Racism or Sexual preference

[East]

interesting topic, eisbrecher what the hell man? why would you foster those thoughts in your head? I mean segregation was a terrible thing to do, it's just morally wrong to say you're not as good as a certain race, so we'll just bunch you into a much less respected group of your own kind. I am currently in an interracial relationship, my girlfriend is Japanese and I am caucasian, we have tons in common and we love to be with each other. it would be absurd to say that just because she's Japanese she shouldn't be allowed to date me. most of my past relationships have been with asian females and where I live it's very common to see asian and white males dating. we both care very much for each other and I couldn't imagine what it'd be like if I was told I was not allowed to date her.

 

[madame_zora]

I'm sad too because we've outgrown our need for our appendix and tonsils, they were so beautiful at first.

Chimera, you're losing ground as the reigning teen intellectual around here. Your position on this is moronic, even if you do know how to spell.

 

[surferboy]

Originally posted by steve319+May 2 2005, 11:06 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(steve319 &#064; May 2 2005, 11:06 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Originally posted by Pappy@May 2 2005, 10:18 PM
I have NEVER seen nor heard of a caucasian male getting a job just because of the color of his skin OR based soley on their gender.

[post=307328]Quoted post[/post]​

Oh, I certainly have seen it, and now I guess you can say you&#39;ve heard of it. It does happen.

Affirmative action policies are yet another issue where people are just going to have to agree to disagree, I think.

Speaking as a guy who&#39;s seen some pretty ugly things (including a young black man beaten nearly to death for going with a white girl to a school dance, or a fellow faculty member&#39;s daughter being asked to stop attending the family church because of her biracial baby, or gay/lesbian couples almost literally chased out of town) I personally would love to see more diversity in my community (and within the faculty at our school).

[post=307350]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b]

Oh my gosh, that&#39;s horrible&#33; I can&#39;t believe there are fuckin bastards like that in this day and age. It&#39;s pathetic.

Originally posted by ChimeraTX@May 3 2005, 05:16 PM
Is it really that difficult to see that multiculturalism and globalism is destroying cultures at an alarming rate? Race is a permanent expression of one&#39;s heritage; culture is malleable.

[post=307594]Quoted post[/post]​

I happen to be very multicultural, yet I&#39;ve maintained aspects of every culture that makes me who I am.


<!--QuoteBegin-EisBrecher@May 3 2005, 06:22 PM

Forces of evil are not the same as preservinig a race unless you want to declare that two people who are of different race getting married and having children evil. I can&#39;t go that route. Discusing all the evolutionary terms with Jonb I read with interest. That is not my field. I feel much stronger on social studies issues.

Now we are on moral and ethical issues. I feel much better equiped to discuss this.

No way should we ever return to the days when it was illigal forpeople of different colors and shapes to get married. Either we live in a free society or we don&#39;t. If tow people fall in love, that is their decision. It really isn&#39;t anyone else&#39;s business unless one of the is underage or their is some sort of bondage going on. If it is truly two mutually consenting adults, then not only is it legal, but not really anyone else&#39;s business to try to stop or condemn.

Interracial marriages should be forbidden. Segregations among races was the best thing Whites could ever ask for. Society was better.

[post=307618]Quoted post[/post]​

[/quote]


Ok like, as totally wrong as yer opinion on this subject is, it is yer right to have it. However, do you think you have the right to deny others the right to marry whomever they want, simply because you don&#39;t agree with it?

 

[steve319]

Originally posted by EisBrecher@May 3 2005, 06:47 PM
What is so "creepy" about a handgun?

[post=307625]Quoted post[/post]​

"Creepy" works for me. So does "scary," actually.

When one chooses to represent oneself to a discussion group with a symbol as incindiary (and as rife with negative social connotations) as a handgun, it certainly qualifies as creepy, I think.

Somehow, I suspect you&#39;re quite familiar with those associations. But perhaps I&#39;m wrong about your level of awareness.

 

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by ChimeraTX+May 3 2005, 08:11 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ChimeraTX &#064; May 3 2005, 08:11 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Originally posted by carolinacurious@May 3 2005, 06:06 PM

[post=307629]Quoted post[/post]​

I don&#39;t defend any culture, as I belong to none. I don&#39;t consider American a culture, do you?

