Pac_Man

If you don't like my use of quotation marks, fine. But that's still how you came across.

Are you losing your touch, or just having an off day?

That's not how you came across. You made it sound like the human species would be "improved" if there were fewer people with recessive traits like blue eyes. I'm not going to criticize your desire to improve the human gene pool; I'm just questioning the logic behind believing that dominant genes are always better than recessive genes.

Since you didn't read the whole thread, I'll tell you why I mentioned my Mensa membership. It was because another poster (whose name isn't worth mentioning) kept calling me an idiot, and I wanted not merely to shut him up, but to expose the dishonesty of his criticism. I believe that anyone at all can teach me something worth knowing; and I've been known to take the time to listen to people of different intelligence levels, social statuses, races, cultures, etc. True, but bear in mind that natural selection relies on adults overbreeding; and those less fit being killed off. Darwin's words (not an exact quote) were "multiply, vary, and let the fittest survive." Bunnies are an excellent example of this. They breed like, well, . . . bunnies. Those that are the quickest and most alert have the best chance of escaping from a cat's claws or a hawk's talons long enough to pass their genes onto as many little bunnies as possible. A gene that provides some advantage for escaping cats will, through overbreeding and population culling, gradually spread throughout the bunny gene pool. At present this is not the way things are happening, at least not for humans. Given the high probability of survival to adulthood (especially in the industrialized world) one's willingness to have many children is a far greater more powerful factor in determining one's influence on the next generation's gene pool than all other factors relating to fitness combined. For this reason, any changes in the human gene pool should neither be reflexively celebrated as "evolution" nor lamented as "degeneration." Instead, such changes should be examined on a case-by-case basis. You'll have to ask CTM that.

If you're saying that I've given him more attention than he deserves, you have a point. Unfortunately, he's not the only one who's been programmed to have irrational hatred towards those who disagree with his own views about intermarriage. My purpose in addressing him is to eradicate at least some of this ignorance. By persuading others to see race as I do: something indescribably wonderful that must be preserved. Why would the world be better off if races were preserved? Because we do not understand what race is or isn't; and because it's wrong to destroy something irreplacable that we do not understand.

I was trying to be helpful. I said you "may have" heard bad things about recessive genes due to the chance that an incestuous relationship will result in offspring receiving two copies of a rare gene that is both recessive and undesireable. I'd assumed your question was a legitimate request for information, and not some lame attempt to propound a pseudo-scientific theory you'd come across somewhere. My mistake. But if you want to believe that dominant genes are "superior" and recessive genes are "inferior" go ahead. Presumably, this means that someone with two copies of the dominant gene for brown eyes is "superior" to someone with two copies of the recessive gene for blue eyes. Sorry, but I'm not buying what you're selling.

Some genes are dominant, others recessive. So if a person with tall genes marries a person with short genes, the resulting children will either be tall or short, depending on whether the genes for tallness or shortness are dominant. Merely because a gene is dominant or recessive doesn't mean it's good or bad. The reason why you may have heard bad things about recessive genes is because it's a bad idea for siblings to marry each other. There's a chance that both siblings are carrying recessive genes for some weird disease or deformity, and that a child will receive two instances of these recessive genes (one from each parent). The resulting birth defects are to be avoided; hence the social pressure against sibling marriages. Traits like blonde hair and blue eyes are also recessive. But anyone who thinks these are birth defects obviously hasn't seen a picture of Nicole Kidman.

You claim to have read an entire book? Cover to cover? Interesting . . . But the mainstream consensus is that the Holocaust didn't truly get underway until the Nazis realized they were going to lose the war. I've also read that the American bomber pilots were ordered not to bomb the rail lines leading to the concentration camps. So your attempts to make FDR look like a saint for caring oh-so-much about the innocent Jews fall a little flat, don't they? Your dishonest attempts to broaden the definition of "Nazi" are feeble. First, it was anyone who opposed interracial marriage. Now, opposition to communist genocide--opposition to genocide, for crying out loud--is advanced as further evidence that I'm a "Nazi supporter." Your posts--hardly a fountain of brilliance and enlightenment to begin with--are growing increasingly insane. Let me get this straight: you're more willing to call me a Nazi because I asked for respect for all races than you would have been had I preached racial arrogance? You don't expect anyone to take you seriously, do you? You seem much more eager to express your own messed-up views than to listen to the views of others. Did you actually ask these others why they opposed interracial marriage? Of course not; or if you did, they probably feared (correctly) that you'd rip their heads off with irrational hate if they said something you didn't happen to agree with. Please believe me when I say your conversational style--or lack thereof--is ill suited to getting others to open up.

Progress towards what?

Because I'm trying to get that monkey off my back. What's truly scary is the mindless, brainwashed hate CTM has apparently been conditioned to display. I brought up history, not to support an opposition to interracial marriage, but to refute the Nazi accusation CTM leveled against me. Historically, people were not called Nazis for opposing interracial marriage; and many who gave their lives to fight Hitler opposed interracial marriage. Had I--or anyone else on these boards for that matter--actually called for segregation, this comment might actually have some relevance.

