CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Inter-racial Marriage and Racism
Are inter-racial marriages the manifestations of the ultimate form of racism?
For example:
A male of race A marries a female of race B.Can we infer that both the male and female want their progeny to be neither, only race A, or only race B, but to be race AB? Or when children are not involved, can we infer that the male of race A is not attracted to the females of race A, and the female of race B is not attracted to the males of race B?
Or, are inter-racial marriages the manifestations of the ultimate form of anti-racism?
For the sake of this debate the term ‘race’ denotes three primary divisions: Caucasian, Mongoloid,Negroid.
I think that the races are a good thing. I want the members of the yellow race to be proud of being yellow, and act in a manner that demonstrates pride of their race. And likewise, that all men and women of all races would embrace their racial instincts and act in a manner that is befitting of a people who love their race.
Seriously, how can it be said that a yellow man loves his race when he married a white woman, and his children are white as can be?
But, according to society, I am the racist because I dislike inter-racial marriages. Yet, who is it who wants to see the yellow race remain yellow and distinct? -the racist!
Hell, I am a racist because I want my progeny to marry within our race.
My entire family is inter-racial(for a start,my mum is Hungarian,my dad im not sure,then my uncle married a greek lady(who have 2 children)my cousin has 2 children to a lebanese man,my sister is married to a scottish man, i am with an aboriginal man (my children from previous marriage,scottish/irish/english)gosh i dont think i even covered the rest of the family.But i will stop there as it is confusing enough for myself ...BUT..i completely agree with you 100%. I have often thought that if everyone was content from the very beginning,with who they are,and were also content to let others be who they are,then perhaps we would all be content to live and let live. I hope i made sense. One thing for certain, you are not being racist at all.But you are a clever being and perhaps you are applying this word "racist" in a different sense meaning not that you are a racist, but prefer your own race,and believe that your own race, is human,and that it is something like dogs/dogs , cats/cats , fish/fish , birds/birds , yellow man/yellow woman , white man/white woman , sort of thing , instead of cats/dogs , birds/fish , yellow man/white woman sort of thing. Again i hope i made sense.
Sorry for the delay of this response to your question.
Without sounding too flattery, you are the first participant of this debate who has been able to properly apply my argument. Bravo!
If you will consider the opposing arguments, which I presume you have, you will see that they who claim to be non-racist (explicitly or implicitly) are de facto racist. Why?
They all disregard race. Yet we are all racial! Race, to them is a non-issue, unless of course someone like myself wants the preservation of race. In essence they would never object to a world of one race, but if there is a time when there is only one race, then is the day race has died! If there is only one race then the term race is irrational. For the term, race, denotes ethnic plurality, not ethnic singularity.
Who is the racist?
I, whom desire the preservation of race, or
they, who desire no race?
Now, the subject of your particular racial diversity is a non-issue. We can’t undo what we are, or what our progenitors are. We can however begin re-examining the question of inter-racial marriage. Except this time instead of laboring to justify inter-racial marriages, this time we answer the question: Is our justification for inter-racial marriage opposed to the very nature of what is race?
FTR, the Native American Indians of the United States are an endangered race. Yet, there is an ever-increasing number of Caucasians with an ever-decreasing measure of Indian blood pulsing through their lineage. But guess what, the blood of all races looks the same.
Have you seen the flick: The Last of the Mohicans? That is how the Indian population is dying out, one tribe at a time until there are now only a few Indians remaining of the remaining tribes.
Final word on this matter (maybe), does not genocide seek to utterly destroy a race, a culture, a family etc.? The new form of anti-racism is the newest form of genocide. It is far less bloody, but it is more certainly agreeable to they whom are the targets of this genocide.
Think about this condensed story.
A black farmer, father of three daughters, moved his family to a community of white families. When the daughters married they married men of their community. These daughters also become parents having many children who too married the people of their community. And as the first generation of daughters married men so too did ten generations of this family marry. Consequently, there are now no more blacks in the community. Though there are many with black blood, there are none with black skin.
The perfection of soft genocide, for they all agreed to inter-racial marriage!
This "soft genocide", as you call it, has been happening since the beginning. People groups have come and gone for millennia. Is it sad to see a people group die out? Yeah, it is. And I am all in favor of trying to preserve a nations ethnic history. But the truth is, preserving every culture and ethnic group in the world is impossible. Like I said, people groups have come and gone all throughout history. Its a sad, but its the natural course of the world. Now, to call it genocide is a complete misuse of that word. And is another ridiculous thing to say. Genocide is always a deliberate action. I highly doubt that interracial couples are marrying for the sole purpose of trying to wipe out a racial or cultural group. That is a completely absurd argument. Its not genocide its just the way the world works as it has been since the dawn of man.
