Do you agree with the "one drop" rule?

Posted by: SegBeg

The "one drop" rule originated during the times of slavery and segregation when a white man had a child with a black woman or vice versa, the child was considered fully black so that whites could maintain their "racial purity." DO you agree with this?

  • Yes.

  • No.

10% 2 votes
90% 19 votes
  • There's no reason for it now. If someone's 50% one race and 50% another, they can just say they're mixed or go with the race their skin most closely resembles.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Vox_Veritas says2016-08-30T22:25:18.2512230Z
I disagree that an otherwise white man whose great-grandmother happened to be black is himself black.
Vox_Veritas says2016-08-30T22:25:40.0604424Z
I disagree that an otherwise white man whose great-grandmother happened to be black is himself black.
jesusismywarrior says2016-08-31T10:15:51.9106572Z
Why do Americans value race so much? This whole idea is so archaic.
Throwback says2016-08-31T14:20:59.5302906Z
@jesusmywarrior...Despite our portrayal, Americans are not monolithic robotic creatures in lockstep with each other.
Throwback says2016-08-31T14:22:25.5035439Z
I've never heard of this "one drop" thingy before. Frankly if it wasn't so repulsive it would be funny. It's the genetic equivalent of 'one bad apple spoils the bunch'.
Wolfram says2016-08-31T18:17:26.5459461Z
@Throwback " It's the genetic equivalent of 'one bad apple spoils the bunch'." It was more genetic equivalent of 'different species of apple contaminating the other apple's gene pool in the generations later.' I don't know about you, but I value the biological differences of humanity and it's worthing to preserve for the sake of humanity's future health.
Throwback says2016-08-31T18:21:28.8030048Z
Well, at least you got part of it right. You don't know about me!!
jesusismywarrior says2016-08-31T18:32:26.4699218Z
@Wolfram, no one has a pure bloodline. Everyone is a mixture of ancestry coming from all sorts of different places.
jesusismywarrior says2016-08-31T18:33:11.7414120Z
Has not is*
Radical_Spaghetti2 says2016-09-01T02:19:49.1440957Z
How can someone actually say that they agree with this It's basically saying "I'm too good to have you in my bloodline" or "I don't want to be seen as one of you" What are you, freaking purebloods from harry potter?
Throwback says2016-09-01T02:36:20.4785593Z
Well, to answer your question, wolfram and jplopez for starters.
Wolfram says2016-09-01T05:52:34.7059257Z
@jesusismywarrior That's not true, because of the race of Caucasoids, Negroids and Mongoloids still exist in this today.
Wolfram says2016-09-01T06:01:15.6522004Z
I do understand people's controversy against my support for "one drop rule" type of race preservation, but I think it should apply to other races. I don't want the uniqueness of race to be sacrificed unto people's altar of political correctness and petty social politics.
jesusismywarrior says2016-09-01T07:59:39.5356025Z
So? Do you think anyone is 100% of them?
Wolfram says2016-09-01T18:45:35.4960320Z
@jesusismywarrior Purity is not the issue.
jesusismywarrior says2016-09-01T18:56:51.1918259Z
@Wolfram What is then? Looking like a certain race?
Wolfram says2016-09-01T20:01:53.5288694Z
@jesusismywarrior First, you asserted that "nobody has pure bloodline" in which is false. And then you're challenging my stance for race preservation with your misplaced belief of the race purity as my issue in my argument? No, jesusismywarrior. You're putting your words in my mouth. The issue was about race preservation. It's important to preserve the diversity of race from any further genetic contamination, nothing more or less. Purity was totally a different topic, it's not even related to my analogy of apples' genetic pool.
Radical_Spaghetti2 says2016-09-01T20:12:02.7985859Z
Why do you even need race preservation? All that does is drive us apart and create lines... We should build bridges not walls. AND THERE IS ALMOST NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SOMEONE WHO IS CAUCASIAN AND SOMEONE WHO IS OF COLOR THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE IS THE DIFFERENT AMOUNT OF MELATONIN YOUR BODY PRODUCES So don't say "Genetic contamination" Plus contamination is used in the sense of "the water was contaminated because of pollution" You should NEVER refer to genes and hereditary sciences as a contamination.
