The Inter-Racial Sex Thread

[Kaiser of Arabia]

I AGREE!!!!!!!!!

or do I? Muwhahahahahahah!

Anyway, here is my position.

Race mixing may be alright with some people, but I beleive it is important for certain types of people to keep to themselves. Certain things can only lead to bad things, and I beleive Race Mixing is one of these things. We were created and divided into seperate races for a reason, therefore I do not beleive it is either safe nor practical to mix races.

Race and Cultures come into conflict all the time. Almost every nation has had it's basis with a certain cultural and racial group. France is based on Frankish and Gallic tribes, Germany on Germanic and Nordic, England on British, Italy on Latin, etc. Only in recent times has it been viewed as alright to interbreed with another ethnicity, and many great nations have fallen to second rate powers because of this 'progressive' mentality. More like degressive.

The purer the race, the purer the people, the stronger the nation. People tend to interact best with similar people. Why do you think the Muslims and Christians are always fighting? They're differant, and many people cannot accept that. Even having differant races making up a group of people can cause division and hatred to ensue within that group, and the US is a perfect example!

Everyone hate's each other here. You have blacks hating whites, hispanics hating whites, whites hating blacks, asians hating everyone, etc. Now, you may say it's due to ignorance, but I say it's human nature. People are naturally threatened by those differant from them. And that's why rascism and hatred exist.

Call me a racist, call me a relic of the 1940s, call me what you want, but I'm not advocating that one race is superior to another. I'm saying that, for the sake of the people, it may be best if groups of people can keep to themselves on breeding issues. Because, God knows, bad things can happen.

[Papewaio]

Hybrids in the animal kingdom tend to be healthier.

Mongrel dogs live longer by about 50% and maintian a healtheir margin even longer.

Cattle grow faster and need less drenching when mixing two strains.

Also this idea of purity is not true at all... most tribes that where assimalated... meaning the men where killed and the women raped/taken as trophies or just another wife.

Vikings spread their genes. As did the Normans, Normans in turn integrated with the societies they had invaded and formed often stronger long term dynasties. Britain is a very mixed nation and it formed an Empire they held a quarter of the globe.

Italians are a mixture of many local tribes, Greeks, North Africans (Sciliy actually has a large influence from Muslim cultures which when it was multicultural during the Norman rule made it one of the wealthiest nations on Earth), and tribes from the North.

If you want to use the second world war as an example. The Nazi German and the Imperial Japanese pure races got their butts handed to it by a rainbow of colours. So much for the idea of a pure race and pure idealogy beating mixed.

====

As far as ideas making a culture stronger, the cultures that had the most interaction with other cultures learned quicker. The classic examples of cultural and technological stagnation is what happened to China and also Japan when they closed their borders off.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Hybrids in the animal kingdom tend to be healthier.

Mongrel dogs live longer by about 50% and maintian a healtheir margin even longer.

Cattle grow faster and need less drenching when mixing two strains.

Also this idea of purity is not true at all... most tribes that where assimalated... meaning the men where killed and the women raped/taken as trophies or just another wife.

Vikings spread their genes. As did the Normans, Normans in turn integrated with the societies they had invaded and formed often stronger long term dynasties. Britain is a very mixed nation and it formed an Empire they held a quarter of the globe.

Italians are a mixture of many local tribes, Greeks, North Africans (Sciliy actually has a large influence from Muslim cultures which when it was multicultural during the Norman rule made it one of the wealthiest nations on Earth), and tribes from the North.

If you want to use the second world war as an example. The Nazi German and the Imperial Japanese pure races got their butts handed to it by a rainbow of colours. So much for the idea of a pure race and pure idealogy beating mixed.

====

As far as ideas making a culture stronger, the cultures that had the most interaction with other cultures learned quicker. The classic examples of cultural and technological stagnation is what happened to China and also Japan when they closed their borders off.


I respect your opinion, but I must disagree.

