Where is great big Tidal wave when you need one?

[Alaska Darin]

If you don't like my use of quotation marks, fine. But that's still how you came across.

345806[/snapback]

Only because the recessive genes won out during the building of YOUR cerebral cortex.

[Alaska Darin]

Are you losing your touch, or just having an off day?

345801[/snapback]

No one hits a homerun on every swing. Criticism from someone who's looking up at the Mendoza line with Mark Belanger power doesn't have much merit...

[OGTEleven]

You claim to have read an entire book? Cover to cover? Interesting . . . But the mainstream consensus is that the Holocaust didn't truly get underway until the Nazis realized they were going to lose the war. I've also read that the American bomber pilots were ordered not to bomb the rail lines leading to the concentration camps. So your attempts to make FDR look like a saint for caring oh-so-much about the innocent Jews fall a little flat, don't they?

 

Your dishonest attempts to broaden the definition of "Nazi" are feeble. First, it was anyone who opposed interracial marriage. Now, opposition to communist genocide--opposition to genocide, for crying out loud--is advanced as further evidence that I'm a "Nazi supporter." Your posts--hardly a fountain of brilliance and enlightenment to begin with--are growing increasingly insane.

Let me get this straight: you're more willing to call me a Nazi because I asked for respect for all races than you would have been had I preached racial arrogance? You don't expect anyone to take you seriously, do you?

You seem much more eager to express your own messed-up views than to listen to the views of others. Did you actually ask these others why they opposed interracial marriage? Of course not; or if you did, they probably feared (correctly) that you'd rip their heads off with irrational hate if they said something you didn't happen to agree with. Please believe me when I say your conversational style--or lack thereof--is ill suited to getting others to open up.

345692[/snapback]

 

 

I think it is clear that you are against interracial marriage. With that said, I would like to know how you define "race". Is it simply by skin color? If not, what other traits come in to play when defining race. If so, why do you stop at skin?

 

No two people on the planet (ignoring twins) have exactly the same traits so evidently not all genes help define race. That is unless you think only twins should be allowed to be married and only to each other.

 

Let's take my marriage as an example:

 

Skin color: same

Eye color: different

Hair color: different

Height: similar based on norms for the sexes

Nationality: Same continent, different country

Religion: Same ( but not genetic)

 

Is ours an interacial marriage? Are there other traits that need to be examined before discerning?

 

If the mating of two individuals produces offspring are they not of the same race by definition? If not, please define your terms.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Add to that there is no gene for height. It's a combination of several different traits. But I must be wrong, b/c no one is as smart as Pac Man.

345766[/snapback]

Did he mention he's a Mensa scholar? Hot damn, color me impressed. Watching the mental disintegration going on in this thread is quite amusing.

[Ghost of BiB]

Did he mention he's a Mensa scholar?  Hot damn, color me impressed.  Watching the mental disintegration going on in this thread is quite amusing.

345831[/snapback]

 

I think they've gone from basketballs and frying pans to tupperwear lids and sponge bob toys. But, it's still the same bizzare ping pong game.

[Pac_Man]

Only because the recessive genes won out during the building of YOUR cerebral cortex.

345813[/snapback]

Are you saying that the genes for high intelligence and a great personality are recessive?

[Pac_Man]

I think it is clear that you are against interracial marriage.  With that said, I would like to know how you define "race".  Is it simply by skin color?  If not, what other traits come in to play when defining race.  If so, why do you stop at skin? 

 

No two people on the planet (ignoring twins) have exactly the same traits so evidently not all genes help define race.  That is unless you think only twins should be allowed to be married and only to each other.

 

Let's take my marriage as an example:

 

Skin color: same

Eye color: different

Hair color: different

Height: similar based on norms for the sexes

Nationality: Same continent, different country

Religion: Same ( but not genetic)

 

Is ours an interacial marriage?  Are there other traits that need to be examined before discerning?

 

If the mating of two individuals produces offspring are they not of the same race by definition?  If not, please define your terms.

345826[/snapback]

A fair question. Most people I know acknowledge several races: Native American, black, white, East Asian, Indian/Arabic, and Latino. Though technically speaking, Latino isn't really a homogenous race; as different Latinos have different ancestries. Some may be mostly Native American, others mostly black, and still others mostly Spanish in their heritage.

