Is it racist to prefer to date white women? - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All sociological topics not appropriate or suited to other areas of the board.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14908612
Na, anyway if Stalin was having a bromance with anyone surely it was Kalinin? Apparently he was the only person who could talk uncle Joe out of killing someone if Joe really had his heart set on it.
#14908616
Agent Steel is so straight that he makes a thread roughly once a month about how straight he is. No one else on PoFo boasts a record like that.

Agent Steel wrote:Why is being selective with who you have sex with a bad thing?

It isn't, but you have a unique way of posting that makes even relatively innocuous things sound ridiculously belligerent and unpleasant.

Couple that with the weird "race realist" Jared Taylor kick you seem to be on lately (evidenced in this thread by your post about "the three major races"), and it's not all that surprising that people think you have some... racial baggage.
#14908617
Once when I was 18 and very very drunk I tried to smash a Dutch bird in London. Luckily she was in no way interested in me. :lol: I still felt ashamed in the morning for even trying though. Ah the follies of youth.
#14908623
Heisenberg wrote:I almost feel sorry for the Dutch. 17 million people and their only PoFo representatives are Sabb and Maas. It's definitely turned all of us against them. :lol:


They had others actually, all awful. Remember that Fried Chicken guy who got banned? Or was he a Brit who lived in Holland I forget?
#14908640
Decky wrote:Na, anyway if Stalin was having a bromance with anyone surely it was Kalinin?

I wasn't suggesting an affair. I was referring to Gorky's:

"Exterminate the homosexuals and you will end fascism".

This response was given effectively on behalf of Stalin. You seemed to be suggesting that extreme homophobia always implied closet homosexuality.
#14908646
Rancid wrote:Where the white women at?


They are easy to find since it is racist for them to use dark makeup.
#14908657
MistyTiger wrote:Researchers found that beauty is based on perfect or near perfect symmetry and the golden ratio. It makes sense. We like perfection and flawlessness. If one eye is noticeable bigger than the other people are likely to find it unattractive or freakish.

Agreement on high symmetry tends to be across all racial and ethnic lines. Within ethnic and racial lines, people find beauty in sort of odd traits as well.

MistyTiger wrote:But generally the ideal beauty is one that is statuesque as portrayed by grecian marble statues.

Generally, the idealization of Greek statutes is anatomically impossible. Even the closest to real life, like the Riace bronzes are not anatomically accurate.

One Degree wrote:I believe this is a ‘human sense’ we simply don’t understand yet.

Darwinian Sexual Selection and other topics like pheromones are understood. However, they are not in harmony with left wing political norms, so they tend to be suppressed.

Suntzu wrote:This is what she looks like now.

He he. However, that's not too likely. There are significant phenotype differences between East and West Africans.

layman wrote:On the other side I think men are actually less bias but part of that is probably the macho variety thing.

In human populations, reproductive fitness is maximized when females are monogamous and males are not. So it is not unusual for men to have a "wandering eye" so to speak.

layman wrote:Men tend to prefer petit women and delicate features.

That's not true of all men. It is true of European and Asian men. However, many black men like a big butt on a woman.

One Degree wrote:@Oxymandias You said generalizations are not bad and did an excellent job of explaining it. Then you attacked his generalization???

Generalization is hard wired into the human mind. We cannot change this, even though political ideologues would like to think that this is possible.

Oxymandias wrote:Basing your political beliefs on generalizations is foolhardy at best and dangerous at worst.

So how do you feel about political statements like, "All men are created equal... "?

Agent Steel wrote:You desperately want to believe that don't you? I can tell.

Clearly he does. That is obviously not an aboriginal woman.

Oxymandias wrote:You realize there is no difference between an African's skeleton, an Arab's skeleton, an Asians skeleton, etc. right? I think you need google what anthropology is before you say something stupid like that.

There are general differences in size, bone density, etc. Sub-Saharan Africans have the highest genetic admixture of all humans, so it is very difficult to generalize them.

Political Interest wrote:I think the Western men who express a preference for Asian ladies are racist.