"They all disregard race. Yet we are all racial!" It is impossible to disregard race. And I have stated more than once in my arguments that race is something everyone is aware of. You can't not be. I'll reiterate what I said in a previous statement. This debate is about marriage between two people. Not between two nations. If two individual people of two different colors marry and produce offspring that doesn't make them genocidal racists which is what your argument suggests. Try getting away from the genetics and look at it from a social point of view. Hypothetically: What if someone doesn't have any Asian friends? Does that mean that they are racist toward Asians or could it, perhaps, mean that they just don't know any? There is more to sexual selection within a culture than a genetic disposition. Every now and then its purely social.
Because you have been a good sport in our discourse, mostly, I will take the time to respond to the key point.
This "soft genocide", as you call it, has been happening since the beginning.
People groups have come and gone for millennia. Is it sad to see a people group die out? Yeah, it is. And I am all in favor of trying to preserve a nations ethnic history. But the truth is, preserving every culture and ethnic group in the world is impossible.
Firstly, my argument describes in story form how inter-racial marriage is a form of genocide (soft). You therefore must realize by your aforementioned statement that you have conceded to my assertion. How?
Simple, the soft genocide I described has been happening since the beginning.
You affirmed, which I describe as ‘soft genocide’, has been happening since the beginning. Therefore you concede that inter-racial marriage is soft-genocide according to my description.
Secondly, nothing I have asserted within this debate remotely suggests I aim to preserve a nations ethnic history. The introduction of such a notion is nothing more than your attempt to incorporate fallacious propositions that serve the invalid purpose of refuting nothing I have asserted. I am not arguing for the preservation of a nation’s ethnic history. I am however arguing against inter-racial marriage as a means of preserving the future existence of race. I am not attempting to preserve the history of a nation’s ethnicity. (I suppose you ought to discern this distinction without my demonstration.)
Lastly, the remainder of your argument only provides for me additional opportunity to attack what I judge to be less than reasonable thinking. I don’t think you’re a moron, but your argument indicates to me that you presumed incorrectly concerning my intellect. But, if you think I can’t reduce your argument to absurdity then give me the go sign.
(I really am not interested in pointing out manifold errors in a person’s single argument. Two or three refutations are more often than not adequate negations of hastily worded arguments.)
Are you racist ? Straight up are you ? I admit that even i have this err to an extent and believe that we all do. I want to believe that you are above , what the narrow veiws of what racism is. Tell me , would you agree that we are like the color of carrots ? http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ We_are_all_carot_color
(But not for the same reasons as one might presuppose.)
How can I be considered racist based on these two premises: I think inter-racial marriage is racism, second, that intra-racial marriage is necessary for the preservation of race?
But, if someone wants to think I am a racist (by their definition) I will not waste my efforts demonstrating their want.
• Did I advocate the annulment of inter-racial marriages? No.
• Have I suggested that I dislike people of other races because of their race? No, in fact, I have established I want to preserve all races.
• Has it been suggested that people of separate races be forbidden to marry? Nope.
• Have I suggested that inter-racial marriage is a crime? No.
• Did I affirm that inter-racial is wrong? No.
Yes, I think inter-racial marriage is racism. And more importantly, I think intra-racial marriage is racism. But guess what? Why do we have a problem calling ourselves racists when it’s a question of marriage and consequently children? Could it be that racism is necessary as a natural fundamental of the propagation of life, species, and race? My answer is a resounding yes. Yet, it appears that I am the only one (perhaps you as well) who’s been able to discern the necessity of this form of racism; but my opponents are not racist?
Perhaps if people were willing to honestly and intelligently study my arguments they would realize that there is a form of racism that is good for all races.
The point is this: We are all racist and we all exhibit racist inclinations, but let’s be honest enough to know that certain forms or racism are not harmful or hateful; they are natural and indispensible.
(Your initial assessment of me was accurate. What caused you to second guess your judgment?)
---Your reply makes me smile. --- "What caused you to second guess your judgment?" ----It is the questioning of you , by others , that led me to this post. In my heart i still knew what you were saying. ---"Yet, it appears that I am the only one (perhaps you as well) who’s been able to discern the necessity of this form of racism" -----Maybe now , this convo , will clear things up for better understanding.---- "but my opponents are not racist? "---OH YES THEY ARE , WE ALL ARE.
There are too many people who hastily think they can refute my arguments before they actually realize that which I am asserting and that which I am not asserting. Consequently, they are challenging assertions that they have assumed concerning me, instead of applying sound inferences of what I do assert.
Example: I dislike inter-racial marriages, therefore they think I hate people of inter-racial marriages.
