# Human Branching **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 15, 2004, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395 "2004-06-15T00:04:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/81 "2004-06-16T01:47:54Z")
> [@hellothere](#): > > If there is anybody reading this thread who has some actual intellectual honesty and intelligence, they will easily see through the agenda driven statements that many on here enjoy making. I must have missed a memo; what is our agenda? ---
**Author:** ![hellothere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/9de053/32.png) [@hellothere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hellothere)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/82 "2004-06-16T01:48:57Z")
> [@Zagadka](#): > > No, no, you misunderstand me. > > You are more than welcome to be racist. You can raise racist kids, live in a racist commune in Montana, and bar off all the icky dark people. You can home school your kids. You can believe anything you want, but your right to be a racist does not override anyone else’s right to be protected under the law against racist behavior. > > If you would like to change the laws to allow discrimination again, you are more than welcome to try. Until then, I will follow the law to the letter. Ok, but we also need to have some balance and perhaps even laws against extreme multi-racial behavior. ---
**Author:** ![pizzabrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e9c0ed/32.png) [@pizzabrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pizzabrat)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/83 "2004-06-16T01:49:11Z")
Hellothere, it’s not impossible for you to be able to find a white wife. In fact, most white men who want a white wife have no trouble finding one. The only thing you seem to be worrying about is the idea that somebody somewhere might disapprove of you wanting a white wife, and then wanting the same for your children. It’ll be hard to find much sympathy for that worry, since it’s so cowardly and pathetic. We all do things that somebody somewhere might disapprove of, and we just deal with it. Marry a white woman, have white children, encourage them to marry white, and be happy. Rallying others to insulate you from a single negative thought about those desires is futile - we really don’t care enough to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/84 "2004-06-16T01:51:31Z")
The human race has been branching, combining, and rebranching since the beginning, and I don’t see that anything will change in that regard. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/85 "2004-06-16T01:51:48Z")
> [@hellothere](#): > > You have, with that statement, stabbed a knife into love that exists between people of the same or very near branch hehe. That’s certainly a new one. Tell me, scientifically speaking, what is “the same or very near branch”? What % of DNA has to match? Or is it specific parts of the DNA? ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/86 "2004-06-16T01:54:08Z")
> [@hellothere](#): > > Ok, but we also need to have some balance and perhaps even laws against extreme multi-racial behavior. Like? A law that says no one can make you marry outside of your branch? Sure, that’s fine with me, though as far as I know, there aren’t any legal requirements for marriage outside of 1 partner of the opposite sex (in most areas). ---
**Author:** ![hellothere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/9de053/32.png) [@hellothere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hellothere)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/87 "2004-06-16T01:58:15Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > I’ve visited it and there’s too much waffle there for your point (if indeed you have one) to penetrate. Could you at least succinctly (in say, two or three sentences) sum up the essence of your views? Don’t feel you have to do this, though. Most fundamentally we need to teach kids that genetic branching is OK, and that they have two kinds of reproductive choices: 1. To select someone in or very near our branch, thus continuing the branch’s unique Genetic traits. 2. To select outside our nearest branches, thus discontinuing our unique Genetic traits in favor of a different genetic combination. Beyond that we need to continue to study genetics and the truth is what it is - and anybody who thinks we know it today, is wrong. We are still studying it and, unfortunately, that is heavy, heavy political pressure to NOT study what the precise genetic differeneces are. We are in the darkages in that regard. Genetics are life, itself, yet we cannot properly study it due to fear. ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/88 "2004-06-16T01:58:52Z")
**Hellothere** > [@](#): > > You should be banned from this forum for “hate speech” at this point - but if it’s “your” forum, I guess that won’t be happening. > […]I’m sure you had an orgasm while writing that… [Moderator Hat ON] Hellothere, the decision as to whether someone should be banned is up to the mods, not you; please report any banworthy comments to the mods. Also, [please read the rules of this forum](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=220232), paying particular attention to #3. If you do not follow the rules, you can and will get banned. Guys, let’s not hassle the guests about paying up. For the 30 days they’re here, they have the right to post as they like (within the rules of the forum). [Moderator Hat OFF] ---
**Author:** ![hellothere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/9de053/32.png) [@hellothere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hellothere)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/89 "2004-06-16T02:03:36Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > So, what is the point of “branching” if all you end up doing in the end is remixing with other “branches”? Why bother even worrying about it? You’re walking the fence of item #2: 1. Expressing the notion that nobody should even think about human genetic branching and population diversity, and that we should all exclude those thoughts from our minds. This then leads to direct verbal hatred expressed towards people who do enjoy, accept and understand human genetic branching. Think about this… All life upon planet Earth is Genetics… branching genetic life. Yet, you just suggested that “why even bother worrying about it.” Which is easily translated to, “why even both thinking about it.” I just have to say that you are not sane. You don’t even realize what you are - genetic life. If you don’t wish to think about what you are, fine. I do, many others do, many more will follow because it’s human nature to seek out the truth about life. