# Blue-eyed people are vanishing in America



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Perhaps not literally, but they are becoming increasingly rare:

_About half of Americans born at the turn of the 20th century had blue eyes, according to a 2002 Loyola University study in Chicago. By mid-century that number had dropped to a third. Today only about one 1 of every 6 Americans has blue eyes, said Mark Grant, the epidemiologist who conducted the study._


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Fascinating calculator to determine the eye colour probabilities of children one would have with a hypothetical mate:


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

I would suspect us green-eyed people are even more endangered.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

hmmmm...that calculator is pretty interesting...and the website has alot of interesting information...but...what about people with unusual eye colors (purple, dark blue, hazel, etc...) how would there genes factor into the great scheme of things???

Is it safe to assume that someday everybody will be brown-eyed?


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

"Is it safe to assume that someday everybody will be brown-eyed?"

Yes, if all goes well! :^)


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

> Is it safe to assume that someday everybody will be brown-eyed?


Mostly, with the occasional suprises (Rr x Rr)


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Did Hitler fund Loyola University to conduct that study?


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

No, odoreater. Hitler's dead.


----------



## oktagon (Mar 9, 2005)

It is because of massive illegal migration or darker individuals from the South America, Asia and Middle East. America as we know it no longer lives. We live in multicolour coctail of uncivilized races streaming in here. 
Give it another 20 years of liberal politicians and you will get mullas screamingv their violent ritual instructions from the Empite State building! We need real concervatives in power. the ones who will take care of the problem physically rather then throuch stupid speaches.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Phinn said:


> No, odoreater. Hitler's dead.





oktagon said:


> It is because of massive illegal migration or darker individuals from the South America, Asia and Middle East. America as we know it no longer lives. We live in multicolour coctail of uncivilized races streaming in here.
> Give it another 20 years of liberal politicians and you will get mullas screamingv their violent ritual instructions from the Empite State building! We need real concervatives in power. the ones who will take care of the problem physically rather then throuch stupid speaches.


Apparently he lives on in spirit.


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman (Jun 16, 2006)

oktagon said:


> It is because of massive illegal migration or darker individuals from the South America, Asia and Middle East. America as we know it no longer lives. We live in multicolour coctail of uncivilized races streaming in here.
> Give it another 20 years of liberal politicians and you will get mullas screamingv their violent ritual instructions from the Empite State building! We need real concervatives in power. the ones who will take care of the problem physically rather then throuch stupid speaches.


Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel.


----------



## Thomas (Jan 30, 2006)

oktagon said:


> It is because of massive illegal migration or darker individuals from the South America, Asia and Middle East. America as we know it no longer lives. We live in multicolour coctail of uncivilized races streaming in here.
> Give it another 20 years of liberal politicians and you will get mullas screamingv their violent ritual instructions from the Empite State building! We need real concervatives in power. the ones who will take care of the problem physically rather then throuch stupid speaches.


Run a spell check next time. At least they can't screw up the English language as bad as you just did.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Thomas said:


> Run a spell check next time. At least they can't screw up the English language as bad as you just did.


I think in a previous post our friend Oktagon said he is from Russia. We ought to cut him some slack.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Apparently [Hitler] lives on in spirit.


Sad, but true.


----------



## oktagon (Mar 9, 2005)

Thomas said:


> Run a spell check next time. At least they can't screw up the English language as bad as you just did.


Yes, off course. The oldest trick in the book. If you have no argumants to argue with the message, just attack the messanger. Good job! You behave like a real liberal.


----------



## Thomas (Jan 30, 2006)

Actually, I consider myself to be extremely conservative. I was unaware that being a racist was a requirement.

And as for making fun of your spelling, I apologize if you are not from America. I assumed you were and would not have made fun of if I had known otherwise.


----------



## oktagon (Mar 9, 2005)

Thomas said:


> Run a spell check next time. At least they can't screw up the English language as bad as you just did.