Why do they not infer: "Well, Lawnman is not telling me what I can or cannot do, nor is he telling me that he will hate me if I marry inter-racially; but, it does appear that he will not choose to marry a person of another race, and it also appears we wants his children to marry intra-racially."?
Why don't I have a right to purposely and preferentially like intra-racial marriage? I'm not impinging upon any other person's choice.
Phew ! ........................................ i am glad to hear that. I believe in what you are saying whole heartedly. I knew that you werent horrible. It is most important we try to save our races...for the sake of the human race....but one thing that will always play a part in favor of inter-racial relations is that ......Love conqers all.
The new form of anti-racism is the newest form of genocide.
If no one is murdered then we are not talking about genocide AT ALL. Racial purists share a common delusion with Hitler who also found it disturbing to see his narrowly defined idea of race "defiled and polluted" through intermarriage. In Nazi Germany it was largely this desire to keep the race "pure" that spurred real genocidal behavior.
According to the logic you present Hitler was "protecting" The Germanic peoples right to marry within their own race which was threatened by intermarriage with Jews.
Under the auspices of caring about diversity and plurality you wish to slow the emergence of newer races by promoting racial pride. How about me? Should I have pride in my "race" and seek to preserve it by finding a Swedish/Irish/Polish/German/French counterpart? Get real.
Do I wish I was more ""racially pure" NOT AT ALL
Mature past the idea that races of people are somehow murdered through interracial marriage. Stop being so Hitleresque.
The point that we are all racist to some degree is about as profound a realization as this debate might provoke. Your notion that people who marry and reproduce interracially, are actually racist to do so, is at least on it's face silly. I am patient though, I am still making effort to understand how I misunderstood your racism.
Your argument is emotionally charged. My record at CD clearly demonstrates my inability to restrain myself in the face of such superficial arguments.
Are you attempting to piss me off, or are you simply attempting to equate Hitler’s dogma to my comprehension of race?
Second thought, you are attempting to piss me off. Therefore, I will indicate by your own argument you have failed to comprehend my arguments and consequently feel justified in falsely accusing me of shit that is fallacious in reason. Example:
Swedish/Irish/Polish/German/French counterpart? Get real.
Sorry, Nationality and Race are separate divisions. Be logical!
Are you aware that all of the above nationalities you cited can be caucasian?
Don’t be humble and haughty in the same argument!
(Would you care to consider my position without the emotions?)
I think I am well within the "emotionally charged" spirit of this debate.
in the face of such superficial arguments
I argue the best I know how. I try not to be superficial. You think my argument is superficial. Whatever, we could accuse back and forth on that.
Are you attempting to piss me off
I am just being honest with my opinion. I am flattered if that pisses you off.
are you simply attempting to equate Hitler’s dogma to my comprehension of race?
Yes sir I am. Both of you appear to highly value "racial purity" and base your definition of race on frivolous distinctions like skin color.
you have failed to comprehend my arguments
Perhaps I comprehend something about your arguments that you don't? Either way I am willing to put my articulations up against yours, any day for comparison. You don't make my arguments look bad at all.
Sorry, Nationality and Race are separate divisions. Be logical!
Oh we have all sorts of ways to classify people. Let's not be superficial. Let's consider the root meaning of race. Really it is just another way of saying classification. I argue along with MLK that there are more enlightened ways to classify people then by skin color, nationality etc.. What say you about this particular point? Address my points, and I shall continue to address yours without threatening to ignore you if I deem something you typed to be poorly thought out, illogical, superficial, emotionally charged, whatever.. I won't cop out like that.
Please do me the honor of embarrassing me. I associate my greatest periods of improvement with being embarrassed.
Are you aware that all of the above nationalities you cited can be caucasian?
Sure I am. So then according to you. How many races of human are there?
Don’t be humble and haughty in the same argument!
Ok. No more... from this day forward it is one or the other. lol
Would you care to consider my position without the emotions?
I would like to find out if it is true that I haven't considered your posts carefully enough. I am not going to worry about how emotional that makes you. We are typing here...I will try to offer the same respect I am given. Who is to learn from who here? Only I from you? not acceptable.
Your last statement there at the end doesn't quite make sense. It should be "dogs/dogs, cats/cats, fish/fish," and then man/man. Breaking people up into colors doesn't fit the argument. Dogs, cats and fish all come in different colors (races) too. Dogs have no problem breeding with other dogs. That is why we have so many breeds today. (I'll spare you the dogs are colorblind joke I am thinking of) And the same goes for cats. Fish I don't believe do that but then again they are not mammals.
