Where do you get this idea that mongrels are healthier than purebreeds? That Black men want to date and mate with White women tells me they know a better deal when they see it.
Count Sudoku You are the one who said that blacked and whited are racially different. I said they werent, but if they are, the only place I have ever seen a difference is in sports. That's not because globally the races are different, but because the blacks in America built the country and did all the labor, so it should be obvious. If what you say is true and whites are/were physically stronger, why didn't they build everything? Why have slavery to do it? I'm relying on the same racist history you chose to make your racist arguement. I don't think there is any difference in intelligence. You act like most white people are geniuses, while most white people are ignorant just like most blacked people are ignorant. I'm not even trying to seem snobby, it's the truth, and it has nothing to do with the appearance. If you are worried that mating with blacked will lower your intelligence, mate with a college educated blacked. Look, mating with Britney Spears might lower a blacked persons intelligence if they have a degree from college and mate with her, so I don't see your point. If two people are of equal education level, what difference is their in intelligence? Have you never walked into a college before and seen diversity? Have you never met a blacked lawyer or doctor? Jonnie Cochran from the OJ trial was the best lawyer in the world at the time. There have been blacked doctors for centuries. I don't see your point here. Also if blacked people have a low intelligence, how on earth did they build Egypt up way back then? Or are you trying to make the case that the Egyptians were "white"? The IQ test is a western test, in english, designed mostly by/for europeans, and you expect it to test IQ in a balanced way? If you took an ebonics quiz would you be able to pass it? I doubt it. The IQ test is influenced by culture moreso than intelligence. The final point is, we are at a point in our technology where we can select our race. The talk about having one race, we actually have stem cell research, we have designer babies, we have all the technology to have everyone be the same race. So the only reason races exist is because of racism. If there were one race, there would be splits between these races. So look, maybe you are right, maybe we humans should choose an appearance, but we definately need the genetic diversity regardless of what the official race is. I'm a transhumanist, I don't believe in race, I believe in genes, and I think we will select our race if we ever develop the self consciousness to do it. Parents will have the option as to how their kids look, and if what you say is true and blonde women are in, then most parents will design their babies to be blonde and thin. As far as blacked men mating with blondes, blacked men will mate with any good woman just like whited men would, at least the men with some sense. I'll tell you now, I'll mate with whatever woman is the best and I don't care what color her hair, eyes, skin or whatever is, it's not important to me. There is a shortage of good women of any race. Where do you get this idea that mongrels are healthier than purebreeds? Mr. Ignorant, there are no purebreeds. Humans are millions of years old. Do you seriously think, that we came from space or some shit? Do you seriously think that during all this history, when whited and blacked lived in the middle east side by side with civilizations, that there was no mixing? Who do you think the Arabs and Indians are? Of course there was mixing. Chances are it goes further back than Rome and Egypt, all the way back to Africa where we were originally one race. These "breeds" as you call them are no different than the tall blondes and short dark haired white breeds. When tall people start calling themselves a different breed, and it will likely happen once people are the same race, if you arent over 6ft0, what are you going to do then? There is no such thing as a pure breed. The closest thing to a pure breed is an interbreed or royal breed, and even among royalty it is difficult to confirm purity. I don't think we have the DNA test in front of our face, but seriously, where do you think brown eyes and dark hair came from among whites? Do you have any idea where your genetic discrimination leads?
Funny, on my census it asked what race I was and whether I was mixed or not. If race doesn't exist, why is the government so interested in knowing what my race is and why have affrimative action and all that crap?
