Where is great big Tidal wave when you need one?

[John Adams]

My point--which apparently you missed--was that it's pretty stupid to insult someone's intelligence when that someone is a Mensa member.

344813[/snapback]

 

How do you clean the saliva stains off your mirror?

 

Your Nazi sympathizer remark shows an appalling ignorance of history. I've read articles written in this country in the 1960s; the authors of which recommend eliminating all laws against interracial marriage. These authors--whose support for racial integration, etc. was clear--wrote that the elimination of provisions against interracial marriage would not materially increase the rate of intermarriage, because the main force opposing it was a lack of social acceptance. And that, in case you are too dense to grasp it, means that even as late as the 1960s, interracial marriage was generally frowned upon in the U.S. Unless you are prepared to state that most Americans, prior to the 1970s, were Nazis (a statement which would be breathtakingly ignorant even by your standards) you must agree that a dislike for intermarriage is not the same as being a Nazi. Or at least, you must admit this if you have any intellectual honesty whatsoever. Which thus far, you've failed to display.

344838[/snapback]

 

So you're prepared to what, justify your stance against the graying of the races because 40 years ago, a majority of people might have agreed with you. Hey Mr. Dictionary, look up PROGRESS.

 

Don't rely on history as a crutch for your argument. Try out reason. Historically, societies killed and cast out the mentally infirmed. Historically, children could be sold into slavery.

 

Come on Herr Godel, let's see some justification for the reason you want to keep whitey separate from blackey. Rather than take it up in this thread, start a new topic.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

How do you clean the saliva stains off your mirror?

So you're prepared to what, justify your stance against the graying of the races because 40 years ago, a majority of people might have agreed with you. Hey Mr. Dictionary, look up PROGRESS.

 

Don't rely on history as a crutch for your argument. Try out reason. Histoically, societies killed and cast out the mentally infirmed. Historically, children could be sold into slavery.

 

Come on Herr Godel, let's see some justification for the reason you want to keep whitey separate from blackey. Rather than take it up in this thread, start a new topic.

345277[/snapback]

 

He has given a justification. I believe the exact phrase was "racial purity", by keeping the different "species" of humans (blacks and whites, basically) from interbreeding.

 

But he's not a Nazi...

[philburger1]

No, I called someone who CLAIMS to be a Mensa member a moron, retard, etc.  I haven't yet seen a reason to believe that's dishonest, hot air, or to take it back.

Your continued attempts at justifying your Nazi beliefs shows an even more appalling one.  Do you or do you not agree with the following:

And is that not roughly equivalent to:

344880[/snapback]

 

 

Guys ! Guys! We are all Bills fans here!

Can't we get back to hating the hypoctrtial Muslim community and there terrorsts attack dogs?

 

Can't we get back to hating the hypocritical Muslim community and their terrorists attack dogs?

 

LE LE LE LE LE LE LE LE LE!

Akblhaar Akkubar!

[Pac_Man]

Accusation's hitting a little too close to home, isn't it?

I've already dealt with your moronic and ignorant accusation once. You didn't respond, yet in your usual shamelss way, you're repeating it again. At this point I feel like I'm trying to have a conversation with a monkey.

And don't blame me for it.  It's not my fault you have a sincere belief in Nazi racial philosophy - directly responsible for the death of tens of millions, I might add, which is ironic considering how you rant on the "liberal left" being responsible for the genocide of tens of millions... 

345271[/snapback]

First, you seem to take no interest in the mass murder of the Soviet Union, nor in the fact that FDR basically gave that nation a green light for its genocides. Secondly, your attempt to link me with the Nazi ideology (and hence the Nazi crimes) is beyond merely feeble; and is demonstrative of a truly brainwashed mind. Not only are you acting brainwashed yourself, you have demonstrated eagerness to greet those who do not share your brainwashed views with intolerance and hate.

 

Intolerance and hate. Are these your antidote for Nazism? If so, thank you so very much for sharing this antidote with us. It was too generous of you. You shouldn't have. Really. You shouldn't have.

[Pac_Man]

Don't rely on history as a crutch for your argument.

If by this you're suggesting I embrace the historical ignorance of some of those who disagreed with me, no thanks.

Try out reason.

I have. But my definition of reason doesn't include a blind acceptance of the hysterical rants of a feces flinging monkey.

Historically, societies killed and cast out the mentally infirmed. Historically, children could be sold into slavery.

And your point being what? That everything about past social norms was worse than present social norms? You are aware that slavery--including child slavery--is still alive and well in many parts of the world, right? I hope you're also aware that the twentieth century saw far more mass murder than any previous century. But maybe to you pointing out this historical fact is using history as a "crutch."

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

First, you seem to take no interest in the mass murder of the Soviet Union, nor in the fact that FDR basically gave that nation a green light for its genocides.

