Can blacks marry whites?

[SpyMoose]

*Incoherent ranting about how I want to be free to kill people and break things, but no one wants to let me foster my destructive urges boo hoo*

Thats a bit of a paraphrase, but I think I kept it true to the spirit of your words. If it makes you feel any better, Lou, American soldiers *are* killing tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians in a war that dissregards such faggotry as international law. You know there are unsafe places in the world, but for some reason you just keep sitting in front of your computer!

 

[Xev]

What unsafe places are there for Dr. Lou Natic?

I suppose it would be intense and brvtl for him to visit some place such as Thailand where there are eleven year old aids infected hookers just waiting? Ooh, sordid. Intense.

 

[Roman]

Lou,
Humans are just not built to care about the aesthetics of the planet. People will always choose today's meal over tomorrow's panda. I'm sorry it has to be this way, but I've come to grips with it.
I've been to the most diverse terrestial ecosystem, only to return to find it razed for the timber industry and yuppie furniture. It's a giant conversion of nature into hardwood for San Franciscans.
There's nothing quite like the sound of chainsaws replacing gibbon calls.

But as I've said, I've come to grips with what we are, and our absurdity. I can't change anyone's mind, because people will be people.

As to us fearing pain and death, fearing pain and death makes us good animals. We are really perfect animals, and not too much more. We're terrible people though.

The aesthetic means nothing to survival. And we are trying very much to survive. There's no way such a perfect animal as ourselves would remove us from the world picture.

Besides, your loathing (mine too) of roads and suburbia and the mall are recent phenomena. It wasn't until nature was too far subdues to threaten us that we began to view nature as something precious. Back in the days when dire bears ate us, we did all we could to stay in the light.
Back when we were peasants, we hated the woods because they were full of wolves. We turned the woods into fire and farmland, and no longer were we et in the night by predators. Being the animal we are, we always take safety over aesthetic.

We'll just have to wait awhile until we change, biologically and culturally.

SpyMoose,
I want to point out that that was your 1337 post.
Heh heh heh.
Heh.
Ahem.
Excuse me.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Guess again, spurious.

You'll know tomorrow . . . Promise.

You made a black girl pregnant?

 

[The Doctor]

Sure they can marry, but for a white women to marry a black man this white women will be against so incredible odds to maintain this marrige or even start a family.

For one nearly 70% of black children are raised without the black fathers support:
http://www.acton.org/ppolicy/comment/print.php?id=169

Two is the fact that blacks carry a overwelming rate of sexual diseases with in their community:
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/aidsstat.htm

Take also into account the facts that black males lead all other groups in cheating on their spouse murder, rape, assault, and ALL VIOLENT crimes http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/ovrelracetab.htm , and this white women who marrys a black man has very low chances of having a successful and meaningful life.

I believe many white women marry blacks because white women are very compassionate and in many ways feel guilty and sorry for blacks. Alot of black males harrass and scare white women with their aggressive behaviour and tell white women that they are "racist" if they won't "hook up" with blacks.

I think white males don't want black women because black women on the average are annoying, ignorant and just plain ugly.

I'm a black guy (well, actually my skin is more of a light bronze brown) and I was in a great relationship for eight years with a tall blonde who liked me because of me ; not because of some silly guilt complex or because she was intimidated by me. I'm 6'2" and she was 5'10" and not intimidated by anyone.

Now here's a novel thought for you: there are some white women who prefer black guys because white guys treat them like crap and it's only a rascist sterotype that all black men beat and intimidate their [white] wives. With a 62 per cent divorce rate, you have to ask what are all of those white men doing to their white wives that make them so unhappy and ready to jump from guy to guy to guy, hmm?

And your only kidding yourself if you think that no black guy has anything to offer to any white woman even if it's only because some white chicks prefer someone different from all the [white] guys around them. Have you asked the other side of the question: why do so many white men go after black women, huh? Nothing is as cut and dry as you think it is. Almost nothing about mixed relationships is based upon your whacked assumptions; sometimes it's just a matter of a woman finding a guy mate material and she doesn't care if he's black, red, or green.

The Doctor

 

[SpyMoose]

Lou,
Humans are just not built to care about the aesthetics of the planet. People will always choose today's meal over tomorrow's panda.

