Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think the argument is the government can allow itself integration and no forced segregation depending on the details, but shouldn't force integration on private individuals and property owners.
The government didn't just integrate the military but took sides and encouraged/forced outcomes. I know you disagree but the military is not a meritocracy either.
Yeah we tried that about, what, maybe 10,000 years ago. Apparently human history does not agree with your sentiments. Of course you can always go find some place that is free of government and live there. I hear Antarctic is such a place.
Just as soon as you go to North Korea where the State has a pretty big role in the lives of individuals.
Yes you admit to being a liberal and a staunch Democrat supporter. What do you think their platform is if nothing else but mass immigration, diversity and equal outcomes
Whatever you say. The vast majority of Northern European food is bland. Most yankee food in the US is bland as hell too. Awful casseroles and the like. When I go visit my inlaws in the Midwest, I have to bring my own bottle of Sriracha.
Diversity is almost worth having solely for the Mexican and Asian food. Almost.
I found Dutch food delicious in Holland. Lots of fresh seafood. Mackerel sandwiches, salmon bagels, etc.
Let people integrate or segregate themselves however they choose. The government shouldn't be in the integration business.
I only want people around me to share my same basic values and be pleasant to be around.
I like different cultures and the great character many of them bring such as arts, cuisine and architecture.
If you live here, you need to speak the language and respect our national traditions and customs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter
So we never should've integrated the military?
He may not be questioning the integration of the military.
After all, the 'constitutionality' of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was, at the time, in some dispute, as it applied to the private sector.
After all, this was the same argument used to strip the Civil Rights Act of 1875 of much of its ability to protect civil rights. In the Civil Rights Cases of 1883, the US Supreme Court held that Congress did not have the power, under the 14th Amendment, to prohibit discrimination practiced by private parties.
History rhymes.
Some of these private parties have been practicing for so long (after approximately 100 years of 'Black Codes' 'Jim Crow Laws, & so on), they should now be considered 'experts'.
The argument isn't so much of forced integration vs forced segregation, but of freedom of association vs forced association and forced integration and forced outcomes. At the far end, the argument is globalization and mass immigration vs ethno-nationalism and whether we should just allow an independent jurisdiction to form free from globalization and mass demographic changing immigration.
As far as the justification, different identity groups inherently have different group behaviors, interests, tendencies, abilities, outcomes and other qualities based at least in part to intractable and heritable differences.
So are you for or against segregation? And I don't like very heavy reading.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
