- Status
Sweet Caroline: *sadly shaking head*
And y'all wonder why you have such a hard time with relationships..... Go out and get some fresh air. You'll feel much better.
Carrie
And y'all wonder why you have such a hard time with relationships..... Go out and get some fresh air. You'll feel much better.
Carrie
- jonb,
Not really, ChimeraTX. If that were true, then the best way to encourage genetic diversity would logically be to marry within your own family.
I should explain: If I marry someone with different immune genes, our children will be immune to both sets of diseases, since these immune genes are codominant.
I should explain: If I marry someone with different immune genes, our children will be immune to both sets of diseases, since these immune genes are codominant.
- jonb,
Silly boy. Evolution doesn't have any "reason", any more than lead-206 is the "reason" for uranium-238. There is no "progressive" form of evolution, either; if there were, then I'd be at a loss to explain why many primates' arms are longer than their legs while human arms are shorter than human legs. After all, isn't a gorilla "higher" (e.g., closer to humans) than a T. rex?
It's just an experiment in chaos theory, nothing more. Five mass extinctions are the only reason we exist, but the sixth could spell our end.
It's just an experiment in chaos theory, nothing more. Five mass extinctions are the only reason we exist, but the sixth could spell our end.
I agree with jonb. Biologically, the greatest diversity exists when as many combinations occur as possible of existing genes. That means lots of cross-breeding between populations.
On the other hand, the best conditions for actual evolution occur when you have a very small isolated population struggling with harsh conditions, inbreeding for many generations. That way mutations have the best chance of being doubled up and fully expressed and, if helpful, selected for. Much less evolution will occur in a large population, racially pure or not.
I don't know what it means for traits to be "less evolved"/"primitive" or "progressive". In terms of natural selection, the only thing that matters is what leads to more offspring under prevailing conditions - the history is irrelevant.
On the other hand, the best conditions for actual evolution occur when you have a very small isolated population struggling with harsh conditions, inbreeding for many generations. That way mutations have the best chance of being doubled up and fully expressed and, if helpful, selected for. Much less evolution will occur in a large population, racially pure or not.
I don't know what it means for traits to be "less evolved"/"primitive" or "progressive". In terms of natural selection, the only thing that matters is what leads to more offspring under prevailing conditions - the history is irrelevant.
This does mean that "ideal" humans should have sex with their immediate family. After all, any mutants will be wiped out because of no medical care...right?
Wait, there's a fatal flaw in this assumption. We've human. We're more than the sum of our DNA, we have faith, we have hope, we are the only organisms on the planet that can evidently be described as "evil" (in any definition of the word), rather than being a species genetically programmed to act that way. We have free will and choice.Originally posted by ChimeraTX@Feb 17 2005, 12:35 AM
"Nature" is the action, and evolution is the reaction. Hominidization is the trend humans have taken evolutionally, more so after the journey from Africa so generally extra-African populations are more "progressive" (fetalized, generalized hominid direction) in terms of physiological deferences from primitive Sapiens, Erectus, etc.
I think humans still should evolve (atleast enough for the classical races to speciate.) I think if we evolve in a direction where there is little specialization, specific geographical/situational adaptation (this seems to be the downfall of all species, but is unavoidable to some extent
I can't imagine how much fun extinction would be, but I keep my mind open
Anthropology is a hobby of mine, as you have so blatantly already seen!
Jonb, have you seen that show from the Discovery Channel "The Future is Wild"? It predicts that mammals (us!
[post=283784]Quoted post[/post]
Why the need for sepciation and little differentiation? Lemmie guess, the US is going to segregate itself from the rest of the world and make international breeding illegal (to the extent that no Canadians/Mexicans) either? I think JonB and BBLumbee are the only "true" Americans here..sorry.
What is the "ideal" morph? I mean, in Africa, a significant number of individuals are genetically resistant to AIDS. How many thousands of westerners would kill for genes like that, or with a higher resistance to radiation, or faster reaction times, or (very relevant) resistance to heart attacks through obesity?