 

 

It's not that I don't take an interest in it; quite the contrary, I have a much greater understanding of it than you. It's your Mickey-Mouse Nazi bull sh-- "liberal genocide" conspiracy theory I don't take an interest in.

 

Secondly, your attempt to link me with the Nazi ideology (and hence the Nazi crimes) is beyond merely feeble; and is demonstrative of a truly brainwashed mind.

345418[/snapback]

 

Actually, it's nothing of the kind. I've REPEATEDLY shown where your stated beliefs are VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL to Nazi racial philosophies (not to mention yet another version of your ridiculous "Democrats are genocidal maniacs"). So far, your only response has been "I'm rubber, you're glue..." I fail to see how it amounts to brainwashing on my part when I repeatedly use your own words to demonstrate your Nazi sympathies.

[Pac_Man]

It's not that I don't take an interest in it; quite the contrary, I have a much greater understanding of it than you.  It's your Mickey-Mouse Nazi bull sh-- "liberal genocide" conspiracy theory I don't take an interest in. 

In other words, you're telling me you don't care about the fact FDR recognized the Soviet Union just as that nation finished murdering over 3 million Ukrainian children, and 7 - 10 million Ukrainians total. Nor do you seem to care that FDR didn't even try to save Eastern or Central Europe from the mass murder inherent in postwar Soviet occupation. To you, these facts are nothing more than a "conspiracy theory." Your interest in calling me and my views "Nazi" has apparently taken your mind off the graves of the millions of children needlessly murdered in cold blood. Unfortunately, you're not alone in placing a warped political agenda ahead of concern for innocent millions.

Actually, it's nothing of the kind.  I've REPEATEDLY shown where your stated beliefs are VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL to Nazi racial philosophies (not to mention yet another version of your ridiculous "Democrats are genocidal maniacs").  So far, your only response has been "I'm rubber, you're glue..."  I fail to see how it amounts to brainwashing on my part when I repeatedly use your own words to demonstrate your Nazi sympathies.

345455[/snapback]

My response to this--in case you've forgotten already--was that your logic could be used to "demonstrate" that anyone who asked for mutual respect for the races could be called a Nazi, on the grounds that a Nazi thinker had asked for exactly this. Also, I'd be willing to bet that, as of 1942, more opponents to mixed marriages lived in Allied nations than lived in Germany.

 

You've called me a Nazi for opposing mixed marriages, yet you have failed to extend this label to the multitude of WWII American soldiers who shared this view. Believe me, by no means am I asking you to extend your blind hate to America's soldiers, either past or present. I'm just pointing out your shameless hypocrisy.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

In other words, you're telling me you don't care about the fact FDR recognized the Soviet Union just as that nation finished murdering over 3 million Ukrainian children, and 7 - 10 million Ukrainians total. Nor do you seem to care that FDR didn't even try to save Eastern or Central Europe from the mass murder inherent in postwar Soviet occupation. To you, these facts are nothing more than a "conspiracy theory." Your interest in calling me and my views "Nazi" has apparently taken your mind off the graves of the millions of children needlessly murdered in cold blood. Unfortunately, you're not alone in placing a warped political agenda ahead of concern for innocent millions.

 

Oh, give it a rest numbskull. You pointedly accused liberal democrats of aiding and abetting the genocide of tens of millions...while simultaneously failing to point out that the same liberal democrats fought to save tens of millions from genocide, the only difference being that we're talking about Nazi genocide in one case and Soviet Communist genocide in the other. That you whine and B word and cry and moan about the Soviets without even mentioning the Nazis is...well, completely predictable, actually.

 

My response to this--in case you've forgotten already--was that your logic could be used to "demonstrate" that anyone who asked for mutual respect for the races could be called a Nazi, on the grounds that a Nazi thinker had asked for exactly this. Also, I'd be willing to bet that, as of 1942, more opponents to mixed marriages lived in Allied nations than lived in Germany.

345484[/snapback]

 

You misrepresent yourself. You justified your opposition to mixed marriages on the theory that mixing of the human "subspecies" was bad in that it would lead to the ultimate mongrelization of racial traits - and in particular, you mentioned blonde hair and blue eyes by the year 2020. Your "enlightened" and "egalitarian" position is hardly unique in that, when you get down to the details of it, you're exclamations of horror at "marital genocide" destroying racial differences ultimately boil down to worrying about your own race being eliminated by intermarriage with "subspecies". And that the physical criteria you choose are Aryan is, again, not the least bit surprising, given that your views are virtual carbon copies of the Nazi racial theory dictating Aryan superiority - right down to the BS "I cherish all races" nonsense that didn't even sell very well 60 years ago.