Radical_Spaghetti2 says2016-09-01T20:13:52.7182997Z
I'm absolutely disgusted that you would even say that someones genes would contaminate another's To say that genetic "contamination" has already happened is even more disgusting
Wolfram says2016-09-01T22:46:33.6044672Z
@Radical_Spaghetti2 The push to preserve the biological differences of the race will not drive humanity apart but enchanting its diversity in the future. "Build bridges not walls."? You sound just like Hillary but that's another story. "AND THERE IS ALMOST NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SOMEONE WHO IS CAUCASIAN AND SOMEONE WHO IS OF COLOR THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE IS THE DIFFERENT AMOUNT OF MELATONIN YOUR BODY PRODUCES." It's more than just that. In fact, there is a lot of documents regard the biological differences between Caucasian and Negroian: 1. Differences of brain size - 2. Genetic influences on brain structure - 3. Blacks have more fast muscle fibers, hence the higher percent of black athletes in the sports like running, football and basketball - - - "So don't say "Genetic contamination" Plus contamination is used in the sense of "the water was contaminated because of pollution" You should NEVER refer to genes and hereditary sciences as a contamination." Oh, did I just offend your sensibilities? Too bad, the word of contamination is an accurate term to describe the bloodline of mixed race, because of the consequences of race mixing. Considering the circumstances like cross-breeding of tiger species, dog species, and dozen species are disastrous: Humanity is not an exception. Don't believe me? Good. Do the research yourself. Oh, one more thing, Radical_Spaghetti2. I can use the word of "contamination" as much as I want, so you can save your PC business for somebody else cuz I'm not buying it.
Throwback says2016-09-01T23:03:18.5913935Z
@Wolfram: I am a true conservative. The kind of conservative that frightens modern "conservatives", and I find your purist notion revolting. As I've said on a previous thread, my wife is white, but that is an accident of circumstance. Had this woman been black, hispanic, asian, on, and on, and on, I would have still fallen for her and the result would be a mixed marriage and my children would be an offense to humanity, as such purists see it. This whole notion is borderline psychotic. We all are part of the same human race. If you are really a purist, you should seek to return us to one single race, as we started.
Wolfram says2016-09-01T23:52:41.9307797Z
@Throwback I recalled we had this kind of discussion before, Throwback. I believe it was in the poll of As I said before, your choice of love is your own responsibility, not mine. I don't need to point out the obviousness of purism and race perseverance being mutually exclusive. And I'm not saying you should reject your love for the sake of your racial heritage, but to acknowledge its biological consequences of your choice and live with it. If you don't want to be included with race perseverance, then so be it. The topic here was about race preservation, not purism. I don't mind an advocacy to upkeep the traditional values but it's irrelevant to the nature of biological heredity.
Radical_Spaghetti2 says2016-09-02T15:53:11.8128769Z
The "Obviousness" of race purity? This is bullshit... Do you actually think that the size of someone's brain and the muscle fibers that they have would ruin what genes you have? (They're obviously pretty terrible if you actually think this). There is no, has never been, and will never be, and studies where an interracial marriage has given their child a disadvantage. What you say is willfull ignorance, you refuse to look at actual fact and instead twist information to suit your messed up agenda. I would LOVE to see actual facts that prove that being racially "pure" benefits someone. And yes, being politically correct is something of great importance in this country... So how about you get over your privilege and look around for a second. Things are happening because people have the same mindset as you... That you don't want someone to "contaminate" your bloodstream... People are dying because of the mindsets that white people are superior to people of color.
Wolfram says2016-09-02T20:11:02.5211848Z
@Radical_Spaghetti2 The ancestors' genetics have the bigger influence on the genetic pool in the generations later. Yes, there were health consequences in mixing two different race's genetics to produce an offspring. The loss of genetic heritage is one of many things. Each race has their own unique genetic advantages and I intend to preserve that kind of uniqueness. This includes Negoids and Mongolids, too. Anyway, my arguments were backed up with the links I posted, so share me your bigotry, political correctness, and anti-white rhetoric.
