- This topic has 490 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 5 months ago by
briansd1.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 29, 2011 at 7:19 PM #714954July 29, 2011 at 9:58 PM #713757
NotCranky
ParticipantI think you have it wrong, Brian. The people don’t want the government to provide for them or for anyone else. Don’t write all poor republican voting people off as ignorant. There’s more to it than getting more or less handouts.
Just curious, do you call wallowing in crap subsistence welfare and all it’s misery for generations and voting democrat smart? You act like everyone who votes democrat is a high functioning genius. I bet more Jerry Springer participants vote democrat than republican.
July 29, 2011 at 9:58 PM #713848ParticipantI think you have it wrong, Brian. The people don’t want the government to provide for them or for anyone else. Don’t write all poor republican voting people off as ignorant. There’s more to it than getting more or less handouts.
Just curious, do you call wallowing in crap subsistence welfare and all it’s misery for generations and voting democrat smart? You act like everyone who votes democrat is a high functioning genius. I bet more Jerry Springer participants vote democrat than republican.
July 29, 2011 at 9:58 PM #714446ParticipantI think you have it wrong, Brian. The people don’t want the government to provide for them or for anyone else. Don’t write all poor republican voting people off as ignorant. There’s more to it than getting more or less handouts.
Just curious, do you call wallowing in crap subsistence welfare and all it’s misery for generations and voting democrat smart? You act like everyone who votes democrat is a high functioning genius. I bet more Jerry Springer participants vote democrat than republican.
July 29, 2011 at 9:58 PM #714600ParticipantI think you have it wrong, Brian. The people don’t want the government to provide for them or for anyone else. Don’t write all poor republican voting people off as ignorant. There’s more to it than getting more or less handouts.
Just curious, do you call wallowing in crap subsistence welfare and all it’s misery for generations and voting democrat smart? You act like everyone who votes democrat is a high functioning genius. I bet more Jerry Springer participants vote democrat than republican.
July 29, 2011 at 9:58 PM #714959ParticipantI think you have it wrong, Brian. The people don’t want the government to provide for them or for anyone else. Don’t write all poor republican voting people off as ignorant. There’s more to it than getting more or less handouts.
Just curious, do you call wallowing in crap subsistence welfare and all it’s misery for generations and voting democrat smart? You act like everyone who votes democrat is a high functioning genius. I bet more Jerry Springer participants vote democrat than republican.
July 29, 2011 at 11:01 PM #713767eavesdropper
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=walterwhite]
is tiger woods perhaps physically superior because of all the mixture?
[/quote]I heard that Tiger Woods is very well-endowed thanks to this Black dad. And he makes love really well thanks to his Thai mother. He’s also very rich. So no wonder women are all over him.[/quote]
Brian, this is a little known fact, but Tiger Woods is a world-class golfer in addition to his bedroom athleticism. I think that scaredy (correct me if I am incorrect, scaredy) may have been referring to that when he mentioned “physical superiority”.
As for your line, “….he makes love really well thanks to his Thai mother.” Eeeewwwwwwww.
But your first line (at least the first half)? True. Don’t be asking me how I know.
July 29, 2011 at 11:01 PM #713858Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=walterwhite]
is tiger woods perhaps physically superior because of all the mixture?
[/quote]I heard that Tiger Woods is very well-endowed thanks to this Black dad. And he makes love really well thanks to his Thai mother. He’s also very rich. So no wonder women are all over him.[/quote]
Brian, this is a little known fact, but Tiger Woods is a world-class golfer in addition to his bedroom athleticism. I think that scaredy (correct me if I am incorrect, scaredy) may have been referring to that when he mentioned “physical superiority”.
As for your line, “….he makes love really well thanks to his Thai mother.” Eeeewwwwwwww.
But your first line (at least the first half)? True. Don’t be asking me how I know.
July 29, 2011 at 11:01 PM #714456Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=walterwhite]
is tiger woods perhaps physically superior because of all the mixture?
