no racist has ever been able to explain to me why (if the races weren't suppose to mix) did they make asian girls so hot.
Supposed to? That sounds like religion. Instead, let's look at the consequences of what you do, both as individual and for your group.
As an individual, you have a child that looks less like you. It also has biological problems caused by mixing things of two different specializations.
As a group, you have obliterated your heritage and replaced it with a hybrid. Further, this experiment has been tried before, mostly in the impoverished republics of the near-east, middle-east, Eastern Europe and South America.
By removing a sense of group identity, you make yourself subject to more laws since there's no culture in kind. Hope you like lots of rules and the wealthiest having complete control, since that's the direction you're taking.
Finally, there's an aesthetic/naturalistic argument. You have destroyed what you were. This reflects a hatred of self and of origins, and implies that maybe you consider yourself an evolutionary dead-end and find nothing beautiful in yourself.
It's not a question of supposed/not supposed. People have been race-mixing for centuries. It just hasn't ended well for any of the races involved.
There's no punchline, Conservationist really believes this stuff.
post by Disco Dancer at Oct 17,2013 5:14pm
You know what they say: you've either got a counter-argument, or not.
post by RTTP armchair psych at Oct 17,2013 5:39pm
The key word in your nonsense is HYBRID, therefore the rest of your words are useless. Despite color of the skin, we are all the same, bleed, eat, shit, and die the same.
post by Jay Hamilton Stroking His Chin at Oct 17,2013 5:51pm
The key word in your nonsense is HYBRID, therefore the rest of your words are useless. Despite color of the skin, we are all the same, bleed, eat, shit, and die the same.
"We are all the same" is a non sequitur in that it has no actual bearing on the argument but is designed to sound like a response, or "talking point."
You could say the same of mice and anchovies, that they also bleed, eat, shit and die the same way. However, it doesn't mean we should become them.
no racist has ever been able to explain to me why (if the races weren't suppose to mix) does mocha taste better than chocolate or vanilla.
post by U_Kno_Hoo at Oct 17,2013 6:50pm
Since society is pushing for one grey mongrel race, if you do not have racial pride, you are a turn the other cheek tool. Hail Joseph Paul Franklin! RAHOWA!
post by no wait what at Oct 17,2013 7:13pm
I'm not sure this deserves a serious reply, but what the hell, maybe we'll get some useful definitions out of this.
First, how big is a 'race'? What boundaries are we using here? Are Germans and Slavs in the same 'race'? What about Han and Hakka? Inuk and Fuegan? Bear in mind that people with the phenotype that we identify as 'black' -- sub-Saharan ancestry groups -- account for about as much of H.sapiens's genetic diversity as every other lineage group on the planet combined. Before we can answer the question "is it good or bad to interbreed between races", we need to know exactly how big a gene pool a 'race' represents.
As an individual, you have a child that looks less like you. It also has biological problems caused by mixing things of two different specializations.
The second sentence needs extensive qualification. Like, with multiple actual examples. A core principle in the selective breeding of everything except humans is the idea of 'hybrid vigor', the tendency of first-generation crosses from widely separated parent stocks to manifest more of the positive traits of both parents, and fewer of their negative traits, on the idea that negative attributes are the result of combinations of recessive genes, which would be unlikely to persist in both non-related parents. Why is it that humans are the only species of life that we know of where hybrid vigor doesn't hold? Alternatively, if you accept the need for periodic outmarriage to avoid inbreeding, how big is the 'race' pool that can be outbred to while avoiding negative effects? Again, examples.
As a group, you have obliterated your heritage and replaced it with a hybrid. Further, this experiment has been tried before, mostly in the impoverished republics of the near-east, middle-east, Eastern Europe and South America.
By removing a sense of group identity, you make yourself subject to more laws since there's no culture in kind. Hope you like lots of rules and the wealthiest having complete control, since that's the direction you're taking.
So in the first graf, 'race' was about genetics, and in the second, 'race' is about culture. Which is it? How much does culture play a part in defining the allowable gene pool? How much does genetic diversity/population size affect what variations in culture are allowable?
More problematic, though, is the idea that a society will be able to avoid this fate by breeding true. There's no examples offered to indicate that this is the case, and there are some ready counterexamples that most people should be aware of. Japan is a closed society, racially, but is highly regulated and legalistic and run for the benefit of the wealthy. Racism has not prevented Japan from falling exactly into this trap. China is multi-ethnic, but with an enforced monoculture that promotes a single idea of Chinese identity; Chinese society again is heavily regimented and run for the sole benefit of the wealthy. "A lot of rules" and "the wealthy control everything" are characteristics not of multi-racial societies, but of societies with a large and developed economy. Is it the case that racism restricts people to an agrarian subsistence economy? Can you illustrate mono-racial societies that became economically developed while retaining folkish democracy rather than developing a plutocratic class?
Finally, there's an aesthetic/naturalistic argument. You have destroyed what you were. This reflects a hatred of self and of origins, and implies that maybe you consider yourself an evolutionary dead-end and find nothing beautiful in yourself.
