Diversity is a Weakness, Not a Strength

[bripat9643]

lol, and to think that someone here the other day claimed that racism in America was GONE, until Obama became president and brought it back.

ROFL! What a shock that you would accuse me of racism. I never expected that!

You believe people should be allowed to publish racist books, don't you?

 

[beagle9]

Wrong. Rape and murder are crimes. Holding personal preferences, or biases, is not. Congratulations on the weak retort. It suits you.

You said discrimination is a natural right that can only be penalized. That is what you believe murder is.

You have enough trouble speaking for yourself. As such I’ll reserve the task of speaking for me; for myself. And “yes” it is not only a natural right; it is a natural course of action. Every person wakes in the morning and continually discriminates through out the day. It is how decisions are made. Failure to discriminate effectively can, and has resulted in disaster, and even death. Discrimination is such a basic premise that even animals do it. It is essential for a successful life. And it is something for which I make no apologies.
So have a drink; and think it over...View attachment 155875
And please... Don’t discriminate...

Your backtracking is making you look like a fool.

in other words, it's an accurate representation

What a fool like that doesn't understand is that rights in the context he's referring to are rights that governments are supposed to secure.

He wants our government to protect his right to refuse to hire a black person, or a gay person, otherwise best qualified for a job,
simply because he's bigoted against blacks and gays, or in some other sense doesn't want them around.

And he thinks that's what our Constitution was meant for.

. I will say this upon you using the hiring of people based upon labels given them whether black in color, white in color, gay, Buddhist, Muslim, Christian or other. It's not those things that a job might discriminate against, but rather it might be the baggage in which would give pause to the interviewer if things become evident in the interview as to what type of employee the person might make in the job that is being offered to him or her. Now if the potential employee fails the interview, then you have groups out their that could care less about what might have been discovered in the interview, and will demand that the person be employed by the company upon the narrow assumptions that if a person just shows up with the qualifications listed above, then they should be hired based upon those qualifications. And if they aren't then it's yet another company found to be discriminating based upon the qualifiers above in accordance with the supporting groups, and nothing more.

 

[Vastator]

You have enough trouble speaking for yourself. As such I’ll reserve the task of speaking for me; for myself. And “yes” it is not only a natural right; it is a natural course of action. Every person wakes in the morning and continually discriminates through out the day. It is how decisions are made. Failure to discriminate effectively can, and has resulted in disaster, and even death. Discrimination is such a basic premise that even animals do it. It is essential for a successful life. And it is something for which I make no apologies.
So have a drink; and think it over...View attachment 155875
And please... Don’t discriminate...

Your backtracking is making you look like a fool.

in other words, it's an accurate representation

What a fool like that doesn't understand is that rights in the context he's referring to are rights that governments are supposed to secure.

He wants our government to protect his right to refuse to hire a black person, or a gay person, otherwise best qualified for a job,
simply because he's bigoted against blacks and gays, or in some other sense doesn't want them around.

And he thinks that's what our Constitution was meant for.

Which is precisely what the government should do. When it guarantees the freedom of association; it was written with the intent of allowing people to freely congregate at will. What was never written nor intended by the phrase “freedom of association”, was the forcing against ones will, the association with those, one would rather avoid. That’s where the “freedom” part comes into play. Both parties must be acting of their own free will. Why do you hate freedom?

Since laws against discrimination are repeatedly held up as CONSTITUTIONAL, you don't know what you're talking about.

Court decisions are always up for revisiting. Nor are they always correct. If they were your beloved “civil rights” movements court decisions would have been thrown out at the filing stage.

 

[Vastator]

You have enough trouble speaking for yourself. As such I’ll reserve the task of speaking for me; for myself. And “yes” it is not only a natural right; it is a natural course of action. Every person wakes in the morning and continually discriminates through out the day. It is how decisions are made. Failure to discriminate effectively can, and has resulted in disaster, and even death. Discrimination is such a basic premise that even animals do it. It is essential for a successful life. And it is something for which I make no apologies.
So have a drink; and think it over...View attachment 155875
And please... Don’t discriminate...

Your backtracking is making you look like a fool.

in other words, it's an accurate representation

What a fool like that doesn't understand is that rights in the context he's referring to are rights that governments are supposed to secure.

He wants our government to protect his right to refuse to hire a black person, or a gay person, otherwise best qualified for a job,
simply because he's bigoted against blacks and gays, or in some other sense doesn't want them around.

And he thinks that's what our Constitution was meant for.

Which is precisely what the government should do. When it guarantees the freedom of association; it was written with the intent of allowing people to freely congregate at will. What was never written nor intended by the phrase “freedom of association”, was the forcing against ones will, the association with those, one would rather avoid. That’s where the “freedom” part comes into play. Both parties must be acting of their own free will. Why do you hate freedom?

it guarantees freedom of association... but not in the business world.

you don't want to share restaurants with black people or jews or gays.... don't go out to eat.

you can be as disgusting a bigot as you want.... in your own "home"

Then by definition per your interpretation... There can be no privately owned businesses, or enterprise. And THAT is distinctly UNAmerican...

 

[beagle9]

You said discrimination is a natural right that can only be penalized. That is what you believe murder is.

You have enough trouble speaking for yourself. As such I’ll reserve the task of speaking for me; for myself. And “yes” it is not only a natural right; it is a natural course of action. Every person wakes in the morning and continually discriminates through out the day. It is how decisions are made. Failure to discriminate effectively can, and has resulted in disaster, and even death. Discrimination is such a basic premise that even animals do it. It is essential for a successful life. And it is something for which I make no apologies.
So have a drink; and think it over...View attachment 155875
And please... Don’t discriminate...

Your backtracking is making you look like a fool.

in other words, it's an accurate representation

What a fool like that doesn't understand is that rights in the context he's referring to are rights that governments are supposed to secure.

