Will all people of the world mix creating one race in the future?

I am convinced LeBrok can answer for himself..however this being a discussion thread I was unaware one must take a ticket and wait in line to take part. The point you made may have been to another but the point was general.
So, future generations may have freedom so long as it does not interfere with their expected duties..in other words to my question..yes, you would deny future generations the freedom of choice.
I don`t know how you define race but I was under the impression we were one race...human.

That question you should direct to LeBrok who has started this thread about race-mixng. If we were just one race no mixing would be possible would it?

If you call it freedom to fullfill whatever whim comes to your mind, yes I deny that kind "freedom" from myself and from the members of my group, present and future.
 
I am not claiming it, its been observed in serious studies. And to a certain point its also obvious as that what evolution is all about. Its all an evolutionary process and nothing stays still but just a product of our environment a result of thousands of years in existence like all living species - even genes are receiving millions of messages and instructions from the environment and change by time according to need in the name of survival. Even genes evolve by time and also do their instructions. If it wasnt so we would not have evolved as species.

We are no longer evolving in the traditional sense, modern breeding is largely dysgenic. In the past the weak, dumb, physically deformed etc would have died off, today most of them survive to breed. And to make things worse, higher IQ people tend to have smaller and smaller families, while lower IQ ones continue to have large ones. Our only hope to solve this impending disaster is genetic engineering.
 
That question you should direct to LeBrok who has started this thread about race-mixng. If we were just one race no mixing would be possible would it?

If you call it freedom to fullfill whatever whim comes to your mind, yes I deny that kind "freedom" from myself and from the members of my group, present and future.
But I`m asking you. You are the one who said a single race was impossible...

A whim..? You see the right to freedom of expression, freedom of individual choice, the right to do so without pressure, as "quaint"?
 
But I`m asking you. You are the one who said a single race was impossible...

A whim..? You see the right to freedom of expression, freedom of individual choice, the right to do so without pressure, as "quaint"?

No, you are the one who said that we are already one human race.

As I've already said before those rights are arbitrary and conventional
 
As usual you see what you want to see. I told you: Afirmative Action long time ago.

And who says that everyone should accept the negative liberty you describe?

What do liberals know about being a man...

Perhaps you're not actually acquainted with the nature of affirmative action legislation? Simply, it is predicated on the fact that blacks (and other minorities) in this country were systematically denied access to quality education and good jobs for hundreds of years. In 1965, President Johnson signed an order requiring the government to take "affirmative action" to make sure that hiring decisions were made without regard to race, religion or national origin. It was sometimes interpreted to give preference to certain minorities in hiring and also in admissions to universities.

I'm one of the people who actually thinks that we've come along far enough that it's no longer necessary. However, I see nothing untoward about considering the socio-economic situation of applicants as one factor in the admissions process, or in hiring of local police, for example.

If I were on those admissions committees, and was presented with two equally qualified applicants, one of whom had overcome a great deal of adversity to achieve his or her competence, regardless of race, I would definitely favor that applicant over the child of affluent "helicopter" parents who provided every kind of advantage.

In terms of police departments, I think it is to the benefit of society as a whole to have a police department that contains minority members, particularly in situations where the police must interact with people living in primarily minority, disadvantaged, high crime areas.

This has absolutely nothing to do with encouraging intermarriage between the races.

It is a totally illogical claim. So, you are back to square one. You claimed there are a "zillion" laws promoting racial intermarriage, and you have yet to provide proof of even one.

What you are against is any law which negates prior segregation laws, because you are afraid that if people of different races come into contact with one another in any kind of equal way in their day to day lives, some of them will inevitably fall in love and get married. You know what, you're right. That's exactly what starts to happen. All of this talk about it only happening as a result of force or war is obfuscation. If you weren't afraid that it can happen naturally you wouldn't be pointing to things like the desegregation laws or affirmative action as fostering it.

The fact is that you want to deny people the freedom to choose to marry people of another race. That would require some sort of coercion, either by law, force, or indoctrination. You say you are not in favor of the first two. If we take you at your word, that leaves you with indoctrination. Have at it as far as I'm concerned. You are always and everywhere free to try to indoctrinate your own children. In the U.S. you are even free to stand on a street corner and spout your ideas or give speeches about it or otherwise try to disseminate your ideas. This is a free country. In fact, if, in doing that, you are attacked physically, the law will protect you. This is the price of a free society. However, one act of physical force of any kind and you'll wind up in jail.

Let's see how your ideas fare.
 
