Do you believe this?

[Animal Cracker]

lol and that's the truth Bama. Did she by any chance attend the UBC, you know the University of a Billion Chinese?

Yep!

[Animal Cracker]

[QUOTE=BASK8KACE]

I'm not going to grace the "watered down gene pool" posts with a formal response because the statements made were excessively broad and smack of ignorance.

This phenomenon is an indisputable fact of social science and genetics. It may be a hard pill to swallow for many, but its nonacceptance, does not change or negate its validity! It may be a broad statement, but true in many instances.

Here’s my response to parts of this thread:

(I could probably expand this to world politics, but I'm going to stick only to America for relative brevity):

Our culture is steeped in deeply seeded negative beliefs and negative assumptions about foreign cultures, races and practices that are different from the average WASP American. -Well, those who care considered WASPs"..not all Protestants..also Orthos and Papists..have been the policy makers in this country from the get-go!
Our media perpetuates these negative beliefs--actually the American culture perpetuates these beliefs. -Not true..from a "whoa-is-me-the man has his thumb on my back" attitude, maybe. People come/came to the US (supposedly) for a better life..this idea is/has been accepted by American culture, has been since its inception..when those groups come with ill intentions..yes, it gives many a bad opinion..does it prevent upward mobility..remove work ethic, civic responsibility-No, it does not.

Bask8case- Just some thoughts on your post:

"There lies before the immigrant who wants to rise above his current socio-economic status an obstacle course presented by his/her community (in America), which is often already crippled by a deeply ingrained self-hatred and expectancy to fail. (I'm being terribly simplistic for brevity)." -This is not simplicity, it is self(group) pity.

"We Americans open our boarders and invite people in with an naive expectancy that the immigrants will assimilate, and grow."- Millions have!

"This is an expectancy based on both an older version of America and an assumption that full assimilation can occur. But if you’re dark, you can NEVER fully "assimilate" in a culture that is led by those who don't look like you, don't identify with you, and EXPECT you to fail."-Not true again.

What American needs to do to solve this problem is to focus on ways of helping our current damaged communities and our new immigrants to established well functioning livelihoods in America, without just “throwing money at a problem. The welfare system is antiquated, you hit the nail onthe head...and it is abused by those who seek benifit from this system. It is not ony archaic..it has outlived its usefulness
"For years America has thrown money at disadvantaged people and told them to “pull themselves up by their boot straps and be successful.” This does NOT work. ( I agree 100%)-but it gave/gives them ahead start..if they capitalize on this..great..if not..let failed themselves. We need to look at more involved ways of helping these people—via educating the disadvantaged AND the advantaged. .
"The advantaged in America too are damaged and are very much a part of the problems and ideas, which perpetuate poverty, intolerance and ignorance in America." Well those who are succesfful, hold no duty to be saviors to those who chose to live a lifestyle that does not promote or embrace success, honor, shrewdness or what have you. The richman is the richman...worker is a worker, the bum is a bum..however, one can always bring himself out of his situation if he so choses-there is no caste system in America- just apathy ridden socio-economic groups.
But, we cannot be separtists - To a degree..this unavoidable....

[Carlos_E]

This phenomenon is an indisputable fact of social science and genetics. It may be a hard pill to swallow for many, but its nonacceptance, does not change or negate its validity! It may be a broad statement, but true in many instances.

Bull$hit

[Animal Cracker]

Call it what you will, bull crap, re-vamped NAZI rehtoric, racism..whatever...this issue is not defined racially,culturally or nationally..socially-yes..after several generations-if the continued downward spiral is followed-genetically.

[miked512]

watered down genetics ... LOL, I'm still of the notion you all would be better if you had a little bit of everything mixed in. mmmm, lets see.

white women with big asses, tits, and nice legs. black women with big asses, tits, and nice legs. And blend in both with that genetic asian submissiveness and ****, thats a perfect woman. seesh, and then the asian with big asses, big tits, and nice legs.