You also said "...perhaps you are applying this word "racist" in a different sense meaning not that you are a racist, but prefer your own race...". To prefer ones own race, by definition, makes that someone a racist according to the UN's definition of racial discrimination.
Hi , you may be somewhat confused by my last rebut..... What i meant to say is that Lawnman was maybe looking at this from a different veiw to what he was allowing it to sound. Despite how he may sound to you or anyone else , In my heart , i dont believe such an awesome person as Lawnman is racist. Maybe the wool is over my eyes on this one , but i like to think not. I personally am not racist however if you take a look at how i rebut "kinda" in his debate against "whitey" you will possibly think otherwise, but may i say, this is what i meant by ," I rebut racists with racism ". BTW I believe that we are all racist to a degree. Just merely condemning Lawnman from prefering his own genetic make-up is racist. Confusing ? I agree. btw if Lawnman and i have no problem stating the color of our skin , then why should you ? There was no personal attack on anyone. Man/Man (careful , you might upset the homophobes), sometimes, is not genetically matched. Just as in some cases dog/dog is not genetically matched , ive had crossbreeds , they usually have some defect or another. Anyhow , i also would like to say thanks , your rebut at least was civil....all in all i think what Lawnman is trying to get at , is that we should all start taking pride in our distinct races , as the true races , of the HUMAN RACE , are in fact starting to become extinct , via inter-racial breeding..Do you want the world to be one color ? I dont. Thats just racist..Again i hope i made sense and please , i am no more racist than you...i am skin color..&..i am human.
On more than a few points i think we agree. I don't know Lawnman, so I can't say I know what sort of person he is on a personal level. But from what I have read it does come across as racism. I believe you are right, to some extent, about everyone being a little racist. Some people might be attracted to some races and not be to others. But attraction and preference are two different things. Perhaps we are all a bit racist in a more broad definition than what I listed, in the sense that to completely ignore our racial differences would be near impossible. And, I agree. We should strive to maintain that cultural and ethnic heritage as a whole. But our difference of opinion might be in the details of our perspective on this topic. As a whole/nation I would say, yes. Let's try to hold onto those differences that give us a unique standing in the world. Its those differences that make this world so beautiful. However, this debate is about marriage which is not between two nations but between two individuals and the perspective I have taken is on a personal level. On an individual level no one should guilt or try to force anyone into marrying into their own race. By doing so that person, by definition, would be considered racist. Now, I know, nations are made of individuals and to maintain the integrity of a nations ethnics history it has to be approached on an individual level. But here is where that "inherent racism" that we all have, to some degree, comes into to play. The world is still grouped into races. There are only a handful of nations that are a true melting pot. This is due to a cultures sexual selection. On a genetic level, I would say, that for the most part, we are all most attracted to people of similar skin color. So, the issue of becoming one color is, perhaps, not as much of a threat as you are making it sound. And, perhaps way down the road that might happen, and I mean way down the road. But, that would be a natural course of the planet. We would just be returning to, perhaps, what we once were in the beginning. And then even further down that road might break back up into separate races again. I have no idea. You'll have to consult your local anthropologist on that one. My point is: we all came from the same color in the beginning anyway. And this is true for whether you believe big bang or creation. Skin color is really not much different than passing eye color from one person to another. It just has cultural influence attached to it.
"My point is: we all came from the same color in the beginning anyway." - Im just curious ; What color , in your opinion , would that be ? "We would just be returning to, perhaps, what we once were in the beginning." -- perhaps-- And perhaps it is not that we are revolving in a "evolutional cycle" but rather that we are generating a "new evolution" , perhaps. OR perhaps we are all carrots. http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ We_are_all_carot_color
Supporting Evidence:
we are carrots
(www.createdebate.com)
Fair enough for your replies.........................................................................but myself i am not racist.................although i do rebut racists with racism.
no - you didn't make sense - by his logic you should try to find a Hungarian, greek, lebanese, scottish/irish/english + not sure person to love to show pride in what you are
yellow man/white woman is not the same as bird fish - this is supid and, of course, racist
I wont dispute you , i will chose to support you on this................we are all part of one race...the human race. Also no.... bird fish arent the same as humans. Obviously i take enough pride in my multicultural family otherwise , as if i would mention them on such a racist enviroment as this. Obviously to a degree i am not racist as , the lebanese / greek / aboriginal / scottish / irish are recent and not so recent blood to my large family. HMMM i wounder , will you admit , you yourself , are racist to a degree or are you just another liar.And BTW , fuck what you , or anyone thinks , i will love who i want regardless of race. Hows that for a racist ?, you carrot.