Originally posted by carolinacurious@May 3 2005, 06:06 PM

[post=307629]Quoted post[/post]​

Originally posted by carolinacurious@May 3 2005, 06:06 PM

[post=307629]Quoted post[/post]​

<!--QuoteBegin-carolinacurious@May 3 2005, 06:06 PM

[post=307629]Quoted post[/post]​

[post=307660]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
Son, I didn&#39;t debate you much when you were strictly on scientific grounds. But you have wondered into social studies now. You are brilliant and I command you for that. But brilliance and wisdom are not the same thing. In fact some of the wisest people I ever have dealt with were simplie uneducated people who weren&#39;t that bright as far as IQ goes. And I have known some science prodigys who were abolutely stupid when it came to common sense.

Now, you are in my territory. Social Studies. I am a retired teacher and served on numerous state curriculum committees. I helped write the curriculum for the social studies for the state more than once. So we need to have a lesson on culture.

The definition of culture is "a way of life." It includes all the aspects of living including the technology, beliefs. government and communication. Communication inlcudes all the arts as well. Now there is no way someone is not part of some culture. In fact son, you are a member of many cultures. Society is a group of people. A culture is not. So you are using English culture when you write in English. You use technological aspects of some cultures in nearly every thing you use. China is a major producer of computer parts these days. You use some of their culture. There is no such thing as not "borrowing" The whole concept of teaching World Cultures is to show what you as a young man growing up in America have "borrowed from other cultures, both present and those in the past.

You belong to a lot of cultures. If you didn&#39;t, you would still be eating bananas swinging from tree to tree like the ancestors of human beings are have thought to have done according to those who believe in total Darwinian evolution which you appear from all you have written to have do. To my other readers, I am not commenting on the origins of man only to comment on what this young man has spoken.

I know of a keyboard company proudly telling its customers that it is an "American" product, made here in the USA. Assembled here is the opporative word. The parts come from 13 different countries. WE are interdependent on each other and their cultures. With mass media like it is, how do you really think that modern society, a socieity is people living at a given point in time, meaning the whole world is not going to become more interdependent and cultures (a way of life)aren&#39;t going to be in touch with each other?

When I taught World Cultures, I didn&#39;t spend a lot of time on names of battles and names of people. I spent my time on how people lived then and what in our society today do we have elements of their culture. Who was the first to use concrete, the Romans. Who was first to have a written history? Who was first to... and on and on.

Son, I really don&#39;t expect you to pay much attention to this. But there are those who are young who are so influenced by your extensive knowledge of genetics that they assume that flows over into philosophy. antropology, and history. No it doesn&#39;t.

I advise you to get back to your scientific discussion with Jonb about genetics. You really aren&#39;t versed enough on cultures to discuss it with the depth you have with science.

So is there an American culture? There is a common communication system, a common government, universal use of the same technologies, and a belief system that allows for a certain set of beliefs that all share, yet allows for total freedom of religion, personal choices. The rest of the world knows what Anerican culture is.

YEAH, YOU ARE A PART OF AMERICAN CULTURE IF YOU LIVE IN AMERICA.

 

[dolf250]

It’s about time that I read something in this post that I can agree with- EisBrecher, I agree wholeheartedly that segregation would be a great thing. Perhaps you could round up all those who spew your kind of crap, buy a nice piece of swamp and wall yourselves in. Segregation; one of the more brilliant ideas. Segregation, slavery and, at least here in Canada, reservations and residential schools produced enough social ills and long-lasting problems that we can all look down our noses at those who were unfortunate enough to grow up in such an environment and not become perfect citizens.

Perhaps someone can help me with this- is the term plonk, or plink?

 

[dolf250]

As for the question of genes, is anybody suggesting that one race is inferior and one race superior, or just that there are different genes? I would happily go along with the idea of different genes as well as dominant genes ect… If I marry a Native American lady I will expect that my child will not have my blue/grey eyes and blonde hair. So what? Are blue eyes superior to brown? I have not read anything that is convincing proof that the child who is the product of an interracial relationship is weaker or less intelligent than a “purebred.”

I guess to put it another way, if I as a Canadian of German ancestry should marry a healthy Korean exactly why would you think that my child would be at any disadvantage genetically? (As a matter of fact it seems that a child who is the product of 2 healthy people would be at an advantage over the child of one or two unhealthy people regardless of race.)

