Why would they? I thought the whole point of Genetic Freedom was grouping similar characteristics. In this scenario, they’d find more similarities across ethnic lines than along them.
Okay it looks like it finally sunk into that skull of yours, the illogic and failure of your district based community theory…it only took what, 8 pages?
Now to your unique aggregate phenotypes theory.
You admit that there is nothing now preventing how people freely choose to preserve their unique aggregate phenotypes. You also say that you are against Laws forcing people to preserve unique aggregate phenotypes, if they don’t want to. So what’s the problem?
If people are already free to chose their genetic heritage…what purpose do you serve? If I wanted to preserve blonde hair, I would mate with another blonde…right? Is there some law that I’m not aware of that says, “Holmes, you must mate with a Chinese person”?
Are you saying its’ taboo, to admit that you’re attracted to a “type” of person and not another? And who would care about such things?
Would society come to ruin, if I say that OUTLOUD that i am attracted to blondes or redheads or hot, sexy naugthy nurses of any race, in a pressed uniform, in garter belts, 8 inch heels…sorry where was I?
Am I not ALREADY Genetically Free to choose, if not tell me why.
Explain it. In a paragraph. Fewer words the better. Less is more.
If I may hazard a guess, his response will be something along the lines of:
[ul][li]The (Jew-controlled?) media has programmed away your freedom, or at least the freedom of some vaguely-defined population of idiots who can only be saved by Genetic Freedom;[/li][li]The proximity rule means your children will be exposed to something-or-other;[/li][li]You’re not actually free to proclaim that you prefer blondes or redheads (by implication, white girls), since such discrimination is taboo; and[/li][li]This message board is not ready for any discussion of practical matters re: Genetic Freedom[/ul][/li]
i.e. more bullshit.
As an afterthought, the very fact that you’re asking about the nature of Genetic Freedom proves you aren’t ready for Genetic Freedom.
**
[QUOTE=holmes]
Okay it looks like it finally sunk into that skull of yours, the illogic and failure of your district based community theory…it only took what, 8 pages?**
No, you all are the “less than ready” people who are unable to discuss disctict based communities, which was proven over the past several pages. I can discuss it easily, you have ingrained bias and prejudice against such a concept so, it’s for the future.
You admit that there is nothing now preventing how people freely choose to preserve their unique aggregate phenotypes. You also say that you are against Laws forcing people to preserve unique aggregate phenotypes, if they don’t want to. So what’s the problem?
Correct on both counts. The problem is that we educate kids to not care about unique aggregate phenotypes because caring about them is “racism.”
If people are already free to chose their genetic heritage…what purpose do you serve?
explained above.
Are you saying its’ taboo, to admit that you’re attracted to a “type” of person and not another? And who would care about such things?
No, that is not taboo. But if you make it clear you only want to be romantic with “white people” many/some will call you a racist or less direct terms. Frankly, that is the main problem. It’s a general psychological attack upon the genetic existence of “white people.” I can’t say that such an attack exists upon any other group as a whole.
What similarities? Bone crystal matrix? Blood vessel thickness? Red Blood cell orientation?
See what I mean?
Genetic Freedom, as I’m discussing it, obviously can deal with any specific phenotype or aggregate phenotypes. As much as you want to be Czar over what phenotypes people can happily promote, you are not that person. You simply miss that point. It’s about picking those grouping of phenotypes you wish to promote forward, then do it.
What you just suggested would not do that.
But to draw those groups along ethnic lines is arbitrary.
You are proving my point without me having to do it… allow me to point it out for you because the bias a prejudice is so ingrained, that you don’t even notice when you do it.
**
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
As far as I know, wherever free speech exists, people are already free to discuss “unique aggregate phenotypes”. What you may be overlooking, though, is that historically, marriage was never about having children that looked like the parents. Rather, two approaches have predominated:
[li]Individuals sought out mates that appealed to them personally, because of the attributes of the mate, and not necessarily because the mate resembled the seeker in some superficial way**[/li]“some superficial way” - so right there you are calling unique aggregate phenotypes superficial. My work won’t be done till people do not think like you currently do about unique aggregate phenotypes - and that’s going to take a long damn time. Remember, there could be unique aggegate phenotypes that give the superintelligent their intelligence - is that “superficial?” Looks also are not superficial, they are part of life enjoyment - which enhances all aspects of life - definately not superficial.