LOL, there wouldn't even be a difference. It would just rock period.

[tryingtogetbig]

I don't like big asses or big tits......nor submissive women.

[miked512]

I don't like big asses or big tits......nor submissive women.

Well, you'll be dead and your progeny will have watered down genetics. They will like them.

Well, nah ... you like boys so you won't have any descendants. You non-contributor.

[BigGreen]

This phenomenon is an indisputable fact of social science and genetics. It may be a hard pill to swallow for many, but its nonacceptance, does not change or negate its validity! It may be a broad statement, but true in many instances.

I'm not sure anymore whose original quote this is, but I'd like to ask for a clarification of the term "watered down". It's being usd in a very charged manner with a no doubt negative connotation. Whether or not this is an "indisputable fact" hinges critically on the definition of this term. To use a metaphor to which we can all likely relate, if my fridge at home is full of cottage cheese and tupperwared brown rice, the content within is fairly "pure" (another term being used quite a bit throughout this post) but "pure" in a content description only....which does not suggest any inherent advantage, desire or benefit to having said state of purity. Now, if we take some of the room in the refridgerator and toss in some chicken, turkey, lean meat, a protein shake or two, etc, etc, the "purity" of the contents have no doubt been "watered down" (in a specific sense of the term only), but i don't think any of us would argue we're worse off for it....in fact, it's better. So, YES, in this case genes are no doubt "watered down", ie removed to some degree from purity.

However, if "watered down" is being used in the sense that one would state that a newspaper story or movie script was "watered down" as in implying it's total quality or utility was reduced as a result, then I really would LOVE to see a credible, peer-reviewed empirical study indicating this indisputable fact.

To be clear, I'd like to see something that specifically indicates that a biological mixing of hitherto independent (an impossibility of we don't limit our time frame to say the last 4000 years) gene pools at either the macro or micro level results in a product with clear cut inferiorities to such a degree that one could justifiably call it a watering down in the way I am wary of its use. To further restrict this, I am also talking at the biological and genetic level...ie, you can't with a straight face give me a study analogous to the spaniards coming in contact with the Mayans and the biological disaster that followed for one side being indicative of the fact that such "mixing" results in watered down negative products.

Being the curious guy that I have always been, I am greatly looking forward to seeing a study to this effect. Surely it is but a click away being the indisputable fact of social scientists and geneticists that it is. There is something so energizing about seeing a new perspective and realizing how wrong you have been. I hope to see it.

[Dude-Man]

I feel really sorry for a few of you. That's all i have to say.

[BASK8KACE]

I'm not going to grace the "watered down gene pool" posts with a formal response because the statements made were excessively broad and smack of ignorance.

This phenomenon is an indisputable fact of social science and genetics. It may be a hard pill to swallow for many, but its nonacceptance, does not change or negate its validity! It may be a broad statement, but true in many instances.

Your "watered down gene pool" comments would be an acceptable argument if the "survival" of people were based only on the very basics of survival over many, many years--all people out in the wild gathering food, building shelter, tools, etcetera. Most people who have wealth and power are shielded from the "natural selection" on which your weak argument is based. How many absolutely insipid people survive only because of mummy's and daddy's wealth? You throw some of these spoiled kids out in the real world without the money cushion and they will flounder, miserably.

Here’s my response to parts of this thread:

(I could probably expand this to world politics, but I'm going to stick only to America for relative brevity):

Our culture is steeped in deeply seeded negative beliefs and negative assumptions about foreign cultures, races and practices that are different from the average WASP American. -Well, those who care considered WASPs"..not all Protestants..also Orthos and Papists..have been the policy makers in this country from the get-go!

Stop splitting hairs. I'm not going to list every single group that has been involved. Writing WASP was for brevity. If you're going to argue the points, then argue them. Let's move away from the schoolyard rhetoric.