Then why do Asians do slightly better on IQ tests than Whites hmmmm? As the above link indicates, Blacks do worse on culture free questions. The Asians in America are the best of the best among Asians. The richest most elite smartest and brightest. A better way to compare is to look at the level of success Asians have in their career, along with what Asian-Americans have invented. Like I said, the IQ test does not reveal intelligence, and neither does good grades. Good grades reveal submissiveness. IQ test reveals that the person is Americanized, Westernized. All the tests you talk about were invented by Europeans. How would you do on China's IQ test invented by an Asian to test westerners eastern intelligence? How would you do on an ebonics test which asked you to recite all the rap phrases or understand street speak? There is street knowledge which you obviously know absolutely nothing about, but it does require intelligence to be a successful drug dealer, con artist, or any other sorta organized criminal. If we choose the mafia to give the IQ test and let them test your street IQ, how would you rate? Do you see my point? IQ tests don't ask world cultural questions, they are usually very biased. Yet still, there are people of all races who do well on the IQ tests and go to college, it's not like there are more Asians in college than whites and blacks. Asian's are not proven smarter. All that is proven is that Asians will work for cheaper, and thats just because there are billions of Asians. If you take the best 5 million out of 1.5 billion, can you be surprised if that 5 million all go to Harvard, Yale and MIT? The best among blacks are in America too and they go to college too, but you also have some people who were just pulled here off the slave ship and werent the best. It's not like we go out of our way to invite the best Africans here. We don't even go out of our way to invite the best Asians here. In any case, the races are different otherwise the NBA wouldn't be mostly Black would it? I know the idea that the races are equal is the propaganda that the media puts out but it is pure BS. The NBA is mostly black because someone like you wouldnt allow the same black guy to be CEO. I mean, the NBA pays millions, who doesnt want to be in the NBA. It's not genetics, except in rare cases like Michael Jordan and Shaq, and these are genetic freaks by human standards. There are white tall basketball giants too. The tallest man who ever lived was white. Obviously some Black people are smart, we are talking about group averages. You'll find this essay very helpful in eliminating the optical illusion of Black/White IQ differences. What is a group average? This is silly, sorta like calculating the average IQ of Christians vs Muslims vs Buddhists. If there are smart people and dumb people of every race, the smart people are in one group and the dumb are in another, and it has nothing to do with "race". When you racialize things you ignore the fact that some of the smartest people you have might not look like you do. You could have geniuses of all sorts who happen to be black. You could have asian geniuses also. Why waste genetic genius simply because you want to put people in neat racial boxes? If you believe in IQ, why arent the smart a seperate race from the dumb? http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2004/12/genetic-discrimination.html Once the genetic code of all humans is completely mapped and we know what everything does. Do you have any idea how much freedom you will lose once corporations rely on genetic marketing? Do you have any idea how genetic discrimination will look? I know you might think you have the perfect genes, you can think whatever the hell you want, but once genetic discrimination kicks in, there will be people who scan your genes to decide if they will hire you or not. If you have the wrong genes you won't be able to get a job, you won't be able to go to school if your genes say you have a low IQ, you won't be able to walk outside without being genetically manipulated by marketing. The stuff you buy will be genetically addictive in the same way tabacco and gambling is. Addiction will become something all corporations exploit, and it will be based on your genes. You might even be carrying around an ID card with your genetic code in it, and this will show all corporations not only what your capabilities are genetically, it will show you people what your vunlerabilities are, your weaknesses are, and even predict your behavior. Your genes are your script, and they are about to become public knowledge so that anyone can read your script. Your race will not protect you from genetic discrmination.
We are not talking about genetic screeening, we are talking about racial differences. I'll look at the website you posted...and respond after I do. Okay, the website was not some left wing propaganda nonsense like I thought it would be. That some people are prone to certain addictions because of their genes and that these genes can be identified is not something I would say is impossible.
I would not be surprised if racism had a genetic element to it also. It's not like everyone is filled with irrational hatred. Count, do you hate everyone? You hate the world don't you? Do you hate yourself? Why do you try to bring politics into this? Is self hatred a requirement for being a conservative now? Is hatred the test that all conservatives must pass in order to be considered a true conservative? Count, some people have what we call a conscience. Conscience is not a racial trait. Love is not a racial trait. And, obviously, neither is hate.
Actually, some people speculate that Whites have a "conscience" or altruistic gene that the other races lack. When people were protesting against the evil being done in Darfur Africa, I noticed that there were no Black people in the audience which shows even Black people don't care about Africans. As for the other races, they are more "racist" than Whites and look at us with bewilderment and contempt (as they rightly should).
Of course they don't. How many rappers who have "made it" are pouring their fortunes back into the "ghettos" they supposedly came from? When it comes to benevolence towards other peoples it's usually the people who claim to be "historically opressed" that display the least of it.
Goes for athletes as well. Why is that even rich Blacks like athletes and music stars still commit so much crime? Poverty?