I think they prefer a higher degree of sexual dimorphism and find Western women who want to be the equals of men as somewhat less attractive, not unlike so-called "homophobia." Godstud would likely claim that he's not racist. Let's ask him why he moved to Thailand to be with a Thai woman and lives under a military government, whilst lamenting that the United States isn't as left wing as he'd prefer. Do you think it is because Godstud is a racist?

Political Interest wrote:But, if you absolutely refuse anyone of a different background then I think it is racist.

Well, there are lots of reasons people might have different backgrounds other than race. Language, culture, economic class, educational attainment, etc. Why do you assume everything boils down to race?

MistyTiger wrote:3 major races? What are those races? I'm confused like Rancid.

Africans, Caucasians and Asians. It's an old concept.

Rancid wrote:It is funny that often times, threads like this turn into sexist misogynist threads. Basically, a bunch of dudes come together to denounce someone's racism. However, at the same time, they just start posting images of women from different races and start objectifying them. :lol:

That's how nature works. Again, nature is not in harmony with left wing political ideology--or most ideologies for that matter.

Oxymandias wrote:Yeah, women should discard all of their individualism, their identities, and everything else that provides them with a sense of self in favor of meeting the expectations of us, men, who are not worth this self-sacrifice and certainly unable to fulfill our obligations for such a favor.

Still in college?

Oxymandias wrote:Dude, studies have shown that guys don't give a flying fuck about a chick's skin or even appearance. Guys are less selective than girls are.

They are less selective, not non-selective. For example, I have blue eyes. I would prefer a woman with blue eyes. That doesn't mean I find brown eyes or green eyes hideous. It's just a Darwinian Sexual Selection preference.

Heisenberg wrote:As PoFo's leading RACE SCIENTIST™, I can confirm that Agent Steel is correct.

I've been superseded?

Oxymandias wrote:Guys have a natural inclination to accept any women, regardless of race.

This is obviously not true.

Godstud wrote:They are doomed from the start, because they are weak, and insecure.

They are politically insecure as the state will very surely strip them of their wealth in a divorce situation. So a rational actor has to evaluate the opportunity cost of marriage versus other opportunities. Rock stars generally fuck more women than married men.

Godstud wrote:Ever heard of anal bleaching?

Actually, no I haven't.

Godstud wrote:Yet often people are attracted to the very opposite of that. It's also very natural to want someone who does not have the same features as the group you are in. This prevents inbreeding.

By definition, people with dominant traits have nothing to fear from people with recessive traits. However, those of us with recessive traits would naturally prefer each other in order for the recessive traits to prevail--blue eyes for example.

Oxymandias wrote:On a more serious note, empirical evidence points to straight men not being selective towards difference females due to hormones as well as the dopamine which releases itself in your brain whenever a man sees any female regardless of skin color.

There are studies that suggest that people are less racist when they are on a non-selective beta blocker like Propranolol. This suggests that people have an adrenaline response when they see someone of another race.
#14908735
@blackjack21

So how do you feel about political statements like, "All men are created equal... "?


I have no issue with it. As long as everyone is given equality, I don't see any issue with statements like this. Men are humans and all humans deserve equality.

There are general differences in size, bone density, etc. Sub-Saharan Africans have the highest genetic admixture of all humans, so it is very difficult to generalize them.


That has very little to do with the races themselves given that a white skeleton is equally able to be as big as an African's skeleton. I find it strange that you are generalizing all white peoples to be the same height, bone density, and thickness let alone every other race. I don't understand how genetic admixture has anything to do with skeletal structure.

Africans, Caucasians and Asians. It's an old concept.


It's an old concept for a reason given that it's false. This "African, Caucasian, and Asian" trinity is comparable to the outdated and disproved "Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid" trinity of the early 20th century. It has no place in modern political discussion.

On another note, I find it odd that self-proclaimed "white" people such as your self identify as Caucasian given that you and your descendants have probably never set foot in the lands surrounding the Caucasus. Furthermore, I doubt you even look like a Caucasian or have any Caucasian genes in you. Persians, Arabs, and Turks have more Caucasian genes than your average British European given that they actually are geographically close to the Caucasus in the first place.

