I really wonder what you guys are thinking about Prince Harry's marrying Meghan Markle.
Is she the type of woman whom Harry may like or is there a conspiracy theory behind this that accounts for the marrying. In my opinion there is...
Ordinary people meet one whom they marry by chance but it seems to me like Harry was directed to marry Meghan and this is a part of a plan. It's under control and some contribution to the era and world order in which we live.
The profile of Meghan does not suit very well with the British royal family. But alas! The perspective of the post of post-modern world politics illuminates what is really going on. Globalism takes place in the world like that every unit of the world is getting closer each other progresively year by year. There is no longer isolation of the races. The DNAs that make up the races are mixing. I think that is the question.
Greetings...
I can hardly contain my indifference.
Wrong of him to marry a commoner, or an American? Harry has been guilty of some indiscretions, and his family is famously in-bred ... they need new blood. Her humanitarian work makes her suited ... and royals are all actors anyway.
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on April 26, 2018, 03:35:37 AM
I really wonder what you guys are thinking about Prince Harry's marrying Meghan Markle.
Meh.
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on April 26, 2018, 03:35:37 AM
I really wonder what you guys are thinking about Prince Harry's marrying Meghan Markle. Is she the type of woman whom Harry may like or is there a conspiracy theory behind this that accounts for the marrying. In my opinion there is...
You may not have hit on a conspiracy theory, but mark my words. There's a conspiracy in there some place. I just googled her. Wow! Some dish. Maybe it's not a conspiracy.
Maybe it's a Hollywood conspiracy and she's a gold digger.
I reeeeeeeeeeeeallly don't care.
Quote from: SGOS on April 26, 2018, 09:40:26 AM
Maybe it's a Hollywood conspiracy and she's a gold digger.
The Brits gave away all their gold 15 years ago. They are broke.
I hope the royal couple will live happily ever after.
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on April 26, 2018, 03:35:37 AM
I really wonder what you guys are thinking about Prince Harry's marrying Meghan Markle.
I would find it difficult to care less than I already do. I hope they're happy with each other, in the same way I would hope any two people getting married are happy with each other. Beyond that, *shrug*.
It's pretty cool.
Quote from: Unbeliever on April 26, 2018, 02:22:42 PM
I hope the royal couple will live happily ever after.
May she bear him many sons.
I barely cared enough to open up this thread.
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on April 26, 2018, 03:35:37 AM
I really wonder what you guys are thinking about Prince Harry's marrying Meghan Markle.
Is she the type of woman whom Harry may like or is there a conspiracy theory behind this that accounts for the marrying. In my opinion there is...
Ordinary people meet one whom they marry by chance but it seems to me like Harry was directed to marry Meghan and this is a part of a plan. It's under control and some contribution to the era and world order in which we live.
The profile of Meghan does not suit very well with the British royal family. But alas! The perspective of the post of post-modern world politics illuminates what is really going on. Globalism takes place in the world like that every unit of the world is getting closer each other progresively year by year. There is no longer isolation of the races. The DNAs that make up the races are mixing. I think that is the question.
Greetings...
There are no races, therefore, there is no DNA to mix up.
I don't give a rat's tail what Harry does.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 26, 2018, 08:00:40 PM
There are no races, therefore, there is no DNA to mix up.
I don't give a rat's tail what Harry does.
That mankind is of one species is right. But there is some racial differences amongst the people like eye and skin colour etc.
Looking biologically, the subdivision of any given species are races... Like dogo argentino and german shepherd and pitbull.
Pitbulls? That is why the Spartans had to be taken to the Pound, and put down ;-(
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on April 26, 2018, 08:12:45 PM
That mankind is of one species is right. But there is some racial differences amongst the people like eye and skin colour etc.
Looking biologically, the subdivision of any given species are races... Like dogo argentino and german shepherd and pitbull.
This may be a semantics game, but I don't buy into the concept of 'races' of humans. The differences we see are tied to geography, not really biology. As the Three Musketeers said--One for all, all for one. We are all the same--one species, one race. Or as Bill Nye says: "If a Papua New Guinean hooks up with a Swedish person all you get is a human. There’s no new thing you’re going to get. You just get a human. Japanese woman jumping the African guy, all you get is a human. They’re all humans. So this is a lesson to be learned. There really is, for humankind there’s really no such thing as race. There’s different tribes but not different races. We’re all one species."