Time Traveler, you have no understanding of genetics. That is obvious from the nonsense you have gone on and on about at length here. Please get at least a basic understanding of the topic being discusssed before you enter into a discusiion. Thank you.
Wow, ok Chuck, tell me exactly the precise number of genes that make up skin color, and then tell me the exact number of genes that make up personality. Begin. I'm not saying conscience is racial, I'm saying it's not racial. I'm saying there are people with it, and people without it, and people still want to view it from a racial viewpoint. It's impossible, you people are racialized, and no science, fact, or knowledge will ever change that. So why even start a thread if you are close minded with an agenda? Why even post? If you want to discuss genetics, discuss it, but at least keep an open mind, or do you actually think that each race is a seperate species? And what is with the specific fetish towards black and whiteism? No one has black or white skin, and what exactly are Asians? Are you saying Asians are the best? Crime? Every race has criminals. Selfish? Every race has selfish. I notice however you only talk about the black race, and it seems like this is a specific hatred. Is this the new racism? If you love YOUR race, why did you tell me Asians were of a higher IQ, and why did you tell me that your race commits crimes, but blacks commit the most, yet Asians are innocent and seem to commit none? Count Sudoku, let me guess, you are Asian right? Anyway, you can have this thread, your mind is closed.
Hi Time Traveler: Why do we need to know the precise number of loci involved? Could you please explain why it is necessary at this point to know the exact number? The stuff about medicines etc. specific to a particular race is old news. How is it that it seems to be new to you? And, where did you get the idea that I think that the races are separate species? Please provide a link to one of my previous posts where I stated that. As far as discussing genetics, fine with me. But, it's clear that you don't have even a basic understanding of the genetics of race when you make that silly statement about there is more variation among races than between races etc. . That's the kind of statement that liberal arts majors make. I was actually embarassed for you. Have you ever actually taken a genetics course? I suppose the other statements in your post were directed to somebody else. Unfortunately, the major races do co-vary as far as to the amount of crime committed by each. That's no secret. Here, scroll down here and see the black:white incarceration rate by state. http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/prison.htm The gist of this article is that the ratio is higher in more liberal states. That is, in liberal states more blacks are incarcerated per each white inmate. Please open your mind and just examine the evidence objectively. Approach the topic as a scientist, not as a liberal ideologue.
It seems obvious to me that different groups of humans, who have been separated due to distance (or intolerance), would have different distributions of alleles in their gene pool. I don't get how this can be construed as racist. It is just logical if you look at how genetic drift operates. Isn't this why blacks are more susceptible to sickle-cell anemia? Because they have a recessive gene that alters the shape of red blood cells which makes them tolerant to malaria, but if they get two of these beneficial genes, they get full sickling of the red-blood cells? I thougth that was pretty common knowledge. Obviously various interbreeding groups (I don't care what label you use, "races" or "cultures" or what.... but interbreeding groups is at least descriptive) will have different gene distributions. If for nothing more than the shade of their skin, the preponderance of eye colors, the average height, etc... I don't think that hiding from this makes you a politically correct non-racist. We should be able to keep separate the understanding of genetic distribution and our moral behavior. Just because chimps, dogs, and cats are not as intelligent as we are doesn't mean we should go around kicking them in the ribs. The presence of difference should not give anyone license to act improperly. I think too many people stick their heads in the sand over this issue because they are scared that an admission of differences means we are granting people license to be evil. I don't see how one follows the other. Evil people will make up reasons to justify their behavior no matter what the facts are. Ignorance is no way to force morality on the general public. And I sure hope nobody thinks I'm racist. I have a gay friend, a black friend, a midget friend, and a friend that is a rabbi. And the other day, we all walked into a bar....