I for one, celebrate diversity, because the world would be fucking boring if we couldn't interbreed. Not to mention the number of wars that'd be going on. Heck, the main reason WW3,4,5 hasn't started is because we're finally starting to agree we're all human rather than sacks of flesh poised for eradication off the face of the earth in a global purge.
Amen to that. Oh, and apologies in advance for the multi-post. At least I wrote different things in each one!Originally posted by naughty@Feb 16 2005, 03:55 PM
YOu know it baby!
[post=283602]Quoted post[/post]
doubtless_mouse: "Nature" is the action, and evolution is the reaction. Hominidization is the trend humans have taken evolutionally, more so after the journey from Africa so generally extra-African populations are more "progressive" (fetalized, generalized hominid direction) in terms of physiological deferences from primitive Sapiens, Erectus, etc.
Actually if I am not mistaken, isn't the idea "Out of Africa" still one of the prevailing theories in evolution. Don't we still think that Homosapiens originated in Africa. The issue I thought wasn't if we originated and moved out of Africa but rather when.
Also, I always looked at speciation (sp?) as a bad thing. I have always thought one of the great things about the HUMAN race was the idea that we are very diverse. I think the quote goes something like this, "specialization is for insect."
The idea being that humans can adapt to anything, whereas other animals cannot, thus we have been able to get to the point in the food chain that we are.
Lastly, I think the human species has stopped evolving. Our great big brains have allowed us to surpass any environmental condition that would have effected evolution. Think on this, if we all lived in a really, really cold environment, and my children were born with the trait of having thick hair all over their body (which would be an enviable trait for animals living in cold environments) do you really think this trait would be desirable? While this would be an advantages trait, the other people in the community would not see it this way. Things like this stopped being a factor when when our brains began to be more involved in the choice of our bed partners. The selection of who we pass our genes on with is much more subjective than objective (you can see this at any county fair, lots of dumb people having children, when obviously intelligence is a desirable trait we would want to cultivate).
Ramblings from the Mouse
Actually if I am not mistaken, isn't the idea "Out of Africa" still one of the prevailing theories in evolution. Don't we still think that Homosapiens originated in Africa. The issue I thought wasn't if we originated and moved out of Africa but rather when.
Also, I always looked at speciation (sp?) as a bad thing. I have always thought one of the great things about the HUMAN race was the idea that we are very diverse. I think the quote goes something like this, "specialization is for insect."
The idea being that humans can adapt to anything, whereas other animals cannot, thus we have been able to get to the point in the food chain that we are.
Lastly, I think the human species has stopped evolving. Our great big brains have allowed us to surpass any environmental condition that would have effected evolution. Think on this, if we all lived in a really, really cold environment, and my children were born with the trait of having thick hair all over their body (which would be an enviable trait for animals living in cold environments) do you really think this trait would be desirable? While this would be an advantages trait, the other people in the community would not see it this way. Things like this stopped being a factor when when our brains began to be more involved in the choice of our bed partners. The selection of who we pass our genes on with is much more subjective than objective (you can see this at any county fair, lots of dumb people having children, when obviously intelligence is a desirable trait we would want to cultivate).
Ramblings from the Mouse
madame_zora
Sexy Member
Doubtless, I think you have brought up a serious problem in our current evolutionary trend- dumb people breed faster than smart people. I completely agree with Jonb that evolution is pure chaos, and if our whole race (human) gets wiped out due to our own folly, then it's as it should be. It is painful to watch, but happily evolution moves very slowly so barring an end-of-the-world tragedy, I shouldn't have to watch too much of it.
- jonb,
Not quite. Xhosa such as Nelson Mandela have an epicanthic fold. Europeans as a rule are hairier. Molars are also less juvenile in European populations than in other populations. The list goes on.
