Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
God has already judged you. Do not distort and sully the scriptures to maintain an ignorant, backward, and racist, view held by the unsaved of this world.
Tell you what, let's see the scriptures that you suggest forbid inter-racial marriage and I'll show the link where some nut in a shelter or compound is
spewing this vile vitriol !!!
We need to be careful with the quote tags...because it looks like I was saying what Buddy was saying...probably my fault.
This entire thread is why I think homo sapiens are an experiment on planet earth, when differences in the natural way we look places artificial restrictions in some person's mind based on the man made social construct of "race".
Abusing the quote function should be illegal, too How do you guys manage to mess it up so often? I don't get it... If you have two open quote tags in your post, you need to close quote tags as well.
Of course it would not be the end of mankind, but it would be a horrible world to me. I can hardly tolerate Germany anymore, what would I do in a world of Faroe people only?! A Han world would be no more interesting to me. I notice it again and again, I just don't feel good in a this or that only environment. I need the colorful mix.
Sure, there is a lot of diversity within any given ethnic group as well, but then again, even more so between different ones.
Since you can't seem to understand the hypocritical nature of your own views of the world. Let me try to explain it to you paragraph by paragraph...
This first two paragraphs you begin by acknowledging that the Faroe people or the Chinese people contain plenty enough genetic diversity, that the world would not actually be adversely affected if one of these groups of people were the only people existing in the world. But you go on to say that such a world would be incredibly boring to you, and that you need a "colorful mix".
Quote:
When you speak of not mixing Africans and Whites because of the environment, well, those problems would be even more problematic to the non-mixed individuals of the ethnic group which is out of place, so to speak. In the US for instance, blacks in the northern Midwest are advised to take certain vitamin supplements while that climate is just fine for whites. Whites on the other hand have to use sun blocker in the Sun Belt while blacks have no problems there. But a mixed individual can go pretty much anywhere without these problems. Common sense is enough for them.
This paragraph you are trying to make the argument that "Brown skin" is optimal and the most adaptable. In this statement, you believe that all humans should strive to be more and more "brown".
Quote:
Also, mixing usually combines the best of two worlds, not the worst. Genes provide for quite some flexibility. If we were not supposed to mix, we would not be compatible genetically. But we are.
Again, you are arguing that we should all mix and create that new "all-brown" race because it would make humanity better since mixing "usually combines the best of two worlds". This would undoubtedly create your "monoracial" world in which you claim is boring.
But of course, there is no actual proof of such a conclusion. If your argument was true, then mixed-race children would have higher life expectancies and higher IQ's compared to single-race children. Both are obviously not true.
Quote:
I am not saying a world of just one race would be awful, but it would be very boring to me. To someone who never left his environment it might be totally normal. But to people who have moved around quite a lot all over the world, being in a homogeneous environment is like being a junkie without drugs Same with city life. People who don't know it don't miss it. The rest usually gets bored when they have to move to a rural area.
Now you are going back to saying how terrible it would be to live in a homogeneous(monoracial) world, where everyone looks the same.
As for your talk of city life, most people who are "pro-urban" generally use Europe as the example of what America should be more like. And if you hadn't noticed, almost all of Europe is the very opposite of racially diverse. And as Europe has become more diverse, there has been a huge backlash against immigrants and foreigners. And they are having more and more issues with both urban sprawl and people moving into more rural areas. Simply put, diversity has not enriched Europe.
Urban Sprawl in Europe Creating Environmental Challenges | EarthTrends (http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/121 - broken link)
What you say is exactly my point. I have written it before in another thread. To me diversity is not the goal at all, it is only the precondition for the goal which is one human race where it is impossible to tell people's ethnic ancestry. Brazil is pretty far on that path already. About half the population is so mixed they have no idea of all the ingredients.
Now, you are back saying how the future will be to destroy diversity by making it impossible to tell a persons ethnic ancestry(also known as monoracialism). And Brazil being further along the road towards an "all-brown society".
Quote:
Your last paragraph addressed at me is just way off. You are confusing cause and effect, you are associating things that have nothing to do with each other. There is no crime gene etc. There is no way to classify people's behavior based on their ethnicity or race.
You almost sound like one of those old geezers I got to know in a Germany old people's home where I used to work. They said things like if only Hitler were back, then there would be no crime, no foreigners, etc. You spot problems, which no doubt exist, but seek the easy way out, looking back in vain instead of looking forward.