 

It's not that your views on interracial marriage are Nazi - it's that your justifications for your beliefs are in their entirety. Most racists that opposed interracial marriage at least had the decency to be openly racist bastards. You have to hide behind the same pseudo-scientific crap the Nazis espoused. That's why, where not everyone who opposes interracial marriage is a Nazi, you clearly are.

[Pac_Man]

Hey Mr. Dictionary, look up PROGRESS.

345277[/snapback]

Is your idea of progress a per capita murder rate that's risen by a factor of ten, as has happened over the last 100 years? Mine isn't. Nor is my idea of progress a crumbling education system, nor the shift away from morality and reason (and towards blind emotion) that has taken place.

 

American students rank last among those of industrialized nations in subjects like science and math; yet have the highest perception of their own abilities. This is progress?

 

In the 1970s, history books were dumbed down; with sentence choice, vocabulary, and ideas all being made simpler. Average and above average students were harmed by this. This is progress?

 

I've read that one American man out of every four would commit a rape if he knew he could get away with it. Assuming this is true, is this progress?

 

In the 1950s, blacks living in working class Philadelphia neighborhoods left their doors unlocked at night. By the 1980s, people in those same neighborhoods were shooting each other over pairs of shoes. This is progress?

 

Technological advancement has been used to largely mask the consequences of social decline. An employee today is probably more likely to be willing to steal than an employee of a century back. But today we have security cameras to discourage the theft, and sophisticated inventory management systems to overcome the economic loss imposed by the expense of the security camera. Technologically, this is progress. But does this represent social progress?

 

A hundred years ago, a divorce was a rarity. Today, half of all marriages end in divorce. This is progress?

 

In the past, most men acted--more or less--like men should act. Today, too many men are either jerks or are nice but too soft-seeming. Either way, women are unhappy. This is progress?

 

Given the social decline that has taken place in so many aspects of American society, I refuse to blindly accept your notion that a change in another social area--attitudes about interracial marriage--represents some sort of "progress." Compared to what we used to be, Americans have become more selfish and less idealistic, less governed by morality and more by their own whims, less intellectually rigorous and more mob-like. There are still pockets of idealism, morality, and intellectual rigor. This nation isn't dead yet, but it is dying. Only when the sources of this decline--the anti-moral nature of much of the mass media and of leftist academia--have been dealt with can we hope to reverse this decline. Until this is accomplished, any victory that might be achieved--such as the election of Ronald Reagan to the presidency--will prove hollow and empty in the long run.

[John Adams]

If by this you're suggesting I embrace the historical ignorance of some of those who disagreed with me, no thanks.

 

I have. But my definition of reason doesn't include a blind acceptance of the hysterical rants of a feces flinging monkey.

 

Why are you so obsessed with the monkey Kurt? I didn't bring him up. I'm pointing out that your reliance on history to support your arguments about the intermingling of the races is scary, and asked for your reason, since relying on history is lazy.

 

And your point being what? That everything about past social norms was worse than present social norms?

 

My point being, Mr. Mensa member with emphasis on the "member," that purely relying on the fact that people supported segregation in the 1960s is hardly a basis for believing in it now.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Is your idea of progress a per capita murder rate that's risen by a factor of ten, as has happened over the last 100 years? Mine isn't. Nor is my idea of progress a crumbling education system, nor the shift away from morality and reason (and towards blind emotion) that has taken place.

 

American students rank last among those of industrialized nations in subjects like science and math; yet have the highest perception of their own abilities. This is progress?

 

In the 1970s, history books were dumbed down; with sentence choice, vocabulary, and ideas all being made simpler. Average and above average students were harmed by this. This is progress?

 

I've read that one American man out of every four would commit a rape if he knew he could get away with it. Assuming this is true, is this progress?

 

In the 1950s, blacks living in working class Philadelphia neighborhoods left their doors unlocked at night. By the 1980s, people in those same neighborhoods were shooting each other over pairs of shoes. This is progress?

 

Technological advancement has been used to largely mask the consequences of social decline. An employee today is probably more likely to be willing to steal than an employee of a century back. But today we have security cameras to discourage the theft, and sophisticated inventory management systems to overcome the economic loss imposed by the expense of the security camera. Technologically, this is progress. But does this represent social progress?

 

A hundred years ago, a divorce was a rarity. Today, half of all marriages end in divorce. This is progress?

 

In the past, most men acted--more or less--like men should act. Today, too many men are either jerks or are nice but too soft-seeming. Either way, women are unhappy. This is progress?