Also, you really didn’t say to much with item#1 - it could easily refer to people selecting others for unique aggregate phenotypes.
[li]Marriages were arranged by families, primarily to ensure the preservation of wealth, or at least financial security, with little regard for what the resulatnt children would look like (though it was important, naturally, that children be healthy)[/li]
“Looks” were part of it, always. Even the parental matchmakers chose according to looks, if they had a choice…
To simplify the discussion you seem to want to have; there’s nothing currently stopping or hindering white people from marrying white people, black people from marrying black people, etc.
I never suggested there was. That’s not the discussion I’m having…
There is also nothing (aside from some lingering social stigma in some areas) preventing white people from marrying black people, though your “Genetic Freedom” seems geared to discourage such parings, for reasons that remain unclear to me, using methods that you refuse to discuss.
There is a stigma against caring about “being white” and wanting to maintain your genetics accordingly…
The black - white pairings are unique. 3 times more white females marry with black males than the other way around per census stats. If we just look at sex and dating… well, the numbers go up exponentially compaired with the number that marry. Why? Why do white females choose to date black males? Large penis size is a big reason (no pun intended), the emotionally soothing hip-hop culture is a huge reason - which is a media created social construct, Athletics are a big reason.
You offer nothing of value that I can see, since going out of your way to preserve superficial physical traits strikes me as a waste of effort.
You don’t “see” very well. You don’t understand or respect genetics like I do. The main question is, why do you perceive these traits as superficial?
At some point, there have to be genetic traits that you find to be, not superficial. Go back a million years. Hominids then were genetically different than today. Is that aggregate phenotypic and mutational difference superficial?
Same can be said for different human populations today. If you throw away positive aggregate phenotypes because “you don’t care” then my purpose is made crystal clear - ignorance from your brain is infecting others with the “Why care” ideology. It’s the “One Human Race Only” ideology - and does not respect the notion of branching. So myself and many, many others who see this better pathway, will walk and talk it.
Well, I’m ready, as I have declared.
Truth be told, I think you have a misconception about how these issues are taught, or you are taking the most extreme leftist position and claiming it is commonplace. The ideal teaching model wouldn’t be “all humans are the same” but that “all humans should be treated the same until they prove as individuals that they should be given better or worse treatement.” In other words, no-one (ideally) should be prejudged based on phenotypes, but only after they get to show their individual traits, at which point you can feel free to declare the person a scumbag and avoid all further contact.
The problem is that you seem to assume our children are being programmed by the media/government to view race as irrelevant. You haven’t proven this is happening, and even if you could, you haven’t proven that it is a problem.
Well, if you make it clear in the sense that you go around broadcasting the fact, then are you really surprised that someone might label you a racist? In any case, I’ll take the plunge and announce that for a long time, my ideal female was Sean Young circa 1985 (I find the shape of her nose to be exquisite), a white woman, and were I to pick the women I find most attractive from a set of random photos, I don’t doubt my selections would be mostly caucasian, slim, tall etc. I do doubt, however, that I was “programmed” to have these choices. I’d guess at least a million or so Canadian men were born 1967-1971, making them contemporaries of mine, and thus they were exposed to the same media influences I was. If I like Sean Young, why wasn’t she a lot more popular with my peer group?
Does me liking tall white chicks make me a racist? Well, I wouldn’t take seriously anyone who called me one based on this alone, so the question is moot. In fact, I find it hard to imagine anyone being labelled a racist (well, unless the person doing the labelling was a nut) based on their personal romantic preferences, and I seriously doubt anyone is calling you a racist because of your preferences, either. Rather, you give adequate ammunition when you talk about whites being under attack, or Jews controlling the media. Like it or not, these views are held by a great many people who are racists by any rational measure. You simply haven’t proven your views to be sufficient different from theirs, despite the attempt at pseudoscientific window-dressing.
