violence and the destruction of property in putting forth their claims, and I won't try. But you won't end riots by taking a seam ripper to the quilt.

 

[norwegen]

The moral imperative is the freedom of association, not a society contrived by government.

 

[Papageorgio]

There is good and bad in all races, I don't think any race is superior to another race. Diversity has a lot more pluses than minuses.

 

[RodISHI]

The moral imperative is the freedom of association, not a society contrived by government.

Yes but we have had government pushing their agendas for years so people like William are very unhappy regardless of the color of their skin.

 

[PurpleOwl]

The moral imperative is the freedom of association, not a society contrived by government.

Yes but we have had government pushing their agendas for years so people like William are very unhappy regardless of the color of their skin.

so move back to europe? America natives aren't white your a white supremacist imperialist at best.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

so move back to europe? America natives aren't white your a white supremacist imperialist at best.

Our forebears left Europe to escape idiocy like that which irks the OP.

How about YOU go back to Europe, comrade?

 

[OldLady]

The moral imperative is the freedom of association, not a society contrived by government.

And yet that government specified at its inception that all men are created equal in the eyes of the law So it would not be acceptable, in this country under that government, to say that one cannot live in your neighborhood because of his race or religion or even his economic status (say a trailer dweller who won the lotto). If you don't like the way our government is structured, there are other countries far less accepting of "others." Unfortunately, that would also include you. Maybe you'd best get used to equality under the law.

 

[RodISHI]

The moral imperative is the freedom of association, not a society contrived by government.

Yes but we have had government pushing their agendas for years so people like William are very unhappy regardless of the color of their skin.

so move back to europe? America natives aren't white your a white supremacist imperialist at best.

Why would I move anywhere when a good portion of my ancestors were here when the boats came with the other half of them?

 

[norwegen]

The moral imperative is the freedom of association, not a society contrived by government.

Yes but we have had government pushing their agendas for years so people like William are very unhappy regardless of the color of their skin.

Once upon a time, the government was not so adverse to naturalizing productive aliens. Lately, it has insisted that we host leeches, and largely based on race, nationality, or religion.

The government has abandoned its directive and objectivity. Coerced associations simply are not a moral imperative.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

And yet that government specified at its inception that all men are created equal in the eyes of the law So it would not be acceptable, in this country under that government, to say that one cannot live in your neighborhood because of his race or religion or even his economic status (say a trailer dweller who won the lotto). If you don't like the way our government is structured, there are other countries far less accepting of "others." Unfortunately, that would also include you. Maybe you'd best get used to equality under the law.

Yet is an entirely different thing to force this so-called "diversity" upon everyone, under the arrogant premise that it's for everyone's own good. The forced school busing in the 1970s being the best example.

That's not equality under the law by a dam sight.

 

[RodISHI]

The moral imperative is the freedom of association, not a society contrived by government.

Yes but we have had government pushing their agendas for years so people like William are very unhappy regardless of the color of their skin.

Once upon a time, the government was not so adverse to naturalizing productive aliens. Lately, it has insisted that we host leeches, and largely based on race, nationality, or religion.

The government has abandoned its directive and objectivity. Coerced associations simply are not a moral imperative.

They are doing that all over the world. I posted a video yesterday about the complaints in Mexico because the refugees are wanting more than Mexico gives to take care of their own old, poor and citizens in need.

 

[norwegen]

The moral imperative is the freedom of association, not a society contrived by government.

And yet that government specified at its inception that all men are created equal in the eyes of the law So it would not be acceptable, in this country under that government, to say that one cannot live in your neighborhood because of his race or religion or even his economic status (say a trailer dweller who won the lotto). If you don't like the way our government is structured, there are other countries far less accepting of "others." Unfortunately, that would also include you. Maybe you'd best get used to equality under the law.

People determine the composition of their neighborhoods. People, economics, and other natural indicators. Not the government.

Maybe you'd best learn what equality under the law means.

 

[Papageorgio]

The moral imperative is the freedom of association, not a society contrived by government.

And yet that government specified at its inception that all men are created equal in the eyes of the law So it would not be acceptable, in this country under that government, to say that one cannot live in your neighborhood because of his race or religion or even his economic status (say a trailer dweller who won the lotto). If you don't like the way our government is structured, there are other countries far less accepting of "others." Unfortunately, that would also include you. Maybe you'd best get used to equality under the law.

Economic status determines where you can and cannot live. It you don't have the money to build in an area, you are out.

 

[OldLady]

And yet that government specified at its inception that all men are created equal in the eyes of the law So it would not be acceptable, in this country under that government, to say that one cannot live in your neighborhood because of his race or religion or even his economic status (say a trailer dweller who won the lotto). If you don't like the way our government is structured, there are other countries far less accepting of "others." Unfortunately, that would also include you. Maybe you'd best get used to equality under the law.

Yet is an entirely different thing to force this so-called "diversity" upon everyone, under the arrogant premise that it's for everyone's own good. The forced school busing in the 1970s being the best example.

That's not equality under the law by a dam sight.

Busing was to equalize educational opportunities. That by definition is attempting to provide equality in a venue run by local governments--the schools. Of course it was equality under the law.

 

[OldLady]

The moral imperative is the freedom of association, not a society contrived by government.

And yet that government specified at its inception that all men are created equal in the eyes of the law So it would not be acceptable, in this country under that government, to say that one cannot live in your neighborhood because of his race or religion or even his economic status (say a trailer dweller who won the lotto). If you don't like the way our government is structured, there are other countries far less accepting of "others." Unfortunately, that would also include you. Maybe you'd best get used to equality under the law.

Economic status determines where you can and cannot live. It you don't have the money to build in an area, you are out.

I got no beef with that. I believe the OP is looking for a different, less de-facto type of segregation.

 

[OldLady]

The moral imperative is the freedom of association, not a society contrived by government.

And yet that government specified at its inception that all men are created equal in the eyes of the law So it would not be acceptable, in this country under that government, to say that one cannot live in your neighborhood because of his race or religion or even his economic status (say a trailer dweller who won the lotto). If you don't like the way our government is structured, there are other countries far less accepting of "others." Unfortunately, that would also include you. Maybe you'd best get used to equality under the law.

People determine the composition of their neighborhoods. People, economics, and other natural indicators. Not the government.

Maybe you'd best learn what equality under the law means.

Maybe you should school me, since you think I've got it wrong. "All men are created equal." Tell me who said that and where it was said, and then explain to me why it has nothing to do with how our government is structured.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

Busing was to equalize educational opportunities. That by definition is attempting to provide equality in a venue run by local governments--the schools. Of course it was equality under the law.

Oh, bullshit.

It was enacted to make do-gooder leftist crackpots feel good about themselves. The only way you make things "equal" in that way is to pull everyone down to equal mediocrity, which urban schools that participated in this sham already had in great abundance.

All that forced busing accomplished was the famous phenomena of white flight and urban sprawl, both things that prog moonbats wring their hands about. The pseudo-intellectual schmucks apparently have never heard of unintended consequences or externalities, which they would have learned had they not majored in sociology and other mental dreck in school.