And with vikings, OF COURSE THEY SPREAD THEIR GENES, THEY RAPED EVERYONE! ~D

Oh and in WWII, the Axis could have won, but lost due to Hitler being the worst military strategist in the history of humanity (with the exception of Burnside), and Japan's human wave doctrines. Also, due to lack of supplies and being severly outnumbered, it would have been a hard fought victory. We fought hard, and we lost. And that's it.

And I know about Sicily, there are Greco-Sicilians, Phonecian-Sicilians, Roman-Sicilians (like my ancestory), Franco-Sicilians (hated), and Muslo-Sicilians. We've been killing each other for years.

[Slyspy]

Oh dear.

[Papewaio]

First you will have to disprove hybrid vigour (there are counter examples to it so I am not giving an impossible task).

[Kaiser of Arabia]

The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study shows children of Negroid-Caucasian cross-ethnic mating score .47 SD lower on cognitive tests taken at age 17 than adopted children of Caucasian heritage,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_vigour

[Strike For The South]

Oh and in WWII, the Axis could have won, but lost due to Hitler being the worst military strategist in the history of humanity (with the exception of Burnside), and Japan's human wave doctrines. Also, due to lack of supplies and being severly outnumbered, it would have been a hard fought victory. We fought hard, and we lost. And that's it.


ha the krauts never met a good o boy

[Strike For The South]

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

~:rolleyes:

[Papewaio]

Good you found one of the counter examples.

Now if you have read the whole wiki stuff you will have a basis to learn about heterozygous advantage.

Farmers use it all the time to find new strains of better produce. Or to cull out underperformers that don't keep up... hmm steak of da underperformer.

[bmolsson]

I would say that some mix in your sexual apitite is excellent. It's like eating Italian one day, Chinese another etc.
For some of you I would say that you really need to rethink your consumption, eating Ronald McDonald everyday is going to ruin you for life...... ~D

[Papewaio]

Big Mac... special sauce ~:eek:

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Good you found one of the counter examples.

Now if you have read the whole wiki stuff you will have a basis to learn about heterozygous advantage.

Farmers use it all the time to find new strains of better produce. Or to cull out underperformers that don't keep up... hmm steak of da underperformer.
I think the end result would be an average of the two, for example, let's say someone with an IQ of 100 and someone with an IQ of 200 reproduced, theoretically, the child would have an IQ of 150.

Just a theory, I'll read up on it a bit. Thanks for the material, Pape!

[PanzerJaeger]

By Ser Clegane


Sorry for being a bit persistant, but I cannot resist the urge to follow-up on that one.

Coming from somebody who obviously changes his perception of the meaning of the term "race" depending on which situation he has to wiggle himself out of, this statement really is quite rich.

It was on these boards where I was shown the real definition of race. I held very much the same opinion you seemed to before I actually was forced to look it up. Hopefully I have opened your eyes as mine were.

By Ironside


I'm curious on PJ oppinions on when these superior Germans existed (as Germany as a state didn't exist until 1870:tish IIRC. It's young in any case) and when they were tainted (and by who).


And PJ one question.
Would an average German born in a "inferior" (as superior people implies that it exist inferior people) country and grown up with the native culture generetically preform better than a native, in your oppinion? And the opposite ("inferior" born and raised in Germany)?

I do not feel comfortable talking about such things as I will be warned. My opinions on the matter are not welcome here.

If your questions were genuine and not rhetorical, I can PM you the answers. ~:)

[Ironside]

By Ironside

I do not feel comfortable talking about such things as I will be warned. My opinions on the matter are not welcome here.

If your questions were genuine and not rhetorical, I can PM you the answers. ~:)

I may not agree with you on the answers, but the questions are genuine. Always interesting to know other people's viewpoints.

[DemonArchangel]

My restated position on inter-racial sex: Missionary.

If you're going to be a racist, at least have the balls to admit that you're a racist.

And about genetics, it's better to mix and match. Inbreeding and recycling the same genes over and over again not only causes serious genetic problems to occur, but also restricts adaptation that occurs as a result of allelic drift, which in turn affects evolution.

So please, please, please, for the sake of the entire human race, take the same position I do on inter-racial sex. Your offspring might just inherit a beneficial gene or 2 and and/or exhibit a more useful combination of genes, assuming of course, they're not flushed down the toilet first.

