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.
"A comparison of the Harvard and Goren maps show that the most diverse countries in the world are found in Africa. Both maps also suggest that the United States falls near the middle, while Canada and Mexico are more diverse than the US."
Once again; both Canada and Mexico show a greater degree of ethnic diversity.
This discussion has morphed into an area where once again some right wingers are expected to hold the floor with nothing more than "because I say it's so, it must be so". Even when faced with facts proving otherwise.
Why would anyone take their definition, analysis good or bad, of what they think constitutes socialism with any degree of relevancy?
"A comparison of the Harvard and Goren maps show that the most diverse countries in the world are found in Africa. Both maps also suggest that the United States falls near the middle, while Canada and Mexico are more diverse than the US."
Once again; both Canada and Mexico show a greater degree of ethnic diversity.
This discussion has morphed into an area where once again some right wingers are expected to hold the floor with nothing more than "because I say it's so, it must be so". Even when faced with facts proving otherwise.
Why would anyone take their definition, analysis good or bad, of what they think constitutes socialism with any degree of relevancy?
Oh gawd.....You're mixing tangerines with watermelons. You need to spend another two weeks researching.
This has to be most arrogant comment a person can make!
Why don't YOU enlighten us? You're the one who began this thread, remember?
I've been reading your posts for a while now, and in fact, I tried to have an intelligent discussion with you a few months ago. I gave up because you kept going around in circles (with your arrogant comments).
That is just by one measure, ethnic fractionality, which while it does what it suppose to do, it is far from an accurate measure, and it does not control for what amounts to be a subjective topic. The way they do the ethnic fractionalization is in my opinion a bit strange, in that they just have people answer questions which basically revolves around "who are you." The deviations between these ethnic groups is so trivial, a lay person would never know the difference being among them.
The US is the most diverse country in the world. You can find a person of almost every ethnicity in the world here. However, I guarantee you on that list you represented, you will not find almost every ethnic group in the world in many of those top countries, not even large ethnic groups.
That is just by one measure, ethnic fractionality, which while it does what it suppose to do, it is far from an accurate measure, and it does not control for what amounts to be a subjective topic. The way they do the ethnic fractionalization is in my opinion a bit strange, in that they just have people answer questions which basically revolves around "who are you." The deviations between these ethnic groups is so trivial, a lay person would never know the difference being among them.
The US is the most diverse country in the world. You can find a person of almost every ethnicity in the world here. However, I guarantee you on that list you represented, you will not find almost every ethnic group in the world in many of those top countries, not even large ethnic groups.
But we can just agree to disagree.
Diversity is more than skin colors. Lots of countries have different skin colors or whats called ethnicities. Thats not really diversity, even though the media want you to believe it. I'd wager that there was far more diversity in the past, when people were not subject to huge corporations controlling the information channels and there were more independent thinking among the people. These days, a handful of huge companies control most of what people hear, see and read everyday. It doesnt lend itself to independent thinking.
Diversity is more than skin colors. Lots of countries have different skin colors or whats called ethnicities. Thats not really diversity, even though the media want you to believe it. I'd wager that there was far more diversity in the past, when people were not subject to huge corporations controlling the information channels and there were more independent thinking among the people. These days, a handful of huge companies control most of what people hear, see and read everyday. It doesnt lend itself to independent thinking.
Yea, I know it is more than about skin color, I have posted that several times on this forum as it relates to whites in the US and what the gov thinks is diversity.
However, the study cited used ethnic fractionality as the measure for differences, and that is something I am not on board about regarding the topic, just as using genetic diversity to claim a specific place is the most diverse, is not something I am on board about regarding this topic.
Diversity is really a very subjective thing, because people first of all consider themselves different things at different places, at different times. Is my white co-worker ethnically diverse from me? It depends on the question asked. Is my Indian employee ethnically diverse from me? Again, depends on what question they ask.
According to the ethnic fractionality, I am of a different ethnic group than my parents (who are biological). That is just a measurement with deviation so trivial, I do not think it applies to social sciences when speaking to diversity.
Right wingers tend to do well in emergencies. Its the lefties and those duped by the left that tend to sit and wait for help!
Where do you come up with this stuff? I just went through a disaster (CA) and every one I know was up and helping - people all pitching in together. Its still happening.
But then we'd have to acknowledge that what you're calling "socialism" as described by the Conservative Review and like rags and attributing other countries to using as a system of governance as being in any way factual and accurate.
This whole debate is based upon the premise that the right wing assessment of what constitutes socialism and how authoritative sources define it as being one and the same.......they're most definitely not.,
That's the nature of this discussion; throw out those "indoctrination buzz terms" and expect everyone to accept them at face value because .......well................just because.
Was your last pet a lemming?
Hitler was proudly socialist. I'm not calling him socialist because of right wing media, I'm calling Hitler and the Nazis socialists because they were socialists. Not only did they subscribe to all the socialist principles, they were so serious about it they added it to the name of their political party. How can anyone reasonably argue the Nazis were not socialists?
You should back up your argument that Hitler was, or self-identified as, a socialist with some authoritative sources (not Facebook memes) and real research (not via Google!) from scholarly, peer-reviewed literature.
Last edited by newdixiegirl; 11-04-2017 at 08:25 PM..
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.