Chimera, I was going to bring up a few points about culture, “roots” and “heritage,” but Freddie seems to have that more than covered, and being as you seem far more knowledgeable when it comes to genetics I thought that you may be able to explain why you seem to think that the child of mixed race would be at a genetic disadvantage to one who was not.

 

[jonb]

Originally posted by madame_zora+May 3 2005, 01:20 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(madame_zora &#064; May 3 2005, 01:20 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-ChimeraTX@May 3 2005, 09:16 PM
Is it really that difficult to see that multiculturalism and globalism is destroying cultures at an alarming rate?

[post=307594]Quoted post[/post]​

Yes.

[post=307597]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
Actually, he has a point, but just an insane solution which won&#39;t work.

 

[13788]

carolinacurious:

Perhaps someone can help me with this- is the term plonk, or plink?

http://www.lpsg.org/forum/index.php?act=ST...t=0#entry173696

 

[CeeTeeCeeTee]

I know I promised that I would not post on this stupid race thead anymore. I will not respond to any post containing personal insults so don&#39;t bother if this is what you have in mind. But I find it quite sad that so many people have been fooled or are willing to accept ChimeraTX&#39;s ideas as "Brilliant". This dude knows nothing about genetics or human migration and is just expressing ideas he got from reading "white supremacist" literature.

He, and several others on this website are obvious plants from some white supremacist organization. They love to think they can spread their filth more effectively over the net.

But it breaks my heart to see so many non-political types buying into his genetics BS.

just because someone is good at throwing around alot of unfamiliar terms doesn&#39;t mean they know what they are talking about.

 

[CeeTeeCeeTee]

ChimeraTX:

I am not going to dignify your white supremacist idology by debating with you. I told you this in an earlier post that a discussion with you on this subject would only serve to help you conjure the illusion that your white supremacist ideas have some validity to them. Was it necessary to debate with Himler in order to discredit all that he stood for?

It is quite clear to me what is going on here. You and your organization (i&#39;m sure you will never tell us it&#39;s name) think that the way to the hearts and minds of the American people is through the internet.

As long as people of good will are willing to point you guys out when you show up on internet forums and such, you mission will always fail&#33;

By the way I don&#39;t mean to imply that you are the only white supremacist organization member on this forum. I know that several of your partners frequent this site as well.

 

[jonb]

@ChimeraTX:
You obviously have no idea how genetics works. Okay, let&#39;s say we have a couple, and their mothers had blue eyes, but they have brown eyes:

E e
E EE Ee
e Ee ee

As you can see, one child in four will have blue eyes. How did this happen? The gene wasn&#39;t "destroyed" in either parent, just masked.

Many traits don&#39;t follow Mendel&#39;s laws. Sex-linked traits are on the X or Z chromosome, depending on the animal. (Or in bees, they&#39;re on all the chromosomes, since all males are haploid.) Most genes have some epigenetic influence, such as hormones or the intake of certain substances. Many genes have more than two forms, such as ABO group. Skin color has three loci. Sometimes a trait, usually a recessive trait, on one locus, will mask genes on other loci, as is the case with albinism. In some genes, heterozygosity means an intermediate form, or a third form altogether. In some genes, a homozygotic form is lethal.

Then there are mutations, which basically refers to any imperfect copy of DNA. But one gene never immediately destroys another; a combination of genes might be less favorable, though, just like a combination of genes might be more favorable. (That&#39;s another element of punctuated equilibrium.) But they&#39;re not homologous genes.

 

[madame_zora]

You see, Chimera is only attempting to use biology or genetcis as an excuse to continue asserting his deplorable message. Jonb, he really doesn&#39;t want information from you on how things really work, he wants to make "points" so he can say he&#39;s "won", even though there&#39;s no prize. I don&#39;t argue for points, and he doesn&#39;t have one to make, or he could easily have made it by now. As bad as I am myself for feeding trolls, this is really one we need to start starving out, trust me, it will only get worse.

I used to say I&#39;d debate a racist, if they were intelligent, but I no longer feel that way. The foundations of racism are stupid, so "intelligent racist" is an oxymoron. It&#39;s pretty clear that by being a racist alone, one has demonstrated enough to me that I am quite sure I can disregard anything else they say with no fear of loss. This guy gets a giant PLONK from me.

