quote: Nope, I wouldn't. I sit next to many fine blacks, hispanics, women and filipino's in my office every day. They are paid as much or more than I and they have earned every penny of it. They are qualified "people". My father is a member of the Ojibwe nation and I can't even speculate what race my wife might be (she was adopted). I see a beautiful person.
Ok, yeah. A picture is forming in my mind.
It's a guy who hints that his wife is mixed race in order to vindicate his own racism.
Edit: And seriously, you care nothing whatever about the race (read family history, heritage) of your own wife? You remain totally incurious on that point? Really? Even if she *didn't know,* which is always possible, I have never met anyone, anyone who couldn't be bothered to hazard a guess.
But actually, how you put it, she might be a mix of German and French, or she might be Nigerian, or she might be polynesian. You're obfuscating why?
"I don't see race" is insulting to people who find their racial heritage important. That's exactly why Stephen Colbert says it all the time. It's a joke. It makes you look like an insensitive tool.
posted
What about those of us who literally don't see race? I once tried to take a psych test to indicate if I had racial preferences and I failed. Part of the requirement was correctly identifying the races of people in pictures and I was extremely inaccurate.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find nothing more irritating than a right wing fanatic who is arrogantly convinced that he is a self made man and moral superior to anyone who disagrees with him to boot.
The totally lack of gratitude and compassion sickens me.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Firstly: the "heap" isn't just made up of Americans. You're complaining about illegal immigration and affirmative action while, as proof of your modest lifestyle, citing your 1100 sq. ft. home and your office job. (That said, I don't think you deserve this latest dogpile; I don't think you've said anything here that merits vitriol. But I do think that perhaps you're a bit willfully blind to the advantages of your situation.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if insulting is the right word, but it definitely rubs me the wrong way. Here's something similar to what I'm thinking:
quote: So what’s the problem with colorblindness? A lot of people will offer “I’m colorblind” as a symbol of good faith; they’re trying to express that they aren’t actively thinking racist things, and that they don’t see the race of others as a problem. And, as far as that goes, it’s a sweet thought. Really. But it functions for PoC in much the same way as “you’re just one of the guys” and “I don’t think of you as a girl” functions for women. It’s a nice thought, but it misses the point entirely.
I don’t want [my race] to not be a problem for you; I don’t want race to be problematic.
The distinction may seem subtle, but it really isn’t. When a person says “I don’t see color” as a way of saying “your race is not a problem for me,” it casts the problem as race. Race is not the problem, racism is.
posted
Here's my lifelong dilema. To categorize people by their appearance is a dissapointment. I have a father who identifies himself as Native American but those who prefer groups and labels would make me choose to accept or deny either my mother or my father. Lets make it really convoluded, you can see the Afican American in my mother but not in me. You'ld look at my father and probably make the false assumption that he is hispanic. I simply accept that I am an American. I am a person. I'm not here to prove to you that I am not a racist but your accusations will not scare me into not standing by my beliefs. You'll decry even a minority who has my beliefs. Maybe it's the conservative who is the idealist. My cousin is an adopted African American. Growing up he was ridiculed not by whites but by blacks for talking funny. Today he is a doctor. Was his skin color a hinderance? Skin color does not matter but being raised, not as a victim but as a person with goals and values is all that matters. We could delve into illegitimacy rates if you'd like, but I believe this too is a product of government intervention. My cousin is actually a lot like Barack Obama. As you've said, he doesn't put himself out as a black leader. I may disagree with his politics but it is refreshing that he doesn't see race as brightly as you white guilters out there. Jesse Jackson said he was "talking down to black people" why? Because believes that they can achieve and they should pull up their pants. Give me a break. I suppose Obama should deny his white half and I should disregard my native american father.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am irritated when I need to fill out a self identification delcaration on an affirmative action section in a job application. Which part of me is the taint? Which part of me will the true racist see when I walk down the street? My family knows full well what discrimination is. My german grandmother and my Ojibwe grandfather left Minnesota to escape some of the issues. Where they moved, the dirty Indians weren't allowed in town after dark. I'm suprised my father managed to overcome the man keeping him down.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you suggesting Whites are the top of society?
Are you suggesting they're not?