He wants our government to protect his right to refuse to hire a black person, or a gay person, otherwise best qualified for a job,
simply because he's bigoted against blacks and gays, or in some other sense doesn't want them around.

And he thinks that's what our Constitution was meant for.

yup... which is why it's the obligation of decent people to show ignorant idiots that their brand of bigotry isn't to be tolerated in decent society.

they used to know to keep their mouths shut.. .then the orange sociopath took power

. Keep their mouth's shut while reverse racism rages in America ?? Hey the old paths in life are always two directional, and when the direction shifts people get mad when they start to get dragged down the path they don't think they want to be on. The thing is figuring out why the path has to change directions if was going in a seemingly ok dirrection for most.

 

[Dragonlady]

Your backtracking is making you look like a fool.

in other words, it's an accurate representation

What a fool like that doesn't understand is that rights in the context he's referring to are rights that governments are supposed to secure.

He wants our government to protect his right to refuse to hire a black person, or a gay person, otherwise best qualified for a job,
simply because he's bigoted against blacks and gays, or in some other sense doesn't want them around.

And he thinks that's what our Constitution was meant for.

Which is precisely what the government should do. When it guarantees the freedom of association; it was written with the intent of allowing people to freely congregate at will. What was never written nor intended by the phrase “freedom of association”, was the forcing against ones will, the association with those, one would rather avoid. That’s where the “freedom” part comes into play. Both parties must be acting of their own free will. Why do you hate freedom?

it guarantees freedom of association... but not in the business world.

you don't want to share restaurants with black people or jews or gays.... don't go out to eat.

you can be as disgusting a bigot as you want.... in your own "home"

Then by definition per your interpretation... There can be no privately owned businesses, or enterprise. And THAT is distinctly UNAmerican...

No, what it means is that if you want to own a business, you accept that "all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights", and that business owners cannot deny those rights of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness, and if they can't shop in your store, you are violate those rights.

If you want to be in a business which is open to the public, you have to respect the rights of others.

 

[Vastator]

in other words, it's an accurate representation

What a fool like that doesn't understand is that rights in the context he's referring to are rights that governments are supposed to secure.

He wants our government to protect his right to refuse to hire a black person, or a gay person, otherwise best qualified for a job,
simply because he's bigoted against blacks and gays, or in some other sense doesn't want them around.

And he thinks that's what our Constitution was meant for.

Which is precisely what the government should do. When it guarantees the freedom of association; it was written with the intent of allowing people to freely congregate at will. What was never written nor intended by the phrase “freedom of association”, was the forcing against ones will, the association with those, one would rather avoid. That’s where the “freedom” part comes into play. Both parties must be acting of their own free will. Why do you hate freedom?

it guarantees freedom of association... but not in the business world.

you don't want to share restaurants with black people or jews or gays.... don't go out to eat.

you can be as disgusting a bigot as you want.... in your own "home"

Then by definition per your interpretation... There can be no privately owned businesses, or enterprise. And THAT is distinctly UNAmerican...

No, what it means is that if you want to own a business, you accept that "all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights", and that business owners cannot deny those rights of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness, and if they can't shop in your store, you are violate those rights.

If you want to be in a business which is open to the public, you have to respect the rights of others.

No that’s the current interpretation, and legal practice. The idea that if one decides that what I possess or offer to some others; is what they themselves desire for their own happiness; and therefore they are entitled to it creates a plethora of problems. That logic dictates that if I see a married woman whom I find attractive, and I want to fuck her... Then I can do so without regard to her, or her husbands feelings on the matter. After all anything less would inhibit my “right” life,liberty,and happiness. While of course that premise is absurd. And it’s absurd for the same reason your explainaition is absurd. It gives no weight to the very important aspect of “pursuit”. One has the right to pursue these things. No one has the right to claim these things, or have them granted to them.
The fear you leftists have; is that given the freedom our founders intended; that you beta whites, and your nonwhite pets would be quickly ostracized, and unable to produce, and provide for yourselves; what a free homogeneous white group would, and could for themselves. So you vote in people that allow you to gift yourselves the fruits of our labor.

 

[beagle9]

in other words, it's an accurate representation

What a fool like that doesn't understand is that rights in the context he's referring to are rights that governments are supposed to secure.

He wants our government to protect his right to refuse to hire a black person, or a gay person, otherwise best qualified for a job,
simply because he's bigoted against blacks and gays, or in some other sense doesn't want them around.

And he thinks that's what our Constitution was meant for.

Which is precisely what the government should do. When it guarantees the freedom of association; it was written with the intent of allowing people to freely congregate at will. What was never written nor intended by the phrase “freedom of association”, was the forcing against ones will, the association with those, one would rather avoid. That’s where the “freedom” part comes into play. Both parties must be acting of their own free will. Why do you hate freedom?

it guarantees freedom of association... but not in the business world.

you don't want to share restaurants with black people or jews or gays.... don't go out to eat.

you can be as disgusting a bigot as you want.... in your own "home"

Then by definition per your interpretation... There can be no privately owned businesses, or enterprise. And THAT is distinctly UNAmerican...

No, what it means is that if you want to own a business, you accept that "all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights", and that business owners cannot deny those rights of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness, and if they can't shop in your store, you are violate those rights.

If you want to be in a business which is open to the public, you have to respect the rights of others.