Our media perpetuates these negative beliefs--actually the American culture perpetuates these beliefs. -Not true..from a "whoa-is-me-the man has his thumb on my back" attitude, maybe. People come/came to the US (supposedly) for a better life..this idea is/has been accepted by American culture, has been since its inception..when those groups come with ill intentions..yes, it gives many a bad opinion..does it prevent upward mobility..remove work ethic, civic responsibility-No, it does not.

I have come from a strong socio-economic background. I have had many tools and opportunities made available to me that have allowed me to be successful--because of my socio-economic background, not because of my race. Yet, I'm still aware of the way media often twists things and quietly suggests things.

You might have an eye opening experience if you take time to dissect some of the tactics of the media (not just tv). Here's a brief example for you to pay attention to:

The next few times you watch the news try (if the facts of the news story allow you) to draw your own conclusion of what kind of person committed the crimes the news mentions. Look at the neighborhoods where they do the interviews etcetera. Then consider the following (something that goes unnoticed): When the person is of color, check out the amount of time a very large clear picture of the dark-skinned face is held on the screen during the crime story segment. When the person is white, they often do not show any large picture, they might show a brief segment of the person being put into a police car from a distance where you barely can tell the person's race or (more often) they do not show any picture at all of the white criminal, just several white neigbors or friends talking about the person. For the common person watching TV, it's very easy--if you're not truly aware of what's going on--to assume it was another crime done by another dark person in our country. I'm not saying everyone assumes this, but the media does not help refute this assumption.

Before you wildly disagree with what I wrote above, PLEASE, take time to analyze this on your own over 3 or 4 days. Many other people (of all races) have noticed and mentioned this.

Bask8case- Just some thoughts on your post:

"There lies before the immigrant who wants to rise above his current socio-economic status an obstacle course presented by his/her community (in America), which is often already crippled by a deeply ingrained self-hatred and expectancy to fail. (I'm being terribly simplistic for brevity)." -This is not simplicity, it is self(group) pity.

There's far more than self-pity going on here. When you quoted the above you left out an important part of the my statement of which you inadvertantly have given an example by your response. The portion you left out which preceded what you quoted is, "For the people who constantly receive both overt and covert reassurances that they can and are expected to achieve, its a difficult task to truly see and understand what effect the American culture can have on a person's psyche who does not receive the same obvious and subliminal encouragement, but who still wants to succeed."

"We Americans open our boarders and invite people in with an naive expectancy that the immigrants will assimilate, and grow."- Millions have!

"This is an expectancy based on both an older version of America and an assumption that full assimilation can occur. But if you’re dark, you can NEVER fully "assimilate" in a culture that is led by those who don't look like you, don't identify with you, and EXPECT you to fail."-Not true again.

I'm curious why you think this is not true. This is a basic fact of human nature regarding with whom people automatically identify (or will automatically reject) after being taught certain prejudices.

What American needs to do to solve this problem is to focus on ways of helping our current damaged communities and our new immigrants to established well functioning livelihoods in America, without just “throwing money at a problem. The welfare system is antiquated, you hit the nail onthe head...and it is abused by those who seek benifit from this system. It is not ony archaic..it has outlived its usefulness

"For years America has thrown money at disadvantaged people and told them to “pull themselves up by their boot straps and be successful.” This does NOT work. ( I agree 100%)-but it gave/gives them ahead start..if they capitalize on this..great..if not..let failed themselves. We need to look at more involved ways of helping these people—via educating the disadvantaged AND the advantaged.

I figured you and I would agree on these points about the welfare system. I wonder if you agree with the other portion of my statement--that we need to look for ways of helping these people.

"The advantaged in America too are damaged and are very much a part of the problems and ideas, which perpetuate poverty, intolerance and ignorance in America." Well those who are succesfful, hold no duty to be saviors to those who chose to live a lifestyle that does not promote or embrace success, honor, shrewdness or what have you. The richman is the richman...worker is a worker, the bum is a bum..however, one can always bring himself out of his situation if he so choses-there is no caste system in America- just apathy ridden socio-economic groups.