We are really perfect animals, and not too much more. We're terrible people though.
Besides, your loathing (mine too) of roads and suburbia and the mall are recent phenomena.

Haha, wow, somone missread Dr. Lou's ethos. He's not an environmentalist, and he thinks humans are awful animals in the name of being great (read liberal pansy) people. He gets off on the idea of killing kids to find out which the tough ones are. You know, that kind of thing.

 

[Roman]

Doc & Xev,
I understand the disgust for safety you both hold. How often have we wanted to beat the shit out of a stranger? I know I have. However, society prevents us from doing such a thing. I understand this. It's sort of like the interpreation of fate called wyrd.
We have a choice, but most of our choices are non-choices. Our fate is to live out our lives as docile, soft westernized flesh, and to try and deviate from that will end us. Hence our not clubbing strangers. I'm faced with this dilemma everytime I leave my house.
So don't take my "why don't you die" comment too seriously. I was attempting irony.

Doc,
I don't believe in the aesthetic. The only objective stand is that from nature. I'm an ecologist through and through, so biological determinism is what I use to interpret my slice of reality.
My interpretation of your aesthetic ideal is thus (albeit moronically simple):
Your wish for a return to nature and the appeal of the barbaric life seems simple to what you are faced with today, as well more fitting to what you are made to do. In a state where you can return to force, you feel that you could rise to dominance. Succeed. Reproduce.
But you also acknowledge the riskiness of it.
Your refusal to return to nature is simply your true nature overriding your ideal– that of survival.
Easier to complain than actually change. Not that you could, anyhow. This is no criticism, just an observation of our situation.

But your aesthetic, your expressed ideal anyhow, far overrides any poor highschoolers wish for anarchy. And I acknowledge that. You're more extreme on the anarchy spectrum. Perhaps you should convert to fundamentalist Mormonism and move to Utah? I hear that's good and patriarchal.

I think human behaviour mostly centers around the selfish. Any good we do is for ourselves. Thus our allegiance to the group. Two men working together can get more done than three working alone. So we had to sacrifice some of our freedom to get along with the other person. A tribe is safer than being alone, as long as you follow tribe rules.
As primitive man was concerned, this was essential for survival. So through selective breeding and selective culture, groups came into power because they were more willing to work as a collective.

Now we're stuck with what our domesticated selves, and there is no way to return to what we were. Any attempt to would cause the group to eliminate us. Cops are around to make sure we all follow tribe rules.

It's ironic, really. At a time when a single life is more worthless than ever (there was a time when tens of thousands of Iraqis would have been a country), we love people more than ever. And that's our destiny. Those of us, like you Doc, who hate people and hate what we are doing will be selectively removed from the population.

A lot of us will come to hate it, and a lot of aleady do, but it is far too late to do anything. We're part of the machine now, and headed down a path of sissyfication. It's self-perpetuating.

But Doc, I'm curious, as one human savage to another, what are you doing to keep from being sissyfied? And I mean this not in the idiotic rhetorical way of SpyMoose, but in a curious way to see what a savage's got to do to stay a savage.

 

[Athelwulf]

Oh just spill the beans Athel! The mental invalids are not going to figure out your allegory on their own. I can do it for you if you like!

Alright, I'll show my hand. Although I don't doubt that some people figured it out on their own . . .

I posted this thread with none other than homosexual marriage in mind.

There are quite a few similarities I see between interracial and homosexual marriage:

1. One could try to argue that either is immoral.
2. One could try to say that either is unnatural.
3. Neither is "traditional".
4. Both were/are argued against before they were/are generally accepted by the majority of the population.
5. Both were/are argued against by saying children raised by either would be psychologically defective in some sense.
6. Both were/are argued against with "God".

That's very telling, methinks.

Concerning my evolution argument:
One point I was trying to illustrate was that using nature to argue against homosexual marriage is not particularly logical. Another point that one could draw out of the parallel (and one that a fellow SciForumer pointed out to me) is that just as nature evolves, so does society. Think about it. Species evolve to suit the environment, just as society evolves to suit the population's new mentality.