One of my favorite artists is Sade by the way, a wonderful Nigerian-British hybrid
There is no crime gene, true. But there are certain genes that increase your likelihood of commiting crime. Such as genes that increase impulsivity, that increase emotional instability or mental illness, or genes that affect intelligence to the extent that it makes it difficult to make or understand ones decisions(very low IQ). In much the same way that there are genes that increase life-expectancy. But obviously if you smoke and drink, eat poorly, or have a dangerous lifestyle, those genes become effectly useless.
I have no doubt that illegal crime was much lower during Hitler's years. Of course, Hitler also euthanized or killed off anyone with a family history of mental illness, anyone who had commited practically any type of criminal activity, and most hate-crimes were completely legal(and once he wiped out the diversity in Germany, there were no more hate-crimes).
I am not opposed to all diversity, but I do realize that there are issues associated with it. There have been studies done on the issue of diversity, and they have not painted it positively. And it doesn't take much logic to understand why it has been such a failure.
In my opinion, I think you do enjoy diversity, but you hate racism and discrimination, and you realize that the only way racism will end is if there is no more racial diversity. So while you hate the idea of a "monoracial" world, you realize the only way to preserve the current ethnic diversity would be to enforce some level of "segregation", but you would never support such a policy. Because that would limit freedom.
Think of it like Domestic dogs. Right now there are hundreds or thousands of different breeds of dogs. Regardless of the way they look, they are all still just dogs, and any of them could potentially breed with any of the other breeds. And while there are some size constraints, these same issues also plague humans(many small women need to have a c-section to deliver a baby by a large man).
If all dogs were allowed to breed indiscriminately, then over time you would end up with what amounts to a single breed of dog. I'm sure the pit bull might think it was cool that he could hook up with the black lab one night, then he could be banging the golden retriever the next. Maybe he has a weird obsession with huskies. And he doesn't like the idea of the other dogs judging him because he wants to date a German Shepherd. He ends up on Maury Poodlevich, doing a paternity test on some mixed-breed puppies, and he is the father. He doesn't seem to acknowledge that he is destroying the "breed diversity" he seems to be so obsessed with.
In reality, regardless of what we do today, the future will become less and less diverse. Both culturally and ethnically. The world is just too international to allow groups to be isolated enough to allow diversity over the long term. The question is whether or not we should allow diversity to slowly break down over time through a voluntary hands-off approach(which could take hundreds of years). Of if we should use any means necessary to promote and enforce it(such as open-immigration(and diversity immigration visa's), affirmative-action to artifically elevate the socio-economic status of minorities to make them more "competitive" mates, have forced busing and other types of "integration" programs to increase contact of people of varying races, and to have anti-discrimination laws that regulate private business(and to a lesser extent, private individuals)). As well as having nonstop talk from mostly left-wing government officials telling us the importance of diversity in our "shrinking world".
The former will allow for much more united communities, there will be less issues of "white flight" and urban sprawl, crime rates will be lower, and the environment will be largely more peaceful. These communities will be much more egalitarian, as people will be more likely to work together for the common good of their community. The bad is, there will be a certain amount of competition between each community, and as one community will undoubtedly become more successful than the others, it might lead to hostility between groups, and anyone who strays "outside their group" might be ostracized by the other members of their group.
The former will create much more divided communities, there will be people trying to "run away" from the problems of this society, and to protect their "way of life" from encroachment by outsiders. Crime rates will generally be high, with a new category of crime called "hate crimes". The diversity will even turn similar groups against each other. And the community will tend to focus more and more on the individual instead of the community, and people will tend to refrain from wanting to hand over their hard work to help "others" whom they do not like or agree with. Of course, over time, these issues would break down necessarily as the divisions that formerly existed would disappear. Eventually leaving a much more united community.
Since you can't seem to understand the hypocritical nature of your own views of the world. Let me try to explain it to you paragraph by paragraph...
This first two paragraphs you begin by acknowledging that the Faroe people or the Chinese people contain plenty enough genetic diversity, that the world would not actually be adversely affected if one of these groups of people were the only people existing in the world. But you go on to say that such a world would be incredibly boring to you, and that you need a "colorful mix".
This paragraph you are trying to make the argument that "Brown skin" is optimal and the most adaptable. In this statement, you believe that all humans should strive to be more and more "brown".
Again, you are arguing that we should all mix and create that new "all-brown" race because it would make humanity better since mixing "usually combines the best of two worlds". This would undoubtedly create your "monoracial" world in which you claim is boring.
But of course, there is no actual proof of such a conclusion. If your argument was true, then mixed-race children would have higher life expectancies and higher IQ's compared to single-race children. Both are obviously not true.
Now you are going back to saying how terrible it would be to live in a homogeneous(monoracial) world, where everyone looks the same.