If there is an attack on the “genetic existence” of white people, it’s taking the rather benign form of increasing numbers of white people feeling less restricted in their choices and casually mating with Asians, blacks, etc. Each of these individuals is making an individual choice, and you have not proven your case that these individual choices need be restricted or discouraged in any way, “proximity rule” notwithstanding. I’ll ask you to define “white”, please, and give an example of an exclusively “white” trait which has been (or is about to be) purposely bred out of humanity, i.e. name something which has been (or is about to be) lost forever. Extra points if you can explain why this loss (assuming you can prove one) represents an overall negative for humanity.
You’ve discussed phenotypes repeatedly, so let’s concentrate on those. Is blond hair disappearing? Blue eyes? Fair skin? Have you even seen a mainstream media presentation that said blond hair, blue eyes and fair skin were bad in any way? More likely, you’ve seen TV programs that said black hair, brown eyes, and dark or sallow skin could be cute, too. Do you find this threatening? If so, how?
I am more than ready to discuss the matter seriously, and I will not resort to ad hominem attacks on you (as this would violate Great Debates policy), nor will I contemplate any kind of physical assault (just in case you were thinking about making another “mob” reference). If anything, I’d be happy to help you refine the presentation of your Genetic Freedom plan, assuming you can convince me that it holds at least some merit. If you think me questioning your premises and analyzing them is inherently negative, though, you’ve come to the wrong place. I don’t doubt there are plenty of message boards where your proposal would be met with enthusiastic uncritical praise. The standards here are a little higher.
**Quote:
Originally Posted by castaway
It’s about picking those grouping of phenotypes you wish to promote forward, then do it.
Zwald: But to draw those groups along ethnic lines is arbitrary.**
Hardly… ethnic lines have unique aggregate phenotypes - not arbitrary but rather hard genetic fact.
White females date black males because black males ask them out. The penis nonsense has been debunked on several levels, years ago. And hip-hop is not genetic (otherwise, only the genetically appropriate individuals would enjoy it). In fact, the selection, here, is entirely cultural. The number of black guys who get white dates because they are athletes is limited to the (rather small) number of black guys who are athletes.
So after claiming that there is a stigma against whites “caring” about being white, you present a couple of error-laden statements that do not even address the issue. (For example, you have failed to address the issue of the relatively small number of black women who choose to date or marry white guys, despite the fact that that is the actual bottleneck in that ethnic gene exchange, not a superabundance of white women going the other way.)
Now, I will agree that there is a certain reluctance among many people to proclaim a desire to breed more white folks. However, that has far less to do with any pressure to be “ashamed” of being white than it does to declining to associate with the little covens of white supremacists who wander into the back woods and only come out to proclaim their desires on the Jerry Springer show. Since “white” is such a nebulous category as to be worthless as a genotype or phenotype, it should be noted that there are a lot of white folks who proclaim their desire to breed more whites without incurring anyone’s wrath: they simply say that they are looking for an Irish/Polish/Italian/French/German/Jewish boy or girl like their parents married. I’ve never encountered anyone who had been censured for that attitude.
The phenotype doesn’t dictate the genotype. That’s why it’s arbitrary.
**
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Truth be told, I think you have a misconception about how these issues are taught, or you are taking the most extreme leftist position and claiming it is commonplace.**
It is widely distributed in the media… let’s put it this way. If the extreme rightists ideology is not distributed at all in public schools or mass media, why are the extreme leftests distributed in those places? To balance things out you’d have to let the genuine “racists” speak quite often in schools, in mass media, produce their own programming, sit-coms etc… Obviously that would not be a good idea - I rest my point.
The ideal teaching model wouldn’t be “all humans are the same” but that "all humans should be treated the same until they prove as individuals that they should be given better or worse treatement."
Ok, that’s sounds fine.
In other words, no-one (ideally) should be prejudged based on phenotypes, but only after they get to show their individual traits, at which point you can feel free to declare the person a scumbag and avoid all further contact.