Still in college?


Unfortunately no.

They are less selective, not non-selective. For example, I have blue eyes. I would prefer a woman with blue eyes. That doesn't mean I find brown eyes or green eyes hideous. It's just a Darwinian Sexual Selection preference.


Yes, men are selective to an extent (to be completely honest I was just messing around with Agent Steel so obviously I exaggerated certain things) but none of them are selective towards ethnicity. General "beauty" (i.e. symmetrical faces, body shape, etc.) is more important to males than your skin color.

Furthermore, Darwin's Sexual Selection can't be applied to actual human beings given that concepts such as beauty cannot exist in undeveloped organisms. Therefore, by adopting Darwin's Sexual Selection as the reason why "white" people should or will favor other "whites", you are assuming that your own race is inferior and undeveloped.

This is obviously not true.


Beauty is a more greater motivator of sexual preference than skin color or similar genes ever will. This isn't even considering other major factors like compatibility, personality, cultural similarities, and other things which only highly developed organisms such as myself can ever feel. You however are too undeveloped to consider such things and so I mark you as a savage with no civility.

There are studies that suggest that people are less racist when they are on a non-selective beta blocker like Propranolol. This suggests that people have an adrenaline response when they see someone of another race.


You know what type of hormones I meant.
#14908744
Oxymandias wrote:I find it strange that you are generalizing all white peoples to be the same height, bone density, and thickness let alone every other race.

I didn't say all white people were the same height. Generally, Africans have higher bone density than whites, and this extends into late adulthood too.

African Americans, 25-hydroxyvitamin D, and osteoporosis: a paradox
At all ages, African Americans have lower serum 25(OH)D concentrations than do whites. Clearly, factors other than vitamin D must provide protection against osteoporotic fractures in African Americans.
...
African Americans have a lower risk of hip fracture, as shown in the National Osteoporosis Risk Assessment (NORA) study. In this prospective study of 197 848 postmenopausal women, the 7784 black participants had one-half the prevalence of osteoporosis and one-half the fracture risk of whites (7). Hence, the paradox exists with low serum 25(OH)D concentrations and lower fracture risk.
...
Bone mass in African Americans is higher than in other populations. Studies at Brookhaven National Laboratory used radiographic absorptiometry and in vivo neutron activation analysis to show that bone mass in African American adults is ≈10–15% higher than in other populations throughout life (8, 9). More recent studies using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry have found similar results, and a study of trabecular bone sites showed an even higher advantage in African Americans (10–18).


Oxymandias wrote:I don't understand how genetic admixture has anything to do with skeletal structure.

The old racial joke is that black people all look the same. The scientific fact is that they are the most genetically diverse group of humans. Caucasians and Asians have much less genetic variation than sub-Saharan Africans.

Oxymandias wrote:It's an old concept for a reason given that it's false. This "African, Caucasian, and Asian" trinity is comparable to the outdated and disproved "Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid" trinity of the early 20th century. It has no place in modern political discussion.

It's not false. It's imprecise. As for political discussion, in countries like the United States that uphold free speech, everything is germane to a political discussion. That may not be true in thought control states like the United Kingdom or Germany. The United States as a general matter does track racial and ethnic statistics.

Oxymandias wrote:On another note, I find it odd that self-proclaimed "white" people such as your self identify as Caucasian given that you and your descendants have probably never set foot in the lands surrounding the Caucasus.

I identify as Nortern European genetically, and British Isles more specifically. "White" is an abstraction to include all Northern Europeans.

Oxymandias wrote:Furthermore, I doubt you even look like a Caucasian or have any Caucasian genes in you.

23andMe classifies me as 99.8% European with 78.3% British and Irish DNA, and 8.8% French and German. That's based upon reporting phenotypes, so it varies from site to site. However, it's generally a pretty good measure to characterize me as Anglo-Irish. I'm also 0.2% East Asian or Native American. These finer national-style distinctions don't really matter that much. For example, 23andMe shows me as 0% Scandinavian, but I'm also I1 Haplogroup. 40% of Scandinavian men are I1 Haplogroup as well. I have blue eyes. All people who have blue eyes share a common ancestor in the Black Sea area. Blue eyes have to be inherited from both parents. They are recessive to both brown and green eyes.