Hypothetically, what if I, a white guy, married a Japanese girl. For me personally, my marrying her would have nothing to do with love toward my own race or hers but would have to do with love toward her as a person. It wouldn't be like I am trying to breed the "white" out of my family or the "yellow" out of hers. You can "love" your race (heritage) and still marry someone from another. And we shouldn't care about what color our children turn out to be. Those children wouldn't be a product of our race but of our marriage.
And, based on your thinking, if I wanted to adopt a baby from Kenya that would make me a racist too, right? I would have to adopt a white baby to not be. Otherwise, I would be proving that I love the black race more than my own if I didn't, right?
Hypothetically, what if I, a white guy, married a Japanese girl. For me personally, my marrying her would have nothing to do with love toward my own race or hers but would have to do with love toward her as a person.
Why the discrimination in your “love”. You cannot separate race from the individual. If you love the woman, you can’t ignore loving the attributes of the woman. It is akin to asserting that I love dogs, and every dog I have loved is a basset hound. But, I don’t love or love basset hounds; I love dogs.
It wouldn't be like I am trying to breed the "white" out of my family or the "yellow" out of hers. You can "love" your race (heritage) and still marry someone from another. And we shouldn't care about what color our children turn out to be. Those children wouldn't be a product of our race but of our marriage.
Yep, you can assert that BS just as well as you can assert the BS that you weren’t trying to get your Japanese wife pregnant when your intention was only to get your rocks off.
Do you think your intention negates the factuality of inter-racial progeny?
Also, children are not the consequences of marriage. Children are the consequences of sexual reproduction. Both your race and her race determine the racial identity of your progeny regardless of your intentions.
And, based on your thinking, if I wanted to adopt a baby from Kenya that would make me a racist too, right? I would have to adopt a white baby to not be. Otherwise, I would be proving that I love the black race more than my own if I didn't, right?
I think you have made it abundantly clear that you are ignorant of my basis of thinking, or else you wouldn’t continue to invalidly infer from my words.
The adoption of Kenyan children is a subject of another debate.
"Yep, you can assert that BS just as well as you can assert the BS that you weren’t trying to get your Japanese wife pregnant when your intention was only to get your rocks off." I have no idea where you pulled this from. But, I generally stop debating someone when it becomes apparent that they are immature. It just seems unfair to them.
When considering marriage, people (all races) ought to be more concerned with the content of their partner's character, than their outward appearance. I am a mixed breed and proud of it. I buy lock stock and barrel into the "we are the human race" logic. I love mix breed babies, the different races IMHO blend quite well. Inter-racial Marriage is totally anti-racism.
Seriously, how can it be said that a yellow man loves his race when he married a white woman, and his children are white as can be?
Hopefully those doing the talking don't have such a narrow sense of race as you do.
I knew it had to be something like this......that we disagree on......wow
My most recent reply to Dacey will completely nullify your opinion, or at least it should.
The purpose of my debate was to establish the fact that all people are racist, yet there are certain instances of racism that are beyond reproach, and in essence necessary for the existence of race.
It appears that I had to condemn myself by my own words in order to expose a people’s reluctance to not be ashamed of their own racist instincts.
(I had to bad in order to bare witness of the good.)
My latest response to Dacey will further elucidate the objective of this debate.
BTW, I do however disagree with the notion that mankind is one race.
Why can’t we stick to the facts and applaud the truth that all races of people are equally human?
As I had previously misunderstood your atheism, you too have now misunderstood my racism.
If you are talking discriminating based on perceived class I would agree. If you are talking about discrimination based predominately on skin color (which seems to be to your focus) I would disagree.
Personally I could care less what color someones skin is. I discriminate at a deeper level than the skin color and I think that makes me less racist than those who don't.
excerpt #1 I do however disagree with the notion that mankind is one race.
excerpt #2 Why can’t we stick to the facts and applaud the truth that all races of people are equally human?
Am I alone in noticing incongruence between what exerpt #1 and exerpt #2 attempt to convey?
You "disagree with the notion that mankind is one race", then wonder why we can't "stick to the facts and applaud the truth that all races of people are equally human." I don't know how to make the incongruency any more obvious.
Have you ever heard the phrase "the human race"?
Do you admire the statement below? If so why? If not why not?:
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” ~MLK
My most recent reply to Dacey will completely nullify your opinion, or at least it should.
Where is this post? If you are trying to get at something deeper I am indeed missing it. I need you to patiently explain your point. I am a fan of brevity, use less words and I am more likely to get your point.
You "disagree with the notion that mankind is one race", then wonder why we can't "stick to the facts and applaud the truth that all races of people are equally human." I don't know how to make the incongruency any more obvious.
