White Pride: A good thing?

[The Cobalt Sky]

And science isn't a credible source.

LOL. So basically, anyone's observations of the natural world at any point are totally invalid all the time?

[Aryan Union of Celts]

Do you actually fucking hear yourself?

He doesn't hear anything.

I hear white people being raped and attacked by iimmigrants. Cultural Genocide.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I hear white people being raped and attacked by iimmigrants.

Sounds like you need to move to a better neighborhood.

[United States Kingdom]

Yes. Mans since we seem to be on the same side with this--

Aside from being total crap, That would be calling mixed race people genetically inferior, no? Even if it's only "usually," that's still saying the majority of us are genetically bad.

No it isn't it. Stop being presumptive and treating a difference in the matter as an insult.

I said "usually" for ease in the fact it all comes down to case by case basis and there are significant risks and its been proven that dominant genes pass on more readily than recessive genes. I'm more concerned for the child's health than the fact its a mixed race child. Like I've already said I could care less about the baby being mixed race. I'm more concerned about the possible genetic outcomes that may effect the child.

So unless you can show me how recessive genes are in fact more dominant than "dominant" genes I suggest you stop.

Show me a source to what you are stating Imperialisium. Statements, especially those that are in a political forum where people frequently debate need to be backed up with a source. So far, you have not shown a source, so please show as one.

[Imperialisium]

So how can I be racist if I actually care about everyone involved? Further saying I am wrong is a matter of opinion.

1. You believe those of mixed race have more negatives in their gene pool than those of a single "race," therefore you believe they are inherently inferior, by the very definition of these words.

2. It is not opinion. It is scientific fact.

Again putting words in my mouth. I never said anyone of mixed race was inferior. Further how could I consider them inferior when I've showed nothing but concern for any child regardless of race the utmost concern for their well being? So your argument is now invalid. I recommend not trying to dictate who people are or what they stand for without having a clear understanding of what they mean.

Also since you so dearly love my comment about the gene pool perhaps you could actually put it how I meant it. In that there are health risks just like with a single race. There are however dangers in the fact that a good recessive gene may be overtaken by a malicious dominant gene. That was all, and followed up by my apparent back peddling (which is utter bull, I'm not back peddling I'm clarifying) have stated that I hope in the future we can eliminate all genetic and connected mental illnesses for everyone.

So I hope that clarifies the matter.

[United States Kingdom]

Science has proven race does not exist. Officially. Indisputably.

Your racism is founded on nothing.

If race isn't real then neither is racism. And science isn't a credible source. These are people who think we came from monkeys and claim the earth just randomly appeared.

If you don't believe that science isn't a credible source, then I assume that you haven't been in school, nor have you participated in science, or any subjects that are related to science, such as math, etc.

[Sun Wukong]

If race isn't real then neither is racism. And science isn't a credible source. These are people who think we came from monkeys and claim the earth just randomly appeared.

If you don't believe that science isn't a credible source, then I assume that you haven't been in school, nor have you participated in science, or any subjects that are related to science, such as math, etc.

Buddy, he's going to be an ex-nation in like 5 minutes. A few days, tops.

[The Rich Port]

Science has proven race does not exist. Officially. Indisputably.

Your racism is founded on nothing.

If race isn't real then neither is racism. And science isn't a credible source.

Yes, no, race isn't real, and yet you seem to think it is.

Do you also believe in unicorns and fairies?

If you don't believe that science isn't a credible source, then I assume that you haven't been in school, nor have you participated in science, or any subjects that are related to science, such as math, etc.

Buddy, he's going to be an ex-nation in like 5 minutes. A few days, tops.

Like I said, he's someone's puppet most likely who thinks his ego will be preserved by being someone else.

[Reploid Productions]

If race isn't real then neither is racism. And science isn't a credible source.

Yes, no, race isn't real, and yet you seem to think it is.

Do you also believe in unicorns and fairies?

Buddy, he's going to be an ex-nation in like 5 minutes. A few days, tops.

Like I said, he's someone's puppet most likely who thinks his ego will be preserved by being someone else.