Oxymandias wrote:Furthermore, Darwin's Sexual Selection can't be applied to actual human beings given that concepts such as beauty cannot exist in undeveloped organisms.

You assume the frontal cortex is running the show. I do not.

Oxymandias wrote:Therefore, by adopting Darwin's Sexual Selection as the reason why "white" people should or will favor other "whites", you are assuming that your own race is inferior and undeveloped.

On the contrary, I'm assuming it's highly developed for a particular environment.

Oxymandias wrote:You know what type of hormones I meant.

We savages can read your mind, is that it?
#14908783
@blackjack21

I didn't say all white people were the same height. Generally, Africans have higher bone density than whites, and this extends into late adulthood too.


First off, it's African Americans. Second, it's not detailing something that all African Americans have in their genes the minute they're born. It's something that is gained, not something inherent which means that whites can also attain the same features that African Americans have.

The old racial joke is that black people all look the same. The scientific fact is that they are the most genetically diverse group of humans. Caucasians and Asians have much less genetic variation than sub-Saharan Africans.


I had no idea someone could be so ignorant in regards to his own ethnic diversity. Europe is just as genetically diverse as Asia and Africa, it's just not portrayed as such due to the overarching narrative which permeates all the cultures of Europe. Furthermore, the term "African" is simply a term for anyone who lives in Africa. Some ethnicities in Africa have no genetic similarities to one another outside of skin color. Aboriginal peoples have no genetic similarities to Ethiopians and both have no resemblances to the Songhai. Stop using geographical terms and assuming that they are "ethnicites" because it seems to be that you have no idea what race is.

It's not false. It's imprecise. As for political discussion, in countries like the United States that uphold free speech, everything is germane to a political discussion. That may not be true in thought control states like the United Kingdom or Germany. The United States as a general matter does track racial and ethnic statistics.


Oh then I guess that 9/11 wasn't horrible, it was merely uncomfortable so it's perfectly fine.

Playing the free speech card doesn't stop it from being irrelevant. You can't get any good policy decisions out of a stupid chauvinistic eugenic ideology from the early 20th century unless you want America to turn into a stupid eugenic ideology from the early 20th century in which case, I will enjoy your descendants squabble over who is "white" and slowly degrade into decadent incest as your exclusive, untruthful idea of "white-ness" slowly closes as your gene pool falters. At least @Victoribus Spolia knew that revolving your civilization around a gene pool will result in it's destruction once that gene pool no longer can sustain itself so he admitted at least some form of cross-pollination, you refuse to accept such an idea at all.

I identify as Nortern European genetically, and British Isles more specifically. "White" is an abstraction to include all Northern Europeans.


You can't identify as something "genetically". You either have the genes or you don't, it's as simple as that.

23andMe classifies me as 99.8% European with 78.3% British and Irish DNA, and 8.8% French and German. That's based upon reporting phenotypes, so it varies from site to site. However, it's generally a pretty good measure to characterize me as Anglo-Irish. I'm also 0.2% East Asian or Native American. These finer national-style distinctions don't really matter that much. For example, 23andMe shows me as 0% Scandinavian, but I'm also I1 Haplogroup. 40% of Scandinavian men are I1 Haplogroup as well. I have blue eyes. All people who have blue eyes share a common ancestor in the Black Sea area. Blue eyes have to be inherited from both parents. They are recessive to both brown and green eyes.


Well then I guess I'm half Iberian because I have thin fingers.

Caucasians don't have blue eyes in any sense of the word. They have light, almost transparent color eyes, but that is a far cry from blue eyes. Have you seen pictures of Caucasians?

You assume the frontal cortex is running the show. I do not.