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/90 "2004-06-16T02:03:56Z")
> [@hellothere](#): > > Most fundamentally we need to teach kids that genetic branching is OK, and that they have two kinds of reproductive choices: > > 1. To select someone in or very near our branch, thus continuing the branch’s unique Genetic traits. > 2. To select outside our nearest branches, thus discontinuing our unique Genetic traits in favor of a different genetic combination. > > Beyond that we need to continue to study genetics and the truth is what it is - and anybody who thinks we know it today, is wrong. We are still studying it and, unfortunately, that is heavy, heavy political pressure to NOT study what the precise genetic differeneces are. We are in the darkages in that regard. Genetics are life, itself, yet we cannot properly study it due to fear. Oh, in that case, I disagree with you; our children should have the freedom of choice to marry and/or reproduce with whomsoever they personally choose to marry and/or reproduce with, regardless of their chosen partner’s ‘branch’ (a term which I suspect you have only arbitrarily defined). ---
**Author:** ![The\_27th\_Evil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ebca7d/32.png) [@The\_27th\_Evil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_27th_Evil)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/91 "2004-06-16T02:07:09Z")
OK, **hellothere** , so how do you feel about interracial relationships without children? I’m sterile, does that mean I can date whomever I want without worrying about helping to kill my unique genetic traits? What about post-menopausal women? People using birth control? Honestly, the difference in DNA between people of different races is so small as to be negligible. Everything still works the same way no matter what racial group we’re talking about, so there really is no point to your argument, is there? ---
**Author:** ![pizzabrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e9c0ed/32.png) [@pizzabrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pizzabrat)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/92 "2004-06-16T02:14:43Z")
> [@hellothere](#): > > Possibly because, well, that’s the only example you’ve got. > > “White men can’t jump” > “White boy” > “White boys have no rhythm” > “play that funky music white boy” > “Stupid white males” > > There are plenty more but I don’t make it a point to write them all down… I’ll collect them now though as I hear them. Are you serious? All of those terms were invented by whites themselves (don’t let the fact that a black character uttered the first example in the eponymous Hollywood movie fool you - it was written by a [member of your branch](http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005421/)). And they’re all transparent attempts at disingenuous self-deprecation (Don’t mind me, I’m just a lil’ old white boy! Tee-hee!"). Trust me, I hate them more than you do. ---
**Author:** ![hellothere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/9de053/32.png) [@hellothere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hellothere)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/93 "2004-06-16T02:16:33Z")
> [@Zagadka](#): > > Hi, my name is hellothere, I like going around and making random hypothesis with absolutely no supporting evidence or facts, then refusing to discuss them. > > Sorry, that’s not how we do things here at GD. The hypothesis I made is one of the most fundamental hypothesis that can be made about any disease, and possibly behaviors. I don’t really know what more to say to you. Genetic tendency / environmental factors - that covers a hell of a lot of territory, possibly including homosexuality. Is there a homosexual gene or aggregate phenotypes? I have no idea. They havn’t found it yet. Why? Because genetic studies are rudimentary - which is why it’s humorous when people say it’s “proven scientific fact” that there are no significant genetic differences between various branches etc… We don’t even know all the genes that contribute to eye color - we are discovering that genetic interactions are complicated far beyond the what scientists thought just a decade ago. The genetics that contribute to the brain are so complicated that the scientists are basically “giving up.” That’s the jist you get when reading articles. Oh, they’ll keep trying but it’s just damn complicated. The impressions of reality that we all have are not real. Our minds simply cannot process what the real genetic world is. Any “fact” that people think they absolutely know is a relative thing. Understanding all there is to know about the differences between different human branches is a huge, huge undertaking that we have only just begun to scratch the surface on. Meanwhile, we can teach kids that they have two choices: 1. To select someone in or very near our branch, thus continuing the branch’s unique Genetic traits. 2. To select outside our nearest branches, thus discontinuing our unique Genetic traits in favor of a different genetic combination. ---