 

Given the social decline that has taken place in so many aspects of American society, I refuse to blindly accept your notion that a change in another social area--attitudes about interracial marriage--represents some sort of "progress." Compared to what we used to be, Americans have become more selfish and less idealistic, less governed by morality and more by their own whims, less intellectually rigorous and more mob-like. There are still pockets of idealism, morality, and intellectual rigor. This nation isn't dead yet, but it is dying. Only when the sources of this decline--the anti-moral nature of much of the mass media and of leftist academia--have been dealt with can we hope to reverse this decline. Until this is accomplished, any victory that might be achieved--such as the election of Ronald Reagan to the presidency--will prove hollow and empty in the long run.

345603[/snapback]

 

"Interracial marriage is wrong because blacks shoot each other over Air Jordans"?????

 

That is seriously !@#$ed up.

[Pac_Man]

Oh, give it a rest numbskull.  You pointedly accused liberal democrats of aiding and abetting the genocide of tens of millions...while simultaneously failing to point out that the same liberal democrats fought to save tens of millions from genocide, the only difference being that we're talking about Nazi genocide in one case and Soviet Communist genocide in the other.  That you whine and B word and cry and moan about the Soviets without even mentioning the Nazis is...well, completely predictable, actually.

Your excuse doesn't wash. The mainstream historians I've read have indicated that Hitler didn't begin the Holocaust until 1942 or 1943--well after FDR had decided to go to war against Germany. In contrast, the Soviet Union's genocide began over a decade before FDR even took office, which is why previous U.S. presidents had the decency not to recognize that criminal government. In short, FDR went to war on the side of those he knew were mass murderers, in hopes of opposing those who he felt had the potential to become mass murderers.

 

You question why I give greater attention to the Soviet genocides. There are several reasons for this:

- The Soviets killed far more people than the Nazis.

- The American public is less aware of the Soviet mass murders than it is about Nazi crimes.

You misrepresent yourself.  You justified your opposition to mixed marriages on the theory that mixing of the human "subspecies" was bad in that it would lead to the ultimate mongrelization of racial traits - and in particular, you mentioned blonde hair and blue eyes by the year 2020.  Your "enlightened" and "egalitarian" position is hardly unique in that, when you get down to the details of it, you're exclamations of horror at "marital genocide" destroying racial differences ultimately boil down to worrying about your own race being eliminated by intermarriage with "subspecies".  And that the physical criteria you choose are Aryan is, again, not the least bit surprising, given that your views are virtual carbon copies of the Nazi racial theory dictating Aryan superiority - right down to the BS "I cherish all races" nonsense that didn't even sell very well 60 years ago. 

 

It's not that your views on interracial marriage are Nazi - it's that your justifications for your beliefs are in their entirety.  Most racists that opposed interracial marriage at least had the decency to be openly racist bastards.  You have to hide behind the same pseudo-scientific crap the Nazis espoused.  That's why, where not everyone who opposes interracial marriage is a Nazi, you clearly are.

345577[/snapback]

Interesting way of trying to worm your way out of a difficult situation. Basically, it seems like what you're trying to say boils down to the idea that, whereas other people's opposition to interracial marriage wasn't intended to preserve the existence of the races, mine is. I find that pretty hard to swallow. Many people--far more cultured, humane, and reasonable than you have shown yourself to be--liked the idea of having different races, and liked the idea of having these differences preserved. Whether this was based on a love for one race in particular or the world's races in general probably varied from person to person. You have demonstrated no understanding of anything based on love; all I've heard from you is constant, incessant, irrational hate. I do not ask you to try to understand either me or my views. But since you clearly don't understand them, please do us all the favor of keeping your ugly mouth shut.

[Pac_Man]

"Interracial marriage is wrong because blacks shoot each other over Air Jordans"????? 

 

That is seriously !@#$ed up.

345614[/snapback]

Another post of mine which you demonstrate no evidence of understanding. What a surprise.

 

My point--which you clearly missed--was that a change in attitudes about a social norm does not necessarily constitute "progress." Given that social norms have changed for the worse in so many aspects of American society, I would think the point should be obvious to anyone, even you.

[John Adams]

Is your idea of progress a per capita murder rate that's risen by a factor of ten, as has happened over the last 100 years? Mine isn't. Nor is my idea of progress a crumbling education system, nor the shift away from morality and reason (and towards blind emotion) that has taken place.

 

American students rank last among those of industrialized nations in subjects like science and math; yet have the highest perception of their own abilities. This is progress?

 

In the 1970s, history books were dumbed down; with sentence choice, vocabulary, and ideas all being made simpler. Average and above average students were harmed by this. This is progress?

 

I've read that one American man out of every four would commit a rape if he knew he could get away with it. Assuming this is true, is this progress?

 

In the 1950s, blacks living in working class Philadelphia neighborhoods left their doors unlocked at night. By the 1980s, people in those same neighborhoods were shooting each other over pairs of shoes. This is progress?