[A.Saturnus]

lineage is fundamental to the concept of race, which is what we are talking about. ancestry is an integral aspect of natural selection, since it shapes the source genomes.


That seems a bit circular to me. Lineage is fundamental to race because race is defined that way. I was argueing that we could define ethnicity in a different way.
That ancestry shapes the source genomes is right but I fail to see the point of it. If we already assess genetical diversity, ancestry has merely fylo-historical relevance. More usefull might be a classification that is based on more socially relevant circumstances like psychpathologic predispositions.


i disagree. in my view, the observed gradations reinforce the idea of historical biogeographical genetic clusters.

Than I´m not sure what you mean with 'cluster' than. For me a cluster is a group of entities that are proximal to each other but distal to entities not part of the cluster on one or more dimensions. Are homogenous field for example, cannot be clustered. I´m pretty sure that´s the understanding Rosenberg et al used when speaking of clusters, as they used the statistical procedure of cluster analysis.


it doesn't alone constitute clusters, but it is part of the mechanism that leads to them.

Again, the mechanism involved may be fylogenetically interesting, but it is not an obvious choice as categorical criterium.


5% variance between population groups is a biologically significant figure to me. studies like rosenberg et al support that notion. that a blind statistical analysis can resolve biogeographical genetic groups is very persuasive.

Anything can be significant. Given enough calculating power and data, the procedure Rosenberg et al used might find op to 6 billion clusters. As I said, it´s not surprising that continental boundaries constitute the most likely constrains for a 5-cluster-model. That the model doesn´t show different loadings for Italians and Bedouins indicates that´s not quite the traditional ethnicity can comes to count here.
The 5% is the percentage of human genentical diversity that can be attributed to population. That means, knowing someone´s ethnicity explains 5% of his genetic variance. Something like that is usually considered a minor effect size.

[thrashaholic]

And about genetics, it's better to mix and match. Inbreeding and recycling the same genes over and over again not only causes serious genetic problems to occur, but also restricts adaptation that occurs as a result of allelic drift, which in turn affects evolution.

No, evolution occurs when a population is isolated from the main body of the population, causing that population to gradually gain genetic disticiveness from the main one because any adaption in a smaller group is more likely to be successful in becoming a part of the genome of the entire population. The larger the population, the more likely any individual adaption is to be bred out.

Genetic diseases occur in exactly the same way as 'positive evolution' (sorry, couldn't think of a better way to put it), so you can't on the one hand say that small breeding groups cause genetic defects, but at the same time hinder evolution, since both are essentially one and the same.

Either way, humans are largely beyond evolution now, as even the genetically weakest in our societies survive due to medicines, meaning their infereior genes continue to be passed on.

[GoreBag]

My restated position on inter-racial sex: Missionary.

I thought you were going somewhere else with that..

[Papewaio]

No, evolution occurs when a population is isolated from the main body of the population, causing that population to gradually gain genetic disticiveness from the main one because any adaption in a smaller group is more likely to be successful in becoming a part of the genome of the entire population. The larger the population, the more likely any individual adaption is to be bred out.

Genetic diseases occur in exactly the same way as 'positive evolution' (sorry, couldn't think of a better way to put it), so you can't on the one hand say that small breeding groups cause genetic defects, but at the same time hinder evolution, since both are essentially one and the same.

Either way, humans are largely beyond evolution now, as even the genetically weakest in our societies survive due to medicines, meaning their infereior genes continue to be passed on.

Incorrect. Some guys breed more then others.

Now guess which set it is:

The guys on dialysis.

Or the mega sports stars.

Its not just having kids its the relative ratio of your genes spreading, so how many kids, grandkids, cousins etc you end up having. In our societies those on welfare have won the gene increase lotto compared with a DINK couple.

[Aurelian]

Race mixing may be alright with some people, but I beleive it is important for certain types of people to keep to themselves. Certain things can only lead to bad things, and I beleive Race Mixing is one of these things. We were created and divided into seperate races for a reason, therefore I do not beleive it is either safe nor practical to mix races.