It would be irrational for me to disagree with the proposition “Mankind is one race” and subsequently submit a proposition that is in agreement with the same. Now therefore, my proposition is incongruent for it is not in agreement with your proposition. Consider the following explanation.
Your proposition: Mankind is one race.
My proposition: All races of people are equally human.
If we define Mankind as: all human races, then the proposition “Mankind is one race” is inconsistent by definition of the term mankind.
(Hint: The term ‘mankind’ connotes all races of human. ‘Mankind’ by definition should never connote that all humans are one race.)
Have you ever heard the phrase "the human race"?
Obviously! But, as I have previously explained, the phrase ‘the human race’ is not consistent with the definition of mankind.
Consider the following examples of similar abuses of our language:
Have you ever heard the phrases: “the equine race”
• The dog race
• The bovine race
• The bird race
• The fish race
• The whale race
• The spider race
Have you ever heard of a man-eating lion, or a lion-eating man?
(I am not attempting to belittle your argument, nor you, but I am attempting to shine a light upon the perversions of reason and language. Consequently, I hope you realize I debate the question, not the person.)
Do you admire the statement below? If so why? If not why not?:
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” ~MLK
There is nothing to admire! It is an irrational appeal to emotion, not reason.
(If you care to draw me out on this one I will oblige.)
Where is this post? If you are trying to get at something deeper I am indeed missing it. I need you to patiently explain your point. I am a fan of brevity, use less words and I am more likely to get your point.
There is nothing wrong with an Yellow, Black, or White humans choosing to marry a member of their race. (Would you care to oppose their choice? I wont, in fact I will protect their choice to do so.)
I hope you realize I debate the question, not the person.
Sure I get and support that. But here we are comparing our opinions so it gets difficult. I am polite and considerate. My record here and elsewhere reflects that. I am not going to try and tip toe around. I will say what's on my mind.
the phrase ‘the human race’ is not consistent with the definition of mankind.
Yes it is. In the word "mankind" there is a component word "kind" which is indistinguishable from race in meaning. It does not take deep consideration to realize this. But sometimes the completely obvious is strangely hidden from our view.
Do you admire the statement below? If so why? If not why not?
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” ~MLK
There is nothing to admire! It is an irrational appeal to emotion, not reason.
(If you care to draw me out on this one I will oblige.)
Oh I do. please. Might I first challenge you to present an admirable statement of your own, that you do consider rational and based on sound reasoning?
There is nothing wrong with an Yellow, Black, or White humans choosing to marry a member of their race. (Would you care to oppose their choice? I wont, in fact I will protect their choice to do so.)
I wouldn't oppose their choice, I don't think there is anybody out there saying that people should be required to marry someone with a different skin color. There are however people who say that interracial marriage and procreation is objectionable. (you for instance) That is irrational and it appeals to primitive emotions as opposed to reason.
Don't get all upset, just make me look like an idiot (you seem to think yourself capable)
Yes it is. In the word "mankind" there is a component word "kind" which is indistinguishable from race in meaning. It does not take deep consideration to realize this. But sometimes the completely obvious is strangely hidden from our view.
It is ‘kind’ of you to admit that some things are hidden from our view. I hope your ‘kind’ enough to recognize a circular definition leads nowhere? But, if you are correct that all men are one race, humankind, then I suppose no man is a racist. Consequently no man can commit a crime against another man because of race for he must necessarily commit a crime against himself for he is the same race.
Oh I do. please. Might I first challenge you to present an admirable statement of your own, that you do consider rational and based on sound reasoning?
I looked at photos of MLK and his little children and judged by reason of their skin color that they are of African descent.
(Did you notice that I judged them by skin color instead of character? Need I drive the point further?)
I wouldn't oppose their choice, I don't think there is anybody out there saying that people should be required to marry someone with a different skin color. There are however people who say that interracial marriage and procreation is objectionable. (you for instance) That is irrational and it appeals to primitive emotions as opposed to reason.
Is it really that troubling to you to learn that one man can disagree with the choices of others, and yet the same man, me, has no malice towards those who do that which he won’t? The entire dialogue betwixt us has been nothing but your attempt to demonstrate false assumptions that are the products of self-righteousness.
Don't get all upset, just make me look like an idiot (you seem to think yourself capable)
Only disappointed, I was under the impression you would debate the argument without the ad hominem arguments. Clearly I have erred in my opinion of your approach to debate.
Unless you have something to assert that alters my opinion of your prejudice I have nothing more to add.
At this point I am comfortable with how I handled myself in this debate. I try to address the root meaning of these words while you seem to want to just play with their meaning to try being tricky or clever. Example: You totally ignored the point I made about how "kind" and "race" were essentially synonymous.