Concerning my psychology argument:
I was trying to illustrate here that children raised by two people of different races are not raised in the "normal" environment of a "traditional" family, just as children raised by two people of the same sex. One could try to argue that since both are not "normal" environments, they're somehow detrimental to a child's psychological development. With either, one could argue that the child cannot properly develop a certain "identity". In the case of interracial marriage, that would be their racial identity; in the case of homosexual marriage, their sexual identity. Both of which only matter in a society that values labels and stereotypes, and our particular society has evolved past that stage. So to accept one but reject the other is not logical.

Concerning my God argument:
Quite a few evangelicals can come up with outlandish reasons why they're right and everyone else is wrong. Coincidently, those reasons involve this God of theirs. Well, such reasons don't hold up for a secular government. Such a government cannot consent to restricting people's lives to a certain religion's liking when they use their religion as an argument. That's because it's a secular government, which means, religion, keep yer damn hands off!

I hope this has provoked some thought in some people here. And hopefully, you all see now why I was being a devil's advocate. Thank you for the responses you've given, and for the ones you will now give me.

 

[cole grey]

Concerning my psychology argument:
I was trying to illustrate here that children raised by two people of different races are not raised in the "normal" environment of a "traditional" family, just as children raised by two people of the same sex.

Having two moms, or two dads, would be considered less "traditional" pretty much everywhere, but I think since most people have gotten over the stigma of mixed race families, most will get over the gay thing, too. If some gay couples will take the kids off of the system's hands, or the street, more power to them.

Concerning my God argument:
Quite a few evangelicals can come up with outlandish reasons why they're right and everyone else is wrong. Coincidently, those reasons involve this God of theirs. Well, such reasons don't hold up for a secular government. Such a government cannot consent to restricting people's lives to a certain religion's liking when they use their religion as an argument. That's because it's a secular government, which means, religion, keep yer damn hands off!

Those evangelicals are quite arrogant. There are other arrogant people who broadcast what others should believe, right here on sciforums, people that aren't evangelicals, so maybe it is just human nature. Sad.

 

[CounslerCoffee]

The Doctor:

who liked me because of me ; not because of some silly guilt complex or because she was intimidated by me. I'm 6'2" and she was 5'10" and not intimidated by anyone.

Now here's a novel thought for you: there are some white women who prefer black guys

So, basically what you're telling us is that your girlfriend didn't like you because you were black, but prefers black men? Interesting.

 

[Mystech]

So, basically what you're telling us is that your girlfriend didn't like you because you were black, but prefers black men? Interesting.

Yes, surely the idea that his girlfriend might actually like him as a human being as opposed to from some maternal guilt complex or the like is absurd. Good angle to take in this thread, Counsler, I wish you luck with it.

Could we possibly pause to think before we decide which arguments we're going to jump on in and support?

 

[Xev]

Coffee is pointing out a logical inconsistancy.

"My girlfriend does not like me for being black" and "my girlfriend preferred black men" are somewhat inconsistant. There is possible logical resolution, but as Coffee pointed out, the two statements don't fully mesh.

 

[The Doctor]

The Doctor:


So, basically what you're telling us is that your girlfriend didn't like you because you were black, but prefers black men? Interesting.

What kind of twisted nonsense is that? I never said any damn such thing, and I prefer you not twist my words, thank you very much!

The Doctor

 

[CounslerCoffee]

The Doctor:

You made that statement, not me.

there are some white women who prefer black guys

Your girlfriend prefers black men; there's nothing wrong with it. Your girlfriend does like you for being you, but at the same time likes you for being black.

Mystech:

Yes, surely the idea that his girlfriend might actually like him as a human being as opposed to from some maternal guilt complex or the like is absurd

That is not what I said. People judge based on looks, so his girlfriend likes him for being black as well as his personality. Why is it so hard to grasp this concept? Xev understands.

 

[Tiassa]

What kind of twisted nonsense is that?

As disturbing as it may seem, good Doctor, my advice is to let it go. After a while, you just tune out that kind of twisted nonsense. Attempts to correct mistakes of reading comprehension will draw accusations of elitism. Attempts to respond in kind will draw accusations of violated integrity. Attempts to respond with logic, reason, and constructive discussion will only be ignored in favor of more twisted nonsense.

Sciforums generally gives people much leeway in terms of defining "useful" or "acceptable" discussion. Patterns of behavior extending beyond a week or two don't generally get discussed until they're way out of hand. We like to give folks time to catch up, to figure it out, to learn to read if that's what it takes.