 

As for whether your marriage is interracial, I don't have enough information to say. If one of you is a white Russian, and the other a Japanese, then I'd consider it interracial. On the other hand, if one of you has ancestors who hail from Ireland, and the other's ancestors are from France, then it's not.

 

BTW, if you get rid of the concept of or definition for race, you also have to get rid of affirmative action. I'm not attributing any view of affirmative action to you, just pointing something out.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

So how do you propose to stop people from intermarrying? And this is the third and last time I'll ask, why?

345686[/snapback]

 

Easiest way is probably to put all the "subspecies" of people in their separate camps, to start with.

 

Then, when the camps get too crowded, we can start gassing the undesirable subspecies. Right, Kurt?

[Ghost of BiB]

Easiest way is probably to put all the "subspecies" of people in their separate camps, to start with.

 

Then, when the camps get too crowded, we can start gassing the undesirable subspecies.  Right, Kurt?

345897[/snapback]

 

Is this like some perverted energizer bunny thing?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Fine.  Charlie Manson's moving in with you.

 

Kurt's now decided we should stop nature.  We're gonna be supersuccessful with that. 

345779[/snapback]

 

Well, he knows better than nature. He is, after all, in MENSA, whereas Mother Nature is not.

[Pac_Man]

Easiest way is probably to put all the "subspecies" of people in their separate camps, to start with.

 

Then, when the camps get too crowded, we can start gassing the undesirable subspecies.  Right, Kurt?

345897[/snapback]

At least you're not acting like a hysterical idiot whose warped emotions have entirely overcome whatever sense of reason he might once have had.

[Pac_Man]

Well, he knows better than nature.  He is, after all, in MENSA, whereas Mother Nature is not. 

345900[/snapback]

Uh . . . are you suggesting we go back to the way things were in the Stone Age? That would mean no more welfare checks or social safety net. If you're too unqualified to get a job, you starve. If you lose a war with a neighboring tribe, you get castrated or murdered, and your wives get murdered or taken by the men of the conquering tribe. That's nature. Nature is many things, but nice is not one of those things.

 

I don't think that any of us, including even you, is demented enough to want to go back to that kind of system. Instead, we put in place laws, cultural mores, and other practices to create a kinder world than the one nature would have given us; while hopefully not removing the kinds of pressures towards a better gene pool nature had been providing.

[Pac_Man]

Is this like some perverted energizer bunny thing?

345899[/snapback]

Imagine a clean cage. Suddenly there's a piece of feces. Then another piece. And another.

 

The feces-throwing monkey just keeps going, and going, and going . . .

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Uh . . . are you suggesting we go back to the way things were in the Stone Age? That would mean no more welfare checks or social safety net. If you're too unqualified to get a job, you starve. If you lose a war with a neighboring tribe, you get castrated or murdered, and your wives get murdered or taken by the men of the conquering tribe. That's nature. Nature is many things, but nice is not one of those things.

 

I don't think that any of us, including even you, is demented enough to want to go back to that kind of system. Instead, we put in place laws, cultural mores, and other practices to create a kinder world than the one nature would have given us; while hopefully not removing the kinds of pressures towards a better gene pool nature had been providing.

345905[/snapback]

 

I see...so the natural way, way back in the Stone Age was to intermix the different human subspecies, but now that we've "progressed", we can keep the subspecies segregated for the betterment of the genomic environment...

 

Would that be a "separate but equal" segregation, Kurt, or would it involve more of a class structure where the elite subspecies lord over the lesser ones? Because once you go with an economically inequal segregation, you end up with members of the lesser subspecies killing each other for their sneakers...

[GG]

  Because once you go with an economically inequal segregation, you end up with members of the lesser subspecies killing each other for their sneakers... 

345912[/snapback]

 

And they won't be as good looking as Nicole Kidman.

[Ghost of BiB]

And they won't be as good looking as Nicole Kidman.

345931[/snapback]

 

Man, the older she gets, the better she looks. Let's hear it for us over 40 people.