I hope your ‘kind’ enough to recognize a circular definition leads nowhere?
True, but I never used one. Offer two definitions, one for "race" and one for "kind" (you know the usage definition I am typing about) We can then compare the meanings to find that there isn't a substantive difference.
Also since you are ignoring other elements of my arguments where I am directly questioning you. I am losing motivation to respect you when I see that you are un-willing to offer it in kind.
You claim that I have prejudice against you. But that is way off base. The suspicions I have about you were caused AFTER I read your posts under this debate. Making your tiny point about how everyone makes judgements based on skin color ignores the problem that so many of these judgments tend to be entirely without merit. Judging someone to be of African descent after seeing their skin color is WAY different then say... not wanting to move into a neighborhood because there are too many people of a certain race living there, or being disappointed when you find out your daughter is dating someone of a different skin color.
Would you please cut and paste my ad hominem arguments and I will rephrase them how I would have preferred if I had noticed I was doing it at the time? I do intend to leave that tactic out of my dialogs. It drives me crazy when others do it so I would like to see more clearly where and how I am guilty of what I strongly despise.
Go back and accept the challenges I have offered, or we can let the texts reveal what they may. :)
If you are unwilling to pursue this because of disappointment, please know that I am disappointed as well.
yes. you are the definition of a racist. there is no race but the human race. racial definitions are just let over from our mentality of dividing humans into us vs them groups for competition of resources
Why the fuck is it considered racist if idon't believe in interracial marriage FUCK THAT SHIT!!!!!!!! I am no racist but i do believe we should marry within our race because if we were born white we were meant to have white children and the same if we were born black that is not racist if i was racist i would have a nigger hangin from a 13 knot noose as my profile picture! And o ya there is a difference between a nigger and a black man/woman. You don't have to be black to be a nigger.
Why the fuck is it considered racist if idon't believe in interracial marriage FUCK THAT SHIT!!!!!!!!
If you choose to marry within your own race, that is your choice. IF you believe it is wrong for OTHERS to marry, then it is racism.
I am no racist but i do believe we should marry within our race because if we were born white we were meant to have white children and the same if we were born black that is not racist if i was racist i would have a nigger hangin from a 13 knot noose as my profile picture! And o ya there is a difference between a nigger and a black man/woman. You don't have to be black to be a nigger.
Need I say more?? This statement in itself is racist. "We were meant to have white children" WTF does that even mean if its not racist?
With all due respect it is a form a racism anytime when a subject is viewed as a problem or disagreement due to simple analysis of a skin complexion. Making children or offspring is not decided or meant to be because we were are. Its meant to be if a child is actually born and because a child is born of a mixed background it is meant to be and doesn't change nature due to the offsprings parents. We can free ourselves from ignorance and learn and exactly what we are and where we came from. That will definitely re-evalute anti-racism and how so called interracial affairs really are.
I'm not for interracial marriages. I don't really argue against it that much but I hate it when an Indian is going out with a different race.
I'm not here to argue my point because I can't think of any justification that won't sound racist. However there's nothing I can do about it. This is one of those things that will never change.
My statement - WTF is wrong with somebody of your own race?
What is wrong with some one of your own race?Depends on who you are or who you ask. But to put it simply and not cause so much controversy, race or ethnicity has not a thing to do with love,dating,relationships,marriages or sexual activity. There is no law or natural science giving explanation that these things are only possible with select so called same races. Furthermore honestly there's nothing wrong with your own so called race. So called same race is mentioned because if you want to learn the science it all begins with one creature one race .
It makes me fucking sick seeing all these tree hugging hippies tell me i need to love the color of shit. no thank you. Little niglets with guns a bunch of mexicans trying to shank their way to freedom i say we send all of you COLOREDS back to where you came from you really wonder why it took so long to even get a black president its because everyones teaching their next generation to not be bothered by the color of others skin but in reality theyre teaching their white children to bow down to these people when they already get the easy way out. theres government money for you if your black theres free medical if your an illegal so why let the slide through the cracks and let the white mans tax dollars go to a bunch of freeloaders that dont want to make this country better they want to run this country and we are letting them do it. Open your eyes its a race world and it aint gunna change anytime soon because when i walk up to a nigger on the street i better expect him to attempt to kill me but a black guy walks up to a white man and calls him a peckerwood its socially unacceptable to do anything. for fucks sake do what you guys are going to do but my family line is proud of who we are and where we come from and who we hate and who we love just like evryone else but ill be damned if im going to take to heart the "i have a dream" speech given by a manipulative spook 50 years ago and now theres no special colored speakers why? because the white race has rolled over and im disqusted.
