Hey, I just call 'em like I see 'em, Arjay. And I don't really think my comment is going to stop anyone from participating, do you? I mean, read some of the other threads & I don't know how a person doesn't conclude that many come to this forum expressly for the purpose of partaking in knock-down, drag out fights. In fact, my calling attention to that fact (were not my post buried within the thread) would more likely have a similar result to yelling, "Fight! Fight!" in the schoolyard, bringing the crowds running. But that's not me, my friend. And whether or not you find it disparaging, my words were sincere; it was very entertaining & amusing, as long as I didn't consider how sad it was, as well.
How sad for you to not even consider the opinions of others. With your claimed attitude you will never progress to thinking for yourself.
I'm sorry if I said something to offend you. I simply felt we were not going to reach a understanding on this subject so thought I would bow out.
Bow out without even considering another point of view because you didn't understand it? You had no problem challenging it (according to you without understanding) yet wish to be taken seriously? Not going to go unchallenged.
There are millionaires wearing Rolex's travelling through those rubbish dumps all day every day. That's how it works in a place with enormous wealth disparity. All in together. Now let's get back to this nutty idea that poverty causes crime. Let's look at why you need to believe such nonsense.
This could not possibly be more silly. Town planning, considered community design etc, have no bearing on whether its residents will form crime free communities. Crime free communities are not predicated on architecture, they're predicated on human stability and answerability - and they only come with that. Unstable populations - aka tenant populations, rarely create community. A slum in Bangladesh will be a 'better' community because its citizens own their shanties, and are therefore stable. The family shack will serve generations. Everyone is answerable to the community, because the neighbours will be the same families for many many years. Shared culture will just enhance that, as long as said culture is one of scrupulous avoidance of dishonour (ie, crime). I do agree that a lot of what we do is wrong, though. We ourselves rent slaves (and therefore unstable) because we're too lazy to do what it takes to own our shelter. We do our best to shed personal and social responsibility, etc etc. Much is wrong.
You started the thread by asking questions. I answered those questions based on my opinion. When it seemed obvious that we were not going to agree, I thought I would move on. Seemed no reason to keep posting our opposing views. In your OP you posed the question: You then provided what appears to by your "meaning of diversity": I responded to your question with my opinion of "the current meaning of diversity": Your OP also posed this question: I did not answer this question directly as I felt my answer to your first question indicated that I disagreed with your definition and showed I felt my definition already did include "all races in the society". Again my apology if you are somehow offended by my differing opinion. Take care. Rich
If two candidates have all the qualifications, but one has a good attitude and enthusiastic approach, and the other has a negative attitude and acts like they are doing you a favor by being there, which one would you hire?
You claim to see o reason to keep posting o0pposing views, yet here you are. Seems hypocritical in concept and action. Do you always do the opposite of what you claim? That is a liberal land tactic.
Since one of the qualifications is attitude and another is the ability to get along with potential co-workers, take a wild guess. You seem to be indicating that you would allow other factors than you propose to influence your decision. You seem to lack the qualifications to continue to participate in this discussion yet you press on.
Exactly what other 'factors' are you insinuating would affect my decision. Be very specific. I seem to lack qualifications? Was there an application to participate in this thread? Or does the facts of the real employment world, not fit your preconceived notions?
For many years I was in charge of hiring for a company of over two hundred workers. I looked at their qualifications and then interviewed the applicants. This in an effort to find the best worker. I did not care about their race or gender, only if they could fit in with the other employees to benefit the company. This being the case, we had quite a diverse group. The only "preconceived" notions on display here are yours, since you obviously have no idea what you are blathering about. It appears that your agenda would highlight gender, race and ass kissing. Once again, you fail. BTW, your demanding that I be "as specific as possible" has nothing to do with my answer except to display that once again you have no idea what you are blathering about.
Let's waive CVs about. I CURRENTLY work for a company that has approximately 600 employees on any given day, from upper management to entry level, in multiple states and economic areas. I don't care about someone's race, gender, sexual orientation, age or economic position. Of those approximate 600 employees, I am usually involved with the hiring of about 40 percent of them. Knowledge, ability, attitude. Your assumption that 'attitude' has anything to do with ass kissing pretty much shows that you have no idea what it actual means in the hiring process. You should be as specific as possible, since you are making assumptions about a person. But, since blanket assumptions seem to be your thing, you just go ahead poppet.
Talk about making assumptions, that seems to be all you have. That and making demands that you think, incorrectly, that this will benefit you. Once again, you are wrong. You make statements without any backing which pretty much discounts all you have to say. Get a reality check and come back with some actual facts, not just you assumptions. But then, that is all you ever do, "poppet". And now you are resorting to name calling, a sure sign that even you know you are wrong.
As a loyal American, Trump does listen to me. Drop you insane hatred of America and see that he also li9stens to you.
Then what is your problem with true diversity? Because someone disagrees with you opinion does not mean that their opinion is less valuable than your, right?
without racists, diversity works but sadly there are both white racists and black racists in this world not to mention those that would discriminate based on religious and political views
Well...according to tRump...if someone disagrees with his opinion...they are trying to destroy the country.