[Pac_Man]

I see...so the natural way, way back in the Stone Age was to intermix the different human subspecies, but now that we've "progressed", we can keep the subspecies segregated for the betterment of the genomic environment...

 

Would that be a "separate but equal" segregation, Kurt, or would it involve more of a class structure where the elite subspecies lord over the lesser ones?  Because once you go with an economically inequal segregation, you end up with members of the lesser subspecies killing each other for their sneakers... 

345912[/snapback]

You did so much lying in the above post it's amazing you don't have bedsores. It's clearly useless to try to have a rational discussion with someone apparently intent on proving himself not merely brainwashed, ignorant, hate-filled, and hysterical, but also dishonest. Those are his good qualities.

 

For the sake of everyone other than CTM, Charles Darwin observed that geographical separation appeared to cause species to drift apart. His observations, conducted on the Galapagos islands, showed that when species become physically separated, their genetic paths can fork. Darwin concluded this forking process was so powerful it could gradually turn one species into a completely different species. This is the basis for Darwin's theory.

 

Until very recently, the races were more or less geographically separated from each other. A typical peasant would never leave the 30 mile radius surrounding the place where he or she had been born. The geographic separation came well before there were peasants. Over time, this separation led to physically recognizable differences between the races. The extent of these differences is open to legitimate debate. The best way to achieve intellectual honesty is to have someone like CTM label anyone who disagrees with his own personal views a Nazi.

 

[sarcasm] In general, the spirit of scientific debate is aided by fanatics preaching hate against anyone who disagrees with their orthodoxy. That's why the Catholic Church had to put Galileo to death for advancing a heliocentric view of the solar system, and that's why we need people to jump up and scream "Nazi" whenever someone hints there might be differences between the races. Contrary to popular belief, intolerance for heresy is perfectly compatible with the scientific method; and always results in being told the truth as opposed to what you want to hear. [/sarcasm]

[UConn James]

A fair question. Most people I know acknowledge several races: Native American, black, white, East Asian, Indian/Arabic, and Latino. Though technically speaking, Latino isn't really a homogenous race; as different Latinos have different ancestries. Some may be mostly Native American, others mostly black, and still others mostly Spanish in their heritage.

 

As for whether your marriage is interracial, I don't have enough information to say. If one of you is a white Russian, and the other a Japanese, then I'd consider it interracial. On the other hand, if one of you has ancestors who hail from Ireland, and the other's ancestors are from France, then it's not.

 

BTW, if you get rid of the concept of or definition for race, you also have to get rid of affirmative action. I'm not attributing any view of affirmative action to you, just pointing something out.

345891[/snapback]

 

You'd do well to read "The Seven Daughters of Eve" by Bryan Sykes. He found out some really interesting things about lineages by using DNA sequences. Most people who actually believe in the concept of race go by outward appearances that belie any actual make-up. "We are all a complete mixture." But go ahead; keep spewing your hate based on what is a social phenomena.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

For the sake of everyone other than CTM, Charles Darwin observed that geographical separation appeared to cause species to drift apart. His observations, conducted on the Galapagos islands, showed that when species become physically separated, their genetic paths can fork. Darwin concluded this forking process was so powerful it could gradually turn one species into a completely different species. This is the basis for Darwin's theory.

345943[/snapback]

 

And then KurtGodel77 came along and made it the basis for labelling the different races as "speciation", based on nothing more than geographical separation in contravention of all known biological and genetic theory. And one short step from that, he decried the "marital genocide" leading to the diminution of blonde hair and blue eyes.

 

And suddenly, it doesn't look coincidental that both "Kurt" and "Godel" are of Germanic origin.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

You'd do well to read "The Seven Daughters of Eve" by Bryan Sykes. He found out some really interesting things about lineages by using DNA sequences. Most people who actually believe in the concept of race go by outward appearances that belie any actual make-up. "We are all a complete mixture." But go ahead; keep spewing your hate based on what is a social phenomena.

345946[/snapback]

 

It's not hate, you just don't understand because you're brainwashed by my lies and propaganda...

 

Man, it's rare that the entire board finds themselves unified on a single theme. Congrats, Kurt, your Nazi racist theories have managed to help all of us find common ground where none previously existed...