He's also currently on a 2-week forumban for his shenanigans. So howzabout we steer the conversation back toward the topic, which is not him.


~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

[New Jordslag]

He doesn't hear anything.

I hear white people being raped and attacked by iimmigrants. Cultural Genocide.

Trump, is that you?

Hellenic, there is absolutely no data showing that increased immigration leads to more rape and murder. It is ludicrous to blame everything on Immigrants.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I hear white people being raped and attacked by iimmigrants. Cultural Genocide.

Trump, is that you?

Hellenic, there is absolutely no data showing that increased immigration leads to more rape and murder. It is ludicrous to blame everything on Immigrants.

I blame them for my crippling burrito addiction.

[New Jordslag]

Trump, is that you?

Hellenic, there is absolutely no data showing that increased immigration leads to more rape and murder. It is ludicrous to blame everything on Immigrants.

I blame them for my crippling burrito addiction.

Well... Yeah, it is fair to blame them for that.

[Crimiea]

Trump, is that you?

Hellenic, there is absolutely no data showing that increased immigration leads to more rape and murder. It is ludicrous to blame everything on Immigrants.

I blame them for my crippling burrito addiction.

Also the abundance of kebab stands. Every time I walk around and see a stand, I have to throw my wallet at them.

And don't get me started on Taco Trucks that sells you overstuffed plates of food for under $10.

[The Cobalt Sky]

I never said anyone of mixed race was inferior.

Okay, then just explain to me something. The quote where I think you said that is this one:

Mixed race babies usually have more negatives than positives in their gene pool. Maybe in a million years when Evolution kicks in it'll work out better. Till then not so much.

If something has more negatives than positives, then that makes it inferior. Be it ineffective, detrimental, whatever. You said mixed race babies have more negatives than positives in their gene pool. This would be as opposed to non mixed babies, or else you wouldn't have put "mixed" in front of that. So tell me--how don't you see mixed race people as inferior, if we have more negatives than positives in our gene pools?

Further how could I consider them inferior when I've showed nothing but concern for any child regardless of race the utmost concern for their well being?

Seeing someone as inferior doesn't mean you aren't concerned for them. You can be a caring person (I don't dispute that you are) but still see people as inferior, even if you're concerned about their well being.

As an example of concern and inferiority, consider a statement like this:
(Not saying you made the below quoted statement. It is just an example statement.)

I'm worried for black people because I do not think they have the mental capacity to lead their lives properly.

See how the above statement expresses concern, but also a view of blacks as inferior as opposed to other races? The two views can be held simultaneously.

Prussia-Steinbach's point was that you have a similar combo of views towards people of mixed race. You feel concern for us because we "have more negatives than positives in their gene pool", in other words he was saying you are concerned because you think we are inferior because of our genetics.

[The Rich Port]

Trump, is that you?

Hellenic, there is absolutely no data showing that increased immigration leads to more rape and murder. It is ludicrous to blame everything on Immigrants.

I blame them for my crippling burrito addiction.

Taco Bell, I repeat, shall NOT apologise simply for having delicious gordita recipes.

If thou cut a Taco Bell executive, do they not bleed sour cream, like you and me?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I blame them for my crippling burrito addiction.

Taco Bell, I repeat, shall NOT apologise simply for having delicious gordita recipes.

If thou cut a Taco Bell executive, do they not bleed sour cream, like you and me?

No, I'm talking about Mexican food, not Taco Bell.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I blame them for my crippling burrito addiction.

Also the abundance of kebab stands. Every time I walk around and see a stand, I have to throw my wallet at them.

And don't get me started on Taco Trucks that sells you overstuffed plates of food for under $10.

Taco trucks are the final blow to the gastrointestinal systems of America.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

Also since you so dearly love my comment about the gene pool perhaps you could actually put it how I meant it. In that there are health risks just like with a single race. There are however dangers in the fact that a good recessive gene may be overtaken by a malicious dominant gene.