Well since every rational decision we make is due to the frontal cortex and everything that differentiates us from animals is due to the frontal cortex then sure, yeah I think the frontal cortex is running the show. If the frontal cortex really wasn't running our subconscious, our dreams would certainly be more animalistic and less abstract, something that is characterized by the frontal cortex. Furthermore you wouldn't be able to debate with me if you didn't have a frontal cortex since it would be remarkably difficult for you to communicate not that it would matter given that you would be a bore to debate with anyways without a frontal cortex.

On the contrary, I'm assuming it's highly developed for a particular environment.


This literally makes no sense. So Darwin himself says that sexual selection is something only to be observed in simple organisms and other scientists corroborate that claim yet you want to believe that it can be applied to us despite being completely different from animals. Your entire response is vague and doesn't answer anything, you would be a great politician.
#14908786
Rich wrote:I wasn't suggesting an affair. I was referring to Gorky's:

"Exterminate the homosexuals and you will end fascism".

This response was given effectively on behalf of Stalin. You seemed to be suggesting that extreme homophobia always implied closet homosexuality.


Is was an easy mistake to make, no one said he was perfect. Obviously all fascists (and right wingers in general) are homosexual. Stalin must have assumed this also meant all homosexuals were right wing. Remember this was in a time that nobody even knew you could have such a thing as a working class gay, there was no Paul O'Grady in the Soviet Union.
#14908856
Oxymandias wrote:First off, it's African Americans.

I'm not a believer that evolution happens that fast. So presumably it is due to African roots.

Oxymandias wrote:Second, it's not detailing something that all African Americans have in their genes the minute they're born. It's something that is gained, not something inherent which means that whites can also attain the same features that African Americans have.

It's more than likely genetic, and whites would not get it without some sort of genetic modification or selective breeding.

Oxymandias wrote:I had no idea someone could be so ignorant in regards to his own ethnic diversity. Europe is just as genetically diverse as Asia and Africa, it's just not portrayed as such due to the overarching narrative which permeates all the cultures of Europe.

I'm not talking about ethnic diversity. I'm talking about genetic diversity. Asia and Europe are not as genetically diverse as Africa.

Oxymandias wrote:Some ethnicities in Africa have no genetic similarities to one another outside of skin color. Aboriginal peoples have no genetic similarities to Ethiopians and both have no resemblances to the Songhai. Stop using geographical terms and assuming that they are "ethnicites" because it seems to be that you have no idea what race is.

Again, I said nothing about ethnicities. You are essentially arguing with yourself at this point.

Oxymandias wrote:Oh then I guess that 9/11 wasn't horrible, it was merely uncomfortable so it's perfectly fine.

I'm not clear at all how you jump to that conclusion from a comment about political discussion.

Oxymandias wrote:You can't get any good policy decisions out of a stupid chauvinistic eugenic ideology from the early 20th century unless you want America to turn into a stupid eugenic ideology from the early 20th century in which case, I will enjoy your descendants squabble over who is "white" and slowly degrade into decadent incest as your exclusive, untruthful idea of "white-ness" slowly closes as your gene pool falters.

Not that it matters much, but why do you think early 20th Century progressives were so stupid?

Oxymandias wrote:At least @Victoribus Spolia knew that revolving your civilization around a gene pool will result in it's destruction once that gene pool no longer can sustain itself so he admitted at least some form of cross-pollination, you refuse to accept such an idea at all.

Our civilization is essentially being destroyed. What's your point?

Oxymandias wrote:You can't identify as something "genetically". You either have the genes or you don't, it's as simple as that.

Well, that's how 23andMe identifies me, and it is essentially correct.

Oxymandias wrote:Well since every rational decision we make is due to the frontal cortex and everything that differentiates us from animals is due to the frontal cortex then sure, yeah I think the frontal cortex is running the show. If the frontal cortex really wasn't running our subconscious, our dreams would certainly be more animalistic and less abstract, something that is characterized by the frontal cortex. Furthermore you wouldn't be able to debate with me if you didn't have a frontal cortex since it would be remarkably difficult for you to communicate not that it would matter given that you would be a bore to debate with anyways without a frontal cortex.