 

Technological advancement has been used to largely mask the consequences of social decline. An employee today is probably more likely to be willing to steal than an employee of a century back. But today we have security cameras to discourage the theft, and sophisticated inventory management systems to overcome the economic loss imposed by the expense of the security camera. Technologically, this is progress. But does this represent social progress?

 

A hundred years ago, a divorce was a rarity. Today, half of all marriages end in divorce. This is progress?

 

In the past, most men acted--more or less--like men should act. Today, too many men are either jerks or are nice but too soft-seeming. Either way, women are unhappy. This is progress?

 

Given the social decline that has taken place in so many aspects of American society, I refuse to blindly accept your notion that a change in another social area--attitudes about interracial marriage--represents some sort of "progress." Compared to what we used to be, Americans have become more selfish and less idealistic, less governed by morality and more by their own whims, less intellectually rigorous and more mob-like. There are still pockets of idealism, morality, and intellectual rigor. This nation isn't dead yet, but it is dying. Only when the sources of this decline--the anti-moral nature of much of the mass media and of leftist academia--have been dealt with can we hope to reverse this decline. Until this is accomplished, any victory that might be achieved--such as the election of Ronald Reagan to the presidency--will prove hollow and empty in the long run.

345603[/snapback]

 

 

So, how much of this would you lay at the feet of interracial marriage? That's what we're talking about, right? Progress as it relates to attitudes about interracial marriage?

 

While I'd happily dispute many of your points, and point out that a lot of good things in opposition to your diatribe, we can have that discussion elsewhere. Stay on target red leader: interracial marriage. That it has become more accepted is progress.

[Pac_Man]

Why are you so obsessed with the monkey Kurt?

Because I'm trying to get that monkey off my back.

 

I'm pointing out that your reliance on history to support your arguments about the intermingling of the races is scary, and asked for your reason, since relying on history is lazy.

What's truly scary is the mindless, brainwashed hate CTM has apparently been conditioned to display. I brought up history, not to support an opposition to interracial marriage, but to refute the Nazi accusation CTM leveled against me. Historically, people were not called Nazis for opposing interracial marriage; and many who gave their lives to fight Hitler opposed interracial marriage.

 

My point being, Mr. Mensa member with emphasis on the "member," that purely relying on the fact that people supported segregation in the 1960s is hardly a basis for believing in it now.

345610[/snapback]

Had I--or anyone else on these boards for that matter--actually called for segregation, this comment might actually have some relevance.

[Pac_Man]

So, how much of this would you lay at the feet of interracial marriage? That's what we're talking about, right? Progress as it relates to attitudes about interracial marriage?

 

While I'd happily dispute many of your points, and point out that a lot of good things in opposition to your diatribe, we can have that discussion elsewhere. Stay on target red leader: interracial marriage. That it has become more accepted is progress.

345629[/snapback]

Progress towards what?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Your excuse doesn't wash. The mainstream historians I've read have indicated that Hitler didn't begin the Holocaust until 1942 or 1943--well after FDR had decided to go to war against Germany.

 

NO mainstream historian I've ever read (dozens, maybe hundreds) has ever indicated that. Once again, you're pulling complete fiction out of your ass, throwing it agains the wall, and hoping it sticks. While it may be a fitting activity when you're debating a crap throwing monkey...it starts to wear, just a little bit, when you honestly think it's an acceptible substitute for actual facts.

 

You question why I give greater attention to the Soviet genocides. There are several reasons for this:

- The Soviets killed far more people than the Nazis.

- The American public is less aware of the Soviet mass murders than it is about Nazi crimes.

 

I don't question it at all. You've demonstrated ("stated" would be more accurate) your pro-Nazi, anti-"liberal genocide" () attitude, and it's not the least bit surprising that a Nazi supporter would be "anti-bolshevik" or against the "syphillitic" FDR, as the Nazi propaganda went.

 

Interesting way of trying to worm your way out of a difficult situation. Basically, it seems like what you're trying to say boils down to the idea that, whereas other people's opposition to interracial marriage wasn't intended to preserve the existence of the races, mine is. I find that pretty hard to swallow. Many people--far more cultured, humane, and reasonable than you have shown yourself to be--liked the idea of having different races, and liked the idea of having these differences preserved. Whether this was based on a love for one race in particular or the world's races in general probably varied from person to person.

 

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it? I said that most racists were honest and open about it: they opposed it based on the honestly stated belief against defiling THEIR race with human "subspecies". You, on the other hand, dressed up your racist beliefs with the tried-and-true "I love all races, that's why I don't want them mixed with mine" nonsense that you stole directly (damn near verbatim quotes) from Alfred Rosenberg, the Nazi Party philosopher and formulator of Nazi racial theory. I see lots of people opposing interracial marriage...you're the only one I see putting it in the same terms of "racial purity" and "marital genocide" as a threat to Aryan traits that you'll see in Nazi literature.

