"I am Tiger Woods."

[jj]

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.

So, your limited imagination is the problem, then? Really? Given your willingness to dissemble on and on, I have my doubts.

As to the data about intermarriage, did you have some problem with the term "first world"? Your appeal against the statistics is simply ridiculous, by the way, but that's a different issue, and since I conclude that you're not speaking on the level here, well, I don't expect any dialog.

 

[Luke T.]

Hm, I'm married to an asian (of chinese extraction) person. There was not a single asian person (literally) in my childhood. There wasn't even an asian person in my TOWN during my childhood. (again, literally)

Now, yes, that's a single anecdote, agreed.

Back when I was really, really sick I used to say you could lock me in a room with a three hundred pound one-legged blind dwarf female for a month, and I'd eventually fall in love with her.

 

[jj]

You're making the same mistake the Monkey is -- treating "race" as a single, unified trait.

Actually, I'm not. There was nobody around with anything like typical chinese asian features (Shanghainese variety, not Han or Northerner, if that matters, which it shouldn't).

There may not have been any Asians in your town, but there might well have been people with dark, straight hair. I have a weakness for dark, straight hair myself, which is part of why I was so delighted when I got a chance to visit Japan a few years ago and found myself surrounded by a truly phenomenal number of astonishingly beautiful people....

Thing is, I'm not strongly attracted to long black hair (for example), or to any particular asian feature, or to any particular feature of most any race, as far as I can tell. I guess you could say that I'm pretty, um, (what's the word here) universal in my appreciation.

So, I do understand more of this theory than you think, but I have some problems seeing how it could apply. Of course, this is all purely anecdotal.

I assume you didn't marry your wife merely because she was Asian. I assume that she has other features that make her attractive in your eyes. How many of them can only be found in Asians?

Well, education, way of thinking (think Colorado raised-in-the-1960's conservative feminist), interests, intolerances, etc, were a whole lot more important than any physical trait, to be blunt. As to the attitudes she holds, they were most certainly NOTHING LIKE the attitudes I grew up with, most of which I found revolting long ago, and which have gained nothing in value at all over the years.

 

[jj]

Back when I was really, really sick I used to say you could lock me in a room with a three hundred pound one-legged blind dwarf female for a month, and I'd eventually fall in love with her.

You won't mind if I don't do anything beyond acknowlege you said that, right?

 

[jj]

*Annotated post: I disagree with jj

Webster's online

Since you don't know my position, how can you tell?

 

[drkitten]

Well, education, way of thinking (think Colorado raised-in-the-1960's conservative feminist), interests, intolerances, etc, were a whole lot more important than any physical trait, to be blunt.

And these are exactly the traits that are most likely to be universalizible. But you're partially looking at it through the wrong age-lens. Most of the personality traits you've described aren't necessarily
obvious to a young child. ("feminist?' What's a 'feminist,' Mommy?) I'd be more inclined to look at less sophisticated character traits -- kindness, even temper, sense of humor, etc. You probably didn't know when you were five whether your next door neighbor was tolerant of Catholics, but I'll bet you knew whether or not she could tell jokes that you liked.

 

[punchdrunk]

Well, education, way of thinking (think Colorado raised-in-the-1960's conservative feminist), interests, intolerances, etc, were a whole lot more important than any physical trait, to be blunt. As to the attitudes she holds, they were most certainly NOTHING LIKE the attitudes I grew up with, most of which I found revolting long ago, and which have gained nothing in value at all over the years.

What physical features attracted you to her?

 

[Phil]

So, your limited imagination is the problem, then? . . .

Not as much a problem as your lack of understanding.

. . . As to the data about intermarriage, did you have some problem with the term "first world"? . . .

No. No problem at all. But EGarrette wondered when interbreeding would turn us all into a single race. I can't find a mention of only "first world" people anywhere in his post. Hmm . . . Perhaps I overlooked it.

. . . Your appeal against the statistics is simply ridiculous, by the way, but that's a different issue . . .

That's funny. The fact of different issues didn't stop you from citing first world trends to support your argument.

But what's more ridiculous, a diversionary tactic like trying to focus on merely a segment of the population when clearly the topic concerned all of humankind, or an accurate assessment of the statistics directly related to the issue?*

. . . and since I conclude that you're not speaking on the level here, well, I don't expect any dialog.

**Boy, you really put me in my place.


Annotated post:
*Rhetorical
**Sarcasm.
Webster's online

 

[jj]

What physical features attracted you to her?

None, we met on the net, by getting into an argument about how to make pie crust. The physical attraction came later.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Back when I was really, really sick I used to say you could lock me in a room with a three hundred pound one-legged blind dwarf female for a month, and I'd eventually fall in love with her.

So you've met my sister?

 

[jj]

No. No problem at all. But EGarrette wondered when interbreeding would turn us all into a single race. I can't find a mention of only "first world" people anywhere in his post. Hmm . . . Perhaps I overlooked it.

So, since it was me who made the statistical comment, and also who said "first-world", somehow you attack my writing with someone else's lack of specifying something?