We were talking about sexual preference, not rational discussion. I suppose you are going to tell me you consciously regulate your body temperature, heart rate and metabolism next.

Oxymandias wrote: So Darwin himself says that sexual selection is something only to be observed in simple organisms and other scientists corroborate that claim yet you want to believe that it can be applied to us despite being completely different from animals.

Humans are animals. Darwin noted antlers. Deer are substantially more evolved than a heap of protoplasm.
#14909091
@blackjack21

I'm not a believer that evolution happens that fast. So presumably it is due to African roots.


While evolution is slower than it looks, it's faster than you think. Evolutionary changes to biology. Evolution occurs all the time and make change or fluctuate depending on different circumstances. Changes in human biology can happen in months or even mere days. It's only lasting evolutionary change that requires millions of years. Furthermore, as evolution progresses, you begin to see certain traits pop up more frequently which proves that evolution is A. gradual and B. rapid.

If you think this cannot possibly be the case with African Americans you have to remember that East Africans were introduced to America over 400 years ago. That gives lots of breathing room for evolution. if you want hard proof that these traits in African Americans are not due to African roots all you need is to look at Africans themselves who don't share the traits present in African Americans.

Your beliefs are not corroborated by data. While science has an aspect of faith to it, science distinguishes itself from other faiths by being based on information we have on the world around us.

It's more than likely genetic, and whites would not get it without some sort of genetic modification or selective breeding.


It's due to evolution. if whites were placed into the same environment and situations that blacks with low serum and low-fracture risks inhabit, after let's say 200 to 300 years, you'll begin to see changes.

I'm not talking about ethnic diversity. I'm talking about genetic diversity. Asia and Europe are not as genetically diverse as Africa.


What defines a ethnicity is genes unless you are alluding that race is a social construct. Therefore, by talking about ethnic groups I am talking about genes. This is obvious in any discussion regarding the genes of other races.

Again, I said nothing about ethnicities. You are essentially arguing with yourself at this point.


As I stated, ethnicity is genetic identity. You can't identify with a ethnic group because you have no power to do so. Your genes dictate your ethnic group regardless of what you define yourself as.

I'm not clear at all how you jump to that conclusion from a comment about political discussion.


By stating the the Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid trinity is not false but imprecise, you are simply using a different word to mellow the flaws of the idea itself. Therefore I used the word "uncomfortable" in order to mellow the impact of 9/11.

In both instances we defended something by not directly arguing for it but by simply rephrasing it in order to mitigate it's falsehoods. Therefore they aren't arguments, they're just attempts at handwaving way the arguments of others. These techniques have no place in thoughtful, rational discussion.

Not that it matters much, but why do you think early 20th Century progressives were so stupid?


Because there are certain types of information we have about the world today that they could not possibly have access to. The Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid concept was due to a lack of information about genetics and how genes worked so many anthropologists simply classified people based on their physical appearance rather than their actual genes. The Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid idea is a shallow representation of ethnic groups. It doesn't even go into genes, simply the shape of a certain race's nose or size of mouth.

Our civilization is essentially being destroyed. What's your point?


Your civilization will be destroyed because of your foolish ideas of ethnicity. No matter how much hoops white nationalists, racists, and "scientific realists" will jump through, no matter how much they try, they will never find a "white" ethnic group. The idea that a "pure" ethnicity even exists shows a lack of any understanding of basic genetics. In your attempt to shallowly define any superior race based on solely skin color you will find that you must create conditions where "black" skin color can never come to be and where "white" ethnic groups are dominant (which means avoiding any areas with extensive warmth and going to places with large amounts of coldness along with lots of snowfall). Then you must make sure that people only breed with other "whites" which, after 1,000 years will surely result in incest and in another 500 years will result in the retardation of the population.

White skin and blue eyes will never give you more intelligence, greater physical ability, or more power. It will only make your heart the size of a peppercorn, your intestines rotten, your lungs eroded, hydrocephalus, a singe testicle as black as coal, and infertility.

Well, that's how 23andMe identifies me, and it is essentially correct.