That's not the single defining trait obviously, but if you're white in America you're more likely to have the other necessary qualities that place you at the top of society, yes.
Edit: Also, dude, your racial credentialing isn't impressing anyone.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now you're stereotyping whites as having "the necessary qualities" of success. Can I infer minorities are lacking the necessary qualities you failed to list? Some might find that a very offensive suggestion. Would you care to list the qualities you speak of so we could explore them. I certainly believe intelligence is equal accross racial lines and I doubt minorities are being denied employment or education based on race.
The credentials wouldn't matter if I were 100% Afican American. I'm sure Michael Steele lacks legitimacy for having the same views as I.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that inner-city schools suck but it's the Dems who block school choice programs. My daughter attends a high minority school(about 70%) and she does very well in comparison to the minority students. This isn't the schools fault, we spend time with her studying and impress upon her the importance of being a good student.
When it comes to high school graduates, minorities have at least equal access to college. I didn't qualify for any type of scholarship or grant with a 3.0 gpa. Low graduation rates stop the game there.
Employment is equal. All governments jobs have preference for disabled, vets, minorities, females, etc. Of course this game can be manipulated by opening a company in your wife's name. The perception of discrimination may be present though. It is unlikely I would hire someone to answer the phone who is difficult to understand. But this would go for the hillbilly as well. There are appearance and communication standards in the workplace. I'm sure people might feel discriminated against for tatoos, gold teeth, etc. White Goth scene folks could run into the same situation with tattos on the face, shaved eyebrows or huge holes in the ears.
Unfortunately, with discrimination, perception is reality.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now you're stereotyping whites as having "the necessary qualities" of success. Can I infer minorities are lacking the necessary qualities you failed to list? Some might find that a very offensive suggestion. Would you care to list the qualities you speak of so we could explore them. I certainly believe intelligence is equal accross racial lines and I doubt minorities are being denied employment or education based on race.
posted
You should've included my whole quote: "I'm sure people might feel discriminated against for tatoos, gold teeth, etc. White Goth scene folks could run into the same situation with tattos on the face, shaved eyebrows or huge holes in the ears."
A backwoods town in the Missisipi Delta? I could find you incest articles in apalachia but it doesn't mean incest is rampant. Maybe it's good news, the LAST segregated dance. (not counting how everyone self segregates)
Hollywood probably is racist. Don't disagree with you there. Hollywood is full of right wingers (kidding). Oscars are rarely given to the greatest actor, white or not. It has to be the PC role or maybe you need to die before the ceremony. The Oscars are a joke. Minorities get a lot of comedy and action roles. These roles are not good for anyone looking for an Oscar. If you want to measure the the racial tolerance of the nation, look at ticket sales and ignore the BS of the Oscars. If the Oscar ratings get any lower, they'll cancel them.
quote:"I don't see race" is insulting to people who find their racial heritage important.
I don't see how it's insulting.
Firstly because it is almost certainly not true, and is a politically correct put-on affected for the sake of tolerance, rather than an actual desire for understanding. If you don't acknowledge something (even tacitly) about someone that they themselves find important, and if you do so willfully, for the sake of your own peace of mind, then I think that's insulting. I can't honestly analogize it to any other situation. Perhaps it's a bit like refusing to use feminine or masculine pronouns when talking to co-workers? Not exactly the same to be sure, but similarly odd- an elaborate way of avoiding the baggage of something you are clearly aware of, by pretending that you are totally unaware of it. The simple statement is self-contradictory. Everyone who says "I don't see race," understands racial concepts- you can understand that some common racial concepts are obviously wrong, (most of them in fact) but you must also be aware that some are quite true: black people's ancestors come from Africa, as an example of an obvious fact about race. Pretending not to see that is obtuse; it's a totally meaningless statement.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: If you want to measure the the racial tolerance of the nation, look at ticket sales and ignore the BS of the Oscars.
I'm sorry, but if you're going to call something BS, you ought not to spout so much of it from your own mouth. I do recall Javier Bardem winning an Oscar last year for a non-politically correct role as a hitman. I recall just a few weeks ago, when an Indian movie with an entirely Indian cast won best picture.