Consider this quote from my post, "America has made a decision to open its doors to many cultures without being pro-active in trying to project and to deal with problems that our open boarders can cause."

Part of the problem (not all of it) is perpetuated by the attempt of the powerful to remain distant and sheltered--participating only to increase thier own wealth/power, with not much regard for others. This is normal, and it happens in almost every area of the world where there is an imbalance of power. But is it morally right? (Perhaps it is morally right--that would be an interesting topic debate). Is it necessary for these Americans in socio-economic power to seek positive change for other Americans who are not socio-economically as strong? YES. If America plans to keep it's boarders open, then the problems that come with accepting immigrants into the country (whether they be backsliding or motivated) need to be addressed by our country (by both the citizens and our leaders) because if these socio-economic issues are left to fester--unchanged, we will continue to erode the cohesiveness in this country and will continue to make America ever more vulnerable to what the social philosopher that sparked this thread warned: America's open boarder's could be the downfall of America.

[BigGreen]

I had a entire unit in university bio abotu watering down genetics.. If we keep immagranting all over the world yes, we will lose what distinguishes each race. thats a blame a simple proven fact. What bouncer was saying abotu ireland having 3.5 mil people and having a influx of immagration is 100% true. with a population so small it wont take many years (in relation to humans entire history) to totally loose irish people.

But the thing that drives me crazy is that THESE races themselves are (biologically speaking) fairly recent and VERY social constructs. What we construe as Irish, English or Italian is not nearly as pure biologically as these arguments lead us to believe. Italians, in fact, if I'm not mistaken, were once a very fair skinned and light haired "race". It was the fall of Rome and the Moorish invasions that followed that led to the italian "race" we perceive today. Thus, each and EVERY one of these races we wonder about "keeping" or fret about "losing" is itself nothing more than the result of a losing of a previous race. We eventually run into a problem with infinite regression (ie, can you sue the estate of the Wright brothers if your spouse dies in a plane accident).

[tryingtogetbig]

All of us are watered down heinz 57 cross bred mutants of our horny ancestors from long ago!

peace,

ttgb

[inheritmylife]

Just a thought for any of you that are familiar with the concept of sexual selection, consider this: all human beings stem from a common ancestor and developed into different races for a reason. Most people(and anthropologists until recently) believe that races developed due to natural selection and adaptation to specific enviornment. African americans are black because of the sunlight in Africa, Irish because of its lack, etc. Many contemporary anthropologists now believe this is untrue. The belief now is that races developed due to sexual selection, or the selection of specific qualities in mates dependent upon the percieved value of that trait in that specific culture.

Why would this change? Tommorow are Africans and their closest descendents going to begin selecting for the traits of red hair and freckles? Why would they? They have liked dark skin and such for millenia and they always will. Of course if you mix enough people of any race together some will mate. However, we won't all be "grey" any time soon, I assure you.

[BASK8KACE]

Anyone who thinks that anybody these days has sex with another strictly to promote his/her better genes should be shot--shot without being granted a last request.

Humans don't go around sniffing each other's butts for the best scent. These are the days when a person gets kicked out of a relationship for being a "close-talker" or because s/he has some habit or quirk that once was perceived as cute, but has become unbeareably annoying. Sienfeld anyone?

In 2004, there are far more things involved in choosing a mate than the color of skin or the freckles on one's nose. Anyone who thinks otherwise should be drawn and quartered.

As social values and acceptance change, so will people's prospects for luv and sex. If you knew that every time you tried to drink from water bowl #1 you'd get shocked, you'd probably choose bowl #2 or #3 the next time thirst took hold of you. If you knew your house and car would be burned and you'd get fired from your job and possibly beaten silly in the street, maybe you would not choose to date someone outside your race or even admit to being a homosexual. Now that attitudes have changed, homosexuals are everywhere and interracial couples are kissing in the streets. Catch my drift? If you don't, you should be hung by your toes over fire.

