jefferiah

Again. Protect those who deserve it. Actively encouraging Meth Addicts or Alcoholics (in other words, those blatantly not suitable to raise children in adequate conditions) of "ANY RACE" or ethnicity to have children is not the brightest idea. Let the incentives be based on suitability, and let them go out to those worthy, whatever "race" they hail from. Meth Addicts or Alcoholics are ideas of something undesirable, Marcinmoka, when it comes to parenting perhaps. But a race does not compare. Neither is a race better or worse than any other, so while it might do no particular benefit to preserve a race as you see it, the fact that someone chooses to do it should not cause you any great distress (like the man who likes to put up a meaningless Christmas tree) because it is also not going to have any bad effect----unless of course you are the racist and you believe white people are bad?

First of all the Eucharist is a "Christian" rite and is practiced by all denominations, not exclusively Catholic. Second Communion was not presented as a symbolic reference to God. Jesus told His disciples to eat bread and drink wine as a symbolic reference to His body and his blood. That is a form of symbolic cannibalism. All the rest of your response is nonsense goblty gook. I can't get over theists who contradict the doctrine of God. I never said that the Eucharist was not practiced by other denominations, Posit. What I did say was that the Catholics believe that the bread and wine are transformed into the body of Christ by the priest, which is not very symbolic is it? Jesus did tell his disciples to eat bread and wine but I dont think he would have gone so far as to actually ask them to eat his actual crucified body, so the idea of "eating" God is a symbol in itself. God nurtures us, Posit, is the sentiment, and free of charge, freely giving of himself. When Jesus compares the kingdom of heaven to a farmer seperating weeds from the good at the end of the age.....or to fish in a net....do you analyze it so far as to think that God is planning to eat us?

First of all the Eucharist is a "Christian" rite and is practiced by all denominations, not exclusively Catholic. Second Communion was not presented as a symbolic reference to God. Jesus told His disciples to eat bread and drink wine as a symbolic reference to His body and his blood. That is a form of symbolic cannibalism. All the rest of your response is nonsense goblty gook. I can't get over theists who contradict the doctrine of God. I never said that the Eucharist was not practiced by other denominations, Posit. What I did say was that the Catholics believe that the bread and wine are transformed into the body of Christ by the priest, which is not very symbolic is it? Jesus did tell his disciples to eat bread and wine but I dont think he would have gone so far as to actually ask them to eat his actual crucified body, so the idea of "eating" God is a symbol in itself.

Ah ok, well I dont agree with the Roman Catholic notion that the priest can transform the bread and wine into the actual body of Christ. I dont actually go to church so I had never heard that term for it. But I do consider myself Christian. I think the idea of eating God is symbolic in itself. How can I explain that? It is not meant to be cannabilistic but a symbol of bestowing. I think anyway. God is giving of Himself. It is not something that is earned. We are given life. Everything that moves and breathes is dependant upon those things which gave of themselves so that they might be there. No one is truly independent. Without care an infant would not survive. I dont know. Good question though.

And what is it?

i think they have all said over and over hollus that they dont believe it has a fundamental value. maybe they are lying, who knows, i cant prove otherwise right. so ill just accept em at their word. i dont think they are placing great importance on it. like the family that knows the Christmas tree is meaningless. its superficial. they could survive without it. core values would not change if they didnt have a Christmas Tree up...so what if they still feel like putting one up. if you get down to it Hollus many things are meaningless and superficial in the deepest analysis. You say why is it so important to preserve it? I am saying why would it be a crime to do so as long as they are not doing it in hatred of someone else.

why do you need to foam at the mouth over Kimmy's decision to marry someone who is white? or are you trying to get someone to fight back and say the parallel of what you said but aimed at blacks or something? entrapment? racism?

lol posit. like you i am not putting to much thought into preserving the race, unlike you i can see the possibility of someone wanting to do it without being quite as bad as you are making them out to be.

Look at it this way Hollus. You can marry who you like. I probably wont marry at all. Kimmy wants to marry someone with whom she has a chance of reproducing a blonde likeness with. You dont agree with it. What are you going to do about it? Has she committed any crime? Is she attacking someone of another race? Is it going to hurt you in anyway if Kimmy has a blonde child?

Well personally I have no beef about marrying a woman of another race Hollus, but I seriously doubt I will ever marry anyone. What fundamental values would be broken if Scott marries a white woman? You shouldnt have to worry about this.