. You have created two different issues in this post.. First one is concerning employers and their hiring people based upon certain multifaceted criterias. What has gone wrong in all this for employers, is that the outside world wants to run the companies hiring practices from a perspective that assumes a company would discriminate against a person based upon the old ways in which may have been previlent in the long ago past, even though they aren't present now. The nation is far beyond the attempt at having institutional racism florish again in society, as corporations struggle to get employees now in a slim employee market place that is so volital today. I garantee you that if an employee presents him or herself properly in an interview, then they will get the chance they are looking for. Now it doesn't always work out afterwards, and this cuts across the board, but that is just a fact of life in the job performance market, and nothing more. Your other issue is private owned businesses refusing services to customers as based upon certain criterias that are set up in the privately owned businesses. If a person walks in with no shirt on or shoe's, the business can refuse to serve them, and if a person walks in with their underwear showing, and their pants down around their knees, then again a business can refuse to serve them. If a person comes into a resteraunt smelling like they just climbed out of a dumpster, then that resteraunt can have the person removed if refuses to leave after disrupting the business in such a way. If a person comes into a business trying to use propaganda, and espousing their political views loudly or attempting to highjack the business platform for either purpose, then they can be removed from the premises by way of law enforcement if refuse to go quiety or by asking if they will leave quietly and they leave. The asking of a business to modify or create something that is outside of the business model or it's founded principles (aside from any discrimination based upon ones race or gender), is and should be supported as well as being an exceptable practice based upon ownership preferences.

 

[jillian]

What a fool like that doesn't understand is that rights in the context he's referring to are rights that governments are supposed to secure.

He wants our government to protect his right to refuse to hire a black person, or a gay person, otherwise best qualified for a job,
simply because he's bigoted against blacks and gays, or in some other sense doesn't want them around.

And he thinks that's what our Constitution was meant for.

Which is precisely what the government should do. When it guarantees the freedom of association; it was written with the intent of allowing people to freely congregate at will. What was never written nor intended by the phrase “freedom of association”, was the forcing against ones will, the association with those, one would rather avoid. That’s where the “freedom” part comes into play. Both parties must be acting of their own free will. Why do you hate freedom?

it guarantees freedom of association... but not in the business world.

you don't want to share restaurants with black people or jews or gays.... don't go out to eat.

you can be as disgusting a bigot as you want.... in your own "home"

Then by definition per your interpretation... There can be no privately owned businesses, or enterprise. And THAT is distinctly UNAmerican...

No, what it means is that if you want to own a business, you accept that "all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights", and that business owners cannot deny those rights of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness, and if they can't shop in your store, you are violate those rights.

If you want to be in a business which is open to the public, you have to respect the rights of others.

. You have created two different issues in this post.. First one is concerning employers and their hiring people based upon certain multifaceted criterias. What has gone wrong in all this for employers, is that the outside world wants to run the companies hiring practices from a perspective that assumes a company would discriminate against a person based upon the old ways in which may have been previlent in the long ago past, even though they aren't present now. The nation is far beyond the attempt at having institutional racism florish again in society, as corporations struggle to get employees now in a slim employee market place that is so volital today. I garantee you that if an employee presents him or herself properly in an interview, then they will get the chance they are looking for. Now it doesn't always work out afterwards, and this cuts across the board, but that is just a fact of life in the job performance market, and nothing more. Your other issue is private owned businesses refusing services to customers as based upon certain criterias that are set up in the privately owned businesses. If a person walks in with no shirt on or shoe's, the business can refuse to serve them, and if a person walks in with their underwear showing, and their pants down around their knees, then again a business can refuse to serve them. If a person comes into a resteraunt smelling like they just climbed out of a dumpster, then that resteraunt can have the person removed if refuses to leave after disrupting the business in such a way. If a person comes into a business trying to use propaganda, and espousing their political views loudly or attempting to highjack the business platform for either purpose, then they can be removed from the premises by way of law enforcement if refuse to go quiety or by asking if they will leave quietly and they leave. The asking of a business to modify or create something that is outside of the business model or it's founded principles (aside from any discrimination based upon ones race or gender), is and should be supported as well as being an exceptable practice based upon ownership preferences.

actually, no one is imposing anything except a prohibition against discrimination.

that offends you?

 

[beagle9]

Which is precisely what the government should do. When it guarantees the freedom of association; it was written with the intent of allowing people to freely congregate at will. What was never written nor intended by the phrase “freedom of association”, was the forcing against ones will, the association with those, one would rather avoid. That’s where the “freedom” part comes into play. Both parties must be acting of their own free will. Why do you hate freedom?

it guarantees freedom of association... but not in the business world.

you don't want to share restaurants with black people or jews or gays.... don't go out to eat.

you can be as disgusting a bigot as you want.... in your own "home"

Then by definition per your interpretation... There can be no privately owned businesses, or enterprise. And THAT is distinctly UNAmerican...

No, what it means is that if you want to own a business, you accept that "all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights", and that business owners cannot deny those rights of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness, and if they can't shop in your store, you are violate those rights.

If you want to be in a business which is open to the public, you have to respect the rights of others.

. You have created two different issues in this post.. First one is concerning employers and their hiring people based upon certain multifaceted criterias. What has gone wrong in all this for employers, is that the outside world wants to run the companies hiring practices from a perspective that assumes a company would discriminate against a person based upon the old ways in which may have been previlent in the long ago past, even though they aren't present now. The nation is far beyond the attempt at having institutional racism florish again in society, as corporations struggle to get employees now in a slim employee market place that is so volital today. I garantee you that if an employee presents him or herself properly in an interview, then they will get the chance they are looking for. Now it doesn't always work out afterwards, and this cuts across the board, but that is just a fact of life in the job performance market, and nothing more. Your other issue is private owned businesses refusing services to customers as based upon certain criterias that are set up in the privately owned businesses. If a person walks in with no shirt on or shoe's, the business can refuse to serve them, and if a person walks in with their underwear showing, and their pants down around their knees, then again a business can refuse to serve them. If a person comes into a resteraunt smelling like they just climbed out of a dumpster, then that resteraunt can have the person removed if refuses to leave after disrupting the business in such a way. If a person comes into a business trying to use propaganda, and espousing their political views loudly or attempting to highjack the business platform for either purpose, then they can be removed from the premises by way of law enforcement if refuse to go quiety or by asking if they will leave quietly and they leave. The asking of a business to modify or create something that is outside of the business model or it's founded principles (aside from any discrimination based upon ones race or gender), is and should be supported as well as being an exceptable practice based upon ownership preferences.

actually, no one is imposing anything except a prohibition against discrimination.

that offends you?

