Could you explain this question? . . .
I did in subsequent posts, and I don't feel like doing it again.
. . . It seems quite rude to me. . .
Your opinion is duly noted.
. . . I've made the same observation that we're headed toward a more uniform world, racially, and wondered what the social and economic repercussions would be. . .
You are clearly a visionary.
. . . Your question, in that light, is both presumptive and insulting. . . .
Because
you have "made the same observation that we're headed toward a more uniform world, racially, and wondered what the social and economic repercussions would be" my question is presumptive and insulting???
This must be the new logic I've been hearing so dang much about. Let me try:
I saw a beautiful woman with dark hair at lunch, so in that light, you have a poor singing voice.
Yeah, it's fun.
. . . You owe us clear evidence of "fears and insecurities", as well as evidence that the issue is "insignificant". If you can't come up with that evidence, then you really ought to apologize for a really bad job of mind-reading. . . .
The only thing I owe is money to the bank and a few bookies. I owe
you nothing.
. . . If you can't come up with that evidence, then you really ought to apologize for a really bad job of mind-reading. . . .
If you can't garner the meaning of a post, then you ought not respond. I made no assertions or claims that require me to produce evidence. I merely asked a
question.
To refresh your memory, I asked EGarrette: "What kind of fears and insecurities do you harbor that you concern yourself with such insignificant ideas?"
To which he could reply, "None, and I don't consider the ideas insignificant", and I would have been satisfied, and gone on my merry way.
Given the annals of human history, it is profoundly ignorant to regard the end of racial boundaries as "tripe". . .
Your opinion, once again, is duly noted.
. . . You have, then, I gather, not looked at the data on mixed race marriages lately? . . .
As a matter of fact, I have.
. . . Sorry, chap, but in fact interracial marriages are becoming a lot more common in a lot of places . . .
No need to apologize. I've misinterpreted data myself before.
I don't deny that mixed marriages are common, but we must consider the statistics of large numbers in this case.
If no one out of 6 billion people had a horn growing out of his forehead, and then over a period of say ten years 13 people emerged with horns growing out of their foreheads, it would indeed be accurate to say that people with horns growing out of their foreheads are becoming more common.
But it would be incorrect to conclude that, based on those 13 people, soon all people will have horns growing out of their foreheads.
A trend does not necessarily ensure a new paradigm.
. . . You know, I'm starting to think you're afraid of this issue. . .
That is a misperception on your part.
. . . Racial discrimination, as bad as it is (and no, I'm not supporting it at all when I say this) is presently one of the big sociological things that makes our world what it is. . . .
Yep.
. . . If that issue disappears, that will be a fundamental change. Will it be replaced by something else, or will something more basic happen? . . .
I don't know.
. . . Straw man. Nobody's suggested otherwise.
Straw man. Also, define "vacuum". By many definitions, much of space is a hard vacuum.
Straw man. . . .
I must apologize, I often forget that some people have no sense of humor, and that they refuse to use the language the rest of us are using.
I promise in the future to refrain from making a point using increasingly over-exaggerated examples, because where that works to get a laugh with most people, it flies miles over the heads of people with no sense of humor.
For those who require straight-forward, no nonsense use of English, without any irony, sarcasm, or satire, I will include an annotated version of all my posts at the bottom of the page*. I will also include a link to a dictionary for those who have trouble divining the meaning of "vacuum" in certain contexts.
Phil said: It won't have any affect on anything except to cause biggots a lot of heartache a priori.
. . . Both a straw man and an unsupported claim. Please show us how you know that this will cause bigots any heartache at all. . . .
Let me first direct your attention to my above comments about language and meaning. For the uninitiated, I was using the word "heartache" to infer that the mixing of races wrankles a bigot in some way; it causes fear, anger, what have you.
Secondly, let me also direct your attention to a key phrase in my statement. See
a priori.
"A priori" means before the fact. Since we still have many separate races on this planet,
this era, the time in which we are
currently living, is
before the fact of a single "mutt" race.
Thirdly, I haven't the time nor the inclination to provide examples of all the bigoted acts we perpetrate on one another in
this day and age. However, a simple Google search, or even a glance at your local newspaper should help you find the support you're looking for.
. . . In fact, one of the interesting questions involved is "what will people who have to act like that use as their criterion". Again, I'm not supporting their behavior, but I am observing that some people seem to have this particular tribal view of things as perhaps even an innate construction. . .
Yep.
Phil said: The only thing I can think for why you would post such absurd questions is you harbor fear that your own race will die out, or that you harbor anger that not everyone cares enough about their race to keep it within the family, so to speak.
. . . . And now a lot more unsupported, completely wild conjecture. . . .?
You say that like it's a bad thing. (Whoops. Forgot. . . no humor.)
. . . . Please explain why you see fit to make appalling accusations, with no support or evidence for them whatsoever . . . .
If you'll notice, I in fact made no accusations at all, let alone any appalling ones. Perhaps one day you will see fit to read things more carefully.
I simply related to EGarrette the only reason
I could think for anyone to be asking the questions he asked. All he need do (and he still can), is say, "No, Phil, there is more to my curiosity than that", and again, I'd go on merry way.
. . . simply because someone asked an interesting, non-trivial question that is supported by present marriage and childbearing statistics, at least in the 1st world. . . ..
Well, when you get a chance, look at the data for China, and India, and really Asia as a whole. You know, those places where most of the people on this planet live?
. . . you're building straw man after straw man, building an edifice of your own to burn down around your opponent, making claims counter to the current first-world statistics, and then ascribing insulting motivations to your opponent without any supporting evidence whatsoever. . . .
My opponent??
What is this professional wrestling?
Did I walk into a smack down by accident?
Contrary to any delusions you hold, many of us here don't enter a thread with an adversarial mindset, and I apologize to EGarrette if I came off that way. The title and the picture in the opening post led me to believe the thread was borne of some frivilous notions, but if that is not the case, I apologize to him for the misunderstanding.
. . . Yeah. I have to ask.
Why does this bother you so much?
The depth of your misperception is mind boggling.
*Annotated post: I disagree with jj
Webster's online