OK lets say a few Afro/Asians got together and began an Afro/Asian supremacy group and started attacking others. Well that is a crime right. But a consenting African and a consenting Asian agreeing to have kids together for whatever reason is not a crime. And one does not necessarily lead to the other. This is getting into the microscopic levels of analysis here, where you are proposing these what ifs and genetic breeders, etc. And in order to keep explaining to you I have to do the same with family jewels, what is so hard to understand about the belief that people can marry whoever they want. How do you plan to derail Scott's and Kimmy's plans to choose a white partner? They dont seem to be trying to engineer some new race of afroasians or to engineer anything other than their own lives. (And dont say they are engineering their children's lives because children dont have a choice anyway since they are born after the fact.) Kimmy would like to marry someone with whom her blonde hair might be preserved. As silly as that desire might seem to you, do you recomend that society take steps to stop people from choosing to marry people of their own race? None of this affects you. They are not questioning you about why you marry who you marry. Do you need to control their lives?

Yes I mean people who choose their mate based on the ability to preserve their appearance. Kimmy says she believes it to be "a duty, more or less" And in response to a question of whether or not a mate must have a certian skin color, Scott says: "Yup, I'm certainly not going to contribute to submerging my Caucasian genes". Im not saying these people do not have some other standards by which they choose a mate, but it certainly seems that perpetuating their whiteness is paramount. And this choice of theirs to limit their potential mate pool is imposing some sort of limit on you? Look at it this way. If Scott marries who he wants to for whatever reasons, you will still have the freedom to choose your partner based on whatever you want. So he is not trying to limit your freedom by telling you that you should either date people of all races or only one. Would you impose your will upon someone like Scott that he should specifically marry someone of another race as an exercise in race relations simply because he wants to marry a white woman on purpose?

Would you not be afraid that my Afro/Asian group might dicriminate against whatever appearance group you belong to? Do you think there is any reason my Afro/Asian group should be afraid that your appearance group whould discriminate against us? Do you think there is any reason Scott's appearance group should be afraid of discrimination from either of us? You are confusing the existence of something---these groups as you say---for what they might conceivably decide to do in the future. It is possible that some Afro/Asians might become racist and wish to attack, but that has nothing to do with the genetic makeup of Afro-Asians. You are starting to sound like the racist now.

Ya, I think its wrong. I see the two families as part of a bigger family. So now that one of the families has lost their 'meaningless jewel', the other family will not join with them. That creates a negative meaning for the jewel. The next time you see someone unfortunate enough to have lost his arm (which doesnt subtract anything from his whole person) in some sort of accident, I urge you to cut your arm off, lest it create some sort of negative meaning.

or from another angle..... If you believe two families are just a smaller part of a big family you should be happy for the other family. Anything else is just envy, and there is no reward for catering to your jealousy.

English? I thought they taught Canadian and French. I took English as a second language.

Ya, I think its wrong. I see the two families as part of a bigger family. So now that one of the families has lost their 'meaningless jewel', the other family will not join with them. That creates a negative meaning for the jewel. So if you spill a glass of milk I should spill mine as well? Malarky, I say! If you dont react with envy and bitterness about it, I just might share. And if I spill mine, I would hope you keep yours. What good does it do either of us if you spill your own milk? I may have lost something of some value to me by accident, but you just tossed it away like Esau. Do you think it is wrong for people to have something you dont have? You may have alot of things I dont have. That's not negative for me. I would not ask the star player on my hockey team to score less goals because I cant seem to get any in the net...what greater purpose would that serve for the team? "so the maples formed a union, and demanded equal rights the oaks are just too greedy, we will make them give us light, now there's no more oak oppression for they passed a noble law, and the trees are all kept equal by HATCHET, AXE, and SAW" Neil Peart

Ya, I think its wrong. I see the two families as part of a bigger family. So now that one of the families has lost their 'meaningless jewel', the other family will not join with them. That creates a negative meaning for the jewel. So if you spill a glass of milk I should spill mine as well? Malarky, I say!

Ya, I think my distinquishing between marriage and procreation is inconsequintial, so please disregard that. And I agree that my original analogy was off, the rephrased one is not. Well I am not sure of that cuz your second analogy leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Do you mean so- called white people who breed with so-called white people for no other reason than mass producing white children? Wham bam thank you mam, here is your official I Help Saved Whitey pin. Or do you mean people who plan to get married and have kids anyway, choosing to marry someone who is of the same race, not just because they want to perpetuate whiteness, but because they want kids and they also could try their hand at preserving something for some sort of sentimental value as Kimmy puts it. I realize that race is a very superficial thing. I mean it doesnt matter if a person is white or not, right? So I mean if everyone turned "caramel" as someone else put it, I am sure life would go on and we'd all be ok. Take two families with a parallel situation. Each of them has an heirloom that has been handed down for 10 generations. A ring lets say. Now the parallel is about to end. One family is robbed in the middle of the night, and the burglar finds the ring in the little wooden jewellery box in the living room. The ring is not important is it? I mean its not like these people are going to lose what inherently makes them a family. The physical ring is just a superficial symbol, and there is no use crying over spilled milk. You have no trouble understanding that I know. Nor do I. "There is nothing wrong with losing something like that." But lets look at the other family. They still have their ring. Is it wrong of them to try to preserve it? Is there something wrong with keeping something like that? If there is no use crying over spilled milk, does that mean people who take care not to spill it are bad? As long as they are not hurting you or I, what is the problem?

