When Miscegenation Backfires

[lictor616]

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1993074,00.html?artId=1993074?contType=article?chn=sciHealth

"Compared to organ transplants, bone marrow donations need to be even more genetically similar to their recipients. Though there are exceptions, the vast majority of successful matches take place between donors and patients of the same ethnic background. Since all the immune system’s cells come from bone marrow, a transplant essentially introduces a new immune system to a person. Without genetic similarity between the donor and the patient, the new white blood cells will attack the host body. In an organ transplant, the body can reject the organ, but with marrow, the new immune system can reject the whole body."

maybe we should come up with a donor discrimination law...

[Moonlight Graham]

Different races have genetic dissimilarities. And this is news?

This just in: black people have big lips and white people have pale skin!

[GostHacked]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

K now that that is out of the way. This is such a misuse of the term miscegenation.

[Jack Weber]

I know what miscegenation is...I'm a proud miscegenist ...

This ain't miscegenation...

[lictor616]

I know what miscegenation is...I'm a proud miscegenist ...

This ain't miscegenation...

why are you a proud miscegenist. why is that something to be proud of to you?

[Bonam]

Different races have genetic dissimilarities. And this is news?

To some people it might be. In previous threads where the topic of race came up, certain posters made the claim that it is "purely" a social construct, and that there are in fact no differences whatsoever between people of different races. No matter how utterly ridiculous this standpoint is, certain forum posters here seem to hold to it.

[Jack Weber]

To some people it might be. In previous threads where the topic of race came up, certain posters made the claim that it is "purely" a social construct, and that there are in fact no differences whatsoever between people of different races. No matter how utterly ridiculous this standpoint is, certain forum posters here seem to hold to it.

There's no denying that at all...

When was the last great Asian Heavyweight Champion in boxing???

The OP got the terminology wrong..With his racially superior intellect,I'm a bit surprised...

Miscegenation does not describe genetic racial difference...

Actually,it's a made up word used during and after the US Civil War to describe interracial relationships and marriage,and their legality at that time....

Edited July 16, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Remiel]

To some people it might be. In previous threads where the topic of race came up, certain posters made the claim that it is "purely" a social construct, and that there are in fact no differences whatsoever between people of different races. No matter how utterly ridiculous this standpoint is, certain forum posters here seem to hold to it.

I do not quite understand what you mean they believed. The way we typically think of " races " is constructed. I wonder if perhaps an apt analogy would be to say that the relationship between race and real genetics is somewhat like the relationship between Freud and real psychology.

[GostHacked]

There are slight genetic differences among us humans, and that is apparent. But we are still all human.

Usually the way Lucifer666 posts it has a racial angle, which earned him a vacation from MLW.

Bonam

To some people it might be. In previous threads where the topic of race came up, certain posters made the claim that it is "purely" a social construct, and that there are in fact no differences whatsoever between people of different races. No matter how utterly ridiculous this standpoint is, certain forum posters here seem to hold to it.

I think those threads were dealing with many topics like crime, education, employment, justice system/incarceration. And when Lictor was posting it was (to me anyways) some agenda against blacks/browns .. it showed in his posts.

And when talking about genetic or physical make up, it has a lot to do with the environment you are in as well. Kenyan runners was an example. They have a different physique because of the country they live in. This was dismissed by Lictor.

There are differences between humans, but not enough to call each type a 'race'.

And then we come to this thread.

Miscegenation is the mixing of races through sexual encounters. Jack Weber (from what I can tell) is a white man, who marries a black woman. This is an example of miscegenation. Lictor is talking about using bone marrow from a black man (for example) to be transplanted into a white man, which is not miscegenation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation

Miscegenation (Latin miscere "to mix" + genus "kind") is the mixing of different racial groups through marriage, cohabitation, sexual relations, and procreation.[1]

The term "miscegenation" has been used since the nineteenth century to refer to interracial marriage and interracial sex,[1] and more generally to the process of racial admixture, which has taken place since ancient history but has become more global through European colonialism since the Age of Discovery. Historically the term has been used in the context of laws banning interracial marriage and sex, so-called anti-miscegenation laws. It is therefore a loaded and potentially offensive word.[2][3]

[Wild Bill]

Dogs can look very different but they are all of the same species and can breed true. The human animal is no different. We are all the same species, with many racial differences.