I'm not going to comment on anyone else's neuroses, but breeding to a set standard is the definition of an 'evolutionary dead end'. Populations that do not change, and do not generate new characteristics, are at an advanced risk of failing to survive if conditions change.
It's not a question of supposed/not supposed. People have been race-mixing for centuries. It just hasn't ended well for any of the races involved.
Again, [citation needed]. Please identify several societies that became mixed race, how it ended poorly for these societies, and on what kind of timescale. Similarly, please also identify several societies that have avoided race mixing, and document why this has produced uniformly better results.
You know what they say: you've either got a counter-argument, or not.
There's not really any way to "counter argue" this kind of gibberish though. If you're actually serious, you obviously don't understand what the word "race" means (and just as importantly, doesn't mean) on either a biological or social level. That, and you're making up all sorts of nonsense about "culture" and "specialization" and "biological disadvantages" and stuff.
People have been race-mixing for centuries. It just hasn't ended well for any of the races involved.
Ah yes, that fateful day a few hundred years ago when humans began to have sex with people who didn't look exactly like them. What a strange and recent development that has been!
A core principle in the selective breeding of everything except humans is the idea of 'hybrid vigor', the tendency of first-generation
First-generation crosses, not retained.
Alternatively, if you accept the need for periodic outmarriage to avoid inbreeding, how big is the 'race' pool that can be outbred to while avoiding negative effects?
Some good information on inbreeding minimums here:
So in the first graf, 'race' was about genetics, and in the second, 'race' is about culture. Which is it?
Cultural traits and values are heritable.
Racism has not prevented Japan from falling exactly into this trap.
I haven't seen Japan having any such problems. If anything, the problem Japan faces is typical of first-world nations: declining reproduction rate.
I'm not going to comment on anyone else's neuroses, but breeding to a set standard is the definition of an 'evolutionary dead end'. Populations that do not change, and do not generate new characteristics, are at an advanced risk of failing to survive if conditions change.
Standard =/= zero change from status quo
Please identify several societies that became mixed race, how it ended poorly for these societies, and on what kind of timescale.
If our society becomes so global that humans interbreed to the point where individual heritages based on region all become gradually obsolete and human beings as a whole start to look like one blended race of man, does that eventually invalidate the idea that we are so different and make us all more the same if we all became hybrids and used our differences to make us stronger?
If our society becomes so global that humans interbreed to the point where individual heritages based on region all become gradually obsolete and human beings as a whole start to look like one blended race of man, does that eventually invalidate the idea that we are so different and make us all more the same if we all became hybrids and used our differences to make us stronger?
That's an ex post facto fallacy. If I claim everyone on earth is dead (analogous to your "we're not all different") and then I shoot them and make it so, that doesn't change the original condition.
No they aren't. I mean, in the regular non-magical world we live in.
Brazil, Mexico, India, Russia.
Plus pretty much every modern country besides maybe Japan and Iceland? Definitely including the U.S. though. Again, "race" in terms of human beings doesn't mean and has not historically meant what you seem to think it does.
post by ark at Oct 18,2013 9:05am
Alternatively, since part of the ANS deals with stressors, chronic social stressors could themselves cause a number of health problems. In this regard, the data in Tables 2 and 3 do not vary as a function of whether the adolescent is living with one or two parents or as a function of family education, which can act as a proxy for socioeconomic status. Being teased/ostracized for being mixed race also requires consideration, but it cannot be argued that during the time period of the childhood years of the Americans examined, a substantial number of the mixed-race children would have experienced ostracism/discrimination due to being mixed race, especially since a number of them would have grown up in large metropolitan areas, which are known to be more diverse and tolerant. Moreover, the general preference in the African-American community is to prefer African-Americans with lighter skin, [27, 28] and lighter-skinned African-Americans also tend to have higher IQs than their darker counterparts (Table 4, [29]), which should reduce academic stress. In other words, black/white-mixed individuals, who would typically be assigned and raised as African-Americans, are not necessarily really worse off compared to their darker counterparts with respect to being ostracized/marginalized. Additionally, given white preference for Caucasian features and to the extent that Asian-Americans are envious of some of the facial features of whites, Asian/white-mixed individuals are less apt to be teased for their facial features than the less mixed Asians-Americans. And once again, there is no proof that struggle with identity formation explains Udry’s data. Also, the typical mixed-race adolescent with a white parent should have no doubts as to whether he is white; he wouldn’t look anything like a white person. Further, the data in Tables 2 and 3 do not vary as a function of age, which is relevant because the mixed-race individuals should have resolved their racial identity by their late teens.
this is so detached from real-world interactions and human behavior and i feel dumber for reading a site called "majority rights" for 12 minutes when my majority genes have work to do.
post by Snowden NLI at Oct 18,2013 9:11am
So many garbled big words and made-up science. I love how they "know" that large metropolitan areas are racially tolerant. I mean, when I think of LA or the Bronx I immediately think of racial tolerance, you know.