Radical_Spaghetti2 says2016-09-04T17:44:03.3716466Z
Anti-white? That actually made me laugh... No one is anti-white... We aren't prejudiced against, we aren't discriminated... What, are you a part of All Lives Matter too? Good god, grow up... Look around... White people were never the victim in history
Throwback says2016-09-04T17:46:57.4241937Z
Well, spaghetti that's not true either. People of all races have been and still are enslaved.
Radical_Spaghetti2 says2016-09-04T17:49:59.6668983Z
Ok, for 99% of history, White people have had it better off than people of other races... Does that sound better? But I mean, today, in the United States, White people have it way better off than any minority
Throwback says2016-09-04T18:00:45.0981102Z
That's untrue. That has only been the case in America, and not in the last 150 years. You should learn world history.
Radical_Spaghetti2 says2016-09-04T22:27:32.3059071Z
What is your example... I honestly can't thing of a time when white people were enslaved by people of another race... I mean where the majority of white people were enslaved by another race... It doesn't happen that often... (I'm really not trying to be rude, I just honestly could not think of an instance where this happened) The point I'm trying to make, and i'm obviously not doing a very good job of it, is that when people say "Anti-white" they are desensitizing what is going on right now... Because right now, in the United States, people aren't "anti-white". But do you know what people are? Anti-Black... People are racist... And that's what we need to fight...
Wolfram says2016-09-06T07:17:04.7331610Z
@Radical_Spaghetti2 Not only you don't know anything about world history, you're implying of one-sided racism against blacks. I strongly suggest you lose the SJW mentality and take Throwback's advice on the world history.
triangle.128k says2016-09-06T15:10:27.8888917Z
@Wolfram What is the issue with race mixing? Would you say Icelandics (a very pureblood ethnicity) are any better off genetically than say Americans?
Wolfram says2016-09-06T22:14:46.6221172Z
@triangle.128k Health problems and the loss of biological heritage by mixing race were an issue. I'm just saying we should preserve the race of pureblood origin for many biological reasons. It's the same concept of preservation for subspecies of tiger.
foxxhajti says2016-09-06T22:18:55.6965292Z
@Wolfram Ironically, mixing races actually reduces the risk of genetic diseases as generally issues occur when you get two copies of the same recessive gene which means that mixing races would actually reduce the likeliness of this taking place since they probably would have more genetically distant parents.
triangle.128k says2016-09-06T22:33:21.0028760Z
What health problems? Why is race preservation important anyways?
Wolfram says2016-09-06T22:46:13.1351956Z
@foxxhajti Sources, please. @triangle.128k Race preservation is important because it weighs down to the health benefits, Delta.
Throwback says2016-09-06T22:55:24.8554054Z
Neo Nazi B.S.
Wolfram says2016-09-06T23:06:59.4218145Z
@Throwback Are you resorting to Reductio ad Hitlerum, now? Please don't.
foxxhajti says2016-09-06T23:11:08.2835479Z
@Wolfram It's basic biology. We all know that inbreeding can increase the likeliness of genetic disorders in a child, when two people are of a different race, they generally are more genetically diverse, therefore, reducing the likeliness of negative recessive genes.
Wolfram says2016-09-06T23:45:59.0981551Z
@foxxhajti I'll ask you for the last time: Sources, please. Mixing the breed don't reduce the likeliness of negative rescessive genes as an evidence explained by selective breeding of dogs: Negative rescessive traits of mixed race will manifest in the generations midst with its health consquences and thus, proving my point right.
Throwback says2016-09-06T23:46:49.6379363Z
Wolfram pretends at education and knowledge. It's not an endearing farce.
Wolfram says2016-09-07T00:00:45.3511981Z
@Throwback I'll just use your forum signature to dismiss you: "Ok." There you have it. It's been pleasure in discussing with you, Throwback.