This is where your media conditioning kicks in… there is no “prejudging” on the basis of phenotypes that I have suggested we do. Our phenotypes are what they are and we freely discuss them and the genetics of the next generation happily and without the threat of being called “racist” for doing so. Anybody who has prejudice is obviously wrong and we need to educate against that.
The problem is that you seem to assume our children are being programmed by the media/government to view race as irrelevant. You haven’t proven this is happening, and even if you could, you haven’t proven that it is a problem.
Proven this is happening - that’s like asking me to prove that an apple falls to the ground. Then I ask you to hold the apply out, you’ll see, it falls to the ground. Then you say “No, I want you to PROVE to me that it falls to the ground.”
Proven it’s a problem - since you do not acknowledge it’s happening you hardly can even think this far… It’s a problem because it disrespects genetic freedom for groups of people - it disrespects the notion of the branching human race.
Well, if you make it clear in the sense that you go around broadcasting the fact, then are you really surprised that someone might label you a racist?
Your bias and prejudice is now shining through. Now you are trying to show how “it’s OK” that they call you a racist…
**In any case, I’ll take the plunge and announce that for a long time, my ideal female was Sean Young circa 1985 (I find the shape of her nose to be exquisite), a white woman, and were I to pick the women I find most attractive from a set of random photos, I don’t doubt my selections would be mostly caucasian, slim, tall etc. **
Some white males cannot attract these females. There are a variety of reasons for that. Hip-hop culture is a huge reason, but also some white males do not take care of themselves properly, “don’t care” about their bodies etc… Sometimes, a specific white male’s genetics might just plain be undesirable…
The two most highly sexually promoted types of people in the media are dark/black males, white/light females. This is one obvious reason you see pairings of that kind so often.
I do doubt, however, that I was “programmed” to have these choices. I’d guess at least a million or so Canadian men were born 1967-1971, making them contemporaries of mine, and thus they were exposed to the same media influences I was. If I like Sean Young, why wasn’t she a lot more popular with my peer group?
I hardly think you were programmed to “like” white females since you are white… I do, on the other hand, KNOW that white females are programmed to like black males and visa versa via a complex set of conditions I’ve mentioned already in this and a few posts above.
If there is an attack on the “genetic existence” of white people, it’s taking the rather benign form of increasing numbers of white people feeling less restricted in their choices and casually mating with Asians, blacks, etc.
The expansion of the “white race” over the past 400 years has led to a great “evil white male” backlash that hasn’t yet come to balance… it’s OK to show prejudice towards whites… but any other type of prejudice is not OK.
Each of these individuals is making an individual choice, and you have not proven your case that these individual choices need be restricted or discouraged in any.
The choices people make today are based upon constant “One Human Race Only” conditioning without any balance of talking about the branching human race.
I’ll ask you to define “white”, please, and give an example of an exclusively “white” trait which has been (or is about to be) purposely bred out of humanity, i.e. name something which has been (or is about to be) lost forever.
White is a very broad group just as black, semitic, oriental etc… are. It deals almost exclusively with having “white” skin that’s why they were/are called “white.” There are many types of “white” people and they blend down into semitic and into black as you follow the various countries of the world. The world isn’t “black and white.”
I’m not interested in having discussions of “what phenotypes might be lost forever” because I don’t really care about that. I care about everybody understanding that it’s OK for the human race to genetically branch, and however that happens is then up to them/us…
You’ve discussed phenotypes repeatedly, so let’s concentrate on those.
Well, you missed it again… I’m talking about AGGREGATE phenotypes.
Is blond hair disappearing? Blue eyes? Fair skin?
Iradicating these things from the gene pool would be near impossible… iradicated how the aggregate phenotypes come together, is quite easy. I’ve consistently been talking about Aggregate phenotypes.
Have you even seen a mainstream media presentation that said blond hair, blue eyes and fair skin were bad in any way?
Every time they discuss “Nazi Germany,” racists, or white males expanding their race across the world, So that would be thousands of times…
More likely, you’ve seen TV programs that said black hair, brown eyes, and dark or sallow skin could be cute, too. Do you find this threatening? If so, how?