No one is being a racist. Sometimes a little trolling can bring a life to a conversation. My political agenda is libertarian, but never racist.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

oktagon said:


> No one is being a racist. *Sometimes a little trolling can bring a life to a conversation. * My political agenda is libertarian, but never racist.


Ah yes. I believe liberals call it "consciousness raising". I find it equally annoying and childish when they do it too.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

Sigh.... we are an endangered spieces. I don't suppose that we can expect the Orcs and the Morlocks to grant us any sort of privileged minority status, nor can I expect that we can look forward to benefiting from any kind of affirmative action...


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman (Jun 16, 2006)

Liberty Ship said:


> Sigh.... we are an endangered spieces. I don't suppose that we can expect the Orcs and the Morlocks to grant us any sort of privileged minority status, nor can I expect that we can look forward to benefiting from any kind of affirmative action...


My son, in a festival of recessive genes, is blond, blue-eyed and left-handed. This from a brown/green/right-h father and brown/brown/right-h mother. The Uruk-Hai have been notified and will deal with the problem. He's too smart a little bugger to be mere cattle for the Morlocks.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

A Questionable Gentleman said:


> My son, in a festival of recessive genes, is blond, blue-eyed and left-handed. This from a brown/green/right-h father and brown/brown/right-h mother. The Uruk-Hai have been notified and will deal with the problem. He's too smart a little bugger to be mere cattle for the Morlocks.


That is a recessive festival! There is hope for the blue-eyed yet.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

As I see it, the issue far transcends the mere problem of illegal immigration, which seems to be a lost cause anyway at this point. The American people semi-consciously in the 1960s made the decision that they would have a brown future rather than a white one. The old 1920s-era immigration quotas were repealed a being "racist," which of course they were. The old-fashioned social taboos against inter-racial sex in large measure broke down. While the government spent trillions of dollars for national defense against a Communist Menace that ultimately self-destructed, they failed to provide adequate security of our borders (that could have been done with a tiny fraction of the national defense budget), and this result in the permanent demographic alteration of large sections of the country. The women's movement also led far more young women to spend years in pursuit of "career fulfillment," which led them in turn to put off having children until later in their childbearing years. The legally mandated phenomenon of busing in the 1970s led many other white families to limit the number of children so their precious darlings could safely be sequestered private schools. Additionally, America seems to be following the pattern of most white nations in having declining birthrates among their white populations. I expect in 40 years we shall see "Mexamerica" confronting "Eurarabia."

No doubt readers may sense that I feel a bit rueful about all this. However, I have sometimes remarked that a very good antidote for the belief in the "natural superiority of the blue-eyed man" (in which I was raised) is to have an occasional dinner at Denny's! In many respects, I have come to regard the normative Anglo-Protestant culture as a moral, intellectual and cultural failure. A side of me hopes to see millions more immigrants surging up from the south to create a virile, vibrant Mexamerican culture. Instead of a new NFL stadium, Los Angeles will have a Plaza de Toros. Instead of fathers taking their kids to the Little League, they will take them to El Palenque! Besides, if I could find some Latina lady who looked a lot like Salma Hayek (hopefully without her annoying accent), I'd be sorely tempted to ditch my tall, fair-skinned, blue-eyed Anglo-Celtic wife in favor of her swarthy rival!


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

What if Ms. Hayek refused to sign a pre-nup allowing you to wear neckties and/or pocket squares at any time you choose?


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> What if Ms. Hayek refused to sign a pre-nup allowing you to wear neckties and/or pocket squares at any time you choose?


I didn't say I necessarily wanted Salma herself, just a Salma look-alike! Since my present wife often complains about my being over-dressed, the failure of my hypothetical Latina heartthrob to sign such a pre-nup wouldn't necessarily tilt the scales against her; however, it would be a bad sign.

However, in the new Mexamerica, perhaps I should start dressing myself in charro attire! (Now there's a horrifying thought!)