As for your talk of city life, most people who are "pro-urban" generally use Europe as the example of what America should be more like. And if you hadn't noticed, almost all of Europe is the very opposite of racially diverse. And as Europe has become more diverse, there has been a huge backlash against immigrants and foreigners. And they are having more and more issues with both urban sprawl and people moving into more rural areas. Simply put, diversity has not enriched Europe.
Urban Sprawl in Europe Creating Environmental Challenges | EarthTrends (http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/121 - broken link)
Now, you are back saying how the future will be to destroy diversity by making it impossible to tell a persons ethnic ancestry(also known as monoracialism). And Brazil being further along the road towards an "all-brown society".
There is no crime gene, true. But there are certain genes that increase your likelihood of commiting crime. Such as genes that increase impulsivity, that increase emotional instability or mental illness, or genes that affect intelligence to the extent that it makes it difficult to make or understand ones decisions(very low IQ). In much the same way that there are genes that increase life-expectancy. But obviously if you smoke and drink, eat poorly, or have a dangerous lifestyle, those genes become effectly useless.
I have no doubt that illegal crime was much lower during Hitler's years. Of course, Hitler also euthanized or killed off anyone with a family history of mental illness, anyone who had commited practically any type of criminal activity, and most hate-crimes were completely legal(and once he wiped out the diversity in Germany, there were no more hate-crimes).
I am not opposed to all diversity, but I do realize that there are issues associated with it. There have been studies done on the issue of diversity, and they have not painted it positively. And it doesn't take much logic to understand why it has been such a failure.
In my opinion, I think you do enjoy diversity, but you hate racism and discrimination, and you realize that the only way racism will end is if there is no more racial diversity. So while you hate the idea of a "monoracial" world, you realize the only way to preserve the current ethnic diversity would be to enforce some level of "segregation", but you would never support such a policy. Because that would limit freedom.
Think of it like Domestic dogs. Right now there are hundreds or thousands of different breeds of dogs. Regardless of the way they look, they are all still just dogs, and any of them could potentially breed with any of the other breeds. And while there are some size constraints, these same issues also plague humans(many small women need to have a c-section to deliver a baby by a large man).
If all dogs were allowed to breed indiscriminately, then over time you would end up with what amounts to a single breed of dog. I'm sure the pit bull might think it was cool that he could hook up with the black lab one night, then he could be banging the golden retriever the next. Maybe he has a weird obsession with huskies. And he doesn't like the idea of the other dogs judging him because he wants to date a German Shepherd. He ends up on Maury Poodlevich, doing a paternity test on some mixed-breed puppies, and he is the father. He doesn't seem to acknowledge that he is destroying the "breed diversity" he seems to be so obsessed with.
In reality, regardless of what we do today, the future will become less and less diverse. Both culturally and ethnically. The world is just too international to allow groups to be isolated enough to allow diversity over the long term. The question is whether or not we should allow diversity to slowly break down over time through a voluntary hands-off approach(which could take hundreds of years). Of if we should use any means necessary to promote and enforce it(such as open-immigration(and diversity immigration visa's), affirmative-action to artifically elevate the socio-economic status of minorities to make them more "competitive" mates, have forced busing and other types of "integration" programs to increase contact of people of varying races, and to have anti-discrimination laws that regulate private business(and to a lesser extent, private individuals)). As well as having nonstop talk from mostly left-wing government officials telling us the importance of diversity in our "shrinking world".
The former will allow for much more united communities, there will be less issues of "white flight" and urban sprawl, crime rates will be lower, and the environment will be largely more peaceful. These communities will be much more egalitarian, as people will be more likely to work together for the common good of their community. The bad is, there will be a certain amount of competition between each community, and as one community will undoubtedly become more successful than the others, it might lead to hostility between groups, and anyone who strays "outside their group" might be ostracized by the other members of their group.
The former will create much more divided communities, there will be people trying to "run away" from the problems of this society, and to protect their "way of life" from encroachment by outsiders. Crime rates will generally be high, with a new category of crime called "hate crimes". The diversity will even turn similar groups against each other. And the community will tend to focus more and more on the individual instead of the community, and people will tend to refrain from wanting to hand over their hard work to help "others" whom they do not like or agree with. Of course, over time, these issues would break down necessarily as the divisions that formerly existed would disappear. Eventually leaving a much more united community.
too long an answer..simple..race is out Dated and means nothing..there should be no mention of race
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How do you guys manage to mess it up so often? I don't get it... If you have two open quote tags in your post, you need to close quote tags as well.