Recessive genes are by definition non-functional or low-function. Dominant genes are dominant because they function 'correctly', and can to a small or large extent 'correct' for the non-functional recessive gene. Example: a species of flower has two a of a gene A in each of its two chromosomes (AA), which codes for the red dye molecule that makes its flowers red. One flower develops a mutation in one copy of the gene, leading to it having the genotype Aa. The mutated 'a' gene does not function properly, and so it doesn't produce any red dye molecules. The flower therefore produces less dye molecules than other AA plants, so its flowers are pink. If another mutation were to occur to make the flower have the genotype aa, it wouldn't produce any dye molecules at all, and so would be white.

This is why recessive genes are very rarely strictly adaptive (ie increases the fitness of an organism) in and of themselves - the mutations that cause recessiveness by definition make them function 'less well' than their dominant counterparts. Put another way, there are only a few scenarios where having a 'broken' gene (a recessive one, in other words) could be considered beneficial.

If a mutation were to occur that improved the function of the new mutation, the old 'dominant' gene would then be considered 'recessive' to its new counterpart, as the resultant organism would show the traits associated with the new gene. To go back to the flower example, say a mutation occurred in a plant with the genotype AA, which made the second copy of the A gene code not for red, but instead blue (AB). An AB organism would be purple, and thus gene B would be 'incompletely dominant' over A (And A would be thus 'incompletely dominant' over B). Any offspring an AB or BB flower would produce would carry one of the two dominant genes, and thus would have the partial or whole trait of the gene passed on no matter what the other version of the gene is. Compare that to an organism with the genotype aa, which would only produce white flowers if mated with another organism with an aa genotype. The 'a' mutation is recessive to all other versions of the gene.

This is all to say - your scenario simply can't exist. Moreover, even if it could exist, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that it would occur with any more frequency in cross-racial breeding, since the vast majority of functional human genetic variation occurs within the groups we call 'races', not between them.

[USS Monitor]

Also since you so dearly love my comment about the gene pool perhaps you could actually put it how I meant it. In that there are health risks just like with a single race. There are however dangers in the fact that a good recessive gene may be overtaken by a malicious dominant gene.

What does this have to do with the kid being mixed-race?

Most genetic defects are recessive anyway.

[USS Monitor]

Also since you so dearly love my comment about the gene pool perhaps you could actually put it how I meant it. In that there are health risks just like with a single race. There are however dangers in the fact that a good recessive gene may be overtaken by a malicious dominant gene.

Recessive genes are by definition non-functional or low-function. Dominant genes are dominant because they function 'correctly', and can to a small or large extent 'correct' for the non-functional recessive gene. Example: a species of flower has two a of a gene A in each of its two chromosomes (AA), which codes for the red dye molecule that makes its flowers red. One flower develops a mutation in one copy of the gene, leading to it having the genotype Aa. The mutated 'a' gene does not function properly, and so it doesn't produce any red dye molecules. The flower therefore produces less dye molecules than other AA plants, so its flowers are pink. If another mutation were to occur to make the flower have the genotype aa, it wouldn't produce any dye molecules at all, and so would be white.

This is why recessive genes are very rarely strictly adaptive (ie increases the fitness of an organism) in and of themselves - the mutations that cause recessiveness by definition make them function 'less well' than their dominant counterparts. Put another way, there are only a few scenarios where having a 'broken' gene (a recessive one, in other words) could be considered beneficial.

If a mutation were to occur that improved the function of the new mutation, the old 'dominant' gene would then be considered 'recessive' to its new counterpart, as the resultant organism would show the traits associated with the new gene. To go back to the flower example, say a mutation occurred in a plant with the genotype AA, which made the second copy of the A gene code not for red, but instead blue (AB). An AB organism would be purple, and thus gene B would be 'incompletely dominant' over A (And A would be thus 'incompletely dominant' over B). Any offspring an AB or BB flower would produce would carry one of the two dominant genes, and thus would have the partial or whole trait of the gene passed on no matter what the other version of the gene is. Compare that to an organism with the genotype aa, which would only produce white flowers if mated with another organism with an aa genotype. The 'a' mutation is recessive to all other versions of the gene.