Throwback says2016-09-07T02:08:22.2543758Z
Couldn't come up with one of your own. Imitation, the sincerest flattery.
Wolfram says2016-09-07T04:05:02.2169383Z
Throwback says2016-09-07T04:13:49.3287172Z
Wolfram says2016-09-07T04:28:04.6822002Z
I simply can't resist from quoting your cool signature, lol. You're right, though. I do need my own signature.
foxxhajti says2016-09-07T07:25:32.8594582Z
@Wolfram Dog breeds are pretty diverse from one another. Humans, even when they are of a different race, are still pretty similar. Since you really want to mention dogs though, mutts generally live longer lives. The only real benefit of not mixing the breed is race preservation, even though I don't really see the importance of that. The only negative health problems they have, are generally things like depression, mostly because of the stigma these interracial children have from society, they have identity problems, and are socially isolated from a racial perspective. When it comes to recessive genes/genetic diseases, biracial kids, actually are less likely to get those, and they also are less likely to get infectious diseases (they generally have a better immune system). Kids inherit their parents' Major histocompatability complexes, which perpetuate one's diversity of antigen presentation. MHC molecules mediate interactions of leukocytes, also called white blood cells (WBCs), which are immune cells, with other leukocytes or body cells. Since biracial kids, would have more diverse MHCs, they would be less likely to get an infectious disease.
Wolfram says2016-09-08T01:22:09.1333064Z
@foxxhajti I don't have time for groundless claims.
SegBeg says2016-09-08T15:20:22.2780844Z
@Wolfram, you don't have time or you just don't want to hear another's opinion contrary to your own and the benefits of being biracial?
foxxhajti says2016-09-08T15:22:43.3225468Z
@Wolfram As if yours do. Yeah, dismiss other people's opinions and keep yourself in an opinionated bubble.
Wolfram says2016-09-08T21:29:24.1562065Z
@SegBeg @foxxhajti Quite the contrary, SegBeg. I've been posting the sources to back my arguments up. I've been asked foxxhajti for his sources twice and he didn't bother to post it, then why would I waste my time in discussing with his groundless claims? Speaking of "opinions", foxxhajti. You even didn't back up your opinion with the source, unlike I did. An opinion without a source doesn't make a convincing argument, so please share me your bigotry.
foxxhajti says2016-09-08T22:41:26.5802035Z
@Wolfram First of all, *her. Second: . One of your sources was invalid since it was based on dogs, which is out of place in this discussion. One of the disadvantages of biracial children is bone marrow transplants, as it would be hard to find a donor of a close match, due to the parents' genetic diversity. Genetics are a foundation on which your health is based, and since biracial people are less likely to have genetic diseases, they technically are more likely to be born healthier (then later on, one's health can obviously be affected by environment and external factors also, but genes still remain the foundation of one's health). Your other source claimed "Most of the risk items we assessed may be interpreted as related to stress, so we may therefore choose to interpret mixed race as a source of stress". Stress isn't genetic, therefore most of their health issues aren't directly correlated to the way they were born, but are mostly caused due to external factors, like identity problems, which can lead to lack of self-esteem, social isolation, and family problems.
Wolfram says2016-09-09T03:08:41.3336375Z
Did you just dismiss the negative example of artificial selection just because it's based on "dogs"? I suppose you don't know its paradigm can apply on the subspecies of anatidae, boviade, bovinae, camelidae, canidae, colurbridae, eelphinidae, equus, felidae, fringillidae, ursidae and more importantly, hominidae. Invalid, you asserted despite the contrary of the overwhelming evidence? Biology, obviously, is not your field. Now, as for the link you posted, all I get is the message of Error 404. Before you post anything, I need the reliable source to support your claim of "stress isn't genetic.", not to mention the lack of source to support your other claims of MHC molecules, mixed race being more healthier and the reduction of the likeliness of negative recessive genes by mixing race. Sources: http://www.Rantpets.Com/2015/06/03/15-strangest-hybrid-animal-breeds-you-didnt-know-existed/ https://en.Wikipedia.Org/wiki/List_of_genetic_hybrids http://www.Genetics.Org/content/genetics/early/2014/02/10/genetics.114.162396.Full.Pdf
jesusismywarrior says2016-09-09T12:59:46.7896396Z
Humans, race-wise, aren't as diverse as dog breeds tend to be. Also, her link worked for me, so it's not her fault. Your other sources speak about animal hybrids, not racial hybrids. I don't see how they can be considered valid, since both black people and white people are humans.
