2 ms·

Currently the diet is 25 grains of rice, 25 chopped pieces of beans, 25 leaves, and 25 cows. Unhealthy? Likely. Unfair? Definitely. The current bill tries to

by sv_h1b 7y ago

Currently the diet is 25 grains of rice, 25 chopped pieces of beans, 25 leaves, and 25 cows. Unhealthy? Likely. Unfair? Definitely. The current bill tries to go closer to fairness by weighting based on population. What if there are only 3 countries in the world, US, Lithuania, and Rest? Would you want 50 Lithuanians and 50 rest and call it diverse?

sieabahlpark 7y ago
It's fair the way it is because it doesn't matter what country the people are from in the first place. I don't know how a monoculture is more diverse in this case. It's backwards to think this is better for the people who are trying to get in from places like Europe or Canada, or even parts of Africa. They're now at the back of the line behind India and China. Nothing about this bill promotes fair diversity, or even diversity itself. Unless you explicitly measure diversity in quantity of melanin in their skin which is racist itself.
- sv_h1b 7y ago
  Ok so what you are saying is that in a 3 country world: US, Lithuania, and Rest, you insist and define 50 Lithuanians and 50 rest is fair, and call out any changes as racist. By your definition, both a toddler and Arnold Schwarzenegger should both get same 2 slices of bread, because it is 'equal' and 'fair'. Anything else would be ageist?
  - sieabahlpark 7y ago
    Strawman argument but I'll try to explain. If we had only 3 countries then 50% would be from Lithuania and 50% from Rest. That is equal and fair because it doesn't discriminate against anything about those two countries. Mass emigration (to anywhere) is not something we should promote as a good thing. If we take all of the top people in the country that leaves the country poorer and worse off than if we did nothing at all. The point is just because a place like India has a huge population shouldn't prevent or make it more difficult for people to immigrate from Australia, Europe, Africa, Japan, South Korea, or any less populated countries. The same goes with China. What gives China and India other than population alone the upper hand? Are they somehow more valuable than someone from Japan? Are the more valuable than people throughout Africa? If you want unbiased immigration you treat everything equal. From within those pools you can argue who is more worth the green card via a merit system that can be scrutinized against those peers within the same country. By your standard India and China would dominate the immigrant population and leave less well off countries with an even worse chance for economic prosperity.
Konnstann 7y ago
I just wanted to know what "diversity" had to do with the question, and what was meant by diversity. An overwhelming presence of one type of anything is not "diverse", but that doesn't say anything about health or fairness. I'm not commenting on my support or opposition of the bill.

by sv_h1b 7y ago

sieabahlpark 7y ago

It's fair the way it is because it doesn't matter what country the people are from in the first place. I don't know how a monoculture is more diverse in this case. It's backwards to think this is better for the people who are trying to get in from places like Europe or Canada, or even parts of Africa. They're now at the back of the line behind India and China. Nothing about this bill promotes fair diversity, or even diversity itself. Unless you explicitly measure diversity in quantity of melanin in their skin which is racist itself.

sv_h1b 7y ago
Ok so what you are saying is that in a 3 country world: US, Lithuania, and Rest, you insist and define 50 Lithuanians and 50 rest is fair, and call out any changes as racist. By your definition, both a toddler and Arnold Schwarzenegger should both get same 2 slices of bread, because it is 'equal' and 'fair'. Anything else would be ageist?
- sieabahlpark 7y ago
  Strawman argument but I'll try to explain. If we had only 3 countries then 50% would be from Lithuania and 50% from Rest. That is equal and fair because it doesn't discriminate against anything about those two countries. Mass emigration (to anywhere) is not something we should promote as a good thing. If we take all of the top people in the country that leaves the country poorer and worse off than if we did nothing at all. The point is just because a place like India has a huge population shouldn't prevent or make it more difficult for people to immigrate from Australia, Europe, Africa, Japan, South Korea, or any less populated countries. The same goes with China. What gives China and India other than population alone the upper hand? Are they somehow more valuable than someone from Japan? Are the more valuable than people throughout Africa? If you want unbiased immigration you treat everything equal. From within those pools you can argue who is more worth the green card via a merit system that can be scrutinized against those peers within the same country. By your standard India and China would dominate the immigrant population and leave less well off countries with an even worse chance for economic prosperity.

Konnstann 7y ago

I just wanted to know what "diversity" had to do with the question, and what was meant by diversity. An overwhelming presence of one type of anything is not "diverse", but that doesn't say anything about health or fairness. I'm not commenting on my support or opposition of the bill.