Strange question… I don’t feel any specific need to attempt and answer it…
If anything, I’d be happy to help you refine the presentation of your Genetic Freedom plan, assuming you can convince me that it holds at least some merit.
Well, we’ll see if you can eventually get it…
Oh, I get it! Like Tom Cruise, Russell Crowe, Brad Pitt and Halle Berry, Penelope Cruz, and Jennifer Lopez!
OK. Got it.
[QUOTE=castaway]
You are proving my point without me having to do it… allow me to point it out for you because the bias a prejudice is so ingrained, that you don’t even notice when you do it.
**
“Superficial” is exactly the word for such traits as skin tone, hair colour and eye colour. Within individual familes, there may be considerable variation of these traits, which suggests to me that they are not rigidly genetically defined like the number of fingers or the placement of organs. In fact, there’s no reason the palest person on Earth couldn’t successfully mate with the darkest person, which I also take as evidence that such attributes are of trivial genetic significance.
Now, if you want to start talking about superintelligence, that represents a departure from your stance of preserving phenotypes, which by definition are visible traits. Since it’s impossible to distinguish a genius from an idiot by mere appearance, I discount intelligence as a phenotype and if you were as schooled in genetics as you claim, you would discount it as well. I just have to point out that wherever educational opportunities and good neonatal nutrition exist, superintelligent people can and do pop up, regardless of their skin, hair or eye colour. I’ve seen no evidence that superintelligence is limited to a particular human genotype. Rather, I think it likely that potentially superintelligent people are being lost in harsh environments.
Saying “unique aggregate phenotypes” is, as I understand it, identical to saying “how a person looks,” though just dressed up in jargon. I’ll point out, again, that people have been choosing mates based on looks for as long as people have existed. The key, though, is that the choice is made based on what you find appealing, not what you recognize as similar to yourself. Blond people, for example, seek out mates they find attractive, which does not necessarily mean other blond people. Is this unclear to you, somehow?
[quote]
I’m sure there were a lot of factors involved, but I’ll bet economics played the largest role among wealthier families, and it was absoutely critical among the aristocracy that noble titles be preserved. That a potential mate for your child was attractive was a mere bonus on top of what wealth and land holdings could be brought to the union.
I daresay there’s a stigma against being strident about it, explaining publicly and at length that you feel some sort of duty to your race, but if a white man marries a white woman and has white children, that’s hardly Earth-shaking news. If you decide to talk about preserving whiteness, you risk criticism. Too bad. Truth be told, if someone came on these boards and decided to talk about preserving blackness (i.e. they felt too many black women were marrying nonblacks) and this should be discouraged for the greater good of black phenotypes, then that person could easily be stigmatized, too. Heck, I’d challenge him in a heartbeat.
That’s amusing and nonsensical. So what if white woman/black man pairings are more common than white man/black woman pairings? How is that relevant? There’s an implicit patronizing message in your statement, though. I may be wrong, but are you implying that white women are easily manipulated into mating with men they would not normally find appealing? If so, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if a number of white women found that insulting. As a side note, when you want to present a scientific premise, it helps if you avoid implying that part of your audience is stupid.
In any case, what if these white women are just making their individual choices? You have agreed that individuals should be free to make those choices, so why can’t they use penis size, athletic ability and emotionally soothing (not how I would describe it, mind you) hip-hop culture or any criteria they want as selling points?
“Emotionally soothing”? Wow, that is so absolutely the opposite of how I’d characterize hip-hop. But I digress.
This is another unfortunate example of the poor packaging of your ideas. I need hardly point out that protecting white women from black men is a major theme among white supremacists. You might not be one (or at least, I’ll take your word for it that you aren’t until proven otherwise) but I’m sad to say you really sound like one and this is not encouraging me to embrace your views. As it stands, though, I find more than enough pseudoscientific hogwash in your position to reject it, personal feelings aside.
It’a not clear to me that you respect or understand genetics at all so your statement that our level of respect and understanding is different sound accurate enough.