 

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by ChimeraTX+May 3 2005, 07:22 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ChimeraTX &#064; May 3 2005, 07:22 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Freddie53@May 3 2005, 05:00 PM
Forces of evil are not the same as preservinig a race unless you want to declare that two people who are of different race getting married and having children evil. I can&#39;t go that route. Discusing all the evolutionary terms with Jonb I read with interest. That is not my field. I feel much stronger on social studies issues.

Now we are on moral and ethical issues. I feel much better equiped to discuss this.

No way should we ever return to the days when it was illigal forpeople of different colors and shapes to get married. Either we live in a free society or we don&#39;t. If tow people fall in love, that is their decision. It really isn&#39;t anyone else&#39;s business unless one of the is underage or their is some sort of bondage going on. If it is truly two mutually consenting adults, then not only is it legal, but not really anyone else&#39;s business to try to stop or condemn.

[post=307612]Quoted post[/post]​

I feel the circumstances are different, because something is being lost in the long run. I can agree with all or nothing in terms of freedom though. It&#39;s too bad that died here many years ago.

[post=307642]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
I am not cutting out any of the above as it is necessary to understand what I am going to say. You are suggesting that we gut the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. All or nothing usually means nothing. You are talking about a totalitarian government that makes mating decisions. If a governments makes those decisions, then it will also make every other decision.

Yeah, for once I agree with you it is all or nothing. I vote for all - freedom. As the Pledge of Alleigiance to the American flag ends. "with liberty and justice for ALL."

Last I checked liberty and freedom meant the same thing.

To those outside the USA, I am sure that you have a phrase in a pledge or some famous that pledges this basic freedom that is sacred to your people.

Please share some of these.

To all please share favorite phrases of freedom from poems and songs that you love and treasure. I am out of recipies. Let the sharing begin. I&#39;ll go first.

"From every mountainside let freedom ring."

 

[jonb]

I checked GeneTree&#39;s Indian DNA testing kit. They provide no phylogenetic explanation for haplotype X (or more accurately, haplotype X2) whatsoever. Also, five other haplotypes, including (IIRC) L1, L3, J, K, and V have been found in precolumbian remains; most likely they were reduced to "so small a sample which isn&#39;t an accurate cross-section wouldn&#39;t notice them" over the events of the last 500 years.

Also, mtDNA disagrees with blood group data, which completely lack B and A2. B is most common from around the Pacific Rim all the way to Turkistan. (In fact, in Japan, the Ainu have more B than O.) A2 is most common in northern Eurasia. The only other societies with no B or A2 are all from the Pacific, but the little problem then is we&#39;re all M&#39;s and they&#39;re all N&#39;s.

Needless to say, real Indians don&#39;t need DNA tests to prove our genealogy.

 

[jonb]

Don&#39;t you mean badassss? (Yeah, I&#39;ve always been a big fan of blaxploitation. Coffy&#39;s my favorite. Surprised? Don&#39;t be: The idea of the movies being exploitation was mostly a PR move to look good about not doing any more black movies after times were good for the studios again.)

As I said, the argument is after a pretty huge bottleneck. Some of the smaller tribes have been forced into what would traditionally be considered incest in attempts to maintain their blood quantum as required by the BIA.

Interesting thing about the Y chromosome. How did they do that? I mean, it&#39;s hard to tell which European Y&#39;s might be precolumbian and which ones might be the result of, I dunno, RAPE. So did they wipe out all of them? If so, that&#39;s circular reasoning.

 

[surferboy]

It isn&#39;t a matter of superiority or inferiority to me. I want recessive traits to survive, and they obviously won&#39;t if everyone mates randomly.

One instance where a multiracial child is at a disadvantage is bone marrow transplants. In most cases, only individuals of similar ancestry can transplant bone marrow, so a multiracial person is at an obvious disadvantage.

Wow, you are really a piece of work. Are you sayin that I&#39;m weak since I&#39;m multicultural? I&#39;m Hawaiian, Romanian, Irish, German, Swedish, Argentine, and Italian. I&#39;m like, the epitome of a mutt. Am I weak to you?