Of course, this is why you're a flaming racist and can't admit it. Because you've already dismissed the "PC" winners of the awards as Hollywood's beard against endemic racism. You don't see the value in those contributions because YOU are the one with the bias. You see everything revolving around a constant, unalterable white center of the universe, and though you call it hypocrisy and a shame- you can't do any better than to bitch and moan about what has been bitched and moaned over for time immemorial.
Now we've entered the part of the thread where you have begun to drop little hints that your racist attitudes, against everyone by the way, not just non-whites, are justified because of your supposed mixed heritage. I'm going to guess though, that you pass as white- just a guess there. Perhaps that fact makes you feel insecure about the racial identity you feel you ought to have, that others seem to. I can sympathize with that- I have a mixed white racial background that I wish was more clear, but I really have little idea of the places and times my family is from. In America, this group of people (which is large) is really shafted when it comes to pre-American heritage- for understandable reasons.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I agree that inner-city schools suck but it's the Dems who block school choice programs.
What they tend to block is voucher implementation programs, on the (somewhat vindicated) grounds that they would strip support of public education away in ways that would, on the whole, reduce the availability of quality education for all.
What they frequently haven't done on the principle of protecting 'school choice' is to stop open enrollment, which is more destructive to educational quality than many other factors.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you want to measure the the racial tolerance of the nation, look at ticket sales...
Historically, people have always been willing to accept as entertainers people they would not accept as peers.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not blind. I see what people look like but I don't carry a preconcieved notion into the situation. I simply do not care what color your skin is. I judge people based on "The content of their character". If your character sucks don't call me a racist. I don't have issues with my identity but I don't like how American society needs to define the individual in this way. If someone asks my background I will proudly tell them but I don't like employment applications that make me choose one. My identity is not tied to my physical features. I was in the Navy with a very sensitive white Mexican. A resident of US from Mexico who joined to help in getting citizenship. He was always agitated and sick of Americans perceptions of race and ethnicity. You only asked him where he came from one time,...... "I'M A WHITE MEXICAN!!" Funny thing is, in Mexico he was accepted as Mexican. huh If you made the mistake of laughing you were really in for it.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
There are positive aspects of racial identity. It is important to some people. It doesn't need to define you, to be part of you.
Forget it. You're too dense for this. Every time there has been a reasoned point made about the issue, you come back flinging a bunch of stupid stereotypes. "Americans are like this! BLABLABLABLA" If you ever lived in another country you'd realize you're doing the same thing you're accusing everyone else of doing. Ironic that you are so adamantly opposed to stereotyping. Isn't that the way it always is though? Good luck.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro: "Of course, this is why you're a flaming racist and can't admit it" " I'm going to guess though, that you pass as white- just a guess there"
Nice quotes. I'm not going to play your game. I suppose you believe Christians are homophobes for believing it is immoral behavior. Resort to personal attacks when someone disagrees with your tripe. Your tactics are old but work against most people. Typical liberal tactic to attack someones integrity when you disagree with them. Very childish really. You in fact are the racist. You see race first. Do you mind your p's and q's around certain people? Their skin color always on the top of your mind, scared you might say the wrong thing. When Eric Holder mentioned, "Americans are cowards about race" he was talking about you. You're pathetic.
quote:Typical liberal tactic to attack someones integrity when you disagree with them. Very childish really. You in fact are the racist.
Can you please stop propagating unfair and insulting stereotypes against liberals? These sorts of bigoted ad hominem attacks are irrational and weaken any argument you might be trying to make.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do have a bias there...I'll try. When you say liberal what do you mean? What about a fiscally conservative lesbian pro lifers? McCain and Leiberman are multipolitical and therefore not accepted by either party. They must really hate the opposing parties since they don't see party and actually consider positions over lables. But maybe they really hate the other party and are just in denial of their bias and overcompensating. Secretly Leiberman is way far to the left and McCain way far to the right but they happen to meet in the middle. Pretty well aproximates Orincoro's race argument?
posted
I like Colin Powell. Had he run, I would've voted for him. Fiscal Conservatism is most important to me. I have my doubts about his motivation for endorsing Obama. If he came out and said, "It's about time we had a black president" I would respect him for it. His interview wasn't very convincing either, fairly shallow points about good communicator and uniter, etc. If there every was a R that could reach accross the aisle, it was McCain. As I said earlier, at least my mom had the courage to admit why she would've voted for Hillary.
posted
I always snicker when I hear republicans talk about being fiscally conservative when Reagan, Bush I and Bush Ii consistently ran the highest budget deficits the US has ever seen. Under Clinton, we actually had a budget surplus by the time he left office,
Bush II had a budget surplus when he entered office and a robust economy for most of his tenure in office and yet ran up enormous debts. A fiscal conservative would have raised taxes to pay for the war on terror up front rather than hiding the costs and passing them on to future generations.