If a person is genuinely attracted to another person because of her exclusive attributes like beauty, personality etc and that person simply happens to be of another race then its fine. But the current trend of inter-racial relationships shows otherwise. So many black men say , I only date white women or I dont like my own race because they are loud, or so many white men say I'm more attracted to asian women because they are more feminine , when ppl make these stereotypes of their own race or even if they dont and they simply say that I "only" love this race of men/women because "its my preference"-this sentence has a lot of underlying racism in it,they are not only accusing their own race completely of not having the features they are looking for in a partner, but they are also offending their partner by silently and involuntarily declaring that "I love you because of ur race" and that as an individual ur nothing too special. Their partners will inevitably feel that just because of a external facet which is not exclusive to her but widely present in her peers , he likes me. I think this is offensive to both parties. Some ppl wont even say it, they may even lie and say that they genuinely love the person inside and not her race. To truly find out check the person's dating history, if he has consistantly dated women of his race and then he just dated a woman of another race then it may be true love. But otherwise, he may claim to be in true love but inside he is a racist.
Insecurity with one's race or feelings of inferiority about one's race results in race jumping or inter racist breeding.
It is another form of racism, however, it never gets mentioned as such.
It is not in the best interest of advancing the human race. As long as it has been happening there have been no notable independent thinkers with great minds from inter racist breeding, for example, like Einstein, the Wright Brothers, da vinci, Bill Gates, Galileo, Fermi, and the list goes on and on. However nowhere are there any mixed african/Caucasians with great minds. And truthfully, there never will be.
Loving your own race to the point where you don't consider another race suitable for marriage is racism. Loving your race to the point where you are obsessed with carrying on a "pure" race is racism.
There is nothing wrong with taking pride in your ethnicity or ancestry. If you are proud of who you are and where you came from, more power to you. But if you are against other people of your race marrying someone of another race you are a racist. Here is what the UN has to say about racial discrimination: the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. By international definition, if racial preference is part of your criteria for who you marry then you are discriminating against race and therefore are a racist. You don't have to be the angry white man in a white hood to be a racist just simply prefer your own race to another. Ironic how racism comes in many colors too.
Race should have nothing to do with whether two people end up married or not. If you love someone enough to marry them then race shouldn't really be a factor. So I am voting anti-racism because its definitely not racist to marry someone of another race. But likewise you shouldn't have to marry someone of another race to show you aren't racist. I'll stop there before I start talking in circles.
"If love is a justification, then by love we can justify incest, pedophilia, rape, etc. (nambla)." What a completely ridiculous thing to say. And yeah, love between two people should be justification enough to marry outside your race. But, you are boiling my argument down to make me seem like some hopeless romantic and nothing more. Reread it and try again.
If my argument is invalid as a refutation of your argument then expose the fallacy of my argument. I need not re-read anything more until you support your assertion that my argument is ridiculous.
Bravo!
You took it like a man. Most CD'ers become emotional train wrecks when rebutting my counter-arguments.
Love is not a license to disregard its impact upon others.
Do you disagree?
BTW, your justification (love) for inter-racial marriage is racism. If it isn't racism then there is no necessity to justify inter-racial marriage. Remember, you are seeking an argument to excuse your desire to inter-marry. No man needs a reason to marry a woman of his own race, he however needs a justification for inter-marriage.
Let me begin by saying, how do you know I have a desire to marry outside my race? "...you are seeking an argument to excuse your desire to inter-marry." How do you know I am not married to a white girl? Maybe, I am most attracted to white people. Could be that I don't have a desire to inter-marry. My arguments are in support of those that do and not on a personal level. And yes, your previous argument stated that "love" is the justification I am presenting. Well, I don't disagree but that is not the point I have made if you read my arguments. And to add, I am not justifying anything or anyone. I am simply stating that just because two people or differing races get married that doesn't mean they are racists. It simply means that they have connected on a social level rather than on a racial/cultural level.
"No man needs a reason to marry a woman of his own race, he however needs a justification for inter-marriage." No one needs to justify themselves either way. Why does this have to be a political debate rather than a social debate?
I am a "mixed" person. Half spanish and half scottish. They loved each other for who they were, not their skin tone. I am mostly attracted to black males, i don't know why, but i am. It isn't a form of racism, i love my kind
Obama, progeny of an inter-racial marriage, married a woman of his own image. Consequently his children are now more black than he is. That is an excellent example of taking pride in one's race, as is obviously visible.
it is an excellent example of his mom falling in love with whomever she wanted and still loving her kid with no less pride because of his race, and Barack marrying someone who has a lot in common with him on many grounds, intellectually, etc - never have I heard him say his justification for loving Michelle was - she is my same race and I take pride in that.