[/quote]I heard that Tiger Woods is very well-endowed thanks to this Black dad. And he makes love really well thanks to his Thai mother. He’s also very rich. So no wonder women are all over him.[/quote]
Brian, this is a little known fact, but Tiger Woods is a world-class golfer in addition to his bedroom athleticism. I think that scaredy (correct me if I am incorrect, scaredy) may have been referring to that when he mentioned “physical superiority”.
As for your line, “….he makes love really well thanks to his Thai mother.” Eeeewwwwwwww.
But your first line (at least the first half)? True. Don’t be asking me how I know.
July 29, 2011 at 11:01 PM #714610Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=walterwhite]
is tiger woods perhaps physically superior because of all the mixture?
[/quote]I heard that Tiger Woods is very well-endowed thanks to this Black dad. And he makes love really well thanks to his Thai mother. He’s also very rich. So no wonder women are all over him.[/quote]
Brian, this is a little known fact, but Tiger Woods is a world-class golfer in addition to his bedroom athleticism. I think that scaredy (correct me if I am incorrect, scaredy) may have been referring to that when he mentioned “physical superiority”.
As for your line, “….he makes love really well thanks to his Thai mother.” Eeeewwwwwwww.
But your first line (at least the first half)? True. Don’t be asking me how I know.
July 29, 2011 at 11:01 PM #714969Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=walterwhite]
is tiger woods perhaps physically superior because of all the mixture?
[/quote]I heard that Tiger Woods is very well-endowed thanks to this Black dad. And he makes love really well thanks to his Thai mother. He’s also very rich. So no wonder women are all over him.[/quote]
Brian, this is a little known fact, but Tiger Woods is a world-class golfer in addition to his bedroom athleticism. I think that scaredy (correct me if I am incorrect, scaredy) may have been referring to that when he mentioned “physical superiority”.
As for your line, “….he makes love really well thanks to his Thai mother.” Eeeewwwwwwww.
But your first line (at least the first half)? True. Don’t be asking me how I know.
July 29, 2011 at 11:56 PM #713772Participant[quote=walterwhite]i believe in my heart that the healthiest thing is lots of interbreeding, going far afield to mix your dna. i know this sounds kind of cold, but it seems better for producing dogs, so why not people? [/quote]
It doesn’t sound cold, scaredy. What creates problems among people is fear, primarily fear of the unknown. People who seek to surround themselves (either in real-life situations, or in an online environment) with people who look, act, and think exactly as they do are the ones who are most susceptible to rumor and innuendo about people of other races, religions, cultures, etc.
Quite often, when they find themselves in a situation with people who are “different”, it becomes much more difficult to persist in believing the rumor and innuendo. So, I think that your “inbreeding” proposition is spot-on.
The big problem today is that people can persist in surrounding themselves with those who think and act exactly as they do. It’s no coincidence that the rise in popularity of the internet has mirrored the increase of polarization among people within socioeconomic groups. 16 or 17 years ago, people like Anders Breivick would have kept to themselves, writing stuff down in their secret diaries, sharing it with no one because they feared alienation, ridicule, or ostracism. Now they freely post their crazed ramblings on the internet because they can do so with impunity, and chances are strong that others with the same convictions will seek to connect with them.
I see this phenomenon constantly. People on all sides of a political (or any) argument continually seek out others – individuals and organizations – of similar thoughts and convictions on the internet. It serves as a reinforcement mechanism, and they don’t realize that they are actually part of a tiny microcosm that does not necessarily represent the attitudes of the public at large. Continued exposure leads to an incredibly limited and distorted view of the world that surrounds them. The irony is that they truly believe that they are gaining vast amounts of knowledge and are better informed in general; in reality, the exact opposite is occurring.
This is a normal human tendency. But what I find particularly disturbing is the unwillingness of people to listen, or even expose themselves, to someone from “the other side”. This is what leads people, who in actuality share the same wants, needs, hopes, and desires, to become archenemies.
[quote=walterwhite]i believe in my heart that the healthiest thing is lots of interbreeding, going far afield to mix your dna. i know this sounds kind of cold, but it seems better for producing dogs, so why not people?
…[/quote]Hey, I’m all for aerial spraying of Prozac, and strategic placement of benzo salt licks in populated areas. People need to just step away from the computers and communicate face-to-face with others. It’s a lot harder to hate someone right to their face.