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

JLibourel said:


> As I see it, the issue far transcends the mere problem of illegal immigration, which seems to be a lost cause anyway at this point. The American people semi-consciously in the 1960s made the decision that they would have a brown future rather than a white one. The old 1920s-era immigration quotas were repealed a being "racist," which of course they were. The old-fashioned social taboos against inter-racial sex in large measure broke down. While the government spent trillions of dollars for national defense against a Communist Menace that ultimately self-destructed, they failed to provide adequate security of our borders (that could have been done with a tiny fraction of the national defense budget), and this result in the permanent demographic alteration of large sections of the country. The women's movement also led far more young women to spend years in pursuit of "career fulfillment," which led them in turn to put off having children until later in their childbearing years. The legally mandated phenomenon of busing in the 1970s led many other white families to limit the number of children so their precious darlings could safely be sequestered private schools. Additionally, America seems to be following the pattern of most white nations in having declining birthrates among their white populations. I expect in 40 years we shall see "Mexamerica" confronting "Eurarabia."
> 
> No doubt readers may sense that I feel a bit rueful about all this. However, I have sometimes remarked that a very good antidote for the belief in the "natural superiority of the blue-eyed man" (in which I was raised) is to have an occasional dinner at Denny's! In many respects, I have come to regard the normative Anglo-Protestant culture as a moral, intellectual and cultural failure. A side of me hopes to see millions more immigrants surging up from the south to create a virile, vibrant Mexamerican culture. Instead of a new NFL stadium, Los Angeles will have a Plaza de Toros. Instead of fathers taking their kids to the Little League, they will take them to El Palenque! Besides, if I could find some Latina lady who looked a lot like Salma Hayek (hopefully without her annoying accent), I'd be sorely tempted to ditch my tall, fair-skinned, blue-eyed Anglo-Celtic wife in favor of her swarthy rival!


While I disagree with a few minor points in your post, I find that, as a whole, it contains much wisdom. Demographic change is as inexorable and relentlesss as the movement of tectonic plates, and as fruitless to oppose. Europeans have had their day; our time is coming to an end. How could it be otherwise? Anyone of European ancestry who finds that prospect frightening has one clear duty: if not married, get married immediately; then, once thoroughly encaged in wedlock (lovely word, wedlock), begin producing children just as frequently as one's wife can manage. Five or six would seem to be the bare minimum, but, given that Europeans have a lot of catching up to do, double figures would appear to be more desirable. If this course of action is distasteful, well, there really isn't much to say. Just carry on, and enjoy the decline. Think of it as the "End of Empire" _in toto_. Buy some Lobbs. Have a smoke and a belt. Learn Spanish. Read Henry Williamson, crypto-fascist though he is. Memorize, and recite to yourself as often as you think about it, "Ozymandias." Don't worry; be happy.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

JLibourel said:


> However, in the new Mexamerica, perhaps I should start dressing myself in Charro attire! (Now there's a horrifying thought!)


Just found an interesting website on Charro clothing: www.chapla.com/chapala/viva/.htm. It sounds as if, should I dare to attire myself in Charro clothing, the Mexicans would probably assassinate me...and justifiably so, both for the affront to Mexican culture that an old bespectacled ****** would have temerity to wear such clothing as well as for the crime against general aesthetics that I would present so attired!

The conventions of Charro suits are bound by very strict rules--so strict they even make Manton look permissive!

Lushington, it sounds as if we are very much on the same page. I think I'd rather have the Lobbs than 10 kids, certainly at this season of my life, but then I can afford neither the shoes nor the quiverful on my present income!


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

One day, I will lead an army of fellow hazel-eyed people on a quest for world domination. The slaughter will be unmerciful and relentless.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I really do not think it is as much about genetics as it is about culture. My kids are going to have dark eyes; there's no way my genes in regards to colouration will manifest when they are getting mixed with someone who is 100% Oriental and the kids will not get the blue eyes their father has. However, the kids will be raised by myself and my wife, which means they will inculcated with an importance for education, hard work, acheivement, true diversity (vs. the liberal immitation of it) and also enjoying life.