Okay, but were we really "created and divided into separate races for a reason"? I don't think we have any evidence of that.

I assume you must be referring to some sort of supernatural racial segregation. If the 'Sky Fairy', or whomever, created us as separate races that were never to mix, then he isn't doing a very good job enforcing the system. If that were the case, then America, as a hotbed of racial mixing, must certainly be an object of 'Sky Fairy' hatred. Of course, Nazi Germany, as a hotbed of racial purity, also seems to have been an object of 'Sky Fairy' hatred, as it was pounded into submission by various mongrel races. ~D

If the issue isn't supernatural, and is really just about the difficulties different peoples have in getting along, then surely race-mixing is the ultimate solution to the problem.

Anyway, there really isn't that much genetic variation in the human species in total. Apparently, you find more variation in the genes of a single chimpanzee group than you do in the entire human species. Rather than our races being very different, they are actually very close genetically. Our species hit what they call a "genetic bottleneck" approximately 70,000 years ago that reduced our numbers to less than 10,000. All of our ancestors, and diversity, came from that small population.

[Tricon]

Bastards are usually smarter than thourough breads. At least with dogs.

Personally I have mixed results with people. I've known and liked people of mixed race. I also know a few I dispise.

[Papewaio]

Tricon your definiton is incorrect. A bastard is someone whose parents are not married. It has nothing to do with being from mixed parents.

[thrashaholic]

Incorrect. Some guys breed more then others.

Now guess which set it is:

The guys on dialysis.

Or the mega sports stars.

Its not just having kids its the relative ratio of your genes spreading, so how many kids, grandkids, cousins etc you end up having. In our societies those on welfare have won the gene increase lotto compared with a DINK couple.

No, I wasn't incorrect (mind, neither are you). Re-read my first paragraph; evolution will only occur when the mega-sports stars form their own group and don't breed with the group on dialysis. Another example would be: if the some of the common ancestor of lions and tigers hadn't moved to their descendents respective continents, but had stayed where they were, there wouldn't be lions and tigers because the divergance of the gene-pool fro each wouldn't have happenned. You're stating survival of the fittest, which is correct, but I'm saying that any adaption that occurs in a smaller population will, if it is advantageous, be transferred amongst the entire population more quickly, which is also correct; this adaption would not be present in any population which didn't have contact with the original, and thus divergance would occur.

[Papewaio]

Evolution is the change in frequency of genes within the population.

Biology.
Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

Adaptation is the change of a population to meet the expectations of the environment.

Biology. An alteration or adjustment in structure or habits, often hereditary, by which a species or individual improves its condition in relationship to its environment.

Evolution leads to adaptation.

[Tricon]

"Tricon your definiton is incorrect. A bastard is someone whose parents are not married. It has nothing to do with being from mixed parents."

A bastard is a mix of two differents. As for example in the bastard sword. With dogs its a pup from two different dog breeds. I'm not sure if it's the right technical term, but it's common tongue around here, at least.
And I WAS refering to the dogs (I wouldn't call any human "thourough breads" either) but I can see how it could have been misleading.

[InsaneApache]

No. A bastard is someone concieved out of wedlock. It has nothing to do with genes or science. It is a social stigma.

A good example of which is William the Bastard. Also known as William the Conquerer. The fact he did indeed act like a bastard was not the reason he gained such a nom-de-plume, no, he was called 'the bastard' because he was born out of wedlock. Nothing to do with inter-racial mixing.

dear me :trytofly:

[Papewaio]

Someone with a better understanding of heraldry might be able to verify this, but didn't a recognised Bastard have the family shield with a red line through it?... recognised but clearly identified to all as a bastard.

A mix of two dogs is referred to as a mongrel or a hybrid... mind you since no dogs get married they are all bastards.

[Mouzafphaerre]

mind you since no dogs get married they are all bastards.
.
~:joker:
.

[bmolsson]

mind you since no dogs get married they are all bastards.

You haven't been in Hollywood lately..... ~D