Racist fake account guy: did you know that people have done actual real research on the subjects you seem so interested in? You should check some of it out.
post by ark at Oct 18,2013 9:17am
race-mixing isn't bad but just completely, heartlessly indifferent.
post by Czarnobog at Oct 18,2013 11:06am edited Oct 18,2013 11:07am
meh, fuck who you wanna fuck. if it helps bring civilization crashing and burning toward a path of total extinction, all the better.
post by dunston checks in at Oct 18,2013 11:37am
All these big paragraphs when you could've just said "waah, people who don't look like me make me uncomfortable". Lol @ the racists in this thread.
Own up to your discomfort, pussies. Stop trying to squirm around and find all these bullshit explanations that you can point to in order to justify the fact that you're a fraidy cat. You sound like kirk cameron trying to explain why evolution is bogus.
post by ark at Oct 18,2013 2:59pm
no dunston, informed racialist has a sort of altrustic racism, where through subjugation of most of our species we can achieve a better society for all.
post by Czarnobog at Oct 18,2013 3:04pm edited Oct 18,2013 4:18pm
white racialists always sound like little boy scouts, with the concerns and civic duties and honors towards fellow white citizens that they feel obligated to uphold and jam down everyones throat. just go help some old white ladies across the street, earn your swazi merit badge, and fuck off already. no one wants to hear about it.
Plus pretty much every modern country besides maybe Japan and Iceland? Definitely including the U.S. though.
Until the 1970s, there was close to zero mixing in the US and Europe, with a possible exception for very lower strata people in the US. Even today, it's not a major factor and as you can see, racial groups tend to segregate themselves:
white racialists always sound like little boy scouts, with the concerns and civic duties and honors towards fellow white citizens that they feel obligated to uphold
You make a very good point in the first part, but then you commit an individualist fallacy and assume we're doing it for altruistic reasons. We want a civilization that doesn't just survive, but thrive, and we think this current civilization sucks. Why are you defending it? Corporate shill?
white racialists always sound like little boy scouts, with the concerns and civic duties and honors towards fellow white citizens that they feel obligated to uphold
You make a very good point in the first part, but then you commit an individualist fallacy and assume we're doing it for altruistic reasons. We want a civilization that doesn't just survive, but thrive, and we think this current civilization sucks. Why are you defending it? Corporate shill?
i'll take your individualist fallacy and raise you a strawman.
white people can barely dance, no faith in their ability to make a civilization thrive if left to their own devices.
post by LOL WHITE PEOPLE at Oct 19,2013 1:27pm
HOW MANY PYRAMIDS DID SHAKESPHERE EVER BUILD???
post by dunston checks in at Oct 19,2013 1:34pm
Waah, this person doesn't look like they're from my tribe, I don't know how to handle it, I need to roll up the windows and lock the door and post some lofty civlization goal bullshit instead of the scary task of having to deal with each person on a case-by-case basis.
Plus pretty much every modern country besides maybe Japan and Iceland? Definitely including the U.S. though.
Until the 1970s, there was close to zero mixing in the US and Europe, with a possible exception for very lower strata people in the US. Even today, it's not a major factor and as you can see, racial groups tend to segregate themselves:
Okay, you just don't understand any of what you're talking about.
1. the things you think of as "races" are generally the product of people from different areas wandering around and having kids with each other. This certainly does include the US and Europe, going back thousands of years. The decision to draw lines that separate them into "races" is a fairly arbitrary one that changes a lot depending on who's doing the drawing (and at what point in history).
2. the map you linked is based on census reporting, which is a very limited set of categories that have nothing to do with biology and often little to do with culture or ethnicity (for instance, it doesn't account for the fact that some people see Latino/not Latino as a separate category that overlaps with Black/White, whereas others see them as three mutally exclusive options i.e. Black/White/Latino).
3. if you are, in fact talking about the kind of demographic mixing that the map you linked shows there isn't a lot of, here's the thing: once you control for income and other factors, racially and ethnically mixed neighborhoods tend to be better (in terms of health, education, safety, etc.) than segregated ones.
post by punk potenza at Oct 19,2013 8:19pm
there is no such thing as a pure race. there has been "race mixing" since the dawn of time. there is no devine heritage. get over your "culture" nobody cares.
post by Jay Hamilton Stroking His Chin at Oct 19,2013 9:25pm
I don't know much but I do know to keep these bobos away from my honker. Lest you end up with a mud blooded deadbeat Volpi.
post by King Thùnderstøòl at Oct 20,2013 2:54am
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THUNDERSTEEL IS A FUCKING GOOK!!!!!!!!!!
post by Alx_Casket at Oct 20,2013 5:43pm edited Oct 20,2013 10:04pm
post by Big bag of assorted nigger parts at Oct 20,2013 9:20pm
[URL='MA man forces woman to have sex with dog']http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/mass-man-accused-forcing-woman-sex-dog-article-1.1394771
