Interracial Couples?

[dunkonu9]

Originally Posted by TheSheepdog

I dont get mad

but

when I see an ugly white dude with a sexy black chick, then yea, Im like damn, wtf?
....Im human

its like being a white guy and seeing Heidi Klum with Seal (if you didnt know who they were).

I dont think its a big deal as long as it doesnt interrupt your life or someone else.

Oh hell yeah what is up with her. He must be hangin on the floor.

[TennisGeek]

Originally Posted by dunkonu9

Do you get mad when white dudes date black chicks? I think it was so funny because all my boys used to date white chicks but get mad when they saw white guys with black girls.

yea it is funny...ive gotten evil looks from men and women when with someone that isnt black....nobody bats an eye when im with a black guy ...

[MetalMommy]

most people that see me in rl assume im hispanic for some reason and they always think that me and my husband are both puerto rican...no idea...so we dont really get judged, most dont realize

[JAWS22]

Thats bull****. If Seal can get Heidi Klum, I oughta be able to get the neighbor girl...

[JAWS22]

Originally Posted by dunkonu9

Do you get mad when white dudes date black chicks? I think it was so funny because all my boys used to date white chicks but get mad when they saw white guys with black girls.

Nope, I grew up in an integrated community, although, unfortunately, yes, when its a mexican/Indian(across the water Indian) with a black or white girl I get mad lol.
EDIT: Reason because I didnt grow up with any.

[captain_marvel]

Originally Posted by LilRed03

The pheromones statement is ridiculous, and even the presence of pheromones is debatable. However, assuming their validity whose pheromones are present in an interracial child - black, white, asian?
You should analyze the way that we view race in this society. It is a social construct used to place people into categories for whatever the desired reason of the time. Our races have no scientific or anthropological basis. They are purely social. If you really want to use race, how about you at least start with a little bit of science and use race based on geographical distribution. Since you love the term, I'll hope that you already know this basis and I'll provide no further explanation. This basis at least holds water because the grouping is based on area and ancestral need for certain characteristics which were obviously continued due to necessity. Once individuals began moving large distances and the genetic isolation was removed we began to see a mixing of gene pools- this is why you see black patients with CF and white patients with SCD although not as common as the alternative. Let's not be naive and pretend as though there are only "blacks" and "whites" in the world. Even "white" individuals of Mediterranean descent carry genetic predispositions such as thalassemia to protect from blood-borne illnesses (which I'm sure you were already aware of) that other "white" individuals such as those with a more northern European descent do not have. Ultimately all of these traits were once beneficial for their carriers so they persisted, not because of race, but because of Darwinian principles. A race of "black", "white", "Hispanic (which isn't actually a race - who would have thought?)" is about as useful to a scientist as a race of "tall", "red hair", "hairy", etc., you get my point - they are all physical characteristics. If there truly were large genetic differences due to "race" then you could not mix races which would make us different species. 48 chromosomes is 48 chromosomes despite the minor variations on them from mother to daughter or black to white. A human genetic element is a human genetic element. When a white patient is treated, the doctor uses the same drugs as he or she would for a black/asian/native american patient because human physiology is universal, that is unless there is a pathological perturbation. You may choose to ignore this message and that will be quite fine, but what you can not do is deny the validity of the statements above no matter how much it may bother you to agree. What is more important than a social construct of race is the real life cultural differences that may lie between the "races" which are due to a multitude of factors considering that even then a wealthy black and white have more in common than a wealthy black and poor black. However, that is a topic for another day. So, read up and increase your fund of knowledge regarding scientific principles before you embark on a path of ridiculous comments which may be taken to heart by some impressionable individual with even less knowledge than you. It's not a character attack, simply a defense of science which has it's basis in peer review - right?

Nailed it right here. Reps to you.

Race is a social construct. Sure certain things may be more common to certain "races" than other things but this is not so because of "the race" of the person itself. A person or more persons of a certain "race" are more prone to cystic fibrosis because of a circumstantial buildup of genectic factors over time not becuase they are part of the man made terms such as "white" or "black" or etc.