[BOUNCER]

Chicomohimco, I realise what I said sounds racist but I don't mean to come accross like that. But I feel that I'm in a unique situation here. For 800 yrs the British tried to kill us off, they even settled Scotish protestants among us to take away our Irishness (if I can call it that). We've only had our independence just over 75yrs and now this influx of ecomonic refugee are flooding into my country.
You have to understand how small Ireland is to appricate what I'm talking about. For instance here in Dublin we had a street which was famous for its unique Dublin charactor, its called 'Moore St'. It was world famous for its old Dublin charactor and the people who traded on the street, but a few years ago we got Nigerians moving in and buying up the property there, btw every single Nigeria here is an illegal immigrant. More of that later. Now Dublin people can't go near the place, most of the shops have been taken over by Nigerians selling only to African customers, where we once had brilliant Dublin sights, sounds and smell we have jungle music blaring out of every shop and Nigerians using the street as a public toilet. My wife and daughter won't venture near the place now. But how does this water down our culture?. Well the IRA surrender to the British in our 1916 rebellion was signed in a building on the street. The building WAS listed for protection, but now Nigerians have successfully applied for and got permission to redevelope the building for an African 'drop in centre'. So 99.9% of members here all this means nothing, but we're genuinely fearfull for the future of our Irish heritage. What happens in a generation when these people start to gain place's on county councils and want to demolish other places of historical interests to us?.. Ireland has a population of 3.5 million, Nigeria has a population of 130 MILLION!
Just last year we had 37 THOUSEND Nigerians flood the country for god sake!.
Now call it whatever you want, "watered down genetics" sounds horrible, but we can't take this sort of influx and still maintain our unique Irish culture.

Illegal Nigerians, European law states that a refugee must claim asylum in the first country the applicant arrives after leaving their home land. There are NO direction flights and shipping channels from Nigeria.

Btw it doesn't stop there, we've a huge eastern European refugee problem too. Because we have, or had (these sprongers destroyed it) booming economy these leeches came and bled us dry.

[Tock]

Originally Posted by BamaSlamma
P..however, your sumation is correct...also leading to the downfall is the acceptance of socio-inferior sub-cultures, which leads to watered down genetics. I did my senior thesis on this very topic.

I would also like to know what "watered down genetics" are.

Probably something about growing gills and webbed fingers and toes.
Who knows . . .

-Tock

[BOUNCER]

Btw guys, I should probably cut out of this thread. I realise I'm coming accross as some kind of neo-nazi, I detest neo-nazi's. But our culture here is under genuine threat and as a country we're frightened.

[Animal Cracker]

watered down genetics ... LOL, I'm still of the notion you all would be better if you had a little bit of everything mixed in. mmmm, lets see.

white women with big asses, tits, and nice legs. black women with big asses, tits, and nice legs. And blend in both with that genetic asian submissiveness and ****, thats a perfect woman. seesh, and then the asian with big asses, big tits, and nice legs.

LOL, there wouldn't even be a difference. It would just rock period.

Phenomenon has nothing to do with race mixing..it is eveident in humans, anmials and plant life. Also affected is the "dumbing-down"a social group. This is a bit more complex than most believe it to be..however the idea you stated, if possible..we could breed some hot-ass beyotches!

[Tock]

I was reading a paper by a social philosopher that stated the downfall of the United States will come when too many imigrants with alterior motives are allowed into the US and given the vote. It stated that the new voters will be contrary to classically american politics, and will result in the downfall of America in a traditional sense. Do you believe this? I just want to see what everyone thinks.