Well, I characterize as superficial (for the purposes of this discussion) a trait that will not interfere in your ability to reach adulthood (i.e. it’s not an allergy or inherited disease or something similar that can actually kill you) and successfully mate, and produce children who can also reach adulthood and successfuly mate. Being blonde might make you more attractive to some potential mates, but having brown hair won’t force you on the road to extinction.
Well, they weren’t that different. By then, hominids had distinctly and permanently branched away from other primates, but your invocation of a million-years-past ancestor is irrelevant. A better example would be to go back a mere 150,000 years to the appearance of early homo sapiens, who could probably pass for modern humans if you put them in suits and taught them not to drool (then again, drooling might not stop them from blending in with some crowds). In these last 150,000 years, homo sapiens has been a remarkably successful species, so the pressure on it to change in any significant way has been pretty low. What changes have occured are fairly minor (i.e. darker skin for the sapiens who live in tropical climates, light skins for those in northern cilmates, epicanthic folds for those who got stuck in that big Mongolian ice age, etc.) and in any case, such changes did not cause sapiens to branch into different species, else successful cross-breeding of fertile young (i.e. not sterile hybrids like mules) wouldn’t be possible.
I dion’t recognize your justification for calling me ignorant, and in fact I take it you resorting to an ad hominem attack becuase you’ve no other ammunition. I’m not saying (or promoting the notion of) all humans are of the same race. Rather, I’m saying what many humans characterize as “race” has little or no genetic significance and in fact only has social significance because we choose to let it.
If you want to preserve “whiteness” (or any other set of phenotypes), go ahead. But I know for a fact that any of your lily-white grandchildren will be able to successfully mate with any Nigerian, Japanese or Indian that they happen to have the hots for. This will casually undo all your efforts and put a sang-froid smile right on my face.
Your point doesn’t rest so much as fall over and drop dead. Teaching young children a simplified premise like “everyone should be treated equally” and “don’t judge people by their colour” doesn’t strike me as extreme, or at least not as extreme as the leftist boogeyman you seem to think is indoctrinating children with the message that everyone is exactly the same. Such leftists do exist (heck, I’ve met a few right here), but their views are not as widespread as you claim, nor are children so dumb that they become unable to make their own romantic choices when they reach adulthood.
I’m glad you approve in theory, but wasn’t one of the premises of your Genetically Free communities that newcomers could be rejected based on their phenotypes, i.e. how they looked?
Well, then I’m confused. How exactly are “Genetically Free” communities run, then? And what is currently stopping or discouraging you from discussing phenotypes with your children? That someone else might call you a racist? Seems a pretty flimsy excuse to me, and the reactions of others wouldn’t stop me from discussing something I thought was important with my child.
Saying my disagreement with you stems from “media conditioning” is nonresponsive, by the way.
Unfortunately, you’ve only vaguely defined the terms “genetic freedom” and “branching”, and without firm definitions, you can’t prove they’re being “disrespected”. In any case, if genetic freedom means being able to mate as you choose, then such a practice is certainly not in jeopardy. If by “branching” you mean ensuring that all your descendants will make mating choices similar to yours (thus preserving a phenotype) , then I hate to point out that your descendants will make their own choices, and you can’t control them with laws. I’m afraid I can’t feel a lot of sympathy for your problem with disobedient descendants. Kids will be kids, after all.
Heck, “it’s OK” for anyone to call you anything they like, what with freedom of speech and all. Do you want laws to protect you from any and all criticism? Well, you can’t have them. Sorry.
I’m actually pointing out that your views are close enough to racism that applying the label is not really that much of a stretch.
Well, I never managed to attract Sean Young, but I got over it. How does not taking care of oneself become a genetic, rather than environmental, problem anyway?
I almost hesistate to say this, but that last paragraph kind of implies your philosophy of genetic freedom stems from a lack of dating success, and now you’re postulating forming communities in which at least one white women has to mate with you out a sense of duty to the white race.
More likely, such pairings helped remove a pointless stigma. In any case, such pairings easily predate modern media. From a strictly genetic point of view, though, is such a pairing worse than white man/black woman? If so, how? If not, then why mention black man/white woman at all?
So, are white females inherently less intelligent or more susceptible than white males? Is there some conspiracy to “corrupt” white females away from their natural choice (white men, I assume)? What is the purpose of such programming?