SegBeg says2016-09-09T17:08:22.6844689Z
@Wolfram, you can have your own opinions, but your sources are rather invalid. Using dogs as an example for humans? The dog family have thousands of different species so yes cross breeding would be problematic, but humans- there are no different species of humans. Sure the races have some physical differences but these are all minor. Have you ever wondered why biracial people can still have children of their own? And even after people refute your sources, you then try to act all smart by naming all of these subspecies and fancy scientific terms. That really irritates me when people do that because not because I'm in denial (which I'm normally not) but because I know when people start doing that, they've only weakened their argument as most of the time they have just copied those from a biased website- like you did. So I don't buy into your absurd claims. Being biracial has it benefits and disadvantages just like being monoracial. SO what? You're going to call a biracial person a "contamination?" right in their face?
Wolfram says2016-09-09T23:02:36.4154473Z
@jesusismywarrior @SegBeg @Jesusismywarrior. Black and white are more than just "humans", considering the biological differences based on the DNA. It's enough to classify white, black and yellow as a subspecies of human or "homo sapien". More to add, the noun word of "race" correlates with the meaning of subspecies. Therefore, my sources of interbreeding of subspecies (animal hybrids) are still linked to interbreeding of race. Anyway, as you can observe the previous posts with foxxhajti. Foxxhajti didn't bother in providing the source when I asked for it twice so you don't need to defend her incompetence for the link problem because she can provide another source as a replacement. @SegBeg. For your information, the word of "race" implied the meaning of subspecies. In the terms of taxonomy, caucasoid, negroid and mongoloid is the subspecies of human based on the racial differences of DNA. Caucasoids', negroids' and mongoloids' ability to interbreeding, and racial differences based on DNA is an undisputable fact. Your assertion of "It's invalid because it's based on dogs." is essentially the same to jesusismywarrior's and foxxhajti's claim. As I contradicted foxxhajti's claim with my point of the paradigm of artificial breeding still can apply on the cross-breeding of human race. Besides, I also provided the source of health consequences of cross-breeding of race despite to the contrary of foxxhajti's claims of society being responsible for mixed race's health problems, although I'm still waiting for Foxxhajti to provide her sources to back up that claim. Sources for race and taxonomy: http://www.Merriam-webster.Com/dictionary/race https://www.Cbd.Int/gti/taxonomy.Shtml
foxxhajti says2016-09-09T23:41:17.8975285Z
@Wolfram If my source clearly worked for another person, then it should work for you. It's not my incompetence, it's just that you can't bother copying the link, and pasting it in your bloody browser. My source clearly isn't the problem if it worked for the other users.
Wolfram says2016-09-10T00:15:13.9133798Z
The link problem aside, Are you going to provide the sources for your other claims?
Throwback says2016-09-10T00:24:38.9958021Z
This site is overrun with trolls the likes of Wolfram. They are the major reason I'm finishing a debate I accepted and clearing out of this viper pit.
Wolfram says2016-09-10T00:46:52.1574989Z
@Throwback To be fair, Throwback. Your input of "Neo Nazi B.S." and " Wolfram pretends at education and knowledge. It's not an endearing farce." is not even a part of the topic we discussed, so that's the reason why I ended our discussion with you. In other words, you were a troll in that time. Lol. Anyway, bygones be bygones.
Throwback says2016-09-10T00:50:33.9669698Z
You apparently don't remember the topic and your ignorant position. Some positions don't merit rebuttal. You are exhibit A.