 

You have demonstrated no understanding of anything based on love; all I've heard from you is constant, incessant, irrational hate. I do not ask you to try to understand either me or my views. But since you clearly don't understand them, please do us all the favor of keeping your ugly mouth shut.

345624[/snapback]

 

Hating Nazis is irrational?  Well...I guess it would be to a Nazi.  Just keep that copy of Mein Kampf close to your heart while you work the showers like a good little supermenschen... 

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Historically, people were not called Nazis for opposing interracial marriage; and many who gave their lives to fight Hitler opposed interracial marriage.

345633[/snapback]

 

Historically, people did not justify their views with Nazi racial theory like you do.

 

Reading comprehension REALLY isn't your strong suit. What, do I need to say it in German or something?

[GG]

Stupid q, but if blonds & blue eyes are on their way out, wouldn't that signal that they are genetically recessive?

 

I'm not really a member of any acronym type of a club, so I'd like to find out the allure of preserving recessive genetics of species or subspecies.

[John Adams]

Because I'm trying to get that monkey off my back.

What's truly scary is the mindless, brainwashed hate CTM has apparently been conditioned to display. I brought up history, not to support an opposition to interracial marriage, but to refute the Nazi accusation CTM leveled against me. Historically, people were not called Nazis for opposing interracial marriage; and many who gave their lives to fight Hitler opposed interracial marriage.

 

Seriously. Why are you talking to me about your monkey business? I don't give a fk what he's saying to you, or how it makes you feel, or whether he reminds you of all your high school wedgies. I really don't. He's an axehole and many people here know it. Your obsession with him is unnatural.

 

Had I--or anyone else on these boards for that matter--actually called for segregation, this comment might actually have some relevance.

345633[/snapback]

 

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

[VABills]

Stupid q, but if blonds & blue eyes are on their way out, wouldn't that signal that they are genetically recessive? 

 

I'm not really a member of any acronym type of a club, so I'd like to find out the allure of preserving recessive genetics of species or subspecies.

345681[/snapback]

 

I have pretty blue eyes.

[Pac_Man]

NO mainstream historian I've ever read (dozens, maybe hundreds) has ever indicated that. 

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?

I don't question it at all.  You've demonstrated ("stated" would be more accurate) your pro-Nazi, anti-"liberal genocide" () attitude, and it's not the least bit surprising that a Nazi supporter would be "anti-bolshevik" or against the "syphillitic" FDR, as the Nazi propaganda went. 

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.

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?  I said that most racists were honest and open about it: they opposed it based on the honestly stated belief against defiling THEIR race with human "subspecies".  You, on the other hand, dressed up your racist beliefs with the tried-and-true "I love all races, that's why I don't want them mixed with mine" nonsense that you stole directly (damn near verbatim quotes) from Alfred Rosenberg, the Nazi Party philosopher and formulator of Nazi racial theory.

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?

I see lots of people opposing interracial marriage...you're the only one I see putting it in the same terms of "racial purity" and "marital genocide" as a threat to Aryan traits that you'll see in Nazi literature.

   

345652[/snapback]

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.

[GG]

I have pretty blue eyes. 

345690[/snapback]

 

 

Die, Kitty!! (or at least in 15 years)

[VABills]

Die, Kitty!! (or at least in 15 years)

345693[/snapback]

15 years?

 

I plan on being around a lot longer then that.

[Pac_Man]

Stupid q, but if blonds & blue eyes are on their way out, wouldn't that signal that they are genetically recessive? 

 

I'm not really a member of any acronym type of a club, so I'd like to find out the allure of preserving recessive genetics of species or subspecies.

345681[/snapback]

Some genes are dominant, others recessive. So if a person with tall genes marries a person with short genes, the resulting children will either be tall or short, depending on whether the genes for tallness or shortness are dominant. Merely because a gene is dominant or recessive doesn't mean it's good or bad.

 

The reason why you may have heard bad things about recessive genes is because it's a bad idea for siblings to marry each other. There's a chance that both siblings are carrying recessive genes for some weird disease or deformity, and that a child will receive two instances of these recessive genes (one from each parent). The resulting birth defects are to be avoided; hence the social pressure against sibling marriages.

 

Traits like blonde hair and blue eyes are also recessive. But anyone who thinks these are birth defects obviously hasn't seen a picture of Nicole Kidman.

[GG]

Some genes are dominant, others recessive. So if a person with tall genes marries a person with short genes, the resulting children will either be tall or short, depending on whether the genes for tallness or shortness are dominant. Merely because a gene is dominant or recessive doesn't mean it's good or bad.