Another post of mine which you demonstrate no evidence of understanding. What a surprise. My point--which you clearly missed--was that a change in attitudes about a social norm does not necessarily constitute "progress." Given that social norms have changed for the worse in so many aspects of American society, I would think the point should be obvious to anyone, even you.

Your excuse doesn't wash. The mainstream historians I've read have indicated that Hitler didn't begin the Holocaust until 1942 or 1943--well after FDR had decided to go to war against Germany. In contrast, the Soviet Union's genocide began over a decade before FDR even took office, which is why previous U.S. presidents had the decency not to recognize that criminal government. In short, FDR went to war on the side of those he knew were mass murderers, in hopes of opposing those who he felt had the potential to become mass murderers. You question why I give greater attention to the Soviet genocides. There are several reasons for this: - The Soviets killed far more people than the Nazis. - The American public is less aware of the Soviet mass murders than it is about Nazi crimes. Interesting way of trying to worm your way out of a difficult situation. Basically, it seems like what you're trying to say boils down to the idea that, whereas other people's opposition to interracial marriage wasn't intended to preserve the existence of the races, mine is. I find that pretty hard to swallow. Many people--far more cultured, humane, and reasonable than you have shown yourself to be--liked the idea of having different races, and liked the idea of having these differences preserved. Whether this was based on a love for one race in particular or the world's races in general probably varied from person to person. You have demonstrated no understanding of anything based on love; all I've heard from you is constant, incessant, irrational hate. I do not ask you to try to understand either me or my views. But since you clearly don't understand them, please do us all the favor of keeping your ugly mouth shut.

Is your idea of progress a per capita murder rate that's risen by a factor of ten, as has happened over the last 100 years? Mine isn't. Nor is my idea of progress a crumbling education system, nor the shift away from morality and reason (and towards blind emotion) that has taken place. American students rank last among those of industrialized nations in subjects like science and math; yet have the highest perception of their own abilities. This is progress? In the 1970s, history books were dumbed down; with sentence choice, vocabulary, and ideas all being made simpler. Average and above average students were harmed by this. This is progress? I've read that one American man out of every four would commit a rape if he knew he could get away with it. Assuming this is true, is this progress? In the 1950s, blacks living in working class Philadelphia neighborhoods left their doors unlocked at night. By the 1980s, people in those same neighborhoods were shooting each other over pairs of shoes. This is progress? Technological advancement has been used to largely mask the consequences of social decline. An employee today is probably more likely to be willing to steal than an employee of a century back. But today we have security cameras to discourage the theft, and sophisticated inventory management systems to overcome the economic loss imposed by the expense of the security camera. Technologically, this is progress. But does this represent social progress? A hundred years ago, a divorce was a rarity. Today, half of all marriages end in divorce. This is progress? In the past, most men acted--more or less--like men should act. Today, too many men are either jerks or are nice but too soft-seeming. Either way, women are unhappy. This is progress? Given the social decline that has taken place in so many aspects of American society, I refuse to blindly accept your notion that a change in another social area--attitudes about interracial marriage--represents some sort of "progress." Compared to what we used to be, Americans have become more selfish and less idealistic, less governed by morality and more by their own whims, less intellectually rigorous and more mob-like. There are still pockets of idealism, morality, and intellectual rigor. This nation isn't dead yet, but it is dying. Only when the sources of this decline--the anti-moral nature of much of the mass media and of leftist academia--have been dealt with can we hope to reverse this decline. Until this is accomplished, any victory that might be achieved--such as the election of Ronald Reagan to the presidency--will prove hollow and empty in the long run.

In other words, you're telling me you don't care about the fact FDR recognized the Soviet Union just as that nation finished murdering over 3 million Ukrainian children, and 7 - 10 million Ukrainians total. Nor do you seem to care that FDR didn't even try to save Eastern or Central Europe from the mass murder inherent in postwar Soviet occupation. To you, these facts are nothing more than a "conspiracy theory." Your interest in calling me and my views "Nazi" has apparently taken your mind off the graves of the millions of children needlessly murdered in cold blood. Unfortunately, you're not alone in placing a warped political agenda ahead of concern for innocent millions. My response to this--in case you've forgotten already--was that your logic could be used to "demonstrate" that anyone who asked for mutual respect for the races could be called a Nazi, on the grounds that a Nazi thinker had asked for exactly this. Also, I'd be willing to bet that, as of 1942, more opponents to mixed marriages lived in Allied nations than lived in Germany. You've called me a Nazi for opposing mixed marriages, yet you have failed to extend this label to the multitude of WWII American soldiers who shared this view. Believe me, by no means am I asking you to extend your blind hate to America's soldiers, either past or present. I'm just pointing out your shameless hypocrisy.