I am glad to see others agreeing with me now in the demographics. The genetic future of the US, Canada, and Western Europe is set at this point. The question is which culture will become dominant? Will France become Islamic? Will the US Southwest become a series of corrupt barrios? These are the things that are still being decided. I hope Western values win out.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Will the US Southwest become a series of corrupt barrios? These are the things that are still being decided. I hope Western values win out.


Just curious, do you exclude Mexico and South America from the term "Western"? And, if they're not Western, what are they?


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Will the US Southwest become a series of corrupt barrios?


I didn't really think bribery and political corruption knew ethnic boundaries!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

JLibourel said:


> I didn't really think bribery and political corruption knew ethnic boundaries!


No it does not know ethnic boundaries, but in general, graft, bribery, etc. is frowned on in the US, Canada, and Western Europe. In other countries, it is part of the pay scale.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

odoreater said:


> Just curious, do you exclude Mexico and South America from the term "Western"? And, if they're not Western, what are they?


I do exclude them, for the most part. I think others do too. Go call someone from Spain "hispanic" and report on the reaction you get. What they are, I do not have a word for, 'tis not my specialization, ya ken. However, I tend to think third world nations are generally disqualified from the moniker.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> No it does not know ethnic boundaries, but in general, graft, bribery, etc. is frowned on in the US, Canada, and Western Europe. In other countries, it is part of the pay scale.


Obviously, you're not too familiar with New Jersey.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

odoreater said:


> Obviously, you're not too familiar with New Jersey.


I did say "in general" and "frowned upon", not "it never happens". I know you're joking but the point is, it gets prosecuted here when discovered.


----------



## Aus_MD (Nov 2, 2005)

JLibourel said:


> I didn't really think bribery and political corruption knew ethnic boundaries!


Worlds top bribe payers of the world's top 30 exporters (India worst):

21 South Korea
22 Saudi Arabia
23 Brazil 
24 South Africa 
25 Malaysia 
26 Taiwan 
27 Turkey 
28 Russia 
29 China 
30 India 

Source 

World's nations perceived to be least corrupt:

Country 
rank Country 2005

1 Iceland 
2 Finland; New Zealand 
4 Denmark 
5 Singapore 
6 Sweden 
7 Switzerland 
8 Norway 
9 Australia 
10 Austria 
11 Netherlands; United Kingdom 
13 Luxembourg 
14 Canada 
15 Hong Kong 
16 Germany 
17 USA 
18 France

Mexico comes in at 65.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I did say "in general" and "frowned upon", not "it never happens". I know you're joking but the point is, it gets prosecuted here when discovered.


I'm not joking at all. New Jersey is the most corrupt state in America and it's a huge problem here that costs taxpayers the GDP of some of those countries on that list. I don't see The Torch getting prosecuted.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

odoreater said:


> Just curious, do you exclude Mexico and South America from the term "Western"? And, if they're not Western, what are they?


Whatever the word is for this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/26/...&en=f151ef98131196a3&ei=5094&partner=homepage


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

BertieW said:


> Whatever the word is for this:
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/26/...&en=f151ef98131196a3&ei=5094&partner=homepage


I agree. The Americas, outside of Canada, some parts of the United States, and European territories, are not First-World West.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Aus_MD said:


> Worlds top bribe payers of the world's top 30 exporters (India worst):
> 
> 21 South Korea
> 22 Saudi Arabia
> ...


Fascinating. Thank-you, AUS MD.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

odoreater said:


> I'm not joking at all. New Jersey is the most corrupt state in America and it's a huge problem here that costs taxpayers the GDP of some of those countries on that list. I don't see The Torch getting prosecuted.


You've done nothing to refute the idea, whether valid or not, of a correlation between ethnicity and corruption by citing New Jersey. Do you think it might be that New Jersey's history of corruption is linked to the disproportionate size of its ethnic/Sicilan descended population? Sicily, over the years, has hardly had a reputation of "clean" government. Then we can go back and discuss the link between ethic identity and political corruption among the Irish.....