Wolfram says2016-09-10T00:59:11.6273192Z
@Throwback Your personal prejudices against the idea of race preservation really don't concern my topic and position, but I thank you for your input of opinion.
SegBeg says2016-09-10T17:38:38.5965178Z
@Wolfram. Black, whites asians, etc are just that... HUMANS. I do not deny that they have some physical differences such as hair texture and muscle mass but like I said, these are minor. There are no "subspecies" of human. We are ALL human. Period. This is not political correctness- this is FACT. Your claims are not facts- they are absurd conspiracy theories. I am not wrong to say comparing dogs to humans is invalid because it is not. Dogs have different species- humans do not. Breeding two different species of dog makes the offspring a hybrid and not able to reproduce. Mating with a person of another race (really ethnicity- there is only one race and that is the human race) does not make the child infertile. They are just as capable of reproducing as monoracial people can. They don't look and don't have any genetic mutations which makes them ill. Believe what you want to believe. However, just as there will be people who agree with you, there will also be people who are against you.
Wolfram says2016-09-10T23:24:32.5750924Z
@SegBeg That is false, groundless, declarative statement based on the mentality of politically corrected. I've already provided the sources that racial differences were genetically linked, just like the subspecies of Canidae. Yes, this is enough to warrant the nature of "subspecies" on the grounds of taxonomy. In fact, there was the argument between scientists on the issue of race should be classified as the subspecies of human or not. (I'll provide the source.) If you read that link, you'll see there were the disagreements against the subspecies classification out of the fears of unwarranted discrimination. This was an example of social justice, socialpolitics, and political correctness. In the terms of science, selective breeding of dogs and interbreeding of human race spared the similar paradigm, whatever you like it or not. Genetic mutations are just one of problems by mixing race, I'll provide few sources for you. If you are Caucasoid planning to marry Negroid, then you should be aware of biological consequences of your choice you make unless you care about your future offspring's health. Anyway, the claim of infertile didn't refute my topic because of crossed-breeding species of Canidae is still fertile and has an ability to procreate. Subspecies' ability of procreation necessarily don't mean it's entirely good, which is why it should be carefully managed for the sake of race preservation, including mixed race. Race preservation is a matter of good health. Of course, there will be people disagree with me since I was aware of controversy for race preservation in the beginning with. However, if they come without good argument, source and rebuttal, I will refute them just like I did to you. It's been pleasure in discussing with you, SegBeg. Source for agreements and disagreements of classification of subspecies on humanity: http://www.Ncbi.Nlm.Nih.Gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449495/ Source for birth defects, prematurity, and low birth weight by mixing race: http://www.Ncbi.Nlm.Nih.Gov/pubmed/15390318 http://www.Ncbi.Nlm.Nih.Gov/pmc/articles/PMC2867623/
SegBeg says2016-09-11T16:06:46.0814066Z
@Wolfram, my arguments are in no way "politically correct" It is pure logic. This whole idea of "race preservation" is based on pure selfishness and race superiority- not you absurd "health" claims. Most people I see who are against race mixing only care about the preservation of THEIR race and not the others. Isn't that a bit arrogant and self righteous? You say there are health risks to race mixing? Well guess what? There are health risks to reproducing even in your own race. People have faulty genes they never knew about and they can reveal themselves in their future children. So monoracial children are at risk of genetic problems just as much a biracial people. There are actually benefits of being biracial/ Since you keep complaining that don't provide any sources, I'll be more than happy to give you some: http://www.Ign.Com/boards/threads/controversial-but-true-mixed-race-humans-have-a-genetic-advantage.192331120/ http://www.Medicaldaily.Com/interracial-couples-may-make-taller-smarter-children-due-greater-genetic-diversity-341348 http://nymag.Com/scienceofus/2015/05/psychological-advantages-biracial.Html
Wolfram says2016-09-12T02:14:24.6248959Z