Labels like "white", "black" and so forth are terms that are created by man to seperate and categorize humans into there perfect little neat boxes. There are so many exceptions to what is supposed to make up or be characteristic of a so called "race" that taking such labelling seriously is quite silly.

[javyn]

Thanks for positing your opinion, but with no evidence, it is nothing more than that, opinion. And an incorrect one at that.

Originally Posted by captain_marvel

Nailed it right here. Reps to you.

Race is a social construct. Sure certain things may be more common to certain "races" than other things but this is not so because of "the race" of the person itself. A person or more persons of a certain "race" are more prone to cystic fibrosis because of a circumstantial buildup of genectic factors over time not becuase they are part of the man made terms such as "white" or "black" or etc.

Labels like "white", "black" and so forth are terms that are created by man to seperate and categorize humans into there perfect little neat boxes. There are so many exceptions to what is supposed to make up or be characteristic of a so called "race" that taking such labelling seriously is quite silly.

[Keltron]

Originally Posted by dunkonu9

Do you get mad when white dudes date black chicks? I think it was so funny because all my boys used to date white chicks but get mad when they saw white guys with black girls.

Originally Posted by TheSheepdog

I dont get mad

but

when I see an ugly white dude with a sexy black chick, then yea, Im like damn, wtf?
....Im human

its like being a white guy and seeing Heidi Klum with Seal (if you didnt know who they were).

I dont think its a big deal as long as it doesnt interrupt your life or someone else.

Yep, another thing I've noticed. People seem to be fine w/interracial dating until it involves the opposite gender of THEIR race. I see it all the time.

I work @ a gym and my former coworker who was black, was dating a latino girl. He came into the break room and started complaining about how two black girls were complaining his ear off about how he should be dating a black girl.

They said that black women have a hard time finding educated, responsible, hard-working black men like him [which I thought was a pretty ignorant thing to say] and that it would be a waste for him to go to a woman who wasn't black.

"Who said this?" I asked him.

"Those two girls right outside near the drinking fountain" he said.

Here's the kicker now... I looked outside the breakroom and saw that it was the same two girls that had been giving me the eye since I started working there.

I could've understood where their points were coming from, even though they were stupid... But I bet if I asked either of them out on a date they would've said yes. That makes them both hypocrites.

But I wasn't that shocked. I've met several non-black guys who look down on non-black women who date black guys. And these same guys have dated black women before...It's so dumb.

Whatever your stance on interracial dating is.. it should be applied equally.

[javyn]

Yeah Kel. It's like so many black women I see who complain about white girls with dreadlocks....WHILE WEARING RED WIGS AND GREEN CONTACTS!!! I just don't get it. Do people honestly not realize the hypocrites they are?

[bodyhard]

My wife of 27 years was 100% Irish when I met her but now she is half Puerto Rican by years of injection!

[JAWS22]

Originally Posted by bodyhard

My wife of 27 years was 100% Irish when I met her but now she is half Puerto Rican by years of injection!

HAHAHAHAHA. Awesome.

LilRed stand and be recognized before your peers. By way of intellect and relevant scientific examples addressing the topic at hand, by furthering the knowledge of others, and bringing said subject into great perspective over the time alloted, I would like to welcome you aboard to the Wise Miscers Guild. Congratulations LT.

[bodyhard]

Originally Posted by JAWS22

HAHAHAHAHA. Awesome.

She actually has dark brown eyes now, she used to have very light blue eyes

[SouthbeatMuscle]