This is all to say - your scenario simply can't exist. Moreover, even if it could exist, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that it would occur with any more frequency in cross-racial breeding, since the vast majority of functional human genetic variation occurs within the groups we call 'races', not between them.

Where are you getting your info about genetics?

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

Recessive genes are by definition non-functional or low-function. Dominant genes are dominant because they function 'correctly', and can to a small or large extent 'correct' for the non-functional recessive gene. Example: a species of flower has two a of a gene A in each of its two chromosomes (AA), which codes for the red dye molecule that makes its flowers red. One flower develops a mutation in one copy of the gene, leading to it having the genotype Aa. The mutated 'a' gene does not function properly, and so it doesn't produce any red dye molecules. The flower therefore produces less dye molecules than other AA plants, so its flowers are pink. If another mutation were to occur to make the flower have the genotype aa, it wouldn't produce any dye molecules at all, and so would be white.

This is why recessive genes are very rarely strictly adaptive (ie increases the fitness of an organism) in and of themselves - the mutations that cause recessiveness by definition make them function 'less well' than their dominant counterparts. Put another way, there are only a few scenarios where having a 'broken' gene (a recessive one, in other words) could be considered beneficial.

If a mutation were to occur that improved the function of the new mutation, the old 'dominant' gene would then be considered 'recessive' to its new counterpart, as the resultant organism would show the traits associated with the new gene. To go back to the flower example, say a mutation occurred in a plant with the genotype AA, which made the second copy of the A gene code not for red, but instead blue (AB). An AB organism would be purple, and thus gene B would be 'incompletely dominant' over A (And A would be thus 'incompletely dominant' over B). Any offspring an AB or BB flower would produce would carry one of the two dominant genes, and thus would have the partial or whole trait of the gene passed on no matter what the other version of the gene is. Compare that to an organism with the genotype aa, which would only produce white flowers if mated with another organism with an aa genotype. The 'a' mutation is recessive to all other versions of the gene.

This is all to say - your scenario simply can't exist. Moreover, even if it could exist, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that it would occur with any more frequency in cross-racial breeding, since the vast majority of functional human genetic variation occurs within the groups we call 'races', not between them.

Where are you getting your info about genetics?

Coursework I've taken in university. I can cite a related wiki article if you like.

[USS Monitor]

Where are you getting your info about genetics?

Coursework I've taken in university. I can cite a related wiki article if you like.

Wiki says:

Often the dominant allele codes for a functional protein whereas the recessive allele does not.

Often, not always or "by definition."

Also:

Dominance is unrelated to the nature of the phenotype itself, that is, whether it is regarded as "normal" or "abnormal," "standard" or "nonstandard," "healthy" or "diseased," "stronger" or "weaker," or more or less extreme. A dominant allele may account for any of these trait types.

Dominance does not determine whether an allele is deleterious, neutral or advantageous. However, selection works through differential reproduction of phenotypes, and dominance affects the exposure of alleles in phenotypes, and hence the rate of change in allele frequencies under selection. Deleterious recessive alleles may persist in a population at low frequencies, with most copies carried in heterozygotes, at no cost to those individuals. These rare recessives are the basis for many hereditary genetic disorders.

[The Rich Port]

Taco Bell, I repeat, shall NOT apologise simply for having delicious gordita recipes.

If thou cut a Taco Bell executive, do they not bleed sour cream, like you and me?

No, I'm talking about Mexican food, not Taco Bell.

As a Hispanic person, I like Taco Bell.

But I guess it's Mexico's prerogative to say what's Mexican food and what isn't.

[Omega America II]

We'll, i don't see how being proud of your race if bad.
But I do see how thinking your race is supreme is bad. Besides that, it's not that bad, white supremacy is bad.

[Laerod]

We'll, i don't see how being proud of your race if bad.
But I do see how thinking your race is supreme is bad. Besides that, it's not that bad, white supremacy is bad.

White Pride is a white supremacy movement.