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> No it does not know ethnic boundaries, but in general, graft, bribery, etc. is frowned on in the US, Canada, and Western Europe. In other countries, it is part of the pay scale.





Rocker said:


> You've done nothing to refute the idea, whether valid or not, of a correlation between ethnicity and corruption by citing New Jersey. Do you think it might be that New Jersey's history of corruption is linked to the disproportionate size of its ethnic/Sicilan descended population? Sicily, over the years, has hardly had a reputation of "clean" government. Then we can go back and discuss the link between ethic identity and political corruption among the Irish.....


I was refuting the idea that graft and bribery are frowned upon in the US, or at least the idea that there is less tolerance for graft and bribery in the US by citing to an example of a state in the US (and probably one of the most influential and prosperous states in the US) where graft and bribery are a generally accepted way of life. Even if the corruption stems from the fact that NJ is full of Italians and Irish, last I checked, Italy and Ireland were both part of the West, thus, further refuting the idea that graft and bribery are not tolerated in the West. Basically, the whole idea that graft and bribery are related to ethnicity, such that all blue-eyed people are genetically less likely to be corrupt than brown-eyed people is a bunch of bullshit. Sounds like Hitler logic to me.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

odoreater said:


> Sounds like Hitler logic to me.


Give the Hitler thing a rest. It's tiresome and you over-use it like most people nowadays.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Rocker said:


> Give the Hitler thing a rest. It's tiresome and you over-use it like most people nowadays.


It's kind of hard not to use the "Hitler thing" on a thread bemoaning the fact that "blue-eyed people are vanishing in America." Can you cite other examples of where I've used the "Hitler thing" other than in this thread?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

odoreater said:


> I was refuting the idea that graft and bribery are frowned upon in the US, or at least the idea that there is less tolerance for graft and bribery in the US by citing to an example of a state in the US (and probably one of the most influential and prosperous states in the US) where graft and bribery are a generally accepted way of life. Even if the corruption stems from the fact that NJ is full of Italians and Irish, last I checked, Italy and Ireland were both part of the West, thus, further refuting the idea that graft and bribery are not tolerated in the West. Basically, the whole idea that graft and bribery are related to ethnicity, such that all blue-eyed people are genetically less likely to be corrupt than brown-eyed people is a bunch of bullshit. Sounds like Hitler logic to me.


Okay guys, keep me the hell out of this "Hitler logic" shyte, m'kay? And Odor, you did not refute that graft and bribery if frowned upon in the US, you gave an example that is contrary to the norm. I had no idea how recalcitrant you were being and basically had laughed off your comment. Further, I in no way tied this to ethnicity, that was Jan asking a question. If you believe that graft and bribery are equally accepted in Western nations as they are in third world nations, more power to you. I promise to visit you on Sundays when you get tossed in the pen for exercising your world view that graft and bribery is "okay" in the US.

Cheers


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Okay guys, keep me the hell out of this "Hitler logic" shyte, m'kay? And Odor, you did not refute that graft and bribery if frowned upon in the US, you gave an example that is contrary to the norm. I had no idea how recalcitrant you were being and basically had laughed off your comment. Further, I in no way tied this to ethnicity, that was Jan asking a question. If you believe that graft and bribery are equally accepted in Western nations as they are in third world nations, more power to you. I promise to visit you on Sundays when you get tossed in the pen for exercising your world view that graft and bribery is "okay" in the US.
> 
> Cheers


Graft and bribery come in many different forms, with varying levels of sophistication. In NJ, graft and bribery are both rampant, and more or less tolerated by the population (as indicated by the fact that the same "party bosses" get elected over and over again). Does this mean that I can pay a judge some money to get out of a speeding ticket or a DUI? No. Does it mean that I can pay a few grand to a county boss to secure a multi-million dollar highway project? You betcha.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

odoreater said:


> It's kind of hard not to use the "Hitler thing" on a thread bemoaning the fact that "blue-eyed people are vanishing in America." Can you cite other examples of where I've used the "Hitler thing" other than in this thread?