 

[D_Humper E Bogart]

Originally posted by ChimeraTX+Apr 25 2005, 11:22 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ChimeraTX &#064; Apr 25 2005, 11:22 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Originally posted by jonb@Apr 25 2005, 06:15 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-ChimeraTX

@Apr 25 2005, 03:14 PM
I expected you would be nihilistic.

[post=304743]Quoted post[/post]​

Err . . . WTF?

[post=304746]Quoted post[/post]​

I believe ORCABOMBER is multiracial.

[post=304750]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
Depends on what your definition of "Carribean" is. I happen to be the Mewtwo combination of the decendants of an "Indian" slave and and an African slave. Anyway, my favourite computer game is Command and Conquer, Generals, of course my atytitude towards people is "odd"&#33; Anyway, I&#39;m a mutt, so what? Historically, I can trace that my grandfather on my dad&#39;s side fought in WW2 for "White man&#39;s foolishness", my other&#39;s a farmer. I feel that not having the "weight" of loads of dead people who somehow were better than me is relieving. I am free to create my own legacy as I see fit and can control who, what, why and how I live and control my future. I am a control freak when it comes to my life and can sit back and control my universe. That&#39;s how I see my existance.

But anyway, my attitude on genetics is that it&#39;s far too easy to put a mean to an end. Anyway, speaking of JonB and Albinoes WHERE&#39;S THE RED EYE GENE? See? Some people tend to forget these sort of things. I think I&#39;ll leave JonB to work out population genetics in Native Americans, although haplotypes are tissue types (well, cell surface protein types). I mean, do Native Americans have a different flesh type? Wow. Must make for some great eating.

Anyway, don&#39;t you know that recessive traits &#39;survive&#39; better in homozygous populations? There&#39;s a difference between a gene being expressed and the gene existing. Some are turned off (e.g. a woman&#39;s other X chromonsome is compressed and is deactivated), or they&#39;re spliced out (in white blood cells, they cut their own DNA, so every B and T cell is genetically different).

But on the whole, if one gene is dominant over another, in the heterozygote, the other gene will still be active, but the affect wont be noticed.

Both chromosomes are read and if both are noticeable in an equal amount, then they are both dominant. That is what dominance and co-dominance mean.

Genes don&#39;t give a shit what their "title" is, if A is produced and is noticeable compared to B, then A is dominant, B recessive. If A and B are produced and give a noticeable effect when existing at the same time, then A and B are co dominant. If A+B are unnoticeable unless combined then they are additive.

They are only names we give to describe their behaviour. It&#39;s one of the first things I learnt at uni. We get too anal about names, but genes are not sentinent, they don&#39;t choose their reasoning, and it is dangerous to assume that we have the knowledge yet to plot everything into place. (in fact, could argue genes don&#39;t exist, but that&#39;s another argument, methinks).

But going back into populations. Say that you have a population with A alleles and a population with B alleles. This, I&#39;m assuming is "your ideal world". But what in reality, we have some people with AB. Even if A is dominant. The B allele exists, but isn&#39;t noticably expressed. So an AB crossed with an AB gets AA and BB back. What complicates things, is that you&#39;re looking for an selective advantage in their being "no mixing". Ie, selection against the heterozygote. If you did, then the chances of getting A and B back will decrease and so there would be a deficit of heterozygotes and only "pure breeding" would generate the majority of A and B alleles.

Of course, thankfully, we don&#39;t have this, or the majority of the population of Europe and the United states would now be dead or doomed to poor fertility.

Another pre-conception is that there must be a "reason" for genes and populations to exist. Okay, a lot of the time they do. But let&#39;s think of it from the "lazy" point of view. Ultimately, as long as a gene makes it into the next generation, then it obviously worked, right? But how much can you get away with? Take skin colour, is their a disadvantage in being a certain colour? maybe in the past, yeah, fair enough, but was it life-threateining, or something that couldn&#39;t be overcome? The neutral gene theory goes nuts on this, assuming that "as long as the DNA gets passed on, who cares WHAT it does, as long as it doesn&#39;t hurt or benefit". I mean, as a modern person, does my skin colour, or hair colour make it harder for me to survive in the where I live? Not at all, so for all intents and purposes, skin colour and hair colour are neutral nowadays, if the "green" gene existed tomorrow, I&#39;d assume that they&#39;d have the same odds of surviving and having fertile kids as the rest of us (assuming the gene was a melaning mutation).