. Nope, so why ask ?

 

[NYcarbineer]

What a fool like that doesn't understand is that rights in the context he's referring to are rights that governments are supposed to secure.

He wants our government to protect his right to refuse to hire a black person, or a gay person, otherwise best qualified for a job,
simply because he's bigoted against blacks and gays, or in some other sense doesn't want them around.

And he thinks that's what our Constitution was meant for.

Which is precisely what the government should do. When it guarantees the freedom of association; it was written with the intent of allowing people to freely congregate at will. What was never written nor intended by the phrase “freedom of association”, was the forcing against ones will, the association with those, one would rather avoid. That’s where the “freedom” part comes into play. Both parties must be acting of their own free will. Why do you hate freedom?

it guarantees freedom of association... but not in the business world.

you don't want to share restaurants with black people or jews or gays.... don't go out to eat.

you can be as disgusting a bigot as you want.... in your own "home"

Then by definition per your interpretation... There can be no privately owned businesses, or enterprise. And THAT is distinctly UNAmerican...

No, what it means is that if you want to own a business, you accept that "all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights", and that business owners cannot deny those rights of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness, and if they can't shop in your store, you are violate those rights.

If you want to be in a business which is open to the public, you have to respect the rights of others.

No that’s the current interpretation, and legal practice. The idea that if one decides that what I possess or offer to some others; is what they themselves desire for their own happiness; and therefore they are entitled to it creates a plethora of problems. That logic dictates that if I see a married woman whom I find attractive, and I want to fuck her... Then I can do so without regard to her, or her husbands feelings on the matter. After all anything less would inhibit my “right” life,liberty,and happiness. While of course that premise is absurd. And it’s absurd for the same reason your explainaition is absurd. It gives no weight to the very important aspect of “pursuit”. One has the right to pursue these things. No one has the right to claim these things, or have them granted to them.
The fear you leftists have; is that given the freedom our founders intended; that you beta whites, and your nonwhite pets would be quickly ostracized, and unable to produce, and provide for yourselves; what a free homogeneous white group would, and could for themselves. So you vote in people that allow you to gift yourselves the fruits of our labor.

lol, this is the modern racist, above. Lose the white sheets, replace them with elaborate verbal arguments that to the untrained eye

seem to make sense.

 

[bripat9643]

in other words, it's an accurate representation

What a fool like that doesn't understand is that rights in the context he's referring to are rights that governments are supposed to secure.

He wants our government to protect his right to refuse to hire a black person, or a gay person, otherwise best qualified for a job,
simply because he's bigoted against blacks and gays, or in some other sense doesn't want them around.

And he thinks that's what our Constitution was meant for.

Which is precisely what the government should do. When it guarantees the freedom of association; it was written with the intent of allowing people to freely congregate at will. What was never written nor intended by the phrase “freedom of association”, was the forcing against ones will, the association with those, one would rather avoid. That’s where the “freedom” part comes into play. Both parties must be acting of their own free will. Why do you hate freedom?

it guarantees freedom of association... but not in the business world.

you don't want to share restaurants with black people or jews or gays.... don't go out to eat.

you can be as disgusting a bigot as you want.... in your own "home"

Then by definition per your interpretation... There can be no privately owned businesses, or enterprise. And THAT is distinctly UNAmerican...

No, what it means is that if you want to own a business, you accept that "all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights", and that business owners cannot deny those rights of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness, and if they can't shop in your store, you are violate those rights.

If you want to be in a business which is open to the public, you have to respect the rights of others.

Wrong. You don't violate anyone's rights by not allowing them to shop in your store, anymore than you don't violate their rights by not allowing them to live in your house.

 

[bripat9643]

Which is precisely what the government should do. When it guarantees the freedom of association; it was written with the intent of allowing people to freely congregate at will. What was never written nor intended by the phrase “freedom of association”, was the forcing against ones will, the association with those, one would rather avoid. That’s where the “freedom” part comes into play. Both parties must be acting of their own free will. Why do you hate freedom?

it guarantees freedom of association... but not in the business world.

you don't want to share restaurants with black people or jews or gays.... don't go out to eat.

you can be as disgusting a bigot as you want.... in your own "home"

Then by definition per your interpretation... There can be no privately owned businesses, or enterprise. And THAT is distinctly UNAmerican...

No, what it means is that if you want to own a business, you accept that "all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights", and that business owners cannot deny those rights of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness, and if they can't shop in your store, you are violate those rights.

If you want to be in a business which is open to the public, you have to respect the rights of others.

No that’s the current interpretation, and legal practice. The idea that if one decides that what I possess or offer to some others; is what they themselves desire for their own happiness; and therefore they are entitled to it creates a plethora of problems. That logic dictates that if I see a married woman whom I find attractive, and I want to fuck her... Then I can do so without regard to her, or her husbands feelings on the matter. After all anything less would inhibit my “right” life,liberty,and happiness. While of course that premise is absurd. And it’s absurd for the same reason your explainaition is absurd. It gives no weight to the very important aspect of “pursuit”. One has the right to pursue these things. No one has the right to claim these things, or have them granted to them.
The fear you leftists have; is that given the freedom our founders intended; that you beta whites, and your nonwhite pets would be quickly ostracized, and unable to produce, and provide for yourselves; what a free homogeneous white group would, and could for themselves. So you vote in people that allow you to gift yourselves the fruits of our labor.

lol, this is the modern racist, above. Lose the white sheets, replace them with elaborate verbal arguments that to the untrained eye

seem to make sense.