23andMe never defined you as such. You simply traced the blue eye phenotype to the Black Sea and ran with it. Having blue eyes doesn't prove you are Caucasian just like how having an Indo-European language doesn't make you Indo-European.

We were talking about sexual preference, not rational discussion. I suppose you are going to tell me you consciously regulate your body temperature, heart rate and metabolism next.


This is about sexual preference. Your frontal cortex is the thing that allows you to appreciate and crave beauty at such a level that is nearly a basic biological function. Unless you would screw a healthy but fat, toothless, and old lady just because she has blue eyes. Animals, unlike humans, have no such distinctions.

Humans are animals. Darwin noted antlers. Deer are substantially more evolved than a heap of protoplasm.


If Humans are animals than they are horrible at being them. We constantly do things that animals will never do such as questioning our own existence, having complex social structures and being capable of questioning them, being able to be entertained and wanting to seek entertainment, seeking to learn about the world around us despite there being no biological reason to do so, seeking to educate our own children, and, if meditation is of any indication, being able to feel one with the world around us, a process that does not fully occur until death.
#14909102
Oxymandias wrote:If Humans are animals than they are horrible at being them. We constantly do things that animals will never do such as questioning our own existence, having complex social structures and being capable of questioning them, being able to be entertained and wanting to seek entertainment, seeking to learn about the world around us despite there being no biological reason to do so, seeking to educate our own children, and, if meditation is of any indication, being able to feel one with the world around us, a process that does not fully occur until death.

I guess you've never had a dog ...

If you feel excluded from the world around you, it's either by choice or a very neurotic disposition. The world around you is not dead, it's vibrantly alive and it's intimately involved in keeping you alive too.

Zam
#14909108
@Zamuel

I have a cat. It's close enough.

Btw, aren't dogs more emotionally intelligent given that, through thousands of years of selective breeding, the most friendly and ergo, the most socially aware dogs were the most sought after?

I never said you're excluded from the world around you, simply that you are able to feel like a complete part of the world or, in other words, feel like the world, or in other words, experience the existence of everything around you.
#14909118
Oxymandias wrote:I have a cat. It's close enough.

No, not nearly ... Cats are very primitive creatures, Dogs are on par with humans emotionally. They get offended, they dream, and they plan ahead, educate their children, etc. Humans have a bigger brain and better memory ... Dolphins and Whales probably surpass humans in their mental functions.

Btw, aren't dogs more emotionally intelligent given that, through thousands of years of selective breeding, the most friendly and ergo, the most socially aware dogs were the most sought after?

In reality, the smartest dogs are those closest to their wolf heritage (Shepherds and Labradors). The best hunters and herders were the most sought after. Social Awareness is a trade off. My Beagles all think they're people and expect to be treated as such.

I never said you're excluded from the world around you, simply that you are able to feel like a complete part of the world or, in other words, feel like the world, or in other words, experience the existence of everything around you.

You said:

being able to feel one with the world around us, a process that does not fully occur until death.

I'm pretty sure you won't "feel" much of anything when you're dead. Anything that passes on will most likely be in a very different world. As for awareness of "this world" your cat has more of that than you do ... She doesn't comprehend it as you do, but she's also not distracted by abstract thought.

Zam
#14909131
Oxymandias wrote:What defines a ethnicity is genes unless you are alluding that race is a social construct. Therefore, by talking about ethnic groups I am talking about genes. This is obvious in any discussion regarding the genes of other races.

I'm not sure where you are getting your definitions. "Ethnicity" is a term of social science.

Ethnicity
An ethnic group, or an ethnicity, is a category of people who identify with each other based on similarities such as common ancestry, language, society, culture or nation.[1][2] Ethnicity is usually an inherited status based on the society in which one lives. Membership of an ethnic group tends to be defined by a shared cultural heritage, ancestry, origin myth, history, homeland, language or dialect, symbolic systems such as religion, mythology and ritual, cuisine, dressing style, art, and physical appearance.

Genes don't determine what language you speak, cuisine, etc.