Yes, Obama is proposing a huge budget deficit right now, but he has a huge mess to clean up which is not of his own making. Most economic models suggest that it is actually desirable over the long run to have budget deficits during times of deep recessions, like the one we are in now, and run budget surpluses when the economy is robust. I'll bet you that if Obama serves 2 terms, the budget will be balanced by the time he leaves office.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not a Republican. I am not happy with the Republican party either. Justifying one wrong with another is not a valid argument. Clinton was good with the government, I wish he could run for a third term. This administration's spending goes way beyond addressing the economic problems we're facing. They are using the economic crisis as an excuse to pass programs that have little to do with the economy and have been rejected by the public in cooler headed times. If they cared about turning the economy around, they would suspend income taxes and capital gains taxes for six months to a year. It would cost less than the bailouts and the public investment would turn it around quickly. They want a govt solutions to government created problems. They are pushing capitalism has failed message. The bailout started with the sell of TARP but they didn't buy the Trouble Assets as promised to the American people. They've sprayed money around with plenty of strings attached and now are returning to TARP. Another 1 trillion to buy troubled assets. Had they done what they promised the public in the first place, this would be turned around already. But "never let a crisis go to waste"
posted
malanthrop: I don't think anybody here even self described liberals believe that now that a Democrat is in office everything will be just peachy. I mean this to a degree has me worried as I barely have any idea what "troubled" means. I hope that if such a power is deemed necessary it will comes after serious consideration and that a some sort of time or economic limit will be placed on it so that it expires.
But the argument that "big change" is not necessary and that cool heads must prevail rings fairly hollow after some of the shady dealings of the past 8 years. If we suspended income and capital gains taxes I think the negative repercussions would be positively astounding. Most economists openly say that in a recession the government should run deficits, while allowing for surpluses in times of plenty. We've been tossing our money down the toilet for years now with war, I would be almost giddy with excitement if I knew a few billion dollars had instead been diverted to our public schools, or to scientific research. President Obama seems intent on fixing education, health care, alternate energy research and the economy, while trying to scale things back in Iraq so that Afghanistan can hopefully be salvaged. I don't expect him to get it all done, but none of those things strike me as 1984ish. Instead, that strikes me as very domestic based investing. I sincerely hope we stop "nation building" and get our own house in order.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The goverment has more to blame than the banks. They kept lowering and lowering the prime rate to rediculous levels. Fannie and Freddie, govt creations, were directed by the govt to package up these risky loans. I remember congress pushing the banks to lend to everyone under threat of SEC action. Throwing around terms like redlining and convincing the American people that home ownership is a right for everyone with zero money down. Gone the days of lending to people who saved their money for the purpose of buying a home. FHA raised the percentage of income allowed for mortgages. It sounded good, got a lot of poor people into homes who previously wouldn't qualify. Good intentions gone bad. Greedy flippers were caught as well, no sympathy for them from me. When they talk abouth "the banks" they are talking about THEIR bank. Banks created by the government that held 40% of all US loans, the riskiest loans to boot. It was the collapse of the govt that created this mess and now the govt offers the solution. It was govt interference, best intentions and all that caused this mess. Sure bankers got big bonuses. Focus on the million this executive got while they dump Trillions down the drain. I've traded five pennies for a dime before. Google Fannie/Freddie bonuses. Barney Franks boyfriend was there when the Bush admin warned him in 2003 about the problems. Elmer Fudd up there denied any problems and now screams for names. Where's the money? http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2083881/posts
Dodd #1 Obama #2 Conveniently the man who is responsible for oversight of these institutions and the president of the United States.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: This administration's spending goes way beyond addressing the economic problems we're facing. They are using the economic crisis as an excuse to pass programs that have little to do with the economy and have been rejected by the public in cooler headed times.