@SegBeg The claim of "pure selfishness and race superiority" is your assertion, nothing more or less. The desire to protect the subspecies from future destruction is not based on selfishness. As I've already provided my source of birth defects, prematurity, and low birth weight was genetically linked to mixing breed, but I am not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to breed. I'm for the procreation of species of black/white, white/yellow and black/yellow so it'll increase the gene pool to ensure the future solution for mixed race's health problems - for an example, marrow implants, organ donors, and many medical uses for mixed race. However, it won't remove the genetic problem produced by mixing of race, not by long shot. Hence, the paradigm of artificial breeding is self-explanatory in the manner of painfully obvious: If people want to have more healthy offspring then they're better off by procreating with their own race. This is the consequential fact of breeding. SegBeg, I don't think these sources you provided is reliable. How can I say this? Well, I'll try my best to explain: 1. The first source you provided is a forum discussing the documentary they saw on UK channel. I believe forums' discussion referred to the video: I've watched the video. Well, I'd say that kind of documentary is nothing more than pseudoscience because it was literally about "Maybe", "Probably" and "Look! More heterozygous is better!" without analyzing the data in a scientific manner. In the short, it's conjecture at its best. So, it's no good. 2. The second source you provided is Lizette Borreli suggesting that there is the connection between of "mixing race" and "evolution". In other words, she implied that there is nothing wrong in mixing the race to ensure the future of genetical diversity. She's acknowledging the evolution through by artificial selection. I agree with Lizette Borreli's application of the evolution on race mixing. After all, selective breeding of dogs is an example of artificial selection, which just contradicted your dissent against my paradigm of "selective breeding of dogs". However, she overlooked the consequences of artificial selection because genetic diversity has the big impact than she concluded. Good premise but a bad conclusion. 3. The third source you provided is an example of politically corrected crap. I don't see any scientific findings in that source, none at all. It's probably one of many reasons why people don't consider psychology as a science in its entirely. Thank you for your sources, though.
SegBeg says2016-09-12T19:35:14.3454112Z
@Wolfram, You think my sources were unreliable? Maybe yours were too. Maybe those facts were fake or they came from a biased study. To be honest you can't really trust any study. Nearly every single one has a bias. You cannot be for mixed breeding for one reason and against it for another reason at the same time. It's either you are or you aren't. Also reproducing within your own race is not necessarily healthier. Research shows that marrying within your own race can also cause genetic problems as those who are within your race are closer genetically related to you than that of another race. The closer related you are, the more a genetic glitch in your future offspring will be. Marrying outside your race prevents that chance as you are with someone you are almost completely unrelated to. Name me one story of a biracial who has these "genetic problems" or "low birth" rates you so claim. Show me one. I know two biracial kids. They have a black mother and a white father and you know what? They are as healthy as can be. They look no different than a monoracial person and nothing wrong with their health. In fact, I know MANY biracial people and they are ALL as healthy as can be. If anything, I see many more monoracial people wit genetic illnesses that biracial people. You call my sources "politically corrected crap"? Sunny. It seems EVERYONE who disagrees with you must be politically correct? Well listen here bro- I am NOT politically correct. As a matter of fact I HATE political correctness. You do not that I'm against gay marriage right THAT is DEFINITELY not politically correct. I can see form the texture of your arguments you think I and others who are okay with interracial marriage need to hear the "hard truth" I think YOU need to hear the hard truth and learn that just because someone disagrees with you does not make them politically correct. That just assumes that you think YOU are the only one who is right and everyone else is a bunch of PC retards. Well I sure as hell ain't one. I'm VERY politically incorrect. I'm a supporter of traditional marriage, opponent transgender bathroom rights, abortion (especially government funded abortion) radical feminism, Black Lives Matter Movement and loads more. These are all pretty politically incorrect positions to hold. So please don't refer to me as a SJW in the near future (you called me one one a different opinion poll). One last thing Wolfram. When people provide you with sources, you seem to passively dismiss those facts and like I said just jump to conclusions and call it political correctness. I wonder why that is. I'm sure you know.