I also wonder how much of this paedomorphosis is neoteny and how much is simply caused by going through the different stages more rapidly. I read somewhere that girls in Kenya have their first menstruation at an average age of 18.
Lordpendragon
Experimental Member
It is a generalisation but taking a broad view across human history I think that you will find that whilst insular peoples have been good at surviving, those with an expansive and inclusive urge have produced far more for humanity in all other fields beyond the day to day business of survival.
You conjecture in an attempt to prove your pre-held opinion/theory, whereas I think there is much evidence to be examined that disproves your opinions.
I'll use the Brits as an example. The British Empire (not without reasons for shame I admit) achieved some remarkable advances in most fields of human activity and life. The Brits continue to be amongst the most inventive people today. So you might think that this supports the insular approach to evolution, but you couldn't be more wrong. The peoples of Britain were made up of indiginous post ice age peoples such as the picts, generally the ancient Britains of which there were many isolated tribes, then came the Celts, the Romans and peoples from across their empire including black Africans, the Angles, Jutes, Danes, Vikings, Scandinavians, Normans and a fair few others over the years. All these peoples were previously isolated, but under the nation building of the middle ages emerged what you may think of today as the Brits.
I think that the evidence is very strong that the great achievers of Britain from the sixteenth century onwards were a result of the genetic melting pot.
Over to you.
You conjecture in an attempt to prove your pre-held opinion/theory, whereas I think there is much evidence to be examined that disproves your opinions.
I'll use the Brits as an example. The British Empire (not without reasons for shame I admit) achieved some remarkable advances in most fields of human activity and life. The Brits continue to be amongst the most inventive people today. So you might think that this supports the insular approach to evolution, but you couldn't be more wrong. The peoples of Britain were made up of indiginous post ice age peoples such as the picts, generally the ancient Britains of which there were many isolated tribes, then came the Celts, the Romans and peoples from across their empire including black Africans, the Angles, Jutes, Danes, Vikings, Scandinavians, Normans and a fair few others over the years. All these peoples were previously isolated, but under the nation building of the middle ages emerged what you may think of today as the Brits.
I think that the evidence is very strong that the great achievers of Britain from the sixteenth century onwards were a result of the genetic melting pot.
Over to you.
Lordpendragon
Experimental Member
OK a few things.
The irony is that the Chimera was a mutated monster of three separate genetic beings (Lion/Goat/snake) maybe I should change my nic to Bellerophon.
Equality was more a 17th century political theory and related to all being treated equally rather than thinking that everyone is the same. The most famous enaction of this theory is your own Declaration.
The fact that isolation causes the evolution of traits specific to unique environmental conditions is not really that relevant to the overall development of humanity which a mixing gene pool seems to help. The isolated communities are likely to remain for the most part in tact as there is little pressure to put a cosmopolitan centre in the Amazon for example.
There is a considerable movement of peoples at the moment, so it is too early to judge anything as inter marriage takes 2 to 3 generations to become acceptable and yes it is the immigrant elders who tend to remain most opposed as clearly they see their connection to their homelands being lost.
I know this from personal experience.
The irony is that the Chimera was a mutated monster of three separate genetic beings (Lion/Goat/snake) maybe I should change my nic to Bellerophon.
Equality was more a 17th century political theory and related to all being treated equally rather than thinking that everyone is the same. The most famous enaction of this theory is your own Declaration.
The fact that isolation causes the evolution of traits specific to unique environmental conditions is not really that relevant to the overall development of humanity which a mixing gene pool seems to help. The isolated communities are likely to remain for the most part in tact as there is little pressure to put a cosmopolitan centre in the Amazon for example.
There is a considerable movement of peoples at the moment, so it is too early to judge anything as inter marriage takes 2 to 3 generations to become acceptable and yes it is the immigrant elders who tend to remain most opposed as clearly they see their connection to their homelands being lost.
I know this from personal experience.