Perhaps you're not actually acquainted with the nature of affirmative action legislation? Simply, it is predicated on the fact that blacks (and other minorities) in this country were systematically denied access to quality education and good jobs for hundreds of years. In 1965, President Johnson signed an order requiring the government to take "affirmative action" to make sure that hiring decisions were made without regard to race, religion or national origin. It was sometimes interpreted to give preference to certain minorities in hiring and also in admissions to universities. I'm one of the people who actually thinks that we've come along far enough that it's no longer necessary. However, I see nothing untoward about considering the socio-economic situation of applicants as one factor in the admissions process, or in hiring of local police, for example.If I were on those admissions committees, and was presented with two equally qualified applicants, one of whom had overcome a great deal of adversity to achieve his or her competence, regardless of race, I would definitely favor that applicant over the child of affluent "helicopter" parents who provided every kind of advantage.In terms of police departments, I think it is to the benefit of society as a whole to have a police department that contains minority members, particularly in situations where the police must interact with people living in primarily minority, disadvantaged, high crime areas. This has absolutely nothing to do with encouraging intermarriage between the races. It is a totally illogical claim. So, you are back to square one. You claimed there are a "zillion" laws promoting racial intermarriage, and you have yet to provide proof of even one.What you are against is any law which negates prior segregation laws, because you are afraid that if people of different races come into contact with one another in any kind of equal way in their day to day lives, some of them will inevitably fall in love and get married. You know what, you're right. That's exactly what starts to happen. All of this talk about it only happening as a result of force or war is obfuscation. If you weren't afraid that it can happen naturally you wouldn't be pointing to things like the desegregation laws or affirmative action as fostering it.The fact is that you want to deny people the freedom to choose to marry people of another race. That would require some sort of coercion, either by law, force, or indoctrination. You say you are not in favor of the first two. If we take you at your word, that leaves you with indoctrination. Have at it as far as I'm concerned. You are always and everywhere free to try to indoctrinate your own children. In the U.S. you are even free to stand on a street corner and spout your ideas or give speeches about it or otherwise try to disseminate your ideas. This is a free country. In fact, if, in doing that, you are attacked physically, the law will protect you. This is the price of a free society. However, one act of physical force of any kind and you'll wind up in jail. Let's see how your ideas fare.
So we finally agree at least partially :) And if you bother to scroll up you will see that I did clarify what I meant saying 'facilitate' not force. And if it is such a free country why they make it so difficult to held conferences like AmRen etc.?
 
I guess Lebrok can answer for himself.Negative Liberty is a concept.All rights are conventional and not given by some higher universal authority.Again we are talking about race-mixng here not ethnic mixing. The latter is less dangerous for a particular group identity.We and future generations alike have not only so called rights and freedoms but also duties and obligations.
Duties and obligation to preserve the race? Is it from Mein Kampf?
 
So we finally agree at least partially :) And if you bother to scroll up you will see that I did clarify what I meant saying 'facilitate' not force. And if it is such a free country why they make it so difficult to held conferences like AmRen etc.?

The only thing about which we agree is that, with certain exceptions, the U.S. permits people to spout even idiotic, a scientific, insane, and morally reprehensible ideas.

The exceptions are that any hint of physical coercion will land you in jail.

I'm glad that you have unmasked yourself. AmRen is a white supremacist, i.e. racist association. Probably one of those groups that attempts to influence young, impressionable, often mentally unstable young men with their pernicious doctrines, frequently through the internet.

Now that it's clear what positions you actually hold, the discussion is over as far as I'm concerned.
 
Duties and obligation to preserve the race? Is it from Mein Kampf?

Yeah, yeah, keep piling up false accusations and insinuations. Your cheap totalitarian liberal tricks won't intimidate me.
 
The only thing about which we agree is that, with certain exceptions, the U.S. permits people to spout even idiotic, a scientific, insane, and morally reprehensible ideas.

The exceptions are that any hint of physical coercion will land you in jail.

I'm glad that you have unmasked yourself. AmRen is a white supremacist, i.e. racist association. Probably one of those groups that attempts to influence young, impressionable, often mentally unstable young men with their pernicious doctrines, frequently through the internet.

Now that it's clear what positions you actually hold, the discussion is over as far as I'm concerned.

Lol, congratulations with 'unmasking'. AmRen was an example, and they are in no way supremacist.
 
The only thing about which we agree is that, with certain exceptions, the U.S. permits people to spout even idiotic, a scientific, insane, and morally reprehensible ideas.

The exceptions are that any hint of physical coercion will land you in jail.

I'm glad that you have unmasked yourself. AmRen is a white supremacist, i.e. racist association. Probably one of those groups that attempts to influence young, impressionable, often mentally unstable young men with their pernicious doctrines, frequently through the internet.