Wolfram says2016-09-12T23:39:54.2087568Z
SegBeg, lol, SegBeg! The claims of "maybe" don't refute my sources, even if they're either reliable or not. Not even people's experience will refute the sources I've provided to you. Refutation doesn't work in that way, lol. I've given my effort to explain how unreliable your sources is, so enough with your assertions. I didn't say you are politically corrected person, I said you have the mentality of political correctness. There is the difference. That goes the same to my comment of "an example of SJW drivel", too. Besides, I had my own experience of cognitive dissonance over the issue of equality and human differences, egoism and altruism, and faith and faithless, just as you have your own. If we're the subjects of bias inquiry, then you're probably the most biased person I've ever met in this debate.Org. But not only that, you've demonstrated your lack of understanding for the word of political correctness. And I "seem to passively dismiss" what facts? They've provided nothing but an assertion without the reliable source, just like yours. You gave those people too much credit. Now, SegBeg. Is there anything you wish to say before I end our discussion of your pointless drivel?
SegBeg says2016-09-13T17:05:32.2427629Z
@Wolfram. Yes, there's a few things I want to say: I was not trying to refute your arguments. I was simply saying they COULD have a bias in them just as much as my sources could have. No sources are 100% reliable even the ones I agree with. There are always anomalous people who don't fit the slightest bit in to these studies. There's no difference between saying I'm a politically correct and that I have the mentality of political correctness. It's either I am or I'm not which I'm not. Once again this proves my point that if anyone disagrees with you they must be politically correct which I am FAR from. I actually did take time to refute your sources- like the dog one by saying it was unwise to compare dogs breeding to race mixing but of course you naturally defended it. So much for not taking any time. How am I the "most biased person"? Everyone has their own biases- even you. That is a ridiculous claim to hold when you are clearly bias yourself. Last but not least, thank you for this little comment debate. It got a bit heated at some points but don't all debates?
Wolfram says2016-09-14T03:33:31.6796638Z
Your intellectual dishonesty is getting silly now. Read my last comment, SegBeg. I didn't say you were trying to refute my argument. It honestly doesn't matter if you agree or don't agree with the source because your claim of either "could" or "maybe" won't make a good refutation for my sources. The empty claim for my sources being either reliable or unreliable won't do your position any good. In our previous posts, You didn't give a good refutation for my paradigm between of cross-race breeding and dog breeding, because you didn't give a good counter-argument or even provided your reliable source in the beginning with. In the end, you didn't refute anything of my arguments. I don't use the term of "SJW drivel" and "mentality of political correctness" on people for disagreements I've had with them, I use those terms as an example based on the similarities of language, attitude, behavior and mentality being typical to SJW and politically corrected people. It just refers to the subtle but obviousness of people's biases similar to SJWs' and politically corrected people'. With all due respect, It's a cautionary hint to cover your buttons from being pushed so easily. My usage of word of "contamination" to describe the bloodline of mixed race is technically correct according to the obviousness of mixed race's health problems based on the sources I've provided for you. I honestly don't care about people' views for my stance for race preservsation being as a racist, nazi, homophobic, xenophobic, profanity, offensive and sexist even when my argument is grounded in the reliable sources. Hence, people's sensibilities for the word of "contamination" concern me not one whit. I wouldn't even call our discussion as a heated debate. After all, you tried to refute my arguments, sources and the paradigm of artificial breeding by resorting to your bad counter-argument, unreliable sources and empty asseritions, which is the reason why I decided to end our discussion of your pointless drivel. You're welcome, SegBeg.
Wolfram says2016-09-14T06:16:43.6481015Z
@SegBeg I think I was wrong on claiming you have the mentality of political correctness or SJW. I was reading your opinion of "Should people who identify as male/female be allowed to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with?" in which contradicted your beliefs you claimed, so that caused me think maybe I've misread your comments before? So it seems that the word of "opponent" in your sentence of "I'm a supporter of traditional marriage, opponent transgender bathroom rights, abortion (especially government funded abortion) radical feminism, Black Lives Matter Movement and loads more." just threw me off. For that, I apologize for the misunderstanding. Damn the autocorrects, right? Lol.
SegBeg says2016-09-14T17:57:39.5366626Z
@Wolfram, it's okay.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.