Obviously people aren't equal in the sense of identical. They are different in height, in penis size (if they're male), in strength, in various sorts of intelligence, in appearance, in personality. You can even look at particular groups and find differences in average scores for various measures, though usually individual variations are larger than differences between group averages. And it's individuals who matter.
But with all the things we can measure about a human being, how can we make one number of them, and say that one human is superior to another? Superior in what? How do you rank someone who is good-looking and healthy against someone who is neither, but is particularly intelligent? There are thousands, tens, hundreds of thousands of measures.
When the concept of equality was first urged, it wasn't any of those measures I've mentioned that was uppermost in the philosophers' minds - it was birth. If you were born into the nobility, you would be treated very differently by the state than the common herd. Now some of the nobility had originally earned their titles through noble deeds - but it was apparent that nobleness of character was not always passed on through the eldest son. The upper class was a separate group, and they carefully avoided marriage with commoners, but the philosophers saw that, despite their different manners and different dress and different names, the content of their character was no better than that of the common folk. Hence, it was argued, all people should be considered as on the same level.
How can we possibly go beyond this? How can we consider the people of one nation superior to another? What could we base it on? Let us not forget also the effect of culture. Culture is not the same as race, but cultures also differ, and those differences easily give rise to perceptions of different character. When did a lot of travelling (over 20 years ago), it was very evident that in Italy you had to count your change carefully, and most of the time shop-keepers would try to cheat you. This didn't happen in other nations I visited. Did this mean Italians were less honest? In a sense yes, but it was because the culture censured that sort of dishonesty less severely. In some parts of Africa, westerners are seen as dirty, because they blow their nose on a handkerchief and put the dirty thing back in their pockets and carry it around; and rude and uncaring, because they don't say "sorry" to strangers they happen to see in trouble they haven't caused. We don't think we're being dirty or uncaring, because we're following our own culture.
We are conditioned by our cultures, by what other people around us do and expect us to do, more than we like to think. When the rules break down, when we can do nasty things and get away with it, it's surprising how thin the veneer of civilisation is seen to be. Not everyone, but very many people are quite prepared to do bad things. There's a famous psychological experiment in which many people were prepared to give someone else what they thought was a lethal electric shock if they were asked to do it. And in real-life situations, when law and order break down, people of any nation will do bad things, as we've seen in Abu Ghraib.
I don't think any of us can consider him- or herself superior to other people. We don't know what we would be like with a different set of people around us, different upbringing, different culture. Nor is there really any reason to compare ourselves with others - that's not our job, and we don't have the knowledge to do it. We can certainly make judgements about aspects of culture - we can say, for example, that the attitude to honesty in Italy isn't as good, or that it's a good thing to indicate you care to all people you meet in distress. Cultures are not fixed and they change. And we can usefully make judgements about ourselves and try to make ourselves act better, and that's quite enough for a lifetime.
Hmm, I'm rambling.
But with all the things we can measure about a human being, how can we make one number of them, and say that one human is superior to another? Superior in what? How do you rank someone who is good-looking and healthy against someone who is neither, but is particularly intelligent? There are thousands, tens, hundreds of thousands of measures.
When the concept of equality was first urged, it wasn't any of those measures I've mentioned that was uppermost in the philosophers' minds - it was birth. If you were born into the nobility, you would be treated very differently by the state than the common herd. Now some of the nobility had originally earned their titles through noble deeds - but it was apparent that nobleness of character was not always passed on through the eldest son. The upper class was a separate group, and they carefully avoided marriage with commoners, but the philosophers saw that, despite their different manners and different dress and different names, the content of their character was no better than that of the common folk. Hence, it was argued, all people should be considered as on the same level.