 

The reason why you may have heard bad things about recessive genes is because it's a bad idea for siblings to marry each other. There's a chance that both siblings are carrying recessive genes for some weird disease or deformity, and that a child will receive two instances of these recessive genes (one from each parent). The resulting birth defects are to be avoided; hence the social pressure against sibling marriages.

 

Traits like blonde hair and blue eyes are also recessive. But anyone who thinks these are birth defects obviously hasn't seen a picture of Nicole Kidman. 

345703[/snapback]

 

I'm obviously stupider than you, because I missed the inference of me hearing bad things about recessive genes solely due to their direct correlation to incest. I'll have to work a bit more on my writing ability or reading comprehension. I always mix up the two. Imagine that? I guess a MENSA member would know the difference.

 

Back to my question, if someone can answer it. Doesn't natural selection generally dictate that recessive genes will eventually be rooted out by dominant genes? Is it too much of a stretch to imagine that dominant genes are probably better for the long term survival of the species? So, why the interest in artificially preserving the recessive genes?

 

Or are you saying that as more dominant the genes populate the species, the higher the probability of Air Jordan-induced murders?

[Alaska Darin]

Or are you saying that as more dominant the genes populate the species, the higher the probability of Air Jordan-induced murders?

345725[/snapback]

Awesome.

[Pac_Man]

I'm obviously stupider than you, because I missed the inference of me hearing bad things about recessive genes solely due to their direct correlation to incest.  I'll have to work a bit more on my writing ability or reading comprehension.  I always mix up the two.  Imagine that?  I guess a MENSA member would know the difference.

 

Back to my question, if someone can answer it.  Doesn't natural selection generally dictate that recessive genes will eventually be rooted out by dominant genes?  Is it too much of a stretch to imagine that dominant genes are probably better for the long term survival of the species?  So, why the interest in artificially preserving the recessive genes?

 

Or are you saying that as more dominant the genes populate the species, the higher the probability of Air Jordan-induced murders?

345725[/snapback]

I was trying to be helpful. I said you "may have" heard bad things about recessive genes due to the chance that an incestuous relationship will result in offspring receiving two copies of a rare gene that is both recessive and undesireable. I'd assumed your question was a legitimate request for information, and not some lame attempt to propound a pseudo-scientific theory you'd come across somewhere. My mistake. But if you want to believe that dominant genes are "superior" and recessive genes are "inferior" go ahead. Presumably, this means that someone with two copies of the dominant gene for brown eyes is "superior" to someone with two copies of the recessive gene for blue eyes. Sorry, but I'm not buying what you're selling.

[UConn James]

I'm obviously stupider than you, because I missed the inference of me hearing bad things about recessive genes solely due to their direct correlation to incest.  I'll have to work a bit more on my writing ability or reading comprehension.  I always mix up the two.  Imagine that?  I guess a MENSA member would know the difference.

 

Back to my question, if someone can answer it.  Doesn't natural selection generally dictate that recessive genes will eventually be rooted out by dominant genes?  Is it too much of a stretch to imagine that dominant genes are probably better for the long term survival of the species?  So, why the interest in artificially preserving the recessive genes?

 

Or are you saying that as more dominant the genes populate the species, the higher the probability of Air Jordan-induced murders?

345725[/snapback]

 

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.

 

Natural selection merely says that the most advantageous traits will, over time, become more prevelent, but not that all others will disappear. The statistical curve can get very steep, but it's not very likely that blond hair, blue eyes or a dimpled chin will be wiped out of the gene pool, especially in a population as big as humans. Nature loves variation and frequent turnover.

 

I didn't read all of the posts, but how in the hell did it get from We shouldn't give foereign aid to talking about genetics. Just goes to show the common devolution of these topics.

[Ghost of BiB]

This is like watching ping pong played with a basketball and two frying pans while in the middle of three hits of windowpane.

[Pac_Man]

Seriously. Why are you talking to me about your monkey business? I don't give a fk what he's saying to you, or how it makes you feel, or whether he reminds you of all your high school wedgies. I really don't. He's an axehole and many people here know it. Your obsession with him is unnatural.

If you're saying that I've given him more attention than he deserves, you have a point. Unfortunately, he's not the only one who's been programmed to have irrational hatred towards those who disagree with his own views about intermarriage. My purpose in addressing him is to eradicate at least some of this ignorance.

So how do you propose to stop people from intermarrying?

By persuading others to see race as I do: something indescribably wonderful that must be preserved.

And this is the third and last time I'll ask, why?

345686[/snapback]

Why would the world be better off if races were preserved? Because we do not understand what race is or isn't; and because it's wrong to destroy something irreplacable that we do not understand.

[erynthered]

This is like watching ping pong played with a basketball and two frying pans while in the middle of three hits of windowpane.

345767[/snapback]

 

 

Whoooa!