That being said, any animal breeder knows that 'mutts' tend to be stronger! Breed too finely and inevitably you get offspring with genetic problems. Collies and others become prone to hip problems and other breeds have similar genetic problems.

So 'miscegenation' is actually healthy for the species! I would say it's obvious that Mother Nature recognizes that fact! We are born with a natural attraction for the exotic. A new girl at school of a different race or colouring often is considered far more attractive than the 'incumbents'. Nature WANTS us to mix our gene pool! It means healthier kids with more likelihood of POSITIVE traits cropping up!

Like it or not, we are heading towards a 'Star Trek' population of mixed parenthood. What's more, our race will be much the better for it!

Edited July 16, 2010 by Wild Bill

[lictor616]

Dogs can look very different but they are all of the same species and can breed true. The human animal is no different. We are all the same species, with many racial differences.

That being said, any animal breeder knows that 'mutts' tend to be stronger! Breed too finely and inevitably you get offspring with genetic problems. Collies and others become prone to hip problems and other breeds have similar genetic problems.

So 'miscegenation' is actually healthy for the species! I would say it's obvious that Mother Nature recognizes that fact! We are born with a natural attraction for the exotic. A new girl at school of a different race or colouring often is considered far more attractive than the 'incumbents'. Nature WANTS us to mix our gene pool! It means healthier kids with more likelihood of POSITIVE traits cropping up!

Like it or not, we are heading towards a 'Star Trek' population of mixed parenthood. What's more, our race will be much the better for it!

essentially what you`re saying is that there is such a thing as a superior race... interesting

and i`d challenge you to find me a pure blooded african woman that would rival Nordic Europeans in attractiveness... and also the big problem is found in intermarriage stats. Black women are by far the most celibate group in America, 70 to 75% of black women i the states aged between 23 to 55 are single. that`s about 8 times the celibacy rate as white women (who typically seek marriage less then blacks!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvQel-sIKwM

but even still mix raced couplings occur only about 7% of the time for whites (usually the underclass part too).

and this is despite 25+ years of intensive brainwashing to promote the idea that the only way to not be racist is to bed down with non-whites.

I`d say darker races tend to want to breed LIGHTER, in nearly every culture (india, China, Japan, Persia, the Muslim world) white skin is considered superior in ways that would astonish most liberal imbeciles living in north america today. In certain portions of africa, skin lightening creams are everywhere, and are very hazardous to the blacks who use them: many creams contain mercury even!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_whitening

Its only in north america that we take the opposite view: that blacks are more attractive then whites (becasue our mass media is busily engaged in ethnic genocide), it is consistent with the way we portray minorities as blameless, more intelligent, more sensitive, superior morally, in our selection of news stories (interracial crime: how we give star billing to white on non-white crime, and how we ignore anti-white hatecrimes), it is also reflected in how we oversaturate our programs and advertisements with blacks... in canada 34% of the actor roll cast in commercials are minorities despite the fact that they represent an 8% minority,... and lets not forget how Hollywood portrays blacks, Will Smith, Jaimie Fox movies, the scientist and president in 2012, morgan freeman!

really without this artificial manufactured media oversaturation, (knowing what we know about the power of TV) minorities would be where they are in the 50`s... looked at as swarthy, ugly and illegitimate aliens.

Edited July 16, 2010 by lictor616

[lictor616]

I do not quite understand what you mean they believed. The way we typically think of " races " is constructed. I wonder if perhaps an apt analogy would be to say that the relationship between race and real genetics is somewhat like the relationship between Freud and real psychology.

that`s a weak comparison.

Psychology isn`t science to begin with.

And also no geneticist would ever argue your ridiculous point.