Well, “not OK” in the sense that modern Hollywood studios shy away from blatant racismm, but as a major counterexample, I’d like to cite the recent film Daredevil in which the primary villian (Wilson Fisk, aka The Kingpin) was actually changed from a white comic book character to a black movie character.
One film proves absolutely nothing, of course, except that villians are not universally white, as implied by your statement.
Well, encouraging tolerance (it turns out) is actually prefereable to encouraging segregation. Go figure.
Well, wait a sec. What’s the point in arguing for preservation if inaction doesn’t imply permanent loss? And no-one is disagreeing with you that it’s okay for humans to mate as they choose. I daresay most of the negative responses are to the idea that laws/communities are required to control who your children and your children’s children will mate with. You don’t actually own your children, and restricting their freedom (after they reach adulthood) is really no better than trying to restrict the freedom of a total stranger. If you had a compelling enough argument, you might be able to convince some people that certain freedoms must be sacrificed, but your reasons are elusive and your conclusions unsupported. Hence, you convince no-one.
Which means what, exactly? When selecting a mate, you should examine the phenotypes of your mate’s ancestors, or something? I must have missed another of your term definitions, because I can’t see how the “aggregate” phenotypes of your potential mate are relevant. The mate might have recessive genes that are not visible but which could manifest in offspring. Is that what you meant? If so, were you planning to run full genetic screenings and background checks on anyone who sought to marry you, or to live in a Genetically Free community?
I hate to break it to you, but that was actually what the NAZIs had in mind. Media exaggeration is entirely unnecessary in this case.
Arguably, I suppose, Melrose Place contributed to the anti-white sentiment by featuring Heather Locklear (a white, blonde, blue-eyed actress) playing a really really really bitchy character. Damn you, Aaron Spelling!
Yeah, I’ve noticed that a lot in this thread.
Well, we’ll have to see if you can eventually present it in a way that makes sense…
You are in fantasy, lala land… Apparently it makes you happy to just say silly things endlessly. - noted.
Anybody can look up genotype and phenotype and discover their precise meaning, notwithstanding your silly remarks.
DNA = 3 billion base pairs. That = genotype.
Phenotype is how the DNA actually manifests; how we actually physically develop from head to tow, inside and out - thus phenotype is never, ever arbitrary… it is just as important is genotype - both are equally important.
If two identical twins, male and female, mate with one another, the reason the baby won’t turn out identical to them is because genotype has the “hidden potential genetics” which, when the DNA from the two twins recombines, it combines in a different, random way, which then leads to different overall phenotypes…
However, the unique aggregate phenotypes of their ethnic group will still have a very high probability of showing up as phenotypes - you can avoid that or lie about it the rest of your life, but it will still be true.
Sort of in a different, random, arbitrary way. . .
****Quote: Castaway:
Why do white females choose to date black males? Large penis size is a big reason (no pun intended), the emotionally soothing hip-hop culture is a huge reason - which is a media created social construct, Athletics are a big reason.
TomnDebb: White females date black males because black males ask them out.**
Sure, that’s a given… and the other way around sometimes.
The penis nonsense has been debunked on several levels, years ago.
Any debunkers were simply lying because it was convenient… Genetically speaking some black tribes do have larger ones, on average… (another words if you measured 1000 randomly from each of the various tribes you would find…) I can certainly understand why people don’t want to do this study, correctly. Also, it’s at the level of ethnic group or tribe that these types of phenotypes can be much bigger or smaller, rather than “race” which is too broad. No studies of that kind have ever been done and who would want to do them… I have sisters, they have told me point blank and larger average penis size is why many white girls pursue blacks.
And hip-hop is not genetic (otherwise, only the genetically appropriate individuals would enjoy it). In fact, the selection, here, is entirely cultural.
Of course it’s not genetic. Hip-Hop is a Black/Jewish social construct. Jews deserve credit always in such things because they promote it and gain profit via media - my point being that if Christians owned and contolled all media in the United States, Hip-hop would not have existed like it does today.