No, it's just the multiple times you've used it in this thread. Personally, I found the original posting interesting. There was a story several months ago that geneticists expected blond hair (natural, of course) to disappear world-wide sometime in approx 2200 A.D. I find it interesting that genetic changes are continuing to occur in the human population, and if anything accelerating, as a result of ease of travel and the mass migrations of people. That this evolution will result in the elimination of blue-eyed people is interesting and worthy of comment - just as much as if someone were to posit that humans will grow significantly taller or shorter or our heads will be smaller or bigger or whatever. Genetic make-up also affects a populations susceptibility to certain diseases - is it Hitlerian to comment on this as well? You have no interest in how human beings have evolved and will continue to evolve?

Based on your comments, I would expect that you would bemoan the loss of blue-eyed people as it would diminish "diversity."


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Rocker said:


> No, it's just the multiple times you've used it in this thread. Personally, I found the original posting interesting. There was a story several months ago that geneticists expected blond hair (natural, of course) to disappear world-wide sometime in approx 2200 A.D. I find it interesting that genetic changes are continuing to occur in the human population, and if anything accelerating, as a result of ease of travel and the mass migrations of people. That this evolution will result in the elimination of blue-eyed people is interesting and worthy of comment - just as much as if someone were to posit that humans will grow significantly taller or shorter or our heads will be smaller or bigger or whatever. Genetic make-up also affects a populations susceptibility to certain diseases - is it Hitlerian to comment on this as well? You have no interest in how human beings have evolved and will continue to evolve?
> 
> Based on your comments, I would expect that you would bemoan the loss of blue-eyed people as it would diminish "diversity."


To discuss genetics is one thing, to discuss how those genetics effects the future of this country, etc. is something else. I didn't see anyone on this thread comment on the effect of disease on genetics. The only thing I saw, was the effect on corruption and how the fact that there are no more blue-eyes is negatively impacting America.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by your "diversity" comment. Are you infering that I'm a "liberal"? Does one have to be a "liberal" to believe that generalizations about how someone will act, or how corrupt they will be, or how bad they are for our country based on their skin or eye color is wrong and dangerous? I didn't realize that "liberals" had a monopoly over believing that genetic makeup does not have a causal relationship with corruption, graft, and all other things evil.

By the way, for informational purposes, here's the point at which this thread took a turn away from discussing genetics, and towards discussing the correlation between corruption and culture, etc. It had nothing to do with me.



Wayfarer said:


> I am glad to see others agreeing with me now in the demographics. The genetic future of the US, Canada, and Western Europe is set at this point. The question is which culture will become dominant? Will France become Islamic? Will the US Southwest become a series of corrupt barrios? These are the things that are still being decided. I hope Western values win out.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

odoreater said:


> To discuss genetics is one thing, to discuss how those genetics effects the future of this country, etc. is something else. I didn't see anyone on this thread comment on the effect of disease on genetics. The only thing I saw, was the effect on corruption and how the fact that there are no more blue-eyes is negatively impacting America.


Actually Odor, that is pretty much crap. The thread started with some friendly banter about recessive eye colours and your contribution, in one of the first posts on this thread was:



ordoreater said:


> Did Hitler fund Loyola University to conduct that study?


It was you, right off the bat, putting the fact that recessive eye colours are diminishing, into a very nasty light. So predictably a troll decides to enter the conversation but Odor, when you open the door like that with the Hitler talk, you have to expect the trolls to walk into the house. I then did my best to draw things away from the nastiness you had introduced:



Wayfarer said:


> I really do not think it is as much about genetics as it is about culture. My kids are going to have dark eyes; there's no way my genes in regards to colouration will manifest when they are getting mixed with someone who is 100% Oriental and the kids will not get the blue eyes their father has.


Odd you have yet to quote that part of my post, isn't it?



odoreater said:


> By the way, for informational purposes, here's the point at which this thread took a turn away from discussing genetics, and *towards discussing the correlation between corruption and culture, etc. * It had nothing to do with me.