That's sorta what happened in Texas in the 1830's . . .
Back then Texas was sparsely populated, and the Mexican government welcomed Americans who migrated and developed the land. After a while there were more Americans than Mexicans, and the Americans decided to take the land away from Mexico and form their own country.
Now, Texas is getting jillions of legal and illegal immigrants from Mexico, and at the rate things are going now, in another 50 or 100 years from now, the hispanics could very well vote to seceed from the Union and form its own country again (Texas is the only state in the Union able to legally seceed--long story), then re-combine with Mexico.
I'll probably be dead when this happens, so one of y'all will have to wake me up and let me know when it does so I can have one last snicker of irony . . .
-Tock

[Tock]

Btw guys, I should probably cut out of this thread. I realise I'm coming accross as some kind of neo-nazi, I detest neo-nazi's. But our culture here is under genuine threat and as a country we're frightened.

Tish tosh, there ain't no threat. Just a guaranteed change in the order of things. It'll happen gradually and no one will really notice, there won't be any reason to complain unless you're a stickler for "racial purity" (if there is such a thing anymore).

Yah, I like that phrase "Tish Tosh" too . . . it's neither here nor there, nevertheless, amusing in its own way . . .
--Tock

[inheritmylife]

Although the references to being shot without a last request, drawn and quartered, and hung by one's toes over the fire were entertaining(and strangely arousing?), you may be missing some of what I'm saying.

Sexual selection isnt exclusive to traits that benefit and/or promote ones offsprings success. It is simply what appeals sexualy to people in that culture, race, or even nationality I suppose. Dumbed down, it is what makes you horney. Similar to the developemental psychology belief that children develope their concept of the ideal mate from the physical characteristics of their parents.

I'm not openly advocating anything here, I wouldnt want to risk being tared and feathered.

[BASK8KACE]

Tommorow are Africans and their closest descendents going to begin selecting for the traits of red hair and freckles? Why would they? They have liked dark skin and such for millenia and they always will. Of course if you mix enough people of any race together some will mate. However, we won't all be "grey" any time soon, I assure you.

inheritmylife,

I didn't misunderstand what you wrote, I was responding to your statement, which I've quoted above. Your reasoning is way off. Are you assuming that the closest descendents of Africans aren't already attracted to freckles? Are you assuming that freckled people aren't already attracted to Africans? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The closest descendents of a culture (or race) aren't automatically predisposed to being unattracted to features of another culture (or race)--but your statements seem to suggest otherwise. The closest descendents of a given race are probably living in that race's motherland, surrounded by people that look like them; so the "closest descendents" are usually limited to choosing from people that look like themselves only because of geography--not because of inate preferences. Put those same isolated people in a melting pot like America and their ideas of beauty will certainly be broadened.

[BASK8KACE]

BamaSlamma,

I'm curious if you have any response to what I wrote in red regarding your response to my post (see post #52 above).

[inheritmylife]

My reasoning is spot on. It is the psychology of reproduction, and it hasnt changed since the inception of mankind. Individuals learn their perception of the perfect mate from the genetics of their parents. Does this mean that one cannot be attracted to someone that doesnt look like you? No, and it certainly doesnt make it wrong. This isnt racist thinking, it is biology and blind to race. It is simply the way that human beings generaly interact and make decisions when it comes to the person with whom they will reproduce (or even have casual sex) with.

Go to the library and find a book called The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond. he explains the concept of sexual selection far better than I ever could.

[BASK8KACE]

My reasoning is spot on. It is the psychology of reproduction, and it hasnt changed since the inception of mankind. Individuals learn their perception of the perfect mate from the genetics of their parents. Does this mean that one cannot be attracted to someone that doesnt look like you? No, and it certainly doesnt make it wrong. This isnt racist thinking, it is biology and blind to race. It is simply the way that human beings generaly interact and make decisions when it comes to the person with whom they will reproduce (or even have casual sex) with.

Go to the library and find a book called The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond. he explains the concept of sexual selection far better than I ever could.

I never thought your comments were racist. I think you're overlooking a large psychological component in attraction that trumps the minor human "instincts" driven by genetics. Think Freud.

All those who disagree with me should be boiled in oil.

[pumped99]

I knew this thread would spark an interesting debate.

[BASK8KACE]

Pumped99,

What is the name of the social philosopher you read, which sparked this debate?