Ernst Mayr, "perhaps the greatest evolutionary scientist of the twentieth century", might be called the Linnaeus of the Modern Synthesis {neo-Darwinism}, his Systematics and the Origin of Species set forth the biological species concept still in use today, with large utility for explaining speciation.

Recently, while thumbing through some archived issues of the AAAS' Daedalus I found this amazing essay of his {Winter 2002. Vol. 131, pg. 89}, which I've published below, in which he suffers no fools from the "race does not exist" camp {all emphasis and what-not mine}:

The Biology of Race and the Concept of Equality. Ernst Mayr

"There are words in our language that seem to lead inevitably to controversy. This is surely true for the words "equality" and "race." And yet among well informed people, there is little disagreement as to what these words should mean, in part because various advances in biological science have produced a better understanding of the human condition.

Let me begin with race. There is a widespread feeling that the word "race" indicates something undesirable and that it should be left out of all discussions. This leads to such statements as "there are no human races."

Those who subscribe to this opinion are obviously ignorant of modern biology. Races are not something specifically human; races occur in a large percentage of species of animals. You can read in every textbook on evolution that geographic races of animals, when isolated from other races of their species, may in due time become new species. The terms 11 subspecies" and "geographic race" are used interchangeably in this taxonomic literature."

go ahead and remedy the deficiencies of your liberal education: read the whole text:

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001951.html

Edited July 16, 2010 by lictor616

[GostHacked]

essentially what you`re saying is that there is such a thing as a superior race... interesting

Humans are the superior race/species on this planet.

and i`d challenge you to find me a pure blooded african woman that would rival Nordic Europeans in attractiveness...

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Many white ladies are not that attractive to black men, unless they got that booty. They care not for your Aryans.

Your title of this thread is completely wrong for the topic you want to talk about. If you want to talk about miscegenation, then do so. Having an operation where some black man's bone marrow to be transplanted into a white man's body is not an example of miscegenation.

OH .... by the way

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology

Psychology is an academic and applied discipline that involves the scientific study of human or animal mental functions and behaviors. In this field, a professional practitioner or researcher is called a psychologist. Psychologists are classified as social or behavioral scientists. Psychologists attempt to understand the role of mental functions in individual and social behavior, while also exploring underlying physiological and neurological processes.

Guess what, it's science. But lol.

[Wild Bill]

essentially what you`re saying is that there is such a thing as a superior race... interesting

and i`d challenge you to find me a pure blooded african woman that would rival Nordic Europeans in attractiveness... and also the big problem is found in intermarriage stats. Black women are by far the most celibate group in America, 70 to 75% of black women i the states aged between 23 to 55 are single. that`s about 8 times the celibacy rate as white women (who typically seek marriage less then blacks!)

A superior race? You're putting words in my mouth! 'Superior' is a subjective term. You would need to definite by any different context. If being a fast runner is a survival characteristic then perhaps a black athlete from some areas of the world would be the best choice. Other circumstances could necessitate a quite different choice.

No, my point was simply that if you breed too pure you tend to bring out genetic recessives. What's more, the idea that 'mutts" tend to be MUCH healthier dogs is accepted fact among breeders, like the sun coming up in the east every morning.

The 'lure of the exotic' is something I have personally experienced. Years ago I was a roadie for a rock band. We played a Northern Ontario town that was rather isolated and populated totally by French Canadians. I was never much of a 'ladies man' but in this town the girls were all over me! I finally asked one of them what was going on and she explained "It's your red hair! Look around you! Everyone in this town has the same black hair!"

I had a marvelous time!

I don't know enough 'pure blooded African black women' to answer your premise about attractiveness, but I do know that when I was growing up any young white male going through puberty who didn't constantly fantasize about Nichelle Nichols, who played LT. Uhura on the classic Star Trek, was probably gay!

Edited July 16, 2010 by Wild Bill

[GostHacked]

I don't know enough 'pure blooded African black women' to answer your premise about attractiveness, but I do know that when I was growing up any young white male going through puberty who didn't constantly fantasize about Nichelle Nichols, who played LT. Uhura on the classic Star Trek, was probably gay!