Now that it's clear what positions you actually hold, the discussion is over as far as I'm concerned.

AmRen is racialist, not racist. They believe that on average, there are considerable differences between different breeds of humans. They actually put East Asians as smarter than Whites, and therefore are in no way "white supremacists".
 
As I've already said before those rights are arbitrary and conventional
Conventional..based on what is normally done or believed?
So if someone wishes to step outside the conventional, that which is normally done and wishes the freedom to do differently, you will likely deny them this "whim". This is not freedom Kardu, it is an illusion.
A liberal man seeks to have freedom for each individual, to make their own choices..what you speak of is, the freedom to do so..as long as it that which is normally done...it would seem.
 
Conventional..based on what is normally done or believed?
So if someone wishes to step outside the conventional, that which is normally done and wishes the freedom to do differently, you will likely deny them this "whim". This is not freedom Kardu, it is an illusion.
A liberal man seeks to have freedom for each individual, to make their own choices..what you speak of is, the freedom to do so..as long as it that which is normally done...it would seem.

What I meant is that those rights are made up, they are not some kind eternal universal truth everyone is morally or otherwise obliged to submit to
 
We are no longer evolving in the traditional sense, modern breeding is largely dysgenic. In the past the weak, dumb, physically deformed etc would have died off, today most of them survive to breed. And to make things worse, higher IQ people tend to have smaller and smaller families, while lower IQ ones continue to have large ones. Our only hope to solve this impending disaster is genetic engineering.

What makes you think so? Do you really think we have reached some sort of dead end in evolution? excluding genetic engineering our genes are already working on new realities the human species has not encountered before such as obesity and lack of exercise due to the use of so much machinery visa vi manual work which was the norm even up to a few decades ago. Our systems are going to see a new form of resistance to disease brought by a new way of life not know before. Our body shapes will change too. Just how we genetically became programmed to tolerate Lactose similar how to how bacteria becomes resistant (continuously) to pencilin. We work on the same principals of survival. But genetic engineering can (probably) give instant results
 
What I meant is that those rights are made up, they are not some kind eternal universal truth everyone is morally or otherwise obliged to submit to
You mean things made up by people are wrong and invalid?
Your job is made up, Georgia is made up, language is made up, your mind is also made up by human made up ideas.
So the human rights are made up and it gives dictator Kardu a reason to take them away, for the good of his race.
 
What makes you think so? Do you really think we have reached some sort of dead end in evolution? excluding genetic engineering our genes are already working on new realities the human species has not encountered before such as obesity and lack of exercise due to the use of so much machinery visa vi manual work which was the norm even up to a few decades ago. Our systems are going to see a new form of resistance to disease brought by a new way of life not know before. Our body shapes will change too. Just how we genetically became programmed to tolerate Lactose similar how to how bacteria becomes resistant (continuously) to pencilin. We work on the same principals of survival. But genetic engineering can (probably) give instant results
Yes, and amount of offspring counts too. Contraceptives as technology have profound effect on gene pool.
I have to mention, so Kardu is not confused again, I'm not for or against, just an observation.
 
Yes, and amount of offspring counts too. Contraceptives as technology have profound effect on gene pool.
I have to mention, so Kardu is not confused again, I'm not for or against, just an observation.

Nothing wrong if you were for or against. The joy of debating :grin:.
 
Nothing wrong if you were for or against. The joy of debating :grin:.
Sure, as there is nothing wrong to be impartial to the issue. The problem is that some people can't believe it and give me a hidden agenda, lol.
I'm also impartial to haplogroups and consider all equally valid. There were some individuals here who proclaimed that I, being R1b, have an agenda against folks hg I, for some sort of European supremacy.
I'm impartial to gay marriage. It is not my decision to tell gays if they want equal rights in any family union. Though I'm against people who don't let them have a free choice.
 
You mean things made up by people are wrong and invalid?
Your job is made up, Georgia is made up, language is made up, your mind is also made up by human made up ideas.
So the human rights are made up and it gives dictator Kardu a reason to take them away, for the good of his race.

You are right to some degree :) nevertheless my position is in accordance with the law of nature and evolution, unlike the utopia you and some others try to promote
 
What I meant is that those rights are made up, they are not some kind eternal universal truth everyone is morally or otherwise obliged to submit to
What a defeatist attitude...don`t you think we are all of us, morally obliged to seek that we ourselves and others should have freedom of speech and freedom of expression etc. without fear of persecution or harm? Or would wishing for such be an abuse to your rights...if they were real and not made up?
 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 284745 times.

Back
Top