You arent racist as long as you recognize that race is not defined simply by one gene, like skin color. There are different races of white, and different races of black. There are different races of asian. Racists however just say that all people with white skin are from the same race/tribe, all people with black skin are from the same race/tribe, and all people with yellow skin are from the same race/tribe. That's complete BS, especially in a place like America where everyone is mixed and inter-racial. We still have appearances in America, but most whites here are of mixed race. Most blacks here are of mixed race. Then you have hispanics which are of mixed race. In general, race has to be redefined. I'm not saying it doesnt exist, I'm saying it's not defined by appearance. People with sickle cell, that's a specific tribe of blacks, it's not like all blacks have that gene. It's the same with cystic fibrosis, it's not like all whites have this gene, and you have diseases like diabetes which all races get. So you are right, sickle cell is definately an African disease trait, and I'm sure the same applies to whites, but it's not based on skin color alone, it's based on genetic screening. A racist judges race by appearance. A non-racist judges race by genetic screening. The difference is precision. If you have the sickle cell gene thats one thing, if you have the cystic fibrosis gene thats one thing. Most people however arent royalty and don't have these genes or they were breeded out through inter-mixing. In the royal family there are a lot of diseases of this sort that only exist among royalty. If race exists, royalty are seperate races from the majority of Americans. If race exists, the only way to know what race you are is through a genetic screening which tells you the people you match up with genetically. Here is my question, are people who share a genetic disease of the same race? Diabetics all of the same race? Sickle cell all of the same race? Cystic fibrosis all of the same race? Is race actually just a way to classify the types of diseases groups have? White skin could be considered a disease just as black skin can, and midgets and giants are also and can also be considered diseased. Then you have all the personality genes, the greed gene, and everything related to personality which makes up a lot of genes. How do we define what "race" is using science? Is race the amount of matching genes between the masses? I need to see numbers, not religion. Race must be defined by science and math.
I think the current idea is that a race is a self-contained gene pool. Perhaps you have a group of people that refuse to procreate outside of their religion, that would create a race. There would be no flow of genetic information. This is why most races are divided by geography, and why it is getting more difficult to define races. In the last 50 years you have a freedom of movement that is breaking down the genetic barrier of distance. You still have cultural barriers, though. A large group of whites will never interbreed with anything other than another white. Jewish tradition is to marry within the church. For that matter, almost all religions frown on mixing churches within a marriage (some just more stringently than others). And of course, social and economic standing erects barriers to genetic flow. I still don't see anything wrong with recognizing that blacks, Asians, Arabs, and Swedes are different races, as long as you recognize that those are just current designations, not permanent ones. If everyone were to relocate and interbreed, the future will be quite different. But right now we are torn between the reality of the moment, and the fanciful desire that the PC crowd has to erect a false (and utopian) illusion in their heads, and try to force that illusion onto history, and what actually surrounds them.
Swivel in that case I agree with your definition of genetic groups. There are genetic groups, I just dislike the unscientific :"visual" grouping of people. This is assuming you can just glance at a person and be like "ok, he's blonde, he has blue eyes, must be a German". That's race? No, that is appearance. Then there is the "oh he has Asian eyes, but he has an Afro, what is he? Must be a Black." See the difference? Neither of these examples are examples of precise genetic grouping. In one example you have someone judging that someone is from a certain country or tribe based on how they look, as if Germans all have one look. Then you have people who appear mixed but have dark skin, therefore they are Black, even though Black is not a race and that most Blacks are mixed(At least in America). So Black is not a race, and German is at best a tribe and not a race. The only way to know who is of what race is to genetically screen people, because there are hispanics who have blonde hair and blue eyes simply because of the history of South America. You have Americans who are mixed with Native Americans simply because of the history of this country, and the majority of us are not of one tribe. It's going to be impossible to ask people to choose a race, and if they cannot choose a race what is really being asked of them is "Choose the label we give you to choose from". And then Black and White are listed. It's ridiculous but Black and White are listed under hispanic when hispanics are the most mixed of all the groups in this country, with genes from everywhere from Native Americans, to Africans, to Europeans, and maybe even Asians if you count Eskimos. So it's going to be impossible for people to choose one history, all they can do is look in the mirror, and then see how people respond to their appearance and that decides. If this is the case, a tall person is not the same race as a short person because tall people are treated better, are treated like they are naturally leaders because they are tall, and are paid more. Tell me, why is it that people of every race accept the tall leader as best? It's all based on appearance is it not? You still have cultural barriers, though. A large group of whites will never interbreed with anything other than another