Love / Are there Polish women who date black guys? [281]


I agree it's becoming cumbersome, but I still enjoy it. Helps me to analyze my position better. Won't hold it against you if you stop responding or only choose certain points to respond to. I won't have the time I have now to write forever so my responses will eventually trail off and my presence on this forum will fall to a trickle.


If something looks like a pencil is it a pencil? You're asking me the law of identity here. Unless the observer is mistaken, yes they are white. All "whites" have white skin, but not all humans with white skin are "white". Again, this is because race is not simply skin pigmentation. Although, the correlation is high, especially between the extremes: Negro and Caucasian. This is why skin color is so effective at being a synonym for race.

There are Negro Albinos that lack pigmentation and have pale "white" skin. But they aren't "white". But this isn't much of a problem since it is still (even with the change in skin pigmentation) very easy to tell the difference between a Caucasian and a Negro Albino.

More technically, race can be stated as the mathematical correlation of all genes to one another and how they will be expressed. The demarcation point will be mathematical. But does that mean we need a computer to tell individuals apart? Well, we do have a computer: our brain. And the brain is very good at differentiating between races. It's what we do, as humans.


First, whatever visual information I get, I will act on. I'm not going to second guess my "perception". Second, what do you mean by "darker"? Are you using "Polish" as a nationality or as an identity that includes race? But the simple answer is that my brain (for the most part subconsciously) will do the calculating for me. Sure there are mixed individuals which make me think for a moment consciously as to their genetic background, but these are exceptions. It's easiest for individuals to tell who isn't part of their race (or ethnicity) rather then who exactly belongs to which category. So the thought would go "whatever race/ethnicity that individual belongs to, I can be sure they don't belong to the race/ethnicity I belong to".


Changing races is not cosmetic surgery. Race includes your DNA. You would have to change the whole individual. That would include changing everything from brain construction to bone to muscle density ratios. You really need to get into evolutionary theory and the rise of the homo sapiens sapiens to understand race.


The culture is a by-product of the genetic make up the population. Caucasians have differences in abilities within their race also. Anything that will be called "white culture" is a culmination of manifestation of the cultures of the Caucasoids. But there also has to be a comparison point. There has to be an "other".


You do have a point that I my wording "genetic uniqueness" was on the vague side. I agreed you could lump interbreeding with it. But I do not intend to lump nuclear family interbreeding in there. I'm ok with first cousins breeding, but not on a large scale in a population. Cousin breeding is very common throughout history. And the difference in medical problems is about 2% vs non-cousin breeding. It's an acceptable risk.

Anyway, the answer is that it does not matter to me what technology will be like. These decisions are affecting the here and now. And today, we can't do those things. If we ever get to a point where the genetics you are born with won't matter, them my motivations will probably be null and void. But even then there may be individuals who are pro "natural genetics". The movie Gattaca tackles this along with the book "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley. I really recommend the book.


What does this mean exactly? You're simply saying that you don't want to get in the way of other male's attempts to get females. On an individual level that might be fine and dandy but on a macro scale (as a population) if all of a sudden the males step aside or are lenient in allow access to females from competing males, they won't last very long as a population. I see it as a pacifist stance. But there is still something worthy to be said for the primal nature of survival and propagation of one's group.


Right, the culture is essentially the "output" by whatever genetic grouping you're talking about. The categorization is fairly simple. You could even have "mixed culture". Meaning the output by individuals who are 50/50 racial splits.


And just don't let there be a crisis. In crisis, this is where true loyalties are exposed. I don't think it's stretching it to say that racial bonds and loyalties are much stronger then nationality or culture. They are more primal.


Right, and this is where sameness comes in. Some people prefer it. There is a sense of calmness and continuity in that. I don't have a problem that there are multicultural/multiracial societies in the world, it's that it is becoming this all encompassing juggernaut that is harming unicultural/uniracial societies. So ideally, humans would get to voluntarily decide what type they wish to live in and there would be some of each. And neither would be presenting a danger to the other. But that isn't what the multiculturalism proponents want. They want the whole world to be multicultural.

Love / Are there Polish women who date black guys? [281]

You’re really stretching what I say. You’re often arguing against your assumptions of what I mean, rather then what I actually say.


Case in point here. I have not said anything about what type of punishment it would be. You could punish someone by withholding something of value from them. You could withhold love from someone. Is this non-physical violence? And if punishment is violence (both physical or non) then aren't you leaving me with no recourse whatsoever to correct the behavior of others?


The meaning of words is one of the central problems that give rise to disagreement where there may be none. It is very important.


Mostly I’m arguing that it is not as problematic as you make it out to be. Even according to you, there are people who would not consider Golden Retrievers downright dumb and susceptible to more physical maladies then generations ago. A quick google on Golden Retrievers and inbreeding resulted in this claim: “Golden Retrievers are no more prone in general to health problems than any other breed.”


This comparison doesn’t work. One is repairing medical problems. The other is changing races.


Making claims about individuals based on skin color is a probability assessment, not an unconditional judgment. But skin color does indeed have correlation to intelligence. The biggest problem you have is that you mistake skin color for what’s called race. Race is not skin color. There are Asians who are naturally more pale then Caucasians.


Culture is just a by-product of the genetic footprint of a people and it can morph. Most of the time this "need to protect our culture" argument is made by individuals who don’t want to appear like they are trying to protect the genetics of a people. Culture is good but it’s nothing without the genetics that create it.


Is there something wrong with protecting the white race? And if there is, would you say the same thing about protection for other races?


This is probably your only decent point.

Love / Are there Polish women who date black guys? [281]


Not if society agrees with the punishment.


Punishment and threats are not exactly the same thing. Punishment can be moral and correct. Threats have an almost exclusive immoral connotation.

Yes, you could lump incest with the statement I made but if you read it again the "of a people" should be suggestive enough that I am not talking about familial interbreeding.

But I will bite. Even according to you, some societies don't frown on it. Your judgment is that they are "uncivilized". Is inbreeding all that bad? Jews would not be who they are as a people if they frowned on interbreeding to your degree. In fact, if we go back far enough in evolution, you have almost exclusive interbreeding. Also, interbreeding isn't as medically horrible as you claim. In addition, with medical advances we may be able to mitigate any negative side effects of interbreeding. Would you allow it then?


This says nothing about whether it is right or wrong. Freedoms have been stomped out by most governments and societies in the course of human history. Does it make it right?


Explain why "protecting" skin color is wrong.


Make the connection from "Failures in this area are judged harshly by history" to white power mumbo jumbo. What is it about that statement that makes you think "white power mumbo jumbo"?

Love / Are there Polish women who date black guys? [281]

Choices can be influenced. Choices can be punished. Choices can be rewarded. Humans are not islands of free will. So you are wrong.


This is a misunderstanding of his statement. This is not slavery. If you are concerned about ownership, then become active in stopping the sex trade industry.

What he means is that the males of a people have a right to demand the continuation of bonds with females with the same genetic uniqueness. As a collective. And a right to prevent the creation of bonds with other males outside of this uniqueness. Failures in this area are judged harshly by history. I want to let you in on a secret: it is not wrong to influence others to not date outside of their race, ethnicity, or nationality.