[quote=walterwhite]…..if it could be proven that people with lots of disparate backgrounds were superior, could the data persuade racial purists to give it up already? [/quote]
The answer to this is a resounding “no”. Racial purists are not interested in the truth. They would only be threatened by data that conflicted with their deeply-rooted beliefs.
July 29, 2011 at 11:56 PM #713863Participant[quote=walterwhite]i believe in my heart that the healthiest thing is lots of interbreeding, going far afield to mix your dna. i know this sounds kind of cold, but it seems better for producing dogs, so why not people? [/quote]
It doesn’t sound cold, scaredy. What creates problems among people is fear, primarily fear of the unknown. People who seek to surround themselves (either in real-life situations, or in an online environment) with people who look, act, and think exactly as they do are the ones who are most susceptible to rumor and innuendo about people of other races, religions, cultures, etc.
Quite often, when they find themselves in a situation with people who are “different”, it becomes much more difficult to persist in believing the rumor and innuendo. So, I think that your “inbreeding” proposition is spot-on.
The big problem today is that people can persist in surrounding themselves with those who think and act exactly as they do. It’s no coincidence that the rise in popularity of the internet has mirrored the increase of polarization among people within socioeconomic groups. 16 or 17 years ago, people like Anders Breivick would have kept to themselves, writing stuff down in their secret diaries, sharing it with no one because they feared alienation, ridicule, or ostracism. Now they freely post their crazed ramblings on the internet because they can do so with impunity, and chances are strong that others with the same convictions will seek to connect with them.
I see this phenomenon constantly. People on all sides of a political (or any) argument continually seek out others – individuals and organizations – of similar thoughts and convictions on the internet. It serves as a reinforcement mechanism, and they don’t realize that they are actually part of a tiny microcosm that does not necessarily represent the attitudes of the public at large. Continued exposure leads to an incredibly limited and distorted view of the world that surrounds them. The irony is that they truly believe that they are gaining vast amounts of knowledge and are better informed in general; in reality, the exact opposite is occurring.
This is a normal human tendency. But what I find particularly disturbing is the unwillingness of people to listen, or even expose themselves, to someone from “the other side”. This is what leads people, who in actuality share the same wants, needs, hopes, and desires, to become archenemies.
[quote=walterwhite]i believe in my heart that the healthiest thing is lots of interbreeding, going far afield to mix your dna. i know this sounds kind of cold, but it seems better for producing dogs, so why not people?
…[/quote]Hey, I’m all for aerial spraying of Prozac, and strategic placement of benzo salt licks in populated areas. People need to just step away from the computers and communicate face-to-face with others. It’s a lot harder to hate someone right to their face.
[quote=walterwhite]…..if it could be proven that people with lots of disparate backgrounds were superior, could the data persuade racial purists to give it up already? [/quote]
The answer to this is a resounding “no”. Racial purists are not interested in the truth. They would only be threatened by data that conflicted with their deeply-rooted beliefs.
July 29, 2011 at 11:56 PM #714461Participant[quote=walterwhite]i believe in my heart that the healthiest thing is lots of interbreeding, going far afield to mix your dna. i know this sounds kind of cold, but it seems better for producing dogs, so why not people? [/quote]
It doesn’t sound cold, scaredy. What creates problems among people is fear, primarily fear of the unknown. People who seek to surround themselves (either in real-life situations, or in an online environment) with people who look, act, and think exactly as they do are the ones who are most susceptible to rumor and innuendo about people of other races, religions, cultures, etc.
Quite often, when they find themselves in a situation with people who are “different”, it becomes much more difficult to persist in believing the rumor and innuendo. So, I think that your “inbreeding” proposition is spot-on.
The big problem today is that people can persist in surrounding themselves with those who think and act exactly as they do. It’s no coincidence that the rise in popularity of the internet has mirrored the increase of polarization among people within socioeconomic groups. 16 or 17 years ago, people like Anders Breivick would have kept to themselves, writing stuff down in their secret diaries, sharing it with no one because they feared alienation, ridicule, or ostracism. Now they freely post their crazed ramblings on the internet because they can do so with impunity, and chances are strong that others with the same convictions will seek to connect with them.