Yeah she was a damn fine lookin' woman. Even today, you still see a hint of that in her. It is a matter of preference.

http://www.trekcore.com/specials/albums/human/album9/nichelle_nichols.jpg Even at that age she still looks great.

[Wild Bill]

Yeah she was a damn fine lookin' woman. Even today, you still see a hint of that in her. It is a matter of preference.

http://www.trekcore.com/specials/albums/human/album9/nichelle_nichols.jpg Even at that age she still looks great.

Yeah, and apparently Mr. Lictor was one of those who DIDN'T fantasize about her!

Does that prove my premise?

[lictor616]

Guess what, it's science. But lol.

no, certain fields involved in Psychology (such as pharmacology) are scientific, but the process fo analysing a patients thoughts and deriving scientific conclusion from them, is hogwash... nobody in the academic world would support the theory that psychotherapy is a science...

Psychotherapy is often revered as a science however many well renowned scientists and hard science associations describe Psychotherapy in the most contumelious terms, sometimes saying of the practice that it amounts at best to a descriptive taxonomy and schematics- not a science.

The skeptical reader may wonder what psychologists and psychiatrists have to say about the scientific standing of their own field. As it turns out, the more perceptive among mental health professionals freely admit their field is not based in science.

In the 1950s the American Psychological Association (hereafter APA) commissioned a study of the scientific standing of psychology. In 1963 the result was published in six volumes as "Psychology: A Study Of a Science" (Koch, S. (Ed.). (1959-1963). New York: McGraw-Hill). Sigmund Koch, the director of the study, came to these conclusions:

"The truth is that psychological statements which describe human behavior or which report results from tested research can be scientific. However, when there is a move from describing human behavior to explaining it there is also a move from science to opinion."

"The hope of a psychological science became indistinguishable from the fact of psychological science. The entire subsequent history of psychology can be seen as a ritualistic endeavor to emulate the forms of science in order to sustain the delusion that it already is a science."

“At this point it must be clear to the intelligent reader that clinical psychology can make virtually any claim and offer any kind of therapy, because there is no practical likelihood of refutation – no clear criteria to invalidate a claim. This, in turn, is because human psychology is not a science, it is very largely a belief system similar to religion....

In the final analysis, the present state of psychology is the best answer to the original inquiry about whether it is scientific, because if human psychology were as grounded in science as many people believe, many of its historical and contemporary assertions would have been falsified by its own theoretical and clinical failures, and it would be either replaced by something more scientifically rigorous, or simply cast aside for now.

Psychology and psychiatry have never been based in science, and therefore are free of the constraints placed on scientific theories. This means these fields will prevail far beyond their last shred of credibility, just as religions do, and they will be propelled by the same energy source — belief. That pure, old-fashioned fervent variety of belief, unsullied by reason or evidence”. (http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/)

[lictor616]

A superior race? You're putting words in my mouth!

i'll quote you directly again:

Wild Bill:

"Nature WANTS us to mix our gene pool! It means healthier kids with more likelihood of POSITIVE traits cropping up!

Like it or not, we are heading towards a 'Star Trek' population of mixed parenthood. What's more, our race will be much the better for it!"

so you`re saying that nature wants us to eliminate non-mixed races, and that since this is what nature wants: its better! (superior)

you`re saying that mixed raced children derive advantages from being racially mixed...

what you`re saying pretty unambiguously is that blacks and whites for instance are inferior to mixed race people... which is of course racism in the most basic form...

[GostHacked]

delete

Edited July 16, 2010 by GostHacked

[GostHacked]

I guess this only works sometimes.

Edited July 16, 2010 by GostHacked

[lictor616]

Yeah she was a damn fine lookin' woman. Even today, you still see a hint of that in her. It is a matter of preference.

http://www.trekcore.com/specials/albums/human/album9/nichelle_nichols.jpg Even at that age she still looks great.

I knew I wasn't going to get a serious attempt!

she is mediocre at best and is definitely not pure blooded black... its a fair bet she has some "racial mixtures"

not sure how she compares to say: Joanna Kruppa

http://www.listown.com/images/celebrity/200902/Joanna-Krupa-20090204063644.jpg

but hey! knock yourself out if you like afro bushe(S)

[Michael Hardner]

no, certain fields involved in Psychology (such as pharmacology) are scientific, but the process fo analysing a patients thoughts and deriving scientific conclusion from them, is hogwash... nobody in the academic world would support the theory that psychotherapy is a science...

Psychotherapy is often revered as a science however many well renowned scientists and hard science associations describe Psychotherapy in the most contumelious terms, sometimes saying of the practice that it amounts at best to a descriptive taxonomy and schematics- not a science.

The skeptical reader may wonder what psychologists and psychiatrists have to say about the scientific standing of their own field. As it turns out, the more perceptive among mental health professionals freely admit their field is not based in science.

In the 1950s the American Psychological Association (hereafter APA) commissioned a study of the scientific standing of psychology. In 1963 the result was published in six volumes as "Psychology: A Study Of a Science" (Koch, S. (Ed.). (1959-1963). New York: McGraw-Hill). Sigmund Koch, the director of the study, came to these conclusions:

"The truth is that psychological statements which describe human behavior or which report results from tested research can be scientific. However, when there is a move from describing human behavior to explaining it there is also a move from science to opinion."

"The hope of a psychological science became indistinguishable from the fact of psychological science. The entire subsequent history of psychology can be seen as a ritualistic endeavor to emulate the forms of science in order to sustain the delusion that it already is a science."

“At this point it must be clear to the intelligent reader that clinical psychology can make virtually any claim and offer any kind of therapy, because there is no practical likelihood of refutation – no clear criteria to invalidate a claim. This, in turn, is because human psychology is not a science, it is very largely a belief system similar to religion....

In the final analysis, the present state of psychology is the best answer to the original inquiry about whether it is scientific, because if human psychology were as grounded in science as many people believe, many of its historical and contemporary assertions would have been falsified by its own theoretical and clinical failures, and it would be either replaced by something more scientifically rigorous, or simply cast aside for now.

Psychology and psychiatry have never been based in science, and therefore are free of the constraints placed on scientific theories. This means these fields will prevail far beyond their last shred of credibility, just as religions do, and they will be propelled by the same energy source — belief. That pure, old-fashioned fervent variety of belief, unsullied by reason or evidence”. (http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/)

What is this ? You can't just cut/paste an entire block from another page then put the website on the bottom. You didn't write this.

[Jack Weber]

There are slight genetic differences among us humans, and that is apparent. But we are still all human.

Usually the way Lucifer666 posts it has a racial angle, which earned him a vacation from MLW.

Bonam

I think those threads were dealing with many topics like crime, education, employment, justice system/incarceration. And when Lictor was posting it was (to me anyways) some agenda against blacks/browns .. it showed in his posts.

And when talking about genetic or physical make up, it has a lot to do with the environment you are in as well. Kenyan runners was an example. They have a different physique because of the country they live in. This was dismissed by Lictor.

There are differences between humans, but not enough to call each type a 'race'.

And then we come to this thread.

Miscegenation is the mixing of races through sexual encounters. Jack Weber (from what I can tell) is a white man, who marries a black woman. This is an example of miscegenation. Lictor is talking about using bone marrow from a black man (for example) to be transplanted into a white man, which is not miscegenation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation

You have assumed correct...I am married to a woman who is NOT the same shade as me...

And we have sex regularily!!!!

Edited July 16, 2010 by Jack Weber

[lictor616]

You have assumed correct...I am marries to a woman who is NOT the same shade as me...

And we have sex regularily!!!!

I know this goes against internet guidelines and rules... but I'd swap a picture of me and my lady vs you and yours...

I'm curious to see what you two look like...

are you game?

[ToadBrother]

You have assumed correct...I am married to a woman who is NOT the same shade as me...

And we have sex regularily!!!!

In Lictor's world, that makes you a race traitor. Of course, in Lictor's world, sub-Saharan Africa represents one single race, genetic evidence be damned.