Nickname and post combination. Have you ever heard of Muslim men beating a foreigner because he dates a Muslim woman?
I take it this is purely hypothetical? I haven’t dated anyone of any race—or species—in over 16 years.
I am afraid of being attacked by capybaras, though.
Haven’t some mixed couples been killed in their homes, presumably for being mixed? As far as I know, it was only a few, but even so, that’s pretty hardcore. Others have simply left the country rather than deal with the hostility.
Not as harsh as events in the Middle East, I grant you. But shocking for a place that’s part of the English speaking Western world.
What kind of diversity? Diversity that conflicts with our core values? Then, no.
Not that I’m aware of. I mean it’s possible but I’ve read extensively on the Troubles and don’t recall any incidents like that. I’d be interested to see a cite although I’m not demanding one. And of course some couples did leave in order to avoid hostility.
No. But of all the kinds of diversity, that would be a minuscule fraction.
I’ll ignore species because, indeed, that distinction is far more nebulous than people think. But I was not talking about neighborhoods or languages; I was talking about the human race, of which there is just one. The distinctions between Caucasian, African, American Indian, East Asian, Southern Asian, Inuit, Maori, Australian aborigine, etc, are not support by biology.
Oh, come on. I’m being mean because I couldn’t tell if you seriously thought black men beating up white guys for takin’ their wimmen was a credible threat? Apparently you do. This isn’t Afghanistan; no one’s going to beat you for walking outside without your father or dating an infidel.
My “position” was asking how you apply value to culture/race discrimination. Your response was that you like it that way.
[ul]
[li]“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.”[/li][/ul]
Doesn’t get any more ambiguous than that. I went ahead and answered it for you, in an attempt to promote more reasoned discussion:
[ul]
[li]“If you want to get into the actual value of culture, I would start somewhere along the lines of its benefit to a greater society, as it assists in creating a synergy between peoples. We can attribute this, historically, as one of many survival mechanisms-- this more demonstrates an actual value, in the sense that it represents an intrinsic worth to our collective well-being, which is distinct from your “preference”. However, even in this example, there is nothing actually “lost” when culture changes, as it does so in order to serve the greater will of a society.”[/li][/ul]
One of these responses applies relevant meaning to the word “value”, and serves as a platform for discussion. The other doesn’t.
Straw man arguments and bear diversions don’t properly embrace the idea scrutiny. On the actual topic of race relations in this country, I cited the more progressive supreme court decision (Loving vs. Virginia, post 184), which reinforced the idea that interracial acceptance is on the rise. In tandem with this, I supported this with statistics from the US census bureau, among others sources. I’m not sure how the following represents scrutiny, or even a reasonable response:
“What exactly is the “established knowledge” I am challenging?”
Apparently, the supreme court interpretation of the constitution isn’t established enough. I must have another think coming.
And I’m still trying to understand how two other people choosing to date outside of their race, somehow have bearing on your ability to find a “suitable mate”; or are they using up all the people in the pool?
My boyfriend’s parents were Catholic (mum) and Protestant (dad) respectively. She was the daughter of the local pharmacist in Downpatrick (in Northern Ireland) and he was a policeman (!) when they started dating. They were never directly threatened because of their relationship, although my boyfriend tells me that his dad used to check under his car every morning for bombs before driving to work.
Ummm, does that mean yes or no?
Is it your view that any time it’s difficult to draw a clear line between two groups or entities, any distinction between those two groups or entities is an illusion?
Does the same reasoning apply to distinctions between neighborhoods in a city?
Between different dialects of languages?
Between different species?
This is another reason I approve of interracial relationships. My biracial ex turned me onto Archer. She was thinking of being Lana for Halloween. Lana dated both Sterling and Cyril. Sadly, I’m more Cyril than Sterling.
“China Girl,” by David Bowie?
I would recommend that people who are getting embroiled in discussion about race take a look at the participants in various race-oriented threads in the Pit and GD and then decide if this is a rabbit hole you want to go down.
I imagine that was because of his occupation though, right? Rather than his relationship, the bomb checking that is.
Yes, I should have made that clearer. My boyfriend’s father lost a lot of friends to IRA violence but it was because they were police officers. I have never heard any stories about violence due to the relationship. I’ll ask him once I get home tonight.
I was always impressed that his mum’s parents didn’t oppose the relationship though. Not because he was Protestant per se, but because he was a policeman.
Why “Oh it’s you” is the only appropriate response, IMO. He shouldn’t be treated as if his opinions are in any regard principled or intellectual.
I see.:smack:
Yes, please do not engage me on the merits. That might subject your views to scrutiny. :rolleyes:
Sorry, I am little confused about that. Are you implying that her husband’s state of being a policeman helped her face no opposition from her own parents, compensating her husband’s being a protestant(=even tough her husband was a protestant)?