You’re really stretching what I say. You’re often arguing against your assumptions of what I mean, rather then what I actually say.
torajima: I'm saying society does not condone the sort of "punishment" alluded to in your post. Your post seems to justify the use of violence against women (physical or not) and although you may believe that it is the correct thing to do based on your "moral" standards I believe that "civilized society" is on my side.
Case in point here. I have not said anything about what type of punishment it would be. You could punish someone by withholding something of value from them. You could withhold love from someone. Is this non-physical violence? And if punishment is violence (both physical or non) then aren't you leaving me with no recourse whatsoever to correct the behavior of others?
torajima: And really, quibbling about threat vs. punish is silly
The meaning of words is one of the central problems that give rise to disagreement where there may be none. It is very important.
torajima: So you really want to argue that inbreeding's a good thing? Come on man. Pick your fights...this one's a loser for you. Let's look at a quicker breeding, more closed genetic set. Golden Retrievers used to be known as an intelligent breed of dog. Now, with the popularity of the breed and inbreeding, a lot of people consider them downright dumb and susceptible to more physical maladies than generations ago.
Mostly I’m arguing that it is not as problematic as you make it out to be. Even according to you, there are people who would not consider Golden Retrievers downright dumb and susceptible to more physical maladies then generations ago. A quick google on Golden Retrievers and inbreeding resulted in this claim: “Golden Retrievers are no more prone in general to health problems than any other breed.”
torajima: And your "sci-fi" argument that medicine can cure the negative side effects of interbreeding...Well, wouldn't medicine be able to make everyone White? Black? Would that be ok with you? =)
This comparison doesn’t work. One is repairing medical problems. The other is changing races.
torajima: Does skin color determine the quality of the individual? How smart you are? Whether you're good "breeding stock"?
Making claims about individuals based on skin color is a probability assessment, not an unconditional judgment. But skin color does indeed have correlation to intelligence. The biggest problem you have is that you mistake skin color for what’s called race. Race is not skin color. There are Asians who are naturally more pale then Caucasians.
torajima: I know I'm going on a bit of a tangent right now but just wanted to address the "need to protect our culture" argument that invariably comes up.
Culture is just a by-product of the genetic footprint of a people and it can morph. Most of the time this "need to protect our culture" argument is made by individuals who don’t want to appear like they are trying to protect the genetics of a people. Culture is good but it’s nothing without the genetics that create it.
torajima: Although that phrase, recently, is used in connection with the last US Presidency more than anywhere else, it also sounds like a line used by people who want to protect the white race.
Is there something wrong with protecting the white race? And if there is, would you say the same thing about protection for other races?
torajima: It's a grandiose rally cry for a small group of people who would probably be more successful as secessionists or survivalists but would still like to puff themselves up. Thinking about the use of that language...and looking at modern society...it seems like a rather hollow threat.
This is probably your only decent point.
|