Originally Posted by LilRed03

The pheromones statement is ridiculous, and even the presence of pheromones is debatable. However, assuming their validity whose pheromones are present in an interracial child - black, white, asian?
You should analyze the way that we view race in this society. It is a social construct used to place people into categories for whatever the desired reason of the time. Our races have no scientific or anthropological basis. They are purely social. If you really want to use race, how about you at least start with a little bit of science and use race based on geographical distribution. Since you love the term, I'll hope that you already know this basis and I'll provide no further explanation. This basis at least holds water because the grouping is based on area and ancestral need for certain characteristics which were obviously continued due to necessity. Once individuals began moving large distances and the genetic isolation was removed we began to see a mixing of gene pools- this is why you see black patients with CF and white patients with SCD although not as common as the alternative. Let's not be naive and pretend as though there are only "blacks" and "whites" in the world. Even "white" individuals of Mediterranean descent carry genetic predispositions such as thalassemia to protect from blood-borne illnesses (which I'm sure you were already aware of) that other "white" individuals such as those with a more northern European descent do not have. Ultimately all of these traits were once beneficial for their carriers so they persisted, not because of race, but because of Darwinian principles. A race of "black", "white", "Hispanic (which isn't actually a race - who would have thought?)" is about as useful to a scientist as a race of "tall", "red hair", "hairy", etc., you get my point - they are all physical characteristics. If there truly were large genetic differences due to "race" then you could not mix races which would make us different species. 48 chromosomes is 48 chromosomes despite the minor variations on them from mother to daughter or black to white. A human genetic element is a human genetic element. When a white patient is treated, the doctor uses the same drugs as he or she would for a black/asian/native american patient because human physiology is universal, that is unless there is a pathological perturbation. You may choose to ignore this message and that will be quite fine, but what you can not do is deny the validity of the statements above no matter how much it may bother you to agree. What is more important than a social construct of race is the real life cultural differences that may lie between the "races" which are due to a multitude of factors considering that even then a wealthy black and white have more in common than a wealthy black and poor black. However, that is a topic for another day. So, read up and increase your fund of knowledge regarding scientific principles before you embark on a path of ridiculous comments which may be taken to heart by some impressionable individual with even less knowledge than you. It's not a character attack, simply a defense of science which has it's basis in peer review - right?

That was an awful lot of rambling, I still haven't seen a single scientific study to back up race being a "social construct."

[JAWS22]

Originally Posted by javyn

Yeah Kel. It's like so many black women I see who complain about white girls with dreadlocks....WHILE WEARING RED WIGS AND GREEN CONTACTS!!! I just don't get it. Do people honestly not realize the hypocrites they are?

Indeed, whites try to be black, blacks try to be whites, Mexicans try to be white, Asians are just Asians. I dont think anyone acts like any other person, I dont think that being one color defines how you should act because we shape our personalities through life experience. Hypocrites suck balls.

Originally Posted by bodyhard

She actually has dark brown eyes now, she used to have very light blue eyes

You killed her blue eyes? You evil bastard....

[javyn]

Yeah, I don't see it as bad though. Maybe if we get so confused about what race we are, racism won't be a problem one day. Wishful thinking yeah, but hey hope springs eternal...

Originally Posted by JAWS22

Indeed, whites try to be black, blacks try to be whites, Mexicans try to be white, Asians are just Asians. I dont think anyone acts like any other person, I dont think that being one color defines how you should act because we shape our personalities through life experience. Hypocrites suck balls.


You killed her blue eyes? You evil bastard....

[browndemon]

Thats realls disgusting and gross.... EWW! Old man Balls. I can see wh yyour dad is having a problem, thats like if you had a daughter and your friend from school was F****** Her. So Nasty, you can do better, self esteem issue I think

Originally Posted by sweatpea

he's in his late 40's. i enjoy his company. guys my age don't give me the respect i feel i deserve. it's a lot game. i don't like that. i'm not a board game! DO I LOOK LIKE THE MONOPOLY GUY!? lol. a "relationship" isn't exactly what we're calling it. i'm not up for labeling anything. no sense of calling it something. once you put a name or label on it you have to follow rules and boundaries. this way we're not obligated to be faithful or anything. we're faithful because we respect each other and we want to do that for one another but we're not obligated or bound in anything. it's like when you let your dog out side with out having a fence. we know we can walk if we wanted to but we like where we're at.

[javyn]

Originally Posted by SouthbeatMuscle

That was an awful lot of rambling, I still haven't seen a single scientific study to back up race being a "social construct."

Because there isn't one. The best they can do is ramble on and try to posit their opinions as truth.