Wrong again. Logical fallacy on both your part and Jan's. I applied the adjective "corrupt" to barrios. You extrapolated from that I meant, "All hispanic areas are corrupt and *corruption exists only there*", very much not what I said. You are disputing my thesis currently, apparently believing corruption and graft is just as accepted in the US, Canada and Western Europe. I do maintain, and the data Aus has provided seems to support, that it is accepted much more than in the areas of the world I listed. Does it exist elsewhere? Sure does. Read some case studies of opening a factory in India though and then look into opening one here. It should be enlightening.

Anyways, Hitler just arrived for our lunch appointment with Plato and Jimmy the Greek, so I have to go. (hey, two Greeks. Any corelation there?)

Cheers


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

My original Hitler comment was a pseudo-joke, but yeah, you're right, I probably opened the door. Guilty as charged. In any case, eye color has nothing to do with anything, and if we lose blue-eyes I don't think it will be a particularly significant occurrance in the history of mankind - "diversity" notwithstanding. 

The only thing I regret is that Wayfarer had to write such a long post to make his point - this discussion is really a huge waste of time. Maybe it's a conspiracy masterminded by Hitler to keep us from doing our real jobs.

Now, back to keeping corporate America out of trouble...


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Rocker said:


> No, it's just the multiple times you've used it in this thread. Personally, I found the original posting interesting. There was a story several months ago that geneticists expected blond hair (natural, of course) to disappear world-wide sometime in approx 2200 A.D. I find it interesting that genetic changes are continuing to occur in the human population, and if anything accelerating, as a result of ease of travel and the mass migrations of people. That this evolution will result in the elimination of blue-eyed people is interesting and worthy of comment - just as much as if someone were to posit that humans will grow significantly taller or shorter or our heads will be smaller or bigger or whatever. Genetic make-up also affects a populations susceptibility to certain diseases - is it Hitlerian to comment on this as well? You have no interest in how human beings have evolved and will continue to evolve?
> 
> Based on your comments, I would expect that you would bemoan the loss of blue-eyed people as it would diminish "diversity."


Don't take odoreater too seriously. This is not the first time he has done such things. On a fairly innocuous thread about the decline of the use of 'please', he posted a graphic photograph of a black man being lynched and burned. Perhaps that gives a little insight.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

JLPWCXIII said:


> Don't take odoreater too seriously. This is not the first time he has done such things. On a fairly innocuous thread about the decline of the use of 'please', he posted a graphic photograph of a black man being lynched and burned. Perhaps that gives a little insight.


Yeah, that was back when the Interchange was actually interesting and had a lot of lively conversation. Now, every thread looks the same because there is a clear majority of only one viewpoint (including both ordinary posters and moderators) posting on this board and all other viewpoints are met with derision and personal attacks.

Sorry if my posts make you have to think about your viewpoints. I thought we all knew that history is a good tool for learning where our actions may take us in the future.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

odoreater said:


> Yeah, that was back when the Interchange was actually interesting and had a lot of lively conversation. Now, every thread looks the same because there is a clear majority of only one viewpoint (including both ordinary posters and moderators) posting on this board and all other viewpoints are met with derision and personal attacks.
> 
> Sorry if my posts make you have to think about your viewpoints. I thought we all knew that history is a good tool for learning where our actions may take us in the future.


Mr. O:

I usually enjoy your posts. We often hold some different viewpoints, but that's just fine with me, you seem to be working and paying your taxes and by and large, that's how I judge people. Do not be so quick to think all of us that argue with your points are in mutual agreement on all topics with each other. Also, I have to tell you, you and JLP have many more similar views than dissimilar. Maybe the schism between you two is more delivery related than content related?

Just a thought.

Cheers


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Mr. O:
> 
> I usually enjoy your posts. We often hold some different viewpoints, but that's just fine with me, you seem to be working and paying your taxes and by and large, that's how I judge people. Do not be so quick to think all of us that argue with your points are in mutual agreement on all topics with each other. Also, I have to tell you, you and JLP have many more similar views than dissimilar. Maybe the schism between you two is more delivery related than content related?
> 
> ...