white. Jewish tradition is to marry within the church. For that matter, almost all religions frown on mixing churches within a marriage (some just more stringently than others). And of course, social and economic standing erects barriers to genetic flow. The economic barriers benefit those who have the greed gene. The greed gene is not a skin gene but that gene is promoted. Do you see? We are promoting specific genes here. We have plenty of whites who arent greedy, in fact the majority arent. We have plenty of minorities who are greedy, but arent allowed to become billionaires due to racist fears, but the point is, the racial fears are only based on appearance. It's as if people have no knowledge of genetic at all. If a poor white in a trailer, is mad at a poor black in a ghetto, the rich black Oprah or P.Diddy is living in the mansion next to CEOs running billion dollar companies, most whom are white males. Whatever it is, it's not simply appearance based because you have greedy and rich in every race, you have successful and failure in every race, and really as I see it in the future there will only be two races, the haves and the have nots. If the have nots want to divide themselves, they'll simply have less than nothing. If you don't want to have nothing, go to college, take a class in genetics, and learn to profit off of the racism and self hate. That is what people are doing. But right now we are torn between the reality of the moment, and the fanciful desire that the PC crowd has to erect a false (and utopian) illusion in their heads, and try to force that illusion onto history, and what actually surrounds them. The only way to know the history of race, is to learn the genetic history of mans evolution, and we are a long way away from that. Right now race is based in religion not science, and just because people want to worship certain genes, it does not mean we are worshipping the best genes, the most important genes or even being rational about it. Do we need dark skin? Maybe not right now, but with no ozone and with pollution, we might in the future, and the option will be either to inter-breed or take pills to change the genetic code. Smart people will have the ability to profit either way, if humans want to be religious, there will be ways to profit from that and if humans want to follow the science there will be ways to profit from that. Who will win? The smart greedy people.
Sorry, TT, but I think you are really wrong here. I've done a lot of travelling, and can usually tell someone's country of origin just by looking at them. I can tell the difference between a Haitian and a Dominican from 100 feet, and so can every Haitian and Dominican that I know (they are both largely racist groups, and have a ton of hatred towards each other) Ukranians have a very specific look, especially the women. Koreans and Chinese are distinct to me as well. I don't understand people arguing against this. I'm not making any judgements regarding the worth of these groups of people, but they have been closed-off from other groups long enough to become distintive in their appearances. Why are people so sensitive about this? Can't we celebrate our differences and quit pretending that in order to have equal protection and opportunity we need to be equal in every way possible? Because those two concepts are not linked. One is genetic, and the other is ethics.
But you assume that just because certain looks are popular, that all of them look like that. Trust me, there are some who arent as pure and who you won't know where they come from. The fact is, you group people on appearance, and when you do this, the only thing you know about the person is appearance. Appearance genes change often, in fact if you take an asian and a black you get tiger woods, and if you take a black and a white, you get mariah carrey. Just by looking at a person it's difficult to know exactly what mix they are. Dominican, what are they genetically composed of? Who were their ancestors? Haiti, what is it's history? In at any point, whites or any other group got involved with these groups, they arent pure. How did haitians get to haiti in the first place? How many slave masters commited rapes on hatian women? All questions you cannot answer, so just because someone has a certain appearance it does not tell you what they are. If tiger woods married a woman from haiti, and the child looked haitian, would you ever know what the child is genetically? The world is not an ethical place. The world hates difference. The world hates itself. Appearances are differences, and while you celebrate them, racists don't, hell your boss doesnt. Do you wear a suit and tie to work? We are all different yet all the same. Internally, humans are the same, same traits, you have racists on both sides and they are united in their hatred, they are the same group. Then you have the non-racists. You can celebrate differences, I like all the different women, I like all the different cultures, but it's a pointless distraction. The real differences between people are not based on appearance or culture, the real differences between people are based more on personality. Look in every culture, and the same personality types and types of characters appear. You do know, that jerks, criminals, and assholes come in all appearances don't you? Have you had much success guessing who the jerks are by looking at their appearance? Usually the bigger the smile the sharper the knife. That means, the more they look like you, the easier of a target you are, thus most jerks look like the target of their manipulation.
This is a question for another thread, which you can start if you'd like, but Do you trust people more if they look like you? In your life experience, who has hurt you more, people who look like you or people who look different from you? Personally, I've had bad experiences from people of every appearance, thats why I don't care what they look like, but in specific if they look more like me I'm even more cautious. Just because someone looks like I do, does not mean I'm going to trust them. In fact I'd trust them less.