I think this ridiculous "social construct" crap is so prevalent because there is only a .012% genetic difference between different races. That's all. Although that is a tiny fraction, when you consider there is only a 2% genetic difference between man and ape, well, that should illustrate just how much difference there is in that mere .012%.

So if you want to argue that race is only a social construct, then you are going to have to make that same argument for primates, since their genetics are only 2% different than ours lol

So in short, we are all the same species, but our races do differ, and yes there is a biological difference and evidence to show it.

[erinlee01]

The 2% difference between us and the apes happened because of evolution and the way the genetic characteristics were pooled. Same thing happens with race, hair color, eye color.

Look at dog breeding, for a more current example. Breeders can completely change the look of a breed by breeding 2 dogs with specific characteristics. Now, doing that once doesn't necessarily do anything, but over time they can significantly change the color, average size, etc. of a breed. Since you can't pick and chose what genes a dog gets and what they don't, you also see breed tendencies for certain diseases. The disease can strike any breed, but certain breeds have a pooling of genetic characteristics that make them more likely to get it than a dog of another breed.

The same thing can be extrapolated out to humans. Certain characteristics were more appealing in mates than others in certain geographic areas and therefore the less appealing characteristics were bred out.

As for all of the examples using disease likelihood of different races, it is not the race that determines it. It is the genetic building up of characteristics that cause disease. The same thing happens by geographic location. People in Germany are more likely to get Parkinson's disease than people in Sweden. Both are predominantly white countries.

[JAWS22]

Originally Posted by erinlee01

The 2% difference between us and the apes happened because of evolution and the way the genetic characteristics were pooled. Same thing happens with race, hair color, eye color.

Look at dog breeding, for a more current example. Breeders can completely change the look of a breed by breeding 2 dogs with specific characteristics. Now, doing that once doesn't necessarily do anything, but over time they can significantly change the color, average size, etc. of a breed. Since you can't pick and chose what genes a dog gets and what they don't, you also see breed tendencies for certain diseases. The disease can strike any breed, but certain breeds have a pooling of genetic characteristics that make them more likely to get it than a dog of another breed.

The same thing can be extrapolated out to humans. Certain characteristics were more appealing in mates than others in certain geographic areas and therefore the less appealing characteristics were bred out.

As for all of the examples using disease likelihood of different races, it is not the race that determines it. It is the genetic building up of characteristics that cause disease. The same thing happens by geographic location. People in Germany are more likely to get Parkinson's disease than people in Sweden. Both are predominantly white countries.

Well... bravo ma'am. You must have gone to Oxford.
Although you really think we evolved from apes?

[bodyhard]

Originally Posted by JAWS22

Although you really think we evolved from apes?

Evolved from apes??? hmmmmm why aren't the current apes turning into humans? Why only some turned to humans and others stayed apes? They must have said NO I don't want to become a stinking human I rather stay ape!

[javyn]

Because that's not the way it works. When you have a child you don't turn into something else do you? That argument against evolution is absurd.

Originally Posted by bodyhard

why aren't the current apes turning into humans?

[parsnip1965]

Originally Posted by JAWS22

Well... bravo ma'am. You must have gone to Oxford.
Although you really think we evolved from apes?

She didn't say that. She said, "The 2% difference between us and the apes happened because of evolution." In other words, humans and apes both evolved from a common ancestor. Evolutionary Biology 101. Yes I believe it.

[JAWS22]

Originally Posted by bodyhard

Evolved from apes??? hmmmmm why aren't the current apes turning into humans? Why only some turned to humans and others stayed apes? They must have said NO I don't want to become a stinking human I rather stay ape!

Lol.

Originally Posted by parsnip1965

She didn't say that. She said, "The 2% difference between us and the apes happened because of evolution." In other words, humans and apes both evolved from a common ancestor. Evolutionary Biology 101. Yes I believe it.

Yes but her statement entails that humans and apes stem from the same genetic pool, some just inherited different genes. Which makes no sense. Because a Parrot can talk it means it is related to us?