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 26, 2018, 08:58:07 PM
This may be a semantics game, but I don't buy into the concept of 'races' of humans. The differences we see are tied to geography, not really biology. As the Three Musketeers said--One for all, all for one. We are all the same--one species, one race. Or as Bill Nye says: "If a Papua New Guinean hooks up with a Swedish person all you get is a human. There’s no new thing you’re going to get. You just get a human. Japanese woman jumping the African guy, all you get is a human. They’re all humans. So this is a lesson to be learned. There really is, for humankind there’s really no such thing as race. There’s different tribes but not different races. We’re all one species."
Every tribe must fight or die. Equality only applies to tribal members, not outsiders.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 26, 2018, 08:58:07 PM
This may be a semantics game, but I don't buy into the concept of 'races' of humans. The differences we see are tied to geography, not really biology.
Actually the differences can be due to both. But even if the differences were entirely geographical, they would still be differences, minor as they are, but differences to which you yourself refer. Shunning the word seems to be politically motivated. I'm not sure it's the right approach to solving a big problem.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 26, 2018, 08:58:07 PM
We are all the same--one species, one race. Or as Bill Nye says: "If a Papua New Guinean hooks up with a Swedish person all you get is a human.
Yes human. It is the common term for the species Homo Sapiens, which is a species. Race as a term which describes differences in a species, has recently fallen out of fashion. This may be politically correct, and it may have positive consequences if we abolish the word race, although I don't think it will. The differences will remain. The problem is with humans, who assign unwarranted and logically unsupported values to race.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 26, 2018, 08:58:07 PM
Japanese woman jumping the African guy, all you get is a human.
What else would you expect? Eventually, if we interbreed globally, we will still all be humans, and race may cease to exist outwardly. Then there will be one race. Until that time, we just need to learn to be kind to each other.
There should be no shame in being of a race, or in observing another person's race. The problem is in humans, not words. Humans, as pure as the species is, approach differences in the species in negative ways. This is wrong, I think. We shouldn't do that.
What does this have to do with Prince Harry?
Quote from: SGOS on April 27, 2018, 05:26:22 AM
What does this have to do with Prince Harry?
Mike CLs reaction to SoldierOfFortune. You have to read the entire thread, to understand one entry (why people don't always get my posts either).
The idea that if we are all of the same genetics (Han Chinese), speak the same language (Mandarin Chinese), have one political party (CP of the PRC), and have one fearless leader (Emperor Xi) ... is stupid. SGOS is correct that apes will be apes ... stupid and violent. Basically the idea of Shi Huang Di or Alexander ... or their predecessors ... springs from megalomania, not beneficence. Typical of the Elite ... "if all of mankind had one neck, I would cut it" - Caligula. Naive optimism kills, just like being a naif entering Mos Eiseley alien bar is a light saber accident waiting to happen.
Quote from: SGOS on April 27, 2018, 05:05:44 AM
Actually the differences can be due to both. But even if the differences were entirely geographical, they would still be differences, minor as they are, but differences to which you yourself refer. Shunning the word seems to be politically motivated. I'm not sure it's the right approach to solving a big problem.
Yes human. It is the common term for the species Homo Sapiens, which is a species. Race as a term which describes differences in a species, has recently fallen out of fashion. This may be politically correct, and it may have positive consequences if we abolish the word race, although I don't think it will. The differences will remain. The problem is with humans, who assign unwarranted and logically unsupported values to race.
What else would you expect? Eventually, if we interbreed globally, we will still all be humans, and race may cease to exist outwardly. Then there will be one race. Until that time, we just need to learn to be kind to each other.
There should be no shame in being of a race, or in observing another person's race. The problem is in humans, not words. Humans, as pure as the species is, approach differences in the species in negative ways. This is wrong, I think. We shouldn't do that.
I understand your point. I have read that in medical terms, race can be helpful in that some 'races' have some inclination toward some diseases or conditions. Okay, I can accept that as being helpful. But generally, within this society, race is simply used as another divider of 'us' vs 'them' and is not helpful. When I lived in Hawaii they had a word for those that were 'racially' mixed--cosmopolitan. As the world slowly becomes more cosmopolitan the better off we will be.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 27, 2018, 09:25:41 AM
I understand your point. I have read that in medical terms, race can be helpful in that some 'races' have some inclination toward some diseases or conditions. Okay, I can accept that as being helpful. But generally, within this society, race is simply used as another divider of 'us' vs 'them' and is not helpful. When I lived in Hawaii they had a word for those that were 'racially' mixed--cosmopolitan. As the world slowly becomes more cosmopolitan the better off we will be.