ChimeraTX, well, can&#39;t argue that you don&#39;t know your stuff, take a genetics (not Eugenics) course and I&#39;m sure you&#39;d be a tribute to your class, but you&#39;re confusing genetics and social science. There&#39;s no "Blacks are evil gene", there&#39;s no "Whites keep getting exploited gene", and there&#39;s no "Mutts suck" gene. We&#39;re socially evolving far beyond the limits of genetics and yes, genetics makes a part of who we are, but to quote a popular anime, genetics, define our shell, but sociiety increasingly defines our "ghost".

 

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by surferboy@May 6 2005, 01:57 AM


Wow, you are really a piece of work. Are you sayin that I&#39;m weak since I&#39;m multicultural? I&#39;m Hawaiian, Romanian, Irish, German, Swedish, Argentine, and Italian. I&#39;m like, the epitome of a mutt. Am I weak to you?

[post=308484]Quoted post[/post]​

Nah, Nixxy, that is what makes you who you are. In dogs the very pure breeds are very fragile in health problems. Any vet will tell you that a mixture breed is usually healthier than a pure breed.

And I have English, Scottish, Ulster Scott, Irish, Dutch, German and Normon (French) blood a flowing in my veins.

*Pops joins Nixxy on the train to the detention center to await being exterminated in the gas ovens.*
*Where is Jana? If Nixxy and I have to go, we want Jana along for a hell of a good last ride.*

All aboard to the gas ovens&#33; Surely there are others&#33;

 

[jonb]

Originally posted by ORCABOMBER@May 6 2005, 03:28 AM
I happen to be the Mewtwo combination of the decendants of an "Indian" slave and and an African slave.

Mewtwo? I don&#39;t have my Pokéball with me.

But anyway, my attitude on genetics is that it&#39;s far too easy to put a mean to an end. Anyway, speaking of JonB and Albinoes WHERE&#39;S THE RED EYE GENE? See? Some people tend to forget these sort of things. I think I&#39;ll leave JonB to work out population genetics in Native Americans, although haplotypes are tissue types (well, cell surface protein types). I mean, do Native Americans have a different flesh type? Wow. Must make for some great eating.

I mentioned blood groups. It&#39;s not so much the presence of unique blood groups as the absence of other blood groups, specifically on the ABO, MN, and Rh systems. We lack B, most A&#39;s (except the most common one, A1), N, and r.

But going back into populations. Say that you have a population with A alleles and a population with B alleles. This, I&#39;m assuming is "your ideal world". But what in reality, we have some people with AB. Even if A is dominant. The B allele exists, but isn&#39;t noticably expressed. So an AB crossed with an AB gets AA and BB back. What complicates things, is that you&#39;re looking for an selective advantage in their being "no mixing". Ie, selection against the heterozygote. If you did, then the chances of getting A and B back will decrease and so there would be a deficit of heterozygotes and only "pure breeding" would generate the majority of A and B alleles.

[post=308523]Quoted post[/post]​

Obviously true. Natural selection comes in a few forms I can think of:

*Selection against one homozygote, or classical evolution.
*Selection against one homozygote and one heterozygote, also within classical evolution.
*Selection against both homozygotes, e.g. sickle-cell.
*Selection against the heterozygote alone; AFAICT, no human population has selection against the heterozygote alone.
*Selection against all. This will eventually lead to extinction. It might take anywhere from a couple generations (as with the dinosaurs) to millions of years.
*Genetic equilibrium. No selection at all. A rarity. Blood groups are an example of genetic equilibrium.

It gets more complicated with things where there are more than two loci, or more than two alleles on one locus, sex chromosomes, or some kind of epigenetic influence.

If there is selection against the heterozygote alone, the homozygotes will always out-compete the heterozygotes. In any other situation, you&#39;ll get the homozygotes back in the next generation.

Even if you don&#39;t understand genetics, the ethical debate should be easy to understand. Most people practice some form of eugenics which selects against homozygotes. (Don&#39;t believe me? When was the last time you really saw a guy fuck his sister?) However, the problem is making it so people don&#39;t have a choice in having children.