interracial marriage..

[CyBeR 0]

As you know, everyone has a preference with the sort of person they want to date. I am no different. When I said my own kind, I'm referring to Asians as a whole. I have nothing against other races, it’s merely a preference as I’ve seen many of my friends getting into inter-relationships and the cultural differences they encounter everyday didn’t exactly make a good impression on me. I talk about it with my other half and we’re open about our preference. We know love know no differences in races, religion or cultural difference. (sounds corny..lol) That’s why I'm still with him. From how I see it, open discussions makes relationships pretty healthy.

Good. But I still think you should not group people based on ethnicity.

I'm not sure what kind of thoughts you thought I was harbouring on but it's not as bad as it sounds. I can assure you.

Also, I can say that I'm more practical and realistic kind of person. The differences doesn't bother me. It's the process of meeting in the middle that scares me. I don't think I'm made up for so much hardships unless the person is really worth it. Furthermore, I don't want my other half to change who they are to accomodate me so that we have less problems and vice versa. Choices, choices, choices...*sigh*

I've always thought of people as one big group, and any differences I always attribute to the individual. What bothers me is that people tend to group everyone into groups based on ethnicity and attribute the differences to the group. That's called prejudice.

All in all, it's not that bad la. The whole cultural issue was never a major thing for me. I just laugh and joke with my friends saying how I'll never go overseas and date a kwailo and how I'll be true to my own kind (it's an inside joke hence I used the term "own kind" with my friends; no harm intended). But fate is evil. Fate happens when you least expect and it always turns your life around and make impossible things happen. Fate does have a funny sense of humour too and whatever evil plan fate makes, sometimes it’s better to let nature takes it course and to follow your instinct but lesson learnt; never say never.

Good la. Best wishes for your relationship.

Cyber:about the court case research on discriminate on skin colour. I’ve read one too many about discrimination cases. My classmates and lecturers used to joke about why the Civil Procedure Rules is call the "White Book" (because only mostly white people are involve in civil cases) and the Criminal Procedure Rules is call "BLACKstone" (because it is allege that the rate of black people committing crime here is higher than the whites). We concluded that even books shows discrimination or it could have been a convenient coincidence.

*sigh*

Dude!... I NEVER talk in terms of fair and right. Never have I once illustrate my idea using the word fair or right! Never. I would use to my confidence, faulty, flawed, etc instead.

It is my philosophy not to talk,think,communicate,speak, etc about fair or right at all. The world is NOT fair and life can never be RIGHT <period>.

Then you don't believe we should have courts? Or that they are flawed/faulty/a joke when they make a mistake? We do have right and wrong. And fairness and injustice. Not just in courts either.

Everybody reads and so do I but I check my sources well and thoroughly. All of my sources are reputable, reliable, accurate, and backed with scientific facts. I do not go around and say Discovery Magazine and US Amnesty is wrong - those are very reliable sources the chances are they are accurate!!.

Again, it is true that statistics does have certain degree of error in it but researches from a reputable organization (such as the US Amnesty.org) do not take such census lightly. We can achieve a 95% confidence in our statistical data. I know - I have statistics background too. Hence, I think arguing that the statistics could be wrong is a very weak argument in this case. The basis of that suggestion is too superficial.

Of course I question the data and I think about it a lot too, if you read amnesty.org just like news ONLY presents DATA - they do not make conclusions. All thing I typed in the previous message is MY conclusion.

When I argue, I present facts to the table to support my conclusions. Only those that I perceive to be highly accurate and reliable because I always believed that to make a highly accurate conclusion I need highly accurate information.

I've never seen you quote more than one independent source. That's why I didn't think you've really researched it thoroughly. Statistics are not perfect. The results vary from survey to survey. More importantly, they represent trends rather than certainty. And certainly not fact.

We all know that the accident rates rise and fall according to the time of year. That one is based on fact cos it is data collected by the RTD. But does that mean that I'm more likely to get hit during the CNY rush period? Maybe I should stay home. Or maybe I should consider that in all my years of driving through the rