Ummm, try reading my posts in this thread.
I don’t think it’s known what “disappeared” the Neanderthals. But let’s assume for the sake of argument that it was something other than interbreeding.
We still know that a lot of interbreeding took place. Thus, at some point there must have been a “spectrum” of humans from pure Neanderthals to pure modern humans. And to an extent that “spectrum” continues to this very day. Even though the Neanderthals have disappeared by any reasonable definition of the word “disappeared.”
Earlier you asked the following question:
You seem to be arguing that as long as there is a “spectrum” then the group at one end of the “spectrum” has not disappeared. The example of the Neanderthals shows that your argument is incorrect.
I tried. What I took away from reading is that we should protect Polar Bears from going extinct at almost all costs.
I’m just pointing out that species/sub-populations go extinct in nature all the time. Some if not many of them probably due to cross-breeding.
Societies / cultures do as well (although equating nature to human culture is a coarse analogy); and new/hybrid cultures are created all the time as well. That’s how both nature and human society work. Why do you have a problem with this?
Can you quote me where I stated or implied that? TIA.
I don’t like it. Let me ask you this:
(1) Is there any species on earth (including Homo Sapiens) for which you would prefer that it not go extinct tomorrow? And if so, would you be willing to make some small sacrifice to prevent it from happening?
(2) Do you object to the fact that public resources are expended to protect endangered species?
Now, or in the past? I’ll agree that the situation has improved in recent decades.
It’s an American judgment, and we’re the better for it.
[QUOTE=Peremensoe]
Well, now wait a minute. Mixing is good, but cherishing distinctions and diversity is good too. Both dynamics are key to America, IMO.
[/QUOTE]
Tolerate diversity? By all means. Cherish it? No.
Why is there no special song for interracial couples? 
Jungle Fever by Stevie Wonder.
I wanted to repeat my question for brazil84, because I’m genuinely curious about what he feels should be done about interracial couples.
Agreed, but I just had to fold this one. Some people have very different worldviews.
There is a word which describes the bold portion of this thinking, and the associated ideas have been used to consciously and indirectly remove groups and cultures from existence, in an amalgam of human conflict. The social repercussions of progressing down that path don’t lend to a world of coexistence. Everything from challenges brought about from prejudices, to the existence of more seemingly benign subcultures, work against the totality of this idea sustaining itself, in practice.
I’m talking about now but even in the past there were mixed couples. Some put up with a lot of shit for love though.
Are you ever afraid of being attacked by black men because you date a black woman?
What is the word, and can you please give me a couple examples of what you are talking about?
Also, please answer my questions from Post #197:
-
So by your definition of the word “value,” it is never possible to value something for its own sake?
-
In the Polar Bear example, one can imagine a situation a few generations before Polar Bears are completely assimilated and disappear. At that time, there will be a small number of Polar Bears; a large number of Brown Bears; and a medium number of mixed Bears. In your view, does that situation have more “actual diversity” than a situation where Brown Bears and Polar Bears are distinct, separate groups?
-
So it sounds like you concede that there are in-born sexual preferences, but your position is that those preferences never intersect with race in any way. Insofar as people prefer one race over another, it’s purely a matter of social conditioning.
Do I understand you correctly?
-
What exactly is the “established knowledge” I am challenging?
-
Do you agree that you have offered no evidence (besides your own wishes and desires) concerning a change in the disparity between black/white and white/black couples? And no evidence whatsoever concerning a change in the disparity between white/Asian and Asian/white couples?
-
It sounds like your position is that it’s silly to try to preserve a distinct culture from assimilation because that culture will inevitably change anyway. Do I understand you correctly?
-
Is there ever a situation where it’s reasonable or appropriate or desirable to try to preserve some X even though that X will ultimately disappear or change beyond recognition? If so, in what kinds of situations is it reasonable or appropriate or desirable to try to preserve that X?
I would appreciate answers so that I can understand your position.
TIA.
Why not? Diversity is what makes this one of the most interesting countries.
Cam’ron - White Girls
Wait…
I actually literally laughed out loud at this. Can’t tell if serious.
This is an easy one- from 1981 to 2009, the ratio of black male/white female marriages to black female/white male marriages has gone down from 371:100 to 181:100. So in 2009 the disparity was less than 50% of what it was in 1981.
An interesting side note is that while black male/white female marriages are twice as likely to divorce (as compared to white/white marriages) by the 10th year of marriage, black female/white male marriages are 44% less likely to divorce than white/white marriages.
So this leads to another question- why are black female/white male marriages more successful, statistically, then all white marriages?
Racism, or as it relates to this thread, the discrimination, as a result of social constructs (more specifically, the ones you’ve created). I had previously outlined an example of how or why culture was important or carried value, not as a means to bolster either of our points, but at least as a basis for what would shape a discussion of substance.
Examples:
"FWIW I disapprove of interracial couples. I see value in having a diversity of races and ethnic groups and interracial mating undermines that value." […] “The value is that I like it.”
–Besides the obvious contradiction; without any depth of reasoning behind the value, you pretty much just disapprove for the sake of doing so.
“Why is it somehow an intolerable situation that some groups are smarter than others?”
–You’re insinuating that race has a link to intelligence or intellect.
I already have, and for the rest, there isn’t any point. Each response prompts more questions, without actual dialogue on that new information; you mince and misconstrue ideas by addressing half-sentences; and create too many tangents, for my taste.
I already understand your position, but haven’t discovered any sound reasoning behind it. At this point, I’m okay with that and will respectfully decline and further agree to disagree.
Nonsense, you are simply hiding your position behind a cloak of ambiguity. Because when it is exposed to scrutiny, your position is revealed as silly.
Anyway, I have no interest in engaging with someone who plays hide the ball with his position. This exchange is concluded.