Yeah, because logic is racist!

 

[Issa]

Dude IQ tests really?
Whites are descendants from the mother land. Did you about the oldest human remains that was found? Google it Morocco and before that the horn of Africa.

Aclepsias is the one who started making claims about the relative intelligence of Europeans, not me.

We aren't discussing the oldest humans. We are discussing humanity as it exists now.

Don't be too happy it's only couple hundred years that the west has an upper hand....things turn around. And diversity is a driving force behind the success of humanity, the Pharaohs, the Romans, the moors , the Chinese, the Persians all great civilisations they all contributed to what we have achieved.

Except for the Romans, You named a list of countries that have monolithic cultures. The Romans were brought down by "diverisity."

Not true....Islamic Empire stretched from Asia to Europe it was one of the most diverse empires and it was successful for centuries. The US is another example, it was and still very diverse ethnically and culturally. This white history that you try to push is not gonna fly, I wasn't taught history here in the US, I read the history, visited countries and places and it opened my eyes at so many things....I wish you could the same, to get over your little fantasy world.

The United States was composed mostly of white Europeans until quite recently, and there is been constant fighting within the "Islamic empire." Just look at what goes on now between the Sunnis and the Shia.

Thanks to the interventions of the US and the west in the region.

 

[Issa]

Whats so amazingly ignorant about his stance is that much of the success even after whites have been in control is still driven and conducted by people of color. For example a Black man calculated the speed of the moon which was used by other Blacks to plot the trajectory of the space mission. Whites like this moron Bripat try to pretend that never happened.

Calculating the speed of the moon is a trivial mathematical task.

So why couldnt a smart white person do it then?

Newton could have done it in the 17th Century. He conceived of the theory of gravity and even the mathematics used to calculate the moon's velocity.

Right before Newton who I respect a lot and we owe him a ton, there is this guy

Avicenna (/ˌævəˈsɛnə/; also Ibn Sīnā or Abu Ali Sina; Persian: ابن سینا‎‎; c. 980 – June 1037) was a Persian polymath who is regarded as one of the most significant physicians, astronomers, thinkers and writers of the Islamic Golden Age.[5] He has been described as the father of early modern medicine.[6][7] Of the 450 works he is known to have written, around 240 have survived, including 150 on philosophy and 40 on medicine.[8]

His most famous works are The Book of Healing, a philosophical and scientific encyclopedia, and The Canon of Medicine, a medical encyclopedia[9][10][11] which became a standard medical text at many medievaluniversities[12] and remained in use as late as 1650.[13] In 1973, Avicenna's Canon Of Medicine was reprinted in New York.[14]

Besides philosophy and medicine, Avicenna's corpus includes writings on astronomy, alchemy, geography and geology, psychology, Islamic theology, logic, mathematics, physics and poetry.[15]

Ibn al-Haytham (latinized Alhazen[8] full name Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥasan ibn al-Ḥasan ibn al-Haytham أبو علي، الحسن بن الحسن بن الهيثم; c. 965 – c. 1040) was a mathematician, astronomer, and physicist of the Islamic Golden Age.[9]He made significant contributions to the principles of optics and visual perception in particular, his most influential work being his Kitāb al-Manāẓir‎‎ (كتاب المناظر, "Book of Optics"), written during 1011–1021, survived in the latin edition.[10] He was also an early proponent of the concept that a hypothesis must be proved by experiments based on confirmable procedures or mathematical evidence, as such anticipating the scientific method.[11][12][13]

Born in Basra, he spent most of his productive period in the Fatimid capital of Cairo and earned his living authoring various treatises and tutoring members of the nobilities.[14]

Ibn al-Haytham is also sometimes given the byname al-Baṣrī after his birthplace,[15] or al-Miṣrī ("of Egypt").[16] In Latin tradition, he was occasionally nicknamed[by whom?] Ptolemaeus secundus (the "Second Ptolemy")[17] or simply as "The Physicist".[18]

Abu Mūsā Jābir ibn Hayyān (Arabic: جابر بن حیان‎‎, Persian: جابر بن حیان‎‎‎, often given the nisbahs al-Bariqi, al-Azdi, al-Kufi, al-Tusi or al-Sufi; fl. c. 721 – c. 815),[6] also known by the Latinization Geber, was a polymath: a chemist and alchemist, astronomer and astrologer, engineer, geographer, philosopher, physicist, and pharmacist and physician. Born and educated in Tus, he later traveled to Kufa. He has been described as the father of early chemistry.[7][8][9]

As early as the 10th century, the identity and exact corpus of works of Jabir was in dispute in Islamic circles.[10] His name was Latinized as "Geber" in the Christian West and in 13th-century Europe an anonymous writer, usually referred to as Pseudo-Geber, produced alchemical and metallurgical writings under the pen-name Geber.[11]

Averroes

Ibn Rushd (Arabic: ابن رشد‎‎; 14 April 1126 – 10 December 1198), full name (Arabic: أبو الوليد محمد ابن احمد ابن رشد‎, translit. ʾAbū l-Walīd Muḥammad Ibn ʾAḥmad Ibn Rushd‎), often Latinized as Averroes (/əˈvɛroʊˌiːz/), was a medieval Andalusian polymath. He wrote on logic, Aristotelian and Islamic philosophy, theology, the Maliki school of Islamic jurisprudence, psychology, political and Andalusian classical music theory, geography, mathematics, and the mediæval sciences of medicine, astronomy, physics, and celestial mechanics. Ibn Rushd was born in Córdoba, Al Andalus (present-day Spain), and died at Marrakesh in present-day Morocco. His body was interred in his family tomb at Córdoba.[7] The 13th-century philosophical movement in Latin Christian and Jewish tradition based on Ibn Rushd's work is called Averroism.