You have a habit of stating things as established fact when in truth they are highly controversial. Several award winning economists have concluded that the spending Obama has proposed is far too little to adequately address the economic crisis. While this is not a consensus position, there is no consensus among economists on this issue and certainly no general reason for you or I (or anyone else who is not a Ph.D. level expert in Macro-economics) to conclude that the economists who think the stimulus package is too large are more likely to be correct than those who think the stimulus package is too small. The proof will ultimately be in the pudding, but even then I'm quite confident that even if economy is booming in a year and the budget it balanced by the end of Obama's first term, Limbaugh, Hannity and Coulter will claim it is despite Obama's mismanagement not because of it.
Furthermore, I should add that many of the projects targeted by the Obama stimulus package are intended to improve major infrastructure problems that are the result of decades of neglect. While I'm sure that there are other ways to stimulate the economy, these projects will both stimulate the economy and address critical problems with failing infrastructure -- killing two birds with one stone. I see this as a great idea. Those who are critical of it are largely in complete denial about the sorry state of infrastructure in this country and would rather wait until every bridge collapses than do any preventative maintenance.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I suppose you believe Christians are homophobes for believing it is immoral behavior.
I think *some* Christians are homophobes. I think that the majority of church positions against homosexuality are based in homophobia. Perhaps some of you just go along with no particular reason... but that is just a passive perpetuation of homophobia.
quote: Typical liberal tactic to attack someones integrity when you disagree with them. Very childish really. You in fact are the racist.
Are you having us on? Is this a prank?
quote: When Eric Holder mentioned, "Americans are cowards about race" he was talking about you. You're pathetic.
That you don't realize that you're now using my characterization of your position against me, despite the fact that I feel quite the opposite about race, is both funny and disturbing. Look back at what I've said. I believe you are the coward when it comes to race. I believe you are the one who pretends to be "colorblind." I believe I'm the one who said he is not afraid to acknowledge race.
I believe I'm the one who also said that claiming you are "colorblind," that you "don't see race," is a logical fallacy. You are pretending. Now, amazingly, you are calling me the PC coward, out of touch with what race means. I believe you're the one who has said he doesn't acknowledge the importance of race to others. How are you familiar with the concept of race, if you have no experience of it? Of course you are, you're just self-deluded.
Nice to hear that you're also homophobic.
You started off the thread talking about how the people you don't agree with could excluded from civic duties and participation. Now you try to come off as high minded and above the fray, when you clearly have no clue either how you sound, or what in hell you're talking about. There's a reason idiotic ideas like yours have been slowly plowed under in the last two centuries. They're dumb, and they don't work. Kind of like your posts.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Are you having us on? Is this a prank?
That's certainly been my assumption.
It's sort of a subway mosaic, ancient and crumbling, overlaid with a fresh uberpainting of graffiti. Or a veiny brash new-world bleu grafted onto the rootstock of a pungent, perhaps unduly artisanal cheese--Pont l'Eveque?
posted
I'm pointing out your self denial. You can't separate the stereotype from group. I will tell you I am opposed to affirmative action. On this basis you will automatically brand me a racist and refuse a logical argument about the matter. I also believe homosexual behavior is immoral and for that you brand me a homophobe, bitgot. I also believe that alcoholism is bad. I have a gay neighbor, we get along just fine. He's a nice enough guy and one of my favorite neighbors. His yard is great, he doesn't throw loud parties and he really cares about his home. There are straight-white people living in my neighborhood I would gladly trade for gays like him. (but secretly in my head I'm repeating queer over and over,..... right? ) I don't care what he does in his house but if he had a gay pride parade in front of my house I might be bothered. One of my neighbors drinks from the moment he wakes up until he passes out, every day. I think this is wrong but I really like him. The Jamaican guy on the corner is always going on and on about N##gers, he must hate black people. My neighborhood is extremely diverse and I love it. Surround me with black homosexuals who care about their homes and go to work everyday and I've found a home for life. I live in florida and I can't stand the trailer trash, child abducting whit pedophile meth heads living in Polk county. I must be prejudice agains whites that live in Polk county. The world is little more complicated than your coalition of groups. If someone is opposed to what you stereotypically classify as a position common to a specific group, you automatical assume them to be opposed to or prejuduced against that group. Remember, there are minorities who would completely agree with me and they aren't sell outs for doing so.
posted
You need to learn how to use paragraphs. I think you're racist against paragraphs. Think of the paragraphs!