Wayfarer, my earlier comment was in no way directed towards you. Although we often (probably more often than not) disagree with each other's views, I've found you to be very respectful and thoughtful, and genuinely consider you an online friend. I appreciate people whose replies are substantive answers to substantive arguments and not attacks on a persons's character or delivery.

Perhaps you are right about me and JLP. Although - I always thought that JLP's character was more schtick than anything else. I'd love to meet the guy in person.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

odoreater said:


> Also, I'm not sure what you mean by your "diversity" comment. Are you infering that I'm a "liberal"? Does one have to be a "liberal" to believe that generalizations about how someone will act, or how corrupt they will be, or how bad they are for our country based on their skin or eye color is wrong and dangerous? I didn't realize that "liberals" had a monopoly over believing that genetic makeup does not have a causal relationship with corruption, graft, and all other things evil.


Yeah, I had inferred (rightly or wrongly) that you were a liberal/leftist mostly because of the Hitler crack; In general, liberals/leftists have a bad habit of dropping "racist" "nazi" "bigot" etc. into accusations in conversations at the drop of a hat. Use of Hitler seems to be big too - you know, Bush=Hitler, Cheney=Hitler, Rumsfeld=Hitler, etc.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Rocker said:


> Yeah, I had inferred (rightly or wrongly) that you were a liberal/leftist mostly because of the Hitler crack; In general, liberals/leftists have a bad habit of dropping "racist" "nazi" "bigot" etc. into accusations in conversations at the drop of a hat. Use of Hitler seems to be big too - you know, Bush=Hitler, Cheney=Hitler, Rumsfeld=Hitler, etc.


I see. I'm not a "liberal" or a "conservative." I'm just a regular hardworking joe that wants to keep the government out of my life as much as possible. As for the Hitler thing, I think I'm using it differently than the way people use it when they say Bush=Hitler, etc. Those people seem to be implying that both of those guys killed a lot of people. I was using it more for equating some things I was reading on this thread with Hitler's overall philosophy on things like eye and hair color (i.e., that people with a particular type of hair/eye/skin color are inherently superior to other people). Believe me, I don't take Hitler comparisons to lightly. I never knew my grandfather becaue of WWII (died from complications from wounds he had received in the war just a few months before I was born).

In any event. Yes. We will miss you blue-eyed people when you are gone.

Actually, this thread kind of got me thinking. Is it possible that there were people with other eye colors throughout pre-recorded history? For example, there may have been genes around for people to be born with orange, or purple, or pink eyes that evolution eliminated, just like blue eyes are being eliminated now. Interesting.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

odoreater said:


> For example, there may have been genes around for people to be born with orange, or purple, or pink eyes that evolution eliminated, just like blue eyes are being eliminated now. Interesting.


Actually, albinos have pink eyes. They are of course, genetic anomalies.

It has been a long, long, long time since I thought about genetic traits, the good monk dedicated to peas, etc., but isn't it possible for recessives to pop up in unlikely combinations? I mean, I have blue eyes, blonde hair (yes, I am that good looking  ) and expect our kids not to due to their mother's genes. However, if one of our kids married a kid from a similar marriage, could they not produce blue eyes? I think so but am too busy to research it this morning. Any takes out there to confirm or deny?


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

odoreater said:


> Actually, this thread kind of got me thinking. Is it possible that there were people with other eye colors throughout pre-recorded history? For example, there may have been genes around for people to be born with orange, or purple, or pink eyes that evolution eliminated, just like blue eyes are being eliminated now. Interesting.


That is interesting. Aside from blue eyes, it is possible (though quite rare) to have yellowish or reddish eyes, and the three of them of course are the primary colours - so it seems that theoretically any eye colour would be biologically possible.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

I have personally known people with dark blue (midnight) eyes, and purple eyes...I also seem to remember meeting somebody (though I cant pinpoint exactly when) who had grey (silver?) eyes...


----------