Ibn Rushd was a defender of Aristotelian philosophy against Ash'ari theologians led by Al-Ghazali. Although highly regarded as a legal scholar of the Maliki school of Islamic law, Ibn Rushd's philosophical ideas were considered controversial in Ash'arite Muslim circles.[8] Whereas al-Ghazali believed that any individual act of a natural phenomenon occurred only because God willed it to happen, Ibn Rushd insisted phenomena followed natural laws that God created.[9][10][11]

Ibn Rushd had a greater impact on Christian Europe, being known by the sobriquet "the Commentator" for his detailed emendations to Aristotle. Latin translations of Ibn Rushd's work led the way to the popularization of Aristotle.[12]

Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī[note 1] (Arabic: محمد بن موسى الخوارزمی‎‎; c. 780 – c. 850), formerly Latinized as Algoritmi,[note 2] was a Persian[3][4] scholar in the House of Wisdom in Baghdad who produced works in mathematics, astronomy, and geography during the Abbasid Caliphate.

In the 12th century, Latin translations of his work on the Indian numerals introduced the decimal positional number system to the Western world.[5] Al-Khwārizmī's The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing presented the first systematic solution of linear and quadratic equations in Arabic. Because he is the first to teach algebra as an independent discipline and introduced the methods of "reduction" and "balancing" (the transposition of subtracted terms to the other side of an equation, that is, the cancellation of like terms on opposite sides of the equation), he has been described as the father[6][7][8] or founder[9][10] of algebra.

He revised Ptolemy's Geography and wrote on astronomy and astrology.

Some words reflect the importance of al-Khwārizmī's contributions to mathematics. "Algebra" is derived from al-jabr, one of the two operations he used to solve quadratic equations. Algorism and algorithm stem from Algoritmi, the Latin form of his name.[11] His name is also the origin of (Spanish) guarismo[12] and of (Portuguese) algarismo, both meaning digit.

Abu al-Qasim Abbas ibn Firnas ibn Wirdas al-Takurini (810–887 A.D.), also known as Abbas ibn Firnas (Arabic: عباس بن فرناس‎‎), was an Andalusian polymath:[1][2] an inventor, physician, chemist, engineer, Andalusian musician, and Arabic-language poet.[2] Of Berber descent, his name's root is AFERNAS, which is fairly widespread today in Morocco and Algeria.[3] He was born in Izn-Rand Onda, Al-Andalus (today's Ronda, Spain), lived in the Emirate of Córdoba, and is reputed to have attempted flight.[4][5]

The crater Ibn Firnas on the Moon is named in his honor, as well as the Ibn Firnas Airport in Baghdad and one of the bridges over the Guadalquivir river in Cordoba.

The Islamic civilization gave a lot to humanity, so did other civilizations we are thankful to the scientists who looked beyond skin color, religion or nationality and went on to read and translate great books, and achieve greater things that we benefit from on daily basis.

So which one invented calculas? Oh yes, I see: It was Newton.

THEY CAME. THEY SAW. THEY PLAGIARIZED. 1001 so-called Muslim inventions, virtually none of which were actually invented by Muslims

Lol that's my answer. You have your own version of fake history.
Walk into any surgery room and ask about some the tools they still use who used first used them.
I think I'm done with you, not only you don't know but falsifying history so it fits your white narrative is counter productive to carry. A debate. Good day!!!

 

[bripat9643]

Aclepsias is the one who started making claims about the relative intelligence of Europeans, not me.

We aren't discussing the oldest humans. We are discussing humanity as it exists now.

Don't be too happy it's only couple hundred years that the west has an upper hand....things turn around. And diversity is a driving force behind the success of humanity, the Pharaohs, the Romans, the moors , the Chinese, the Persians all great civilisations they all contributed to what we have achieved.

Except for the Romans, You named a list of countries that have monolithic cultures. The Romans were brought down by "diverisity."

Not true....Islamic Empire stretched from Asia to Europe it was one of the most diverse empires and it was successful for centuries. The US is another example, it was and still very diverse ethnically and culturally. This white history that you try to push is not gonna fly, I wasn't taught history here in the US, I read the history, visited countries and places and it opened my eyes at so many things....I wish you could the same, to get over your little fantasy world.

The United States was composed mostly of white Europeans until quite recently, and there is been constant fighting within the "Islamic empire." Just look at what goes on now between the Sunnis and the Shia.

Thanks to the interventions of the US and the west in the region.

Yeah, we know. The United States is always to blame when savages start killing each other.

Muslims have been killing each other for centuries. Abject ingorance is the only excuse for dumbass comments like yours.

 

[Dragonlady]

And yet statistics show that the more diversity you have, the more successful your economy. The most successful economies are ones where women share power with men. The least successful are those where women are marginalized have no power.

The more points of view you have, the more ideas you have. Different cultures, races and ethnicities bring a diverse set of ideas and traditions to the business world.

I lived in one of the most ethnically diverse cities in the world for 30 years. Now I live in a homogenous white Christian rural community. The closest thing to "ethnic" cuisine in this town is an Italian pasta restaurant. I've been learning to cook Indian food because I miss it, and don't get me started on Asian cuisine. I'm currently on the lookout for a good Pad Thai recipe because I miss Thai food and sushi.

Just as the WASP diet is fairly boring, so are the business ideas in a predominantly white European culture. Innovation comes from looking at things from differing perspectives. Non-white immigrant co-workers in the city were an incredible resource base of new ideas and points of view that aren't available where I live now. I miss having those resources.

The snowflakes have been bleating aobut the wonders of "diversity" ever since I can remember. However, it's actually a big lie, in the Goebbels sense of the term. Here's an interesting article that explains why it's bullshit. We don't benefit from immigration. We are positively harmed by it.