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Teshi: I'll work on my grammar. I'm usually in a hurry.
Tom. I didn't check the link, repost and I'll take a look.
Rakeesh: You didn't ask but I'm being accused of racism and homophobia for having a position.
I'm sure it wont be in my lifetime but some day we will be blended into a homogonous race and we'll be able to get past the surface and discuss the issues. Some of you may not believe it, but if my daughter brings home a fine young minority, I'll be proud. If she brings home a white kid with dreams of being in a rock band or black kid who wants to be a rapper, I'll dissaprove equally accross the board. Besides, mixed race people are very attractive. Genetic superiority comes with genetic diversity.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Malanthrop-You just used the words genetic superiority. I wasn't sure if you were referring solely to looks, or to actual biological capabilities, so I'll address both.
If you were only referring to looks, you nonetheless used "genetic superiority."
Yes, it has been proven that genetic diversity tends to lead to specimens better able to adapt to their environment.
On this logic, mixed race could be stated to mean "genetic diversity", and therefore, "genetic superiority", but this is false logic, which I'll explain here shortly.
This doesn't mean mixed race has anything to do with genetic superiority of looks, because attractiveness is objective. Only certain features, for instance, like facial symmetry and physical fitness are naturally proven indicators of "genetic superiority", because they tend to indicate better health, at least in nature. This is an applicable indication of beauty as being genetically superior. (I"m not necessarily saying this.)
Mixed race is not. You were insinuating that a certain race, or mix of races, is genetically superior to others.
I don't agree with this. When we become a "homogenous" race, as you say, we may have certain biological factors that are improved, but, fact of the matter is, ugly, out of shape, weak, small, "genetically inferior" people will still continue to breed, so long as our modern society of equality that, generally, tends to frown upon killing, takes the "survival of the fittest" out of the equation. So, I doubt we're working towards any master race if all forms of "genetically inferior" people continue to breed.
Back towards your mixed race people being attractive sentiment. This is an opinion. Some people may find mixed race people to be unattractive. Some people may prefer people of only pureblood, or of a certain race. I'm white, and I personally find people of all races to be equally attractive in their own ways.
If you find mixed people to be more physically attractive, this is totally fine. That in itself is not at all racist-just personal preference, just as one may prefer someone taller or with longer hair or blue eyes.
But to say that being of mixed race makes someone genetically superior is racially close-minded. I'm not going to accuse you of being a racist, because I haven't done enough research to make that extreme accusation, but at least that statement is close minded and discriminatory to an extreme extent, just not well-thought out, and based on false logic.
I hope this was decently coherent. If you have any questions, please let me know.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
True, it is my opinion that mixed race women are very attractive.
I suppose making a distinction between appearance and heartiness. I would argue that genetic diversity is superiority yet this smacks of supremacy. I've had great mutts and purebreads with hip displasia and diabetes.
If I were more Native American I might have better teeth. If I were more African it is possible to inherit cicle cell and have a natural defense against Malaria. Having a child with an Asian could break the cycle of cancer rates in your family. Genetic purity is a gathering of genetic defects. Obesity, cancer, high blood pressure, alcoholism, cholesterol levels, etc. I did not insinuate supremacy rather diversity leading to genetic strength and fewer defects.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
I had no problem with your personal preferences for what you found attractive-personally I'm very attracted to Nords, African Americans, and Native Americans, respectively, more than other races.
That's just me.
It was just the way that you stated it that sounded a tad supremacist. And I believe at some point you mentioned your being mixed race (correct me if I'm wrong), so there was always that flip side to the coin.
I hope all mix-ups are forgiven?
Posts: 135 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am too European to be superior, alcoholism, high blood pressure and cholesterol plague my family. Not quite diverse enough.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