Oxymandias wrote:As I stated, ethnicity is genetic identity. You can't identify with a ethnic group because you have no power to do so. Your genes dictate your ethnic group regardless of what you define yourself as.

I specifically studied these topics in college, and had a 4.0 GPA. It's possible that genetic sciences have their own definition of the term "ethnicity". I haven't heard of the term "ethnicity" being used in genetic science. In social sciences, self-identification is one of the modes of classifying a person into a group. Ethnicity is a good example in sociology.

Oxymandias wrote:By stating the the Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid trinity is not false but imprecise, you are simply using a different word to mellow the flaws of the idea itself.

It's not mellowing anything other than your histrionics. There are historical notions that are prescient, but imprecise. There are notions that are clearly wrong. For example, Hippocrates thought that people had four humors. Obviously, his understanding was not only limited, but much of it didn't correspond to biological processes at all. There was no relationship to Earth, Fire Water and Air, or the four seasons. He was simply wrong. Classifying races as African, Caucasian and Asian is simply imprecise. It's a very large grained abstraction.

Oxymandias wrote:Therefore I used the word "uncomfortable" in order to mellow the impact of 9/11.

I'm still not following. 9/11 can be interpreted totally different based on your point of view. For Al Qaeda, they considered it a great victory. They weren't uncomfortable at all. Yasser Arafat might have been uncomfortable, as the US clearly wasn't too happy with terrorist organizations. If you want to make semantic arguments, I would suggest a more relevant example.

Oxymandias wrote:Your civilization will be destroyed because of your foolish ideas of ethnicity. No matter how much hoops white nationalists, racists, and "scientific realists" will jump through, no matter how much they try, they will never find a "white" ethnic group. The idea that a "pure" ethnicity even exists shows a lack of any understanding of basic genetics. In your attempt to shallowly define any superior race based on solely skin color you will find that you must create conditions where "black" skin color can never come to be and where "white" ethnic groups are dominant (which means avoiding any areas with extensive warmth and going to places with large amounts of coldness along with lots of snowfall). Then you must make sure that people only breed with other "whites" which, after 1,000 years will surely result in incest and in another 500 years will result in the retardation of the population.

My civilization lives or dies with little input from me. Again, ethnicity is a social science concept, not a genetic one. If you can submit to me some evidence that geneticists use the term "ethnicity" to define certain genetic traits, I'll concede. However, I do believe you are incorrect in your usage here.

Oxymandias wrote:White skin and blue eyes will never give you more intelligence, greater physical ability, or more power.

That depends upon what you mean by those terms. White skin will allow your body to create more nitric oxide and Vitamin D in Northern climates. That doesn't translate into abilities like bench pressing 150lbs, for example. However, it does translate into cardiovascular health and bone strength.

Oxymandias wrote:It will only make your heart the size of a peppercorn, your intestines rotten, your lungs eroded, hydrocephalus, a singe testicle as black as coal, and infertility.

This is clearly not a genetic argument. You are tacking between poetry, a misguided use of social science terms and genetics.

Oxymandias wrote:23andMe never defined you as such. You simply traced the blue eye phenotype to the Black Sea and ran with it. Having blue eyes doesn't prove you are Caucasian just like how having an Indo-European language doesn't make you Indo-European.

You are arguing for argument's sake. 23andMe does provide an ancestry breakdown. I don't have strong match strength for any group except for British & Irish and German. For some reason, you don't like that.

Oxymandias wrote:This is about sexual preference. Your frontal cortex is the thing that allows you to appreciate and crave beauty at such a level that is nearly a basic biological function. Unless you would screw a healthy but fat, toothless, and old lady just because she has blue eyes. Animals, unlike humans, have no such distinctions.

Visual processing is widely believe to be in the Occipital lobe at the back of the head.

The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex
Election 2020

Praise God! The suspense is ended. HalleluYah! :[…]

Trump, Oh my god !

Interesting to see the human sewage that Obese Don[…]

Trump and Russiagate

Attempting to commit a crime is still a crime. Yo[…]

I view this as just more anti-Israel propaganda. […]