 

Mr. Natural, just passin thru, C-YA

 

 

 

 

BTW, Nice analogy, I think

[Alaska Darin]

Why would the world be better off if races were preserved? Because we do not understand what race is or isn't; and because it's wrong to destroy something irreplacable that we do not understand.

345773[/snapback]

Fine. Charlie Manson's moving in with you.

 

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

[GG]

I was trying to be helpful. I said you "may have" heard bad things about recessive genes due to the chance that an incestuous relationship will result in offspring receiving two copies of a rare gene that is both recessive and undesireable. I'd assumed your question was a legitimate request for information, and not some lame attempt to propound a pseudo-scientific theory you'd come across somewhere. My mistake. But if you want to believe that dominant genes are "superior" and recessive genes are "inferior" go ahead. Presumably, this means that someone with two copies of the dominant gene for brown eyes is "superior" to someone with two copies of the recessive gene for blue eyes. Sorry, but I'm not buying what you're selling.

345764[/snapback]

 

 

Sorry, don't have much time for a fuller response, as I'm studying the chapter on quoting people for my TOEFL exam.

 

I actually asked the question to get an answer about the long term survivability of dominant genes, without any representation about superiority or inferiority of people who possess those genes.

 

Instead I got a lame attempt to profound a pseudo-racist babble that you'd come across somewhere.

[Pac_Man]

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.

Since you didn't read the whole thread, I'll tell you why I mentioned my Mensa membership. It was because another poster (whose name isn't worth mentioning) kept calling me an idiot, and I wanted not merely to shut him up, but to expose the dishonesty of his criticism. I believe that anyone at all can teach me something worth knowing; and I've been known to take the time to listen to people of different intelligence levels, social statuses, races, cultures, etc.

Natural selection merely says that the most advantageous traits will, over time, become more prevelent, but not that all others will disappear. The statistical curve can get very steep, but it's not very likely that blond hair, blue eyes or a dimpled chin will be wiped out of the gene pool, especially in a population as big as humans. Nature loves variation and frequent turnover.

True, but bear in mind that natural selection relies on adults overbreeding; and those less fit being killed off. Darwin's words (not an exact quote) were "multiply, vary, and let the fittest survive."

 

Bunnies are an excellent example of this. They breed like, well, . . . bunnies. Those that are the quickest and most alert have the best chance of escaping from a cat's claws or a hawk's talons long enough to pass their genes onto as many little bunnies as possible. A gene that provides some advantage for escaping cats will, through overbreeding and population culling, gradually spread throughout the bunny gene pool.

 

At present this is not the way things are happening, at least not for humans. Given the high probability of survival to adulthood (especially in the industrialized world) one's willingness to have many children is a far greater more powerful factor in determining one's influence on the next generation's gene pool than all other factors relating to fitness combined. For this reason, any changes in the human gene pool should neither be reflexively celebrated as "evolution" nor lamented as "degeneration." Instead, such changes should be examined on a case-by-case basis.

I didn't read all of the posts, but how in the hell did it get from We shouldn't give foereign aid to talking about genetics.

345766[/snapback]

You'll have to ask CTM that.

[GG]

..... Those that are the quickest and most alert have the best chance of escaping from a cat's claws or a hawk's talons long enough to pass their genes onto as many little bunnies as possible....

 

345796[/snapback]

 

I get it. Thus, the human desire to kill each other over Air Jordans - to be quicker and more alert.

 

This is way better than my TOEFL class.

[Pac_Man]

Sorry, don't have much time for a fuller response, as I'm studying the chapter on quoting people for my TOEFL exam. 

 

I actually asked the question to get an answer about the long term survivability of dominant genes, without any representation about superiority or inferiority of people who possess those genes. 

That's not how you came across. You made it sound like the human species would be "improved" if there were fewer people with recessive traits like blue eyes. I'm not going to criticize your desire to improve the human gene pool; I'm just questioning the logic behind believing that dominant genes are always better than recessive genes.

[Pac_Man]

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]

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

[GG]

That's not how you came across. You made it sound like the human species would be "improved" if there were fewer people with recessive traits like blue eyes. I'm not going to criticize your desire to improve the human gene pool; I'm just questioning the logic behind believing that dominant genes are always better than recessive genes.

345800[/snapback]

 

 

There's that quote thingy again. I need to revisit the chapter that talks about putting stuff in quotes when "quoting" another person.

 

I didn't realize that when asked a question about nature determining the survivability of one gene over another, I had imparted a value judgement on the "improvement" of the species.

[Pac_Man]

There's that quote thingy again.  I need to revisit the chapter that talks about putting stuff in quotes when "quoting" another person.

 

I didn't realize that when asked a question about nature determining the survivability of one gene over another, I had imparted a value judgement on the "improvement" of the species.

345802[/snapback]

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