And I understand that referring to race falls outside a lot of current scientific and anthropological thought. I'm not up to speed, I guess because I'm not sure of the motivation for eliminating the term or absorbing it makes much difference. Race can be used as a justification for bigotry. But it can also be celebrated as many people currently push to do (as in lets celebrate diversity). I prefer the second, and I think that might be easier for humans to do. I don't mean it would be easy. I just mean easier realizing there is still a huge gulf between easy and easier in this particular situcation. And humans being humans, or apes being apes, I might be hopelessly optimistic about the whole thing anyway.
Quote from: SGOS on April 27, 2018, 05:26:22 AM
What does this have to do with Prince Harry?
(https://images.pottermore.com/bxd3o8b291gf/3SQ3X2km8wkQIsQWa02yOY/25f258f21bdbe5f552a4419bb775f4f0/HarryPotter_WB_F4_HarryPotterMidshot_Promo_080615_Port.jpg?w=1200)
Only Muggles post here ;-)
Quote from: SGOS on April 27, 2018, 10:03:52 AM
And I understand that referring to race falls outside a lot of current scientific and anthropological thought. I'm not up to speed, I guess because I'm not sure of the motivation for eliminating the term or absorbing it makes much difference. Race can be used as a justification for bigotry. But it can also be celebrated as many people currently push to do (as in lets celebrate diversity). I prefer the second, and I think that might be easier for humans to do. I don't mean it would be easy. I just mean easier realizing there is still a huge gulf between easy and easier in this particular situcation. And humans being humans, or apes being apes, I might be hopelessly optimistic about the whole thing anyway.
Not just African-appearing folks get sickle-cell anemia. A doctor who diagnosed on skin color (rather than lab work) would be de-certified. No, race isn't useful in medicine. It is only useful in politics, by the usual suspects.
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on April 26, 2018, 03:35:37 AM
I really wonder what you guys are thinking about Prince Harry's marrying Meghan Markle.
When was this announced? I live in the UK and this is literally the first I'm hearing of this.
Anyone know when the big day is?
Quote from: Jason78 on April 27, 2018, 01:09:45 PM
When was this announced? I live in the UK and this is literally the first I'm hearing of this.
Anyone know when the big day is?
Engaged on 11/27/17, will be married next month
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/a8673228/prince-harry-meghan-markle-dating-timeline/
Reminds me of Grace Kelley and Prince Rainier of Monaco.
I have no interest in this other than mild amusement that the kid is named Louis.
(https://i.imgur.com/IMj1JE0.gif)
I don't really care a rat's ass about British royalty. As far as I care, they could quit the job and nobody would really care.
BUT! I read a sci-fi book once where the new king (or queen) was required to marry a commoner to keep the DNA viable (so to speak), and I thought that was a great idea. If you HAVE to have a monarchy, it is better to not inbreed them. That way lies literal madness.
Quote from: Cavebear on May 01, 2018, 10:34:03 PM
I don't really care a rat's ass about British royalty. As far as I care, they could quit the job and nobody would really care.
BUT! I read a sci-fi book once where the new king (or queen) was required to marry a commoner to keep the DNA viable (so to speak), and I thought that was a great idea. If you HAVE to have a monarchy, it is better to not inbreed them. That way lies literal madness.
That's pretty much the plot of Game of Thrones, lol. It's strange that purebred sounds desirable and inbred sounds undesirable when both words describe the exact same thing.
Quote from: Cavebear on May 01, 2018, 10:34:03 PM
I don't really care a rat's ass about British royalty. As far as I care, they could quit the job and nobody would really care.
BUT! I read a sci-fi book once where the new king (or queen) was required to marry a commoner to keep the DNA viable (so to speak), and I thought that was a great idea. If you HAVE to have a monarchy, it is better to not inbreed them. That way lies literal madness.
Look up Leopold the Hogmouth, not a pretty face.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 01, 2018, 10:42:48 PM
That's pretty much the plot of Game of Thrones, lol. It's strange that purebred sounds desirable and inbred sounds undesirable when both words describe the exact same thing.
Inbreeding is great if you can stand the the unavoidable lunatics and physically deformed. Some cultures have just left them on hillsides to die. Royalty can't. Bloodlines matter and you can be as mad as the mercury-soaked hatter and still be king if the line gets you to the top. But even then, most of them manage to die conveniently (koff, koff).
We do that with dogs and cats and cattle, but eliminating the bad results is not a social problem. We just toss them into the sausage factory.