I see this phenomenon constantly. People on all sides of a political (or any) argument continually seek out others – individuals and organizations – of similar thoughts and convictions on the internet. It serves as a reinforcement mechanism, and they don’t realize that they are actually part of a tiny microcosm that does not necessarily represent the attitudes of the public at large. Continued exposure leads to an incredibly limited and distorted view of the world that surrounds them. The irony is that they truly believe that they are gaining vast amounts of knowledge and are better informed in general; in reality, the exact opposite is occurring.
This is a normal human tendency. But what I find particularly disturbing is the unwillingness of people to listen, or even expose themselves, to someone from “the other side”. This is what leads people, who in actuality share the same wants, needs, hopes, and desires, to become archenemies.
[quote=walterwhite]i believe in my heart that the healthiest thing is lots of interbreeding, going far afield to mix your dna. i know this sounds kind of cold, but it seems better for producing dogs, so why not people?
…[/quote]Hey, I’m all for aerial spraying of Prozac, and strategic placement of benzo salt licks in populated areas. People need to just step away from the computers and communicate face-to-face with others. It’s a lot harder to hate someone right to their face.
[quote=walterwhite]…..if it could be proven that people with lots of disparate backgrounds were superior, could the data persuade racial purists to give it up already? [/quote]
The answer to this is a resounding “no”. Racial purists are not interested in the truth. They would only be threatened by data that conflicted with their deeply-rooted beliefs.
July 29, 2011 at 11:56 PM #714615Participant[quote=walterwhite]i believe in my heart that the healthiest thing is lots of interbreeding, going far afield to mix your dna. i know this sounds kind of cold, but it seems better for producing dogs, so why not people? [/quote]
It doesn’t sound cold, scaredy. What creates problems among people is fear, primarily fear of the unknown. People who seek to surround themselves (either in real-life situations, or in an online environment) with people who look, act, and think exactly as they do are the ones who are most susceptible to rumor and innuendo about people of other races, religions, cultures, etc.
Quite often, when they find themselves in a situation with people who are “different”, it becomes much more difficult to persist in believing the rumor and innuendo. So, I think that your “inbreeding” proposition is spot-on.
The big problem today is that people can persist in surrounding themselves with those who think and act exactly as they do. It’s no coincidence that the rise in popularity of the internet has mirrored the increase of polarization among people within socioeconomic groups. 16 or 17 years ago, people like Anders Breivick would have kept to themselves, writing stuff down in their secret diaries, sharing it with no one because they feared alienation, ridicule, or ostracism. Now they freely post their crazed ramblings on the internet because they can do so with impunity, and chances are strong that others with the same convictions will seek to connect with them.
I see this phenomenon constantly. People on all sides of a political (or any) argument continually seek out others – individuals and organizations – of similar thoughts and convictions on the internet. It serves as a reinforcement mechanism, and they don’t realize that they are actually part of a tiny microcosm that does not necessarily represent the attitudes of the public at large. Continued exposure leads to an incredibly limited and distorted view of the world that surrounds them. The irony is that they truly believe that they are gaining vast amounts of knowledge and are better informed in general; in reality, the exact opposite is occurring.
This is a normal human tendency. But what I find particularly disturbing is the unwillingness of people to listen, or even expose themselves, to someone from “the other side”. This is what leads people, who in actuality share the same wants, needs, hopes, and desires, to become archenemies.
[quote=walterwhite]i believe in my heart that the healthiest thing is lots of interbreeding, going far afield to mix your dna. i know this sounds kind of cold, but it seems better for producing dogs, so why not people?
…[/quote]Hey, I’m all for aerial spraying of Prozac, and strategic placement of benzo salt licks in populated areas. People need to just step away from the computers and communicate face-to-face with others. It’s a lot harder to hate someone right to their face.
[quote=walterwhite]…..if it could be proven that people with lots of disparate backgrounds were superior, could the data persuade racial purists to give it up already? [/quote]
The answer to this is a resounding “no”. Racial purists are not interested in the truth. They would only be threatened by data that conflicted with their deeply-rooted beliefs.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.