**Author:** ![hellothere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/9de053/32.png) [@hellothere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hellothere)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/94 "2004-06-16T02:19:13Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > I’m pretty sure I’ve seen this tactic before; it goes like this: > > - Make vague assertions, hoping that they will be misunderstood. > - Brush off requests for further detail. Your readers will be inclined to make assumptions. > - Ask for comments. > - Point out that the assumptions made by the readers betray serious character flaws and/or reinforce your grand ytheory. With thoughts like that exiting your brain, why do you even bother thinking? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/95 "2004-06-16T02:23:11Z")
> [@hellothere](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by Mangetout > > I’m pretty sure I’ve seen this tactic before; it goes like this: > > > > - Make vague assertions, hoping that they will be misunderstood. > > - Brush off requests for further detail. Your readers will be inclined to make assumptions. > > - Ask for comments. > > - Point out that the assumptions made by the readers betray serious character flaws and/or reinforce your grand ytheory. > > With thoughts like that exiting your brain, why do you even bother thinking? To reiterate: **"Point out that the assumptions made by the readers betray serious character flaws"** Yawn. Is that the best you can do? ---
**Author:** ![hellothere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/9de053/32.png) [@hellothere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hellothere)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/96 "2004-06-16T02:24:02Z")
> [@Zagadka](#): > > OK, now we’re beginning to repeat the “genetic freedom” thread. > > 1. if you are going to use fancy scientific words like “genetics,” please demonstrate the distinct genetic branches that exist, in scientific terms, and their differing traits, in any measurable extent. > > 2. … OK, that’s all. Give me 20 years… that’s how long it’s going to take for these genetic studies to be done given their creepy crawly pace. The fundamental problem is that you disrespect human branching. Genetic branching does not require a dissertation upon what genetic differences we are “trying” to maintain. Visual differences are sufficient for people to feel love and branch accordingly. Other differences will be selected for, primarily differences of the brain. ---
**Author:** ![hellothere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/9de053/32.png) [@hellothere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hellothere)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/97 "2004-06-16T02:27:56Z")
> [@lambchops](#): > > Dude, just to point something out, none of us posters has a commercial interest in this site. Quite the opposite - we all paid 5 bucks (price now 15 bucks) to post here. > > For our sake, could you just say your argument. “This is my site, discuss” doesn’t really provoke debate. “I believe that \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_, and my evidence for this is \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_” is a good way to do so. For example, you could say “I believe that white people are discriminated against, and my evidence for this is phrases like ‘white men can’t jump’”. Give it a go if you want a serious discussion here. I am interested in teaching kids that their two fundamental reproductive choices are this: 1. To select someone in or very near our branch, thus continuing the branch’s unique Genetic traits. 2. To select outside our nearest branches, thus discontinuing our unique Genetic traits in favor of a different genetic combination. I’m interested in opening genetic studies to all differences that exist between the branches - without fear of what we will find. I’ve already stated this - the website states this. There is no ambiguity or lack of clarity. I only bring up the “white” thing because that’s the group I was born into and thus I’m an “expert” and there are some good examples I can site accordingly. ---
**Author:** ![hellothere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/9de053/32.png) [@hellothere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hellothere)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/98 "2004-06-16T02:36:50Z")
> [@Zagadka](#): > > Getting a little snarky, aren’t we? > > You _do_ know what the term “peer reviewed” means, right? From a doctoral perspective, a scientific perspective, of course. The blog, blogs such things. Why is it taking so long to communicate something so simple? Allow me to state it in a easier to comprehend way: The blog lists things that have been peer reviewed. ---
**Author:** ![hellothere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/9de053/32.png) [@hellothere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hellothere)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/99 "2004-06-16T02:38:52Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > I must have missed a memo; what is our agenda? Non-branching agenda. It permeates you. It permeates our media and educational system, which is why it permeates you. It’s not your fault, and the memo is given to you afresh almost every day in some media outlet that you tune into. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2004, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395/100 "2004-06-16T02:40:13Z")
> [@hellothere](#): > > Give me 20 years… that’s how long it’s going to take for these genetic studies to be done given their creepy crawly pace. So… you are basing an argument - one that you want mandatorily taught in schools - on a hypothesis about research that not only is incomplete, thus far argues against your point. You freely admit that you have absolutely no scientific evidence and base your classifications on the color of people’s skin, but define anyone against your ideology as “extremist multi-racialists” who are a danger to society because they don’t not force no one to not do nothing, or something, or whatever, but rather because they don’t promote your ideology. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh. > [@](#): > > The fundamental problem is that you disrespect human branching. I don’t disrespect anything. I just don’t think we should be teaching your wacky hypotheticals in school. Come back when you have an iota of scientific basis for your argument. You can’t even define what a “branch” is, can you? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-branching/250395.md?page=6)