SamenessLove
27 Apr 2009
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.
Probably wont have time to cover all the points but the conversation is becoming a bit cumbersome as is...and certainly nothing new is being discussed on either side.
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.
It's not changing races...but rather the appearance. If someone looks white...are they white?
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.
If you met someone who looked darker but was Polish would you react differently based on what you perceive?
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".
Medicine is not just "repairing medical problems"...there's plenty of research dollars that go into cosmetic surgery.
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.
Ah, then are you trying to preserve Polish culture or white culture...because from my outsider's view there's no real white culture. Also, in your posts the references are to preserving skin color. I believe I am the one who brought up the idea of preserving culture.
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".
If it's a question of protecting some genetic line...well, wouldn't your argument about the potential of medicine fix that? We're not that far away from genes being manipulated to be the way you'd like them to be (if you have the means of course)...so why stop people from being happy?
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.
Really, I'm all about not being a cock-blocker.
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.
Theater, art, music, architecture, fine cuisine? some of the best example of the aformentioned have been created by white people
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.
When you say a black person, so you mean someone who has been here for several generations who works and lives in a nice area then maybe but if you mean someone who has arrived in the UK in recent years, then I would
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.
If we start to mix with other races then we lose this in families, I like the fact the I look like my fathers grand mother and my niece looks like me - but this is my own personal view.
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.