129 réponses à ce sujet

[drome34]

[quote]BlueMoonSeraphim wrote...

[quote]Androme wrote...
Letting nature have its way without completely obliterating generations of evolution ensures that the genes are not mixed away and ruined on the altar of romanticization of miscegenation.

Also, (unlike you, no offense, just stating), and like I've mentioned before, there's also a moral aspect to this, and that moral aspect is taking into account the genocidal nature of interracial breeding. My arguments are not solely based on evolutionary consequences of interracial breeding.
[/quote]

[quote]"Mixed away and ruined"?  Really?  Your language, at best, walks a very fine line between "scientific" and "bigoted."  Similar reasons were used for arguments outlawing interracial marriage and justifying racial discrimination. Naim v. Naim (1965), for example, as dicussed in Loving v. Virginia (1967), specifically used language like preserving "racial integrity," preventing "corruption of blood," describing the children of interracial couples a "mongrel breed of citizens," and calling interracial pairings the "obliteration of racial pride" in upholding the validity of prohibitions against interracial marriage before Loving abolished them.  Our society has evolved beyond "races shouldn't mix."[/quote]

Why do you insist upon calling this evolution? its just a new set of opinions. Would you say the chinese have "evolved" beyond not eating social animals like dogs?

[quote]As far as the evolutionary argument, ****** sapiens is already out of the Darwinian stage of evolution.  Much of the scientific community believes we've reached an evolutionary dead end, that human evolution is pretty much over.  We change the world around us so much, adaptation is also generally a non-issue now.  As far the rest of the community that believes human evolution is not over, well, the things we have to look forward to being taller, having fewer toes, smaller teeth, and other useless things like that.  The most relevant of the bunch is weaker immune systems, but that has less to do with race and much more to do with our drug- and medically-obsessed culture.  So what amazing genes are getting "ruined" on the "altar of miscegenation"?  Is it blond hair and blue eyes, like a certain group of people wanted preserved a few decades ago?  Shall we dispute the merits of that?  No?  Are there some amazing genetic qualities that some races have and others don't, which cannot be passed on to interracial offspring?  Because there is a list of diseases and medical conditions that are reduced by genetic diversity, and I, for one, cannot think of a single amazing gene that should and can only be preserved by "racial purity."[/quote]

Who says we are not evolving? you? got any proof? no you dont because we dont know that, its a question mark.

About half of all scientists belive race is a valid concept: http://www.pbs.org/w...race-exist.html


As for you comment about blond hair and blue eyes, yeah i feel the same! about black hair and brown eyes. Why preserve the one colored black hair black eye humans when europeans are much more coloful and interesting?
Whatever, as soon as race comes up people always bash white people, no matter what.  I just goes to prove the old saying : "anti-racist is code word for anti-white."

[quote]As far as your "moral aspect," genocide is done to unwilling victims.  Who is the victim in a willing pairing of interracial parents?  What exactly is the moral aspect of interracial pairings?  Whom does it hurt?  Why is it wrong? If your argument is, "Interracial pairings dilute the purity of races," well then, I'd like to tell you about the moral implications of neopolitan ice cream - it dilutes the purity of three ice cream flavors!  Jokes aside, we are people, not animals.  Frowning upon interracial pairings because it "ruins" an electic array of hair, eye, and skin colors for you to feast your eyes upon is worse than no argument at all.  If you meant the scientific argument that preserving diverse specimens is worthwhile, perhaps for study or documentation, then all you need are samples.  [/quote]

Interracial relations ships hurts the child as it is rootless and often inherit negative qualities from both parents.  There is a reason north indian populations are the sickest in the world - white , black and east asian populations have mixed there for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. And they have inheretied the worst of all three worlds.

From the UN charter: 

"© Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;" This is what multiculture does to white people.

"(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;" By promoting nonwhites in the workfroce , education and other areas they are preventing whites from forming healthy families thus preventing child rearing - all of this motivates even larger immigration of non whites.


[quote]"Race" is largely a social construct, anyway.  You can't say, biologically speaking, "all Russians are like this" or "all Greeks are like this," because it just isn't true.  Nature didn't make race, we did.  We still have the power to redefine what it means.  Biological characteristics, which don't even entirely apply to racial groups, are not the worthy takeaway.  They mean nothing.  What does have meaning, at least to me, is how people lived - music, language, celebrations, literature, customs, clothing, ceremonies, cuisine, etc.  These are the aspects worth preserving because they enrich our lives with art and joy and depth, much more than a pair of blue eyes or some freckles ever could.  It's just like when you meet new people - what matters is not the color of their skin but the content of their character.  Choosing friends based on hair color or skin color or the shape of their noses is ridiculous - what matters is what kind of people they are.  This won't ever change.  So, who cares if we all become one "race" (biologically speaking), when it is the product of people's free will? [/quote]

Nature didnt make race? Whatever, as they say " Nature is always right, people have opinions". You just have the opinion that race doesnt exist, and you are no scientist nor do you work with race related matters. Your opinion could be wrong.

I agree on the second part however! How white people choose to live is far more important then preserving black hair and useless brown eyes! What funcion does it serve anyway? 

I bet you most people dont choose friends based on the contents of their character anyway. We all have a social facade we put up to be acceptable, and people only see that to begin with. Besides, havent studies show we choose friends partly based on their likeness to ourselves, or their beauty? You are just basically making a useless argument, that somehow you yourself is superior in choosing friends, wich I bet you are not.

Besides, I would argue that a peoples moral laws are far  more important then their "cousine" or whatever they "celebrate". And brown eyes and black haired people tend to be rather ruthless in their cultures these days, and have a hard time living in peaceful europe. Blond haired europeans are usually much more interesting and strong characthers to hang out with in my opinion.
--
[quote]On topic: Anything is possible.  This is a fantasy universe, after all; things have changed over the the two games, and new things have been introduced, so I'm leaning towards "possible."  A Qunari-human couple would be interesting to interact with in the context of a quest or larger plot line, but the Qunari would probably have to be ex-Qun for it to work in terms of story.
[/quote]

[Fredward]

[garrusfan1]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

The only human/Qunari couple was Saemus and Ashaad. Didn't have to worry about a child with that relationship though.

your kidding right that was that mercenary being an a** to him

[Eveangaline]

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

Of course it's possible, provided the Qunari is human or elven. Not sure about dwarves, afaik there haven't been any factual human/dwarf offspring depicted in the games/novels.


Same goes for Kossith.

Considering the dwarf could knock up morrigan..plus haven't half dwarves been mentioned elsewhere?

[kross]

I have a hypothesis, in dragon age awaking before you fight those dragon twins there is a qunari merchant that was up to my humans waist but sten was slightly taller than me I think sten was born of a qunari and human so he is still tall and muscular but without horns and the small qunari was qunari and dwarf he was small and strong with no horns, and if a qunari and elf had a child it would be a normal qunari because legs have recessive traits.