And more importantly than what you mean is what Scott means. If your analogy is the wham bam thank you mam one, and his isnt, then it would still be off.

Ya, I think my distinquishing between marriage and procreation is inconsequintial, so please disregard that. And I agree that my original analogy was off, the rephrased one is not. Well I am not sure of that cuz your second analogy leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Do you mean so- called white people who breed with so-called white people for no other reason than mass producing white children? Wham bam thank you mam, here is your official I Help Saved Whitey pin. Or do you mean people who plan to get married and have kids anyway, choosing to marry someone who is of the same race, not just because they want to perpetuate whiteness, but because they want kids and they also could try their hand at preserving something for some sort of sentimental value as Kimmy puts it.

ive never heard of that one, ko2, but yeah dr seuss books rule!

Would you be defending me if I decided to breed Africans with Asians and declare their offspring to be Afians? And if I then started to passionately voice my concern about the possibility of discrimination towards my newly defined concoction of physical appearance, and their need for a homogeneous homeland? Is this something you would support? Lol. You know that is a very ridiculous comparison. You are becoming the breeder putting two people together like a farmer. There is a huge difference between that and two consenting adults deciding to marry each other. You are forcing your will on someone and pre-arranging the marriage based on the idea that other people should marry the way you want. As far as I can tell, Scott is not going to come to my house with a burning cross if I decide to marry an asian. And he can choose who he wants to marry. There is no overseeing farmer. Allow me to rephrase that. If I was born from African and Asian parents and considered myself and other African/Asian offspring as unique, would you support my concerns for the survival of my kind and my fear of discrimination and my desire for a homogeneous homeland? Side note: I’m not speaking of marriage. I’m speaking of people procreating with the intention to create a specific looking offspring, which would make those people ‘breeders’. Sure, if thats your concern, whats it to me. As long as you dont belittle non-Afro-Asians or think any less of them. But I am not sure what you mean by "not marriage" and people seeking to "procreate". Do you mean some sort of program by where people volunteer to have sex with each other? Or do you mean two people who are going to be partners anyway, deciding, among other factors, to include what they view as the same race? If you dont mean the second one, then the analogy is still off, since I dont think Scott is planning a breeding center where people just procreate for one reason. Alot of people are going to have partners and procreate anyway, whats the difference if they want that partner to be of the same race, hybrid race, or what have you? Whose business is that? As for the homeland bit, I may have missed that part in Scott's posts. I can see more of a concern there. But I would at like to hear what he has to say about how he defines that homeland, and also how you define it.

Would you be defending me if I decided to breed Africans with Asians and declare their offspring to be Afians? And if I then started to passionately voice my concern about the possibility of discrimination towards my newly defined concoction of physical appearance, and their need for a homogeneous homeland? Is this something you would support? Lol. You know that is a very ridiculous comparison. You are becoming the breeder putting two people together like a farmer. There is a huge difference between that and two consenting adults deciding to marry each other. You are forcing your will on someone and pre-arranging the marriage based on the idea that other people should marry the way you want. As far as I can tell, Scott is not going to come to my house with a burning cross if I decide to marry an asian. And he can choose who he wants to marry. There is no overseeing farmer. Allow me to rephrase that. If I was born from African and Asian parents and considered myself and other African/Asian offspring as unique, would you support my concerns for the survival of my kind and my fear of discrimination and my desire for a homogeneous homeland? Side note: I’m not speaking of marriage. I’m speaking of people procreating with the intention to create a specific looking offspring, which would make those people ‘breeders’. Sure, if thats your concern, whats it to me. As long as you dont belittle non-Afro-Asians or think any less of them.

Marriage is not a crime. And marrying a white woman is not a crime either. Nor is it a crime to marry someone of another race. I can respect Scott's decision to limit his female suitors to the white ones. And I would hope he would respect mine to marry a Chinese lady. But even if he didnt respect mine, I would still respect his decision to marry who he wants, because people can marry who they want. That is the beautiful thing about marriage----you get to choose.