Diversity is a Weakness, Not a Strength​

"Diversity is a strength” is one of those Orwellian maxims that’s just generally accepted as truth by most Americans despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Granted, if you’re talking about a DIVERSITY OF IDEAS, you can certainly come up with some situations where it’s a strength. For example, in the movie World War Z, Israel is saved (at least temporarily) by having a “tenth man” whose job is to forcefully argue for the alternative viewpoint to a situation where everyone agrees. So instead of laughing off the idea that Israel might face a zombie invasion, Israelis realized there was merit to it and was prepared in time to protect the country. Back in the real world, the NFL certainly could have used someone pointing out the potential long-term downsides of allowing players disrespect the flag when just Colin Kaepernick was doing it. Donald Trump might benefit from a diversity of opinions when he’s about to tweet about Rosie O’Donnell or Mark Cuban at 4 AM. The Democrat Party could certainly use the input of a few random white factory workers from flyover country about the latest rhetoric and proposals they’re about to pitch.

On the other hand, even when diversity of thought is useful, it’s only in limited doses. The New York Yankees don’t want players who think the Boston Red Sox should win the pennant. A Republican President doesn’t want a Democrat in his Cabinet who will undermine him at every opportunity. Our military doesn’t want soldiers hoping the other side will defeat us in a war.


All that being said, when most people talk about “diversity,” they don’t mean a diversity of ideas. They believe a Hispanic guy, a black guy, a transsexual and a woman bring something to the table just by virtue of their race or gender.

This is seldom true.

For example, it is true that a group of white economists working on tax policy could benefit from having Thomas Sowell come out of retirement to join their ranks, but that’s because he’s Thomas freakin’ Sowell, not because he’s black. An all-Hispanic baseball team would benefit from adding Mike Trout to its roster, but it’s because he can play, not because of his white perspective. An all-female start-up would be lucky to get Bill Gates on board, not because he can mansplain things to them, but because he has lots of friends with infinite amounts of money who might invest if he’s on board.

In fact, diversity is often a huge minus. The new black employee may claim you discriminated against him, even if he’s fired for legitimate reasons. The woman may sue for sexual harassment after seeing a swimsuit calendar on some random guy’s wall. The Satanist you hire may call it religious discrimination if you don’t offer him a goat to sacrifice to Lucifer on Halloween.

Diversity can work just fine, but only if there’s strong pressure on people to assimilate to the existing culture. That’s why our very diverse military functions so well. However, we don’t have those conditions in America as a whole. Instead, we have liberals promoting tribalism and grievance mongering non-stop. In other words, every racial, sexual and religious difference is used as a way to split people further apart. Many of the same people who claim diversity is a strength will also tell you white people can’t understand the concerns of black Americans, men are oppressing women and women who don’t want to share a bathroom with a transsexual man are bigots.​

You're quoting a blog which uses an example from a television show about a zombie apocalypse to make political point about diversity???? Are you really that stupid??

As for Republican Presidents having Democrats in cabinet, and vice versa, it happens all of the time, and quite successfully too, going back to George Washington and continuing to President Obama.

List of United States political appointments across party lines - Wikipedia

There really is no cure for stupid.

You're proof of that. There's nothing stupider than communism, yet you are all for it.

The source of the information isn't relevant. You can accept the argument on it's merits or not. You have done nothing to discredit it except resort to logical fallacies.

In George Washington's day it wasn't nearly so dangerous because at least the parties had the same goal: the welfare of the United States. However these days one of the parties is intent on destroying this country and enslaving eveyrone in it.

You're the one with the flawed and irrevelants arguments here. For example, you claim I'm in favour of communism when there's absolutely no evidence that I am nor have I ever made any statements to that effect. If your only argument against what I've posted is an out and out lie, it doesn't say much for your ideas does it?

The only people who fear diversity are those who are so inferior that they are unable to compete with the new ideas and experiences of a more diverse pool of workers. Racism is based on fear and the inferiority of those who know they can't compete on a level playing field. That's why they seek to exclude as many people as possible from the pool of applicants available.

Your racism and fear of diversity is proof positive of your own inferiority.

 

[bripat9643]

And yet statistics show that the more diversity you have, the more successful your economy. The most successful economies are ones where women share power with men. The least successful are those where women are marginalized have no power.

The more points of view you have, the more ideas you have. Different cultures, races and ethnicities bring a diverse set of ideas and traditions to the business world.

I lived in one of the most ethnically diverse cities in the world for 30 years. Now I live in a homogenous white Christian rural community. The closest thing to "ethnic" cuisine in this town is an Italian pasta restaurant. I've been learning to cook Indian food because I miss it, and don't get me started on Asian cuisine. I'm currently on the lookout for a good Pad Thai recipe because I miss Thai food and sushi.

Just as the WASP diet is fairly boring, so are the business ideas in a predominantly white European culture. Innovation comes from looking at things from differing perspectives. Non-white immigrant co-workers in the city were an incredible resource base of new ideas and points of view that aren't available where I live now. I miss having those resources.

The snowflakes have been bleating aobut the wonders of "diversity" ever since I can remember. However, it's actually a big lie, in the Goebbels sense of the term. Here's an interesting article that explains why it's bullshit. We don't benefit from immigration. We are positively harmed by it.

Diversity is a Weakness, Not a Strength​

"Diversity is a strength” is one of those Orwellian maxims that’s just generally accepted as truth by most Americans despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Granted, if you’re talking about a DIVERSITY OF IDEAS, you can certainly come up with some situations where it’s a strength. For example, in the movie World War Z, Israel is saved (at least temporarily) by having a “tenth man” whose job is to forcefully argue for the alternative viewpoint to a situation where everyone agrees. So instead of laughing off the idea that Israel might face a zombie invasion, Israelis realized there was merit to it and was prepared in time to protect the country. Back in the real world, the NFL certainly could have used someone pointing out the potential long-term downsides of allowing players disrespect the flag when just Colin Kaepernick was doing it. Donald Trump might benefit from a diversity of opinions when he’s about to tweet about Rosie O’Donnell or Mark Cuban at 4 AM. The Democrat Party could certainly use the input of a few random white factory workers from flyover country about the latest rhetoric and proposals they’re about to pitch.