Really, now?

I think that pretty much concludes this. You're arguing for the sake of argument.

Y'all have a nice day, y'heah?

 

[Paulhoff]

If everyone was the same so-called same race (I hate that term) there would still be people that would find something to be prejudice about.

http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/TOS/episode/68800.html

Paul

 

[jj]

If everyone was the same so-called same race (I hate that term) there would still be people that would find something to be prejudice about.

http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/TOS/episode/68800.html

Paul

trVth

 

[Hawk one]

eta: Triple walrus damnation! It never fails! I manage a completely serious set of posts, then the very first time in a thread I get a little, uh, monkey in my prose, it lands on the top of a page!! Argh! It's a conspiracy against me!

COMPLETE DERAIL: TM, did you know that you can actually put the setting as high as 50 posts per page now?

Derail over, I'll let you guys keep on. How did I manage to end up in the politics section in the first place?

 

[TragicMonkey]

COMPLETE DERAIL: TM, did you know that you can actually put the setting as high as 50 posts per page now?

Derail over, I'll let you guys keep on. How did I manage to end up in the politics section in the first place?

But who would do that? You'd risk getting more than ten "evidence" demands from Claus, and that would surely cause any computer to implode.

You're in Politics because you're totally after me. It's okay. It's perfectly understandable.

 

[Lisa Simpson]

But who would do that? You'd risk getting more than ten "evidence" demands from Claus, and that would surely cause any computer to implode.

You're in Politics because you're totally after me. It's okay. It's perfectly understandable.

With mild apologies to CFLarsen.

 

[Melendwyr]

If the computer implodes, what's the point of saving the files?

 

[Lisa Simpson]

Since when has Windows ever made sense?

ETA:

 

[Phil]

So, since it was me who made the statistical comment, and also who said "first-world", somehow you attack my writing with someone else's lack of specifying something?

Really, now? . . .

No. Once again, you prove that you are incredibly inept at understanding things.

EGarrette did specify something with his opening post; that being that all of humankind was progressing toward a single race by virtue of mixed marriages, etc. He did not specify only first world cultures. You did.

I tried to clarify this for you with the following:

. . . No. No problem at all. But EGarrette wondered when interbreeding would turn us all into a single race. I can't find a mention of only "first world" people anywhere in his post. Hmm . . . Perhaps I overlooked it.

Unfortunately, however, you could not grasp that simple concept, and instead of inquiring further, you ultimately responded with:

. . . . I think that pretty much concludes this. You're arguing for the sake of argument. . .

I expected as much from the likes of you.

I posted something that had nothing to do with you. I was not addressing you in the least. Despite your death grip on your own self-importance, you had not entered my mind at all when I responded to EGarrette. Yet you took it upon yourself to call me on some things that didn't set well with you personally, regardless of how EGarrette felt or how anyone else participating in this thread felt, and when I explained myself thoroughly to you, despite the fact that I was not talking to you in the first place, you still felt some bizarre need to try to gain some sort of, I don't know, upper hand by declaring self-righteously "that pretty much concludes this". Like the mere utterance of those words excuses you from the pompous interference you initiated in the first place and somehow promotes you to the high road.

Well it was you, my friend, who started arguing for the sake of argument. But apparently when taken to task, you are ill-equipt to follow through with anything other than the equivalent of a child's attempt to "make it all go away".

I hope that works for you in future endeavors. I really do.




There will be no annotated post, as certain parties have proven incapable of understanding both wit and gist.

 

[jj]

No. Once again, you prove that you are incredibly inept at understanding things.

Is there substantiation? Let's see.

EGarrette did specify something with his opening post; that being that all of humankind was progressing toward a single race by virtue of mixed marriages, etc. He did not specify only first world cultures. You did.

Nope, instead of substantiation, you evade the issue that you replied to ME omitting the first-world issue and raising China as an example, now you concede that I did mention the first world cultures, but you pretend that your reply to ME, ignoring that, is somehow yet germane.

I posted something that had nothing to do with you. I was not addressing you in the least.

Uhhuh.

Right.

You got caught, and now you want to weasel your way out. Let's see how you started this thread, shall we?

This post, (under "What modern intelligence of the world..." in Religion) got me to thinking. This WILL happen at some point.

. . .

So...how long should it be before human horniness and interbreeding turns us all into this man? And will this be a good thing or a bad thing?

What kind of fears and insecurities do you harbor that you concern yourself with such insignificant ideas?

Here, you deliberately pick a fight by denigrating the OP, ridiculing the subject by calling it "insignificant", and presume, absent any proof whatsoever, that the OP is motived by "fears and insecurities".

In this, you demonstrate not satire, of which you are not a master, but simple ad-hominem behavior, denigration of an issue, and unsupported claims that it's "insignificant".

Brought to bay on the issue of statistics, you evade your own claim, and try to excuse your misbehaviors.

Yes, you're a troublemaker. You have nothing to add, you've done your best to stifle discussion, insult everyone in the thread, and turn the tone of the thread away from the implications of a raceless world.

Why? Answer that.