If by this you're suggesting I embrace the historical ignorance of some of those who disagreed with me, no thanks. I have. But my definition of reason doesn't include a blind acceptance of the hysterical rants of a feces flinging monkey. And your point being what? That everything about past social norms was worse than present social norms? You are aware that slavery--including child slavery--is still alive and well in many parts of the world, right? I hope you're also aware that the twentieth century saw far more mass murder than any previous century. But maybe to you pointing out this historical fact is using history as a "crutch."

I've already dealt with your moronic and ignorant accusation once. You didn't respond, yet in your usual shamelss way, you're repeating it again. At this point I feel like I'm trying to have a conversation with a monkey. First, you seem to take no interest in the mass murder of the Soviet Union, nor in the fact that FDR basically gave that nation a green light for its genocides. Secondly, your attempt to link me with the Nazi ideology (and hence the Nazi crimes) is beyond merely feeble; and is demonstrative of a truly brainwashed mind. Not only are you acting brainwashed yourself, you have demonstrated eagerness to greet those who do not share your brainwashed views with intolerance and hate. Intolerance and hate. Are these your antidote for Nazism? If so, thank you so very much for sharing this antidote with us. It was too generous of you. You shouldn't have. Really. You shouldn't have.

It limits the power of the federal government. In addition, it grants rights which no government--federal, state, or local--can take away. The freedom of speech falls into this category. lol What I am referring to is the prohibition against unreasonable government searches of private homes suddenly coming to refer to condoms and abortions. I mean, the Constitutional provision against unreasonable searches was just sitting there for well over a century. Then in the 1960s, along came the Supreme Court and decided that the provision now had something to do with contraception, and, in the '70s, abortion. Um . . . your logic is convoluted here. The Supreme Court declared it was unconstitutional for any government entity, whether federal or state, to prohibit abortion. As a result, abortion became legal throughout the U.S. I'm willing to consider any reasonable arguments you care to make about why you think the judiciary isn't activist. So far I haven't seen any; but that doesn't mean I plan to ignore any future ones that may come along.

Is this your way of trying to say you're a "credible" scholar? Or is it your way of saying you like to bite people on their behinds?

You really are a lot better at labeling people than at intelligent discussion, aren't you?

If you want something based on a false premise, I suggest you reread the CTM post you just got done praising. I already pointed out the flaw in that post once, so I suggest you go back and read what I had to say about it. Too bad nothing in this paragraph addresses the issue of the Supreme Court creating a Constitutional "right to privacy"--by which they meant the right to contraception and abortion--out of whole cloth. To me it sounds like you're confusing me with an activist judge.

Stalin was planning his attack in the early 1950s. The balance of air power was significantly different in the early '50s than it was in 1946; especially when you take into account the ground-based defenses the Soviets had built. Moreover, the evidence for the Soviet plan for war goes far beyond the strength of the Soviet army, air force, and anti-air defenses. During the years leading up to the end of his life, Stalin began fabricating evidence against various Jewish doctors in the Soviet Union. Scholars have concluded his plan was to "prove" these doctors were part of a larger Jewish conspiracy. Indeed, Stalin had ordered the construction of large concentration camps towards the end of his life. Stalin's plan, these historians believe, was to trace this "Jewish conspiracy" back to the United States. Soviet propaganda would claim the U.S. was controlled by Jews. Stalin would respond to this "conspiracy" by attacking the Jews within the Soviet Union, and by going to war with the "Jewish-controlled" United States. It may seem unrealistic that anyone would attempt to implement the plan described above; at least to those unfamiliar with Joseph Stalin. Historians agree Stalin was an extremely paranoid man, and it may have seemed natural to him that Russians and other Soviet citizens would respond well to a plan which appealed to people's paranoia.

People on both sides of this debate have good points. Those who call for sensitivity and respect have a point. But others have a point in saying that sensitivity can be taken too far, and that there's such a thing as having too thin a skin. Exactly where to draw the line is open to debate, but clearly the same standards should be in place for everyone. So if we're going to yell at a school for its yearbook label of "black girl" then we have to be equally adamant that blacks not refer to anyone as "that white guy." But many blacks are willing to use that kind of verbiage, and I for one don't see it as a sign of disrespect.

If the quality of his paper has anything in common with the quality of his posts, I wouldn't degrade my posterior by using CTM's work as toilet paper. But I digress . . . The point is, I've seen credible scholars indicate their belief that the Soviet military's ability to shoot down hostile American planes in Soviet airspace was strong. Don't expect me to dismiss this scholarly research just because someone who's been making a complete fool out of himself on a discussion board doesn't agree.

No one else is? Tell that to CTM. Or maybe calling someone a Nazi isn't that serious an accusation in his book.

I've seen a book which claimed otherwise. After the war, the U.S. and other Western Democracies disarmed; but the Soviet Union did not. Winston Churchill said that if it weren't for the U.S. atomic bomb, the Soviet Union would have taken Western Europe. But in the early 1950s, the U.S. still didn't have ICBMs, which meant we would have had to use planes to deliver any given atomic bomb. By that point the Soviets had bombs of their own. In any case, Stalin believed his military capable of shooting down any American plane before it could reach Moscow. The anti-air defenses that city had were quite impressive.