The number of black guys who get white dates because they are athletes is limited to the (rather small) number of black guys who are athletes.
Professional athletes have sex with hundreds of women a year… do the math. Not all of them, sure, but many. Heard of parties? The media image of “black males” as suave, cool, happy and all the positive adjectives give girls a comfortable emotional feeling accordingly. The negative portrayal of white males as confused, upset, angry etc… affects white male / female communication and emotions accordingly. Dr. Laura has written about how women are portrayed as abrasive in the media and it has rubbed off on women in the real world as many are abrasive and anti-male in some way… she’s correct.
Ever hear the phrase “white men can’t jump?” Even though a realtively small number of professional and college athletes exist, that does affect peoples impressions of others on a daily basis. It’s called bias and prejudice - but in this case it’s a positive bias and a positive prejudice rather than negative ones.
So after claiming that there is a stigma against whites “caring” about being white, you present a couple of error-laden statements that do not even address the issue.
The coversation isn’t black and white, but briefly mentioning the obvious media trends is healthy.
**For example, you have failed to address the issue of the relatively small number of black women who choose to date or marry white guys., **
I addressed it… the two most sexually portrayed groups in the media are black males and white females. That coupled with the other factors I mentioned lead to the numbers we see.
despite the fact that that is the actual bottleneck in that ethnic gene exchange, not a superabundance of white women going the other way.
But here, your particular bias shines through. Here the flavor of your comment is that there is a bottleneck, which suggest we need to find out what is causing the bottleneck and unbottleneck it - which is perfectly in line with the “One Human Race Only,” 'Non-branching human race" religion.
Now, I will agree that there is a certain reluctance among many people to proclaim a desire to breed more white folks.
Then we are done… you understand.
However, that has far less to do with any pressure to be “ashamed” of being white than it does to declining to associate with the little covens of white supremacists who wander into the back woods and only come out to proclaim their desires on the Jerry Springer show.
Umm… not wanting to be associated with those people is being “ashamed.” I’m sure you’ll see your logical error. Also it goes much, much deeper than that. It deals with the dominance of “white people” over the past 400 years. They literally eliminated an entire “race” of people in America to populate it. They didn’t specifically try to do this. They had pressure from europe, pressure to survive - Christian pressures to civilize the world, superior technologies etc.
Let me mentioned something important. Prior to whites dominating much of the world, they were nearly exterminated two times. Once by the Arabs who came all the way up into france before being forced back into their own lands, then again by the Mongels as they traved through russia, and into Germany… They killed and raped and they actually could have exterminated whites for all time if they really did push it, but they decided to return to their homeland because their leader died. So white Christians or just plain “whites” are hardly THE aggressors of the world. They are the most recent aggressors, yes. However, I always say that Jews (of whatever genetic variety) deserve just as much credit for all this aggression for two reasons - First, ancient Jewish men wrote the Christian Bible (thanks a lot), and second, Jews are and have historically been dominant within white societies both financially and intellectually speaking.
Since “white” is such a nebulous category as to be worthless as a genotype or phenotype, it should be noted that there are a lot of white folks who proclaim their desire to breed more whites without incurring anyone’s wrath: they simply say that they are looking for an Irish/Polish/Italian/French/German/Jewish boy or girl like their parents married. I’ve never encountered anyone who had been censured for that attitude.
Sure, I mostly agree. However, skin color alone is a perfectly valid reason to breed a particular way - which means that simply being “white skinned” can be an aggregate phenotypic direction of genetic freedom. It’s not up to you or me, it’s up to them - and we should never express animosity or disrespect towards their desired pursuit of happiness, even if its nothing more than the desire to produce pretty shades of colorful light hair, eyes, and skin in the next generation.
Hardly… it would be real easy to collect the stats and pay attention to the target audiences - which is a huge factor when doing a study like this. Studies like this are not done because they are deemed “racist.” Yet, it is the producers and writers in hollywood which purposely portray things in the way that they do…
This is no contest, the only way you will “win” is simply because I don’t personally have time to collect all the stats… but they are there, oh so obviously they are there. We could do a study of the past 20 years.