How can we possibly go beyond this? How can we consider the people of one nation superior to another? What could we base it on? Let us not forget also the effect of culture. Culture is not the same as race, but cultures also differ, and those differences easily give rise to perceptions of different character. When did a lot of travelling (over 20 years ago), it was very evident that in Italy you had to count your change carefully, and most of the time shop-keepers would try to cheat you. This didn't happen in other nations I visited. Did this mean Italians were less honest? In a sense yes, but it was because the culture censured that sort of dishonesty less severely. In some parts of Africa, westerners are seen as dirty, because they blow their nose on a handkerchief and put the dirty thing back in their pockets and carry it around; and rude and uncaring, because they don't say "sorry" to strangers they happen to see in trouble they haven't caused. We don't think we're being dirty or uncaring, because we're following our own culture.
We are conditioned by our cultures, by what other people around us do and expect us to do, more than we like to think. When the rules break down, when we can do nasty things and get away with it, it's surprising how thin the veneer of civilisation is seen to be. Not everyone, but very many people are quite prepared to do bad things. There's a famous psychological experiment in which many people were prepared to give someone else what they thought was a lethal electric shock if they were asked to do it. And in real-life situations, when law and order break down, people of any nation will do bad things, as we've seen in Abu Ghraib.
I don't think any of us can consider him- or herself superior to other people. We don't know what we would be like with a different set of people around us, different upbringing, different culture. Nor is there really any reason to compare ourselves with others - that's not our job, and we don't have the knowledge to do it. We can certainly make judgements about aspects of culture - we can say, for example, that the attitude to honesty in Italy isn't as good, or that it's a good thing to indicate you care to all people you meet in distress. Cultures are not fixed and they change. And we can usefully make judgements about ourselves and try to make ourselves act better, and that's quite enough for a lifetime.
Hmm, I'm rambling.
Guys/Gals,
This is an interesting topic that the initial question seems to have directed itself. As much as like reading the posts, the question was,what do women think about black cock? Lets try and stick to the subject matter.
This is an interesting topic that the initial question seems to have directed itself. As much as like reading the posts, the question was,what do women think about black cock? Lets try and stick to the subject matter.
SickBoy:
Non bais yeah right, also from that page. A quote "Several prostitutes admitted that black penises are generally longer and thicker and Asian penises shorter and thinner."
Sounds andotal to me.
another quote "Many homosexuals have had first-hand contact with hundreds or even thousands of penises and therefore their opinions can easily be taken as facts. "
Notice it doesn't actually have someone say Blacks have big penis. Its Several prostitutes admitted and Many homosexuals have had first-hand contact. (by the way, the prostitutes only admitted this after not being allow to sleep for 4 days).
And the information on the page was taken from Rushon was has a thing about I.Q and Penis size. I think before he goes any further he should disclose his stat.
He's actually rehashing Professor R. Gayre of Edinburgh work.
And in any case every black person isn't bigger that every white person.
Non bais yeah right, also from that page. A quote "Several prostitutes admitted that black penises are generally longer and thicker and Asian penises shorter and thinner."
Sounds andotal to me.
another quote "Many homosexuals have had first-hand contact with hundreds or even thousands of penises and therefore their opinions can easily be taken as facts. "
Notice it doesn't actually have someone say Blacks have big penis. Its Several prostitutes admitted and Many homosexuals have had first-hand contact. (by the way, the prostitutes only admitted this after not being allow to sleep for 4 days).
And the information on the page was taken from Rushon was has a thing about I.Q and Penis size. I think before he goes any further he should disclose his stat.
He's actually rehashing Professor R. Gayre of Edinburgh work.
And in any case every black person isn't bigger that every white person.
SickBoy:
Perhaps we should stop worrying so much and celebrate the fact that we have humans in so many shapes, forms and morphs and with infinite diversity. Heck, heterozygosity is the future! (Of course, this has nothing to do with my preference in 'exotic' women, of course, you define 'exotic'.
Celebrate? If current trends continue human diversity will suffer greatly. By marrying out of your racial group, make no mistake, you are destroying diversity.
Pendragon, our racial problems? Last time I checked Great Britain will become "minority majoirty" less than ten years after the United States. London already has areas where there aren't any Whites (native population) and your laws for both asylum and immigration are more liberal than ours.