On the other hand, even when diversity of thought is useful, it’s only in limited doses. The New York Yankees don’t want players who think the Boston Red Sox should win the pennant. A Republican President doesn’t want a Democrat in his Cabinet who will undermine him at every opportunity. Our military doesn’t want soldiers hoping the other side will defeat us in a war.


All that being said, when most people talk about “diversity,” they don’t mean a diversity of ideas. They believe a Hispanic guy, a black guy, a transsexual and a woman bring something to the table just by virtue of their race or gender.

This is seldom true.

For example, it is true that a group of white economists working on tax policy could benefit from having Thomas Sowell come out of retirement to join their ranks, but that’s because he’s Thomas freakin’ Sowell, not because he’s black. An all-Hispanic baseball team would benefit from adding Mike Trout to its roster, but it’s because he can play, not because of his white perspective. An all-female start-up would be lucky to get Bill Gates on board, not because he can mansplain things to them, but because he has lots of friends with infinite amounts of money who might invest if he’s on board.

In fact, diversity is often a huge minus. The new black employee may claim you discriminated against him, even if he’s fired for legitimate reasons. The woman may sue for sexual harassment after seeing a swimsuit calendar on some random guy’s wall. The Satanist you hire may call it religious discrimination if you don’t offer him a goat to sacrifice to Lucifer on Halloween.

Diversity can work just fine, but only if there’s strong pressure on people to assimilate to the existing culture. That’s why our very diverse military functions so well. However, we don’t have those conditions in America as a whole. Instead, we have liberals promoting tribalism and grievance mongering non-stop. In other words, every racial, sexual and religious difference is used as a way to split people further apart. Many of the same people who claim diversity is a strength will also tell you white people can’t understand the concerns of black Americans, men are oppressing women and women who don’t want to share a bathroom with a transsexual man are bigots.​

You're quoting a blog which uses an example from a television show about a zombie apocalypse to make political point about diversity???? Are you really that stupid??

As for Republican Presidents having Democrats in cabinet, and vice versa, it happens all of the time, and quite successfully too, going back to George Washington and continuing to President Obama.

List of United States political appointments across party lines - Wikipedia

There really is no cure for stupid.

You're proof of that. There's nothing stupider than communism, yet you are all for it.

The source of the information isn't relevant. You can accept the argument on it's merits or not. You have done nothing to discredit it except resort to logical fallacies.

In George Washington's day it wasn't nearly so dangerous because at least the parties had the same goal: the welfare of the United States. However these days one of the parties is intent on destroying this country and enslaving eveyrone in it.

You're the one with the flawed and irrevelants arguments here. For example, you claim I'm in favour of communism when there's absolutely no evidence that I am nor have I ever made any statements to that effect. If your only argument against what I've posted is an out and out lie, it doesn't say much for your ideas does it?

The only people who fear diversity are those who are so inferior that they are unable to compete with the new ideas and experiences of a more diverse pool of workers. Racism is based on fear and the inferiority of those who know they can't compete on a level playing field. That's why they seek to exclude as many people as possible from the pool of applicants available.

Your racism and fear of diversity is proof positive of your own inferiority.

The statistics show precisely the opposite. Japan is a very successful country and the least "diverse" on the entire planet. Look at all the successful countries in Europe. They didn't get that way with a "diverse" population.

"Diversity" means crime, civil strife, a vast welfare burden, lack of community cohesiveness, the list goes on and on.

 

[Issa]

Don't be too happy it's only couple hundred years that the west has an upper hand....things turn around. And diversity is a driving force behind the success of humanity, the Pharaohs, the Romans, the moors , the Chinese, the Persians all great civilisations they all contributed to what we have achieved.

Except for the Romans, You named a list of countries that have monolithic cultures. The Romans were brought down by "diverisity."

Not true....Islamic Empire stretched from Asia to Europe it was one of the most diverse empires and it was successful for centuries. The US is another example, it was and still very diverse ethnically and culturally. This white history that you try to push is not gonna fly, I wasn't taught history here in the US, I read the history, visited countries and places and it opened my eyes at so many things....I wish you could the same, to get over your little fantasy world.

The United States was composed mostly of white Europeans until quite recently, and there is been constant fighting within the "Islamic empire." Just look at what goes on now between the Sunnis and the Shia.

Thanks to the interventions of the US and the west in the region.

Yeah, we know. The United States is always to blame when savages start killing each other.

Muslims have been killing each other for centuries. Abject ingorance is the only excuse for dumbass comments like yours.

The US is very young and yet had how many wars? Including a civil war...how many countries the US intervened in their business? How many millitary basis do the US have all over the world? What's the military budget? What's the budget allocated to taking care of citizens health, education and well being?
How many Americans get killed by other Americans a year? Drug epidemic?....the gap between the wealthy and the poor? Thr homeless?

Get off your high horse.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Of course it's a strength. It's even a strength at the biological level. Gene diversity creates more attractive people, stronger immune systems, healthier people, etc.

As usual, you haven't got the slightest clue of what you're babbling about. You're just a muppet, no original thoughts of your own. Most likely caused by a lack of gene diversity in your family tree...

Although I generally disagree with the nonsense from the left, SYTFE does have a valid argument. Diversity in most cases is better than a non diversified group. It’s true in most systems.

it may be true genetically, but it's not true culturally. We gain nothing by mixing our culture with Mexican or Arab culture. Importing these people only brings crime, dependency, ignorance, civil strife and corruption.

It’s pretty difficult to have genetic diversity without mixing cultures. Have you checked your ancestry?