[diggin~deep]

I think... why think about it?

I have always been so bothered that there is a division that is "noticed" anyway. It's funny, I am in an interracial relationship and never even thought about it until a year or two after. I am originally form a border town in AZ and so all types of latinos were around me all the time. I LOVE the culture and guess I ended up with that preference based off of it being my natural environment. It was also a military town which drew in all ethnicities from everywhere too. I think it was a blessing to be surrounded by so much diversity because I have always felt 100% comfortable with any and everything surrounding the mix of races.

So, off my tangent I think interracial relationships are natural, beautiful and important.

[Kataz]

Originally Posted by JAWS22

Lol.


Yes but her statement entails that humans and apes stem from the same genetic pool, some just inherited different genes. Which makes no sense. Because a Parrot can talk it means it is related to us?

It makes perfect sense. If you take 1 group of organisms which can both survive in the scorching hot and the cold and separate that 1 population into 2 habitats, one cold, one hot, would you expect those organisms to now specialize for the cold/hot respectively (lose/gain fur)? of course you would. And eventually they will no longer be able to mate because their genes will not be compatible with each other.

Just take humans and skin color. Skin coloring is due to resistance to the sun (strong correlation) and resisting skin cancer.

Another issue I'm sure your thinking, "why haven't humans speciated?" well that's simple, no two populations of humans have ever been reproductively isolated long enough to cause speciation. In fact a famous quote in my evolution book from last year was "we have found that their is less variation between any two humans than between some chimps which live in the same community."

[javyn]

Yes, the fact that us humans are the only organisms that have covered the entire globe without the need for speciation proves us as the most successful living organism on earth.

Originally Posted by Kataz

It makes perfect sense. If you take 1 group of organisms which can both survive in the scorching hot and the cold and separate that 1 population into 2 habitats, one cold, one hot, would you expect those organisms to now specialize for the cold/hot respectively (lose/gain fur)? of course you would. And eventually they will no longer be able to mate because their genes will not be compatible with each other.

Just take humans and skin color. Skin coloring is due to resistance to the sun (strong correlation) and resisting skin cancer.

Another issue I'm sure your thinking, "why haven't humans speciated?" well that's simple, no two populations of humans have ever been reproductively isolated long enough to cause speciation. In fact a famous quote in my evolution book from last year was "we have found that their is less variation between any two humans than between some chimps which live in the same community."

[JAWS22]

I dont see the huge difference in humans compared to monkeys being very close together. We traveled into space, they cant even build a house. And no bull **** about how some zoo keepers taught one to stack some wood so it looks like one. We have mastered sciences and ****, no other organism comes close, but what do all other organisms have in common? They are simple, they do the same **** they were programmed over and over, and they can all be easily profiled. Aminals/fish fall into a separate kingdom all their own.

The idea that environmental influence made our brains super brains compared to our animal counter parts, is completely retarded.

[erinlee01]

Originally Posted by JAWS22

I dont see the huge difference in humans compared to monkeys being very close together. We traveled into space, they cant even build a house. And no bull **** about how some zoo keepers taught one to stack some wood so it looks like one. We have mastered sciences and ****, no other organism comes close, but what do all other organisms have in common? They are simple, they do the same **** they were programmed over and over, and they can all be easily profiled. Aminals/fish fall into a separate kingdom all their own.

The idea that environmental influence made our brains super brains compared to our animal counter parts, is completely retarded.

So, basically you are saying that you don't believe in evolution?

Genetics can be played with. It's been done in animal breeding as well as plants. You can breed in desired traits, and breed out undesired traits. The same thing happened with humans. We didn't just pop on the planet one day. Over millions of years, we were genetically created by breeding patterns of our ancestors. The monkeys were genetically created by breeding patterns of their ancestors. However, somewhere in the past, we had a common ancestor.

[Danger_Close]

^^


im in no way shape or form related to primates.

k thx bye

[Jaw-Knee]

Originally Posted by Danger_Close

^^

im in no way shape or form related to primates.

k thx bye

This says otherwise.