In the meantime, unfortunately, what that spells for you and other posters is an increased demand of picking the line between not being snobby, and being too vulgar.

I'm of the opinion that it comes from a lack of substance regarding certain issues. After all, the diverse techniques of dragging discussions down around here have a certain thematic relationship with American politics. Vacuous deflection, preemptive defense, desperate equivocation, and a general disdain for arguable theses or even a calm, coherent discussion tend to be the stnadard among the lead-weight swimmers, and since some people literally aren't smart enough to go beyond the word "argument" and realize that, "Kant's moral imperative suffered a number of erroneous presuppositions leading subsequent application of the principle astray," and "You're an asshat!" aren't exactly the same thing.

The agonizing scrutiny we could give your words suggests that Xev, despite her inability to communicate like a civilized person, has a certain point. And that point, when we cut away all the horsepucky, is simply this: You must be syntactically and grammatically perfect in order to avoid a digression by one or another illiterate punk with no other issue to raise. In other words, while the vagary does exist within the sentence, one need not be particularly or especially intelligent compared to their neighbors to realize the condemning interpretation is incorrect.

Quite simply, people looking for conflict will presume conflict at every opportunity. From the early days of this forum, nobody has been inclined to do a mass-banning in order to thin out the idiocy among the masses.

And so we tolerate them. My best advice is to treat them like a retarded relative, with patience and compassion. They're not well.

The alternative, of course, is to get into a yelling match, and I can speak from experience that no matter how strongly or persuasively you present your case, the only reason these folks want to have a yelling match is to yell and scream. It's ... sort of a delicate balance.

In the meantime, welcome. We do hope you enjoy your time with us.

 

[Mystech]

That is not what I said. People judge based on looks, so his girlfriend likes him for being black as well as his personality. Why is it so hard to grasp this concept? Xev understands.

My apologies, Counsler, you're a saint, I'm sorry I didn't realize it sooner. What an amazing bastion of relevant and meaningful points you are! Being that I seem to have clearly misunderstood your intent, just what idea are you trying to further with your statements on the subject of The Doctor's girlfriend?

 

[SpyMoose]

And I mean this not in the idiotic rhetorical way of SpyMoose, but in a curious way to see what a savage's got to do to stay a savage.

I assume you are referring to my suggestion to Dr.Lou that he go somewhere savage if savagery is what he wants (How about sub Saharan Africa? Or even any number of wilderness areas where you would prove your evolutionary gusto by surviving like the animals) when you bring up idiotic rhetoric. I would further my buffoonery by suggesting to you that engaging in savagery is all that a savage must do to stay a savage, and the fact that neither you nor Lou do is proof that you are nothing but byproducts of the victimized white suburban male culture, and not in fact real tough guys. You are in fact choosing civilization as a scapegoat for your own general feelings of angst and un-fulfillment.

 

[Indiangirlxx]

I guess you have the right to speak as you will....

However, I totally disagree

 

[The Doctor]

The Doctor:

You made that statement, not me.


Your girlfriend prefers black men; there's nothing wrong with it. Your girlfriend does like you for being you, but at the same time likes you for being black.

Mystech:


That is not what I said. People judge based on looks, so his girlfriend likes him for being black as well as his personality. Why is it so hard to grasp this concept? Xev understands.

These were my exact words:

"I'm a black guy (well, actually my skin is more of a light bronze brown) and I was in a great relationship for eight years with a tall blonde who liked me because of me ; not because of some silly guilt complex or because she was intimidated by me. I'm 6'2" and she was 5'10" and not intimidated by anyone."

There was nothing I said about her liking black men. That's an assumption you came up with. I would say to anyone reading this-- and especially you, to read the whole damn post, it's not hard to find; then I hope you choke on your words.

The Doctor

 

[The Doctor]

Coffee is pointing out a logical inconsistancy.

"My girlfriend does not like me for being black" and "my girlfriend preferred black men" are somewhat inconsistant. There is possible logical resolution, but as Coffee pointed out, the two statements don't fully mesh.

You would realize this if you were not a hysterical little load that should have been swallowed.

Well, that might be true if anybody actually said those two conflicting statements. I know for a sure fact that I didn't say any such things. What comes out of Coffee's demented little brain is bound to be contradictory since he's making it up as he goes along.

The Doctor