Since White people felt the need to own slaves, definitely our fault, and allow impoverished people to immigrate to our home countries (Europe, to say America is out home country is ignorant) our race will cease to exist sooner than the others. I don't think any of what I am saying is "racist", as I am just going by current demographical trends, but if you feel the need to flame me please do so in a P.M.
Please don't make false utterances and be hypocritical and the same time. Be honest about what you mean. You don't really care if i like you or not be open . That " I'm not a racist, but there are too many people who don't look like me".
Maybe you just don't get it You said " By marrying out of your racial group, make no mistake, you are destroying diversity."
Was that a mistake? I less, more. Well no need to argue I know its crap, you know its crap, but you only have to convinve skinheads.
I think that sums it up pretty well.Originally posted by ChimeraTX+Feb 16 2005, 04:05 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ChimeraTX @ Feb 16 2005, 04:05 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>I think you of all people are carrying around a whole stew of ethnicity in your genes!
Okay, so "genes" don't exist, but that's another argument.
<!--QuoteBegin-Lordpendragon
From where I sit on the other side of the pond, you are Americans whether you are black/white - smart/dumb - big cocked/little cocked - man or woman - I am always amazed at the depth of your racial problems.
Perhaps we should stop worrying so much and celebrate the fact that we have humans in so many shapes, forms and morphs and with infinite diversity. Heck, heterozygosity is the future! (Of course, this has nothing to do with my preference in 'exotic' women, of course, you define 'exotic'
.[post=283524]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]Celebrate? If current trends continue human diversity will suffer greatly. By marrying out of your racial group, make no mistake, you are destroying diversity.
Pendragon, our racial problems? Last time I checked Great Britain will become "minority majoirty" less than ten years after the United States. London already has areas where there aren't any Whites (native population) and your laws for both asylum and immigration are more liberal than ours.
Since White people felt the need to own slaves, definitely our fault, and allow impoverished people to immigrate to our home countries (Europe, to say America is out home country is ignorant) our race will cease to exist sooner than the others. I don't think any of what I am saying is "racist", as I am just going by current demographical trends, but if you feel the need to flame me please do so in a P.M.
[post=283733]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]Please don't make false utterances and be hypocritical and the same time. Be honest about what you mean. You don't really care if i like you or not be open . That " I'm not a racist, but there are too many people who don't look like me".
Maybe you just don't get it You said " By marrying out of your racial group, make no mistake, you are destroying diversity."
Was that a mistake? I less, more. Well no need to argue I know its crap, you know its crap, but you only have to convinve skinheads.
Originally posted by black_hung@Feb 19 2005, 06:28 AM
Guys/Gals,
This is an interesting topic that the initial question seems to have directed itself. As much as like reading the posts, the question was,what do women think about black cock? Lets try and stick to the subject matter.
[post=284448]Quoted post[/post]
Good Lord.I agree. What a blatant threadjack this is. A new thread on all the other nonsense would have been appreciated for those who don't want to wallow through 8 pages of off-topic posts to find the one gem that is even remotely related to the thread title.
Would any one here be happy if this was done to the topic they started ?
As for the topic at hand,my wife,who is a doctor and her nursing friends think there are some really large black cocks in the ER all the time. But none of them has ever had the notion to do anything with them. Then again,when they are in for HIV or other diseases sometimes it wouldn't be the most "enticing" situation. Now,when they are in for just broken bones or something that wouldn't threaten your life,my wife will come home and tell me little fantasies while stroking my rather large tool herself. Especially about men younger than myself (the old cuckolding scenario),the overwhelmed young wife with the young boy with the really large penis. It really gets her going. Maybe one day if the situatiuon was right we could try it,then again,it nmight be worse to kill the fantasy by acting on it if you get what i mean.
And not one mention of Adolph Hitler,Englands social system,racism,or anything else LOL.
Hope that helps. Not first hand from a woman but from someone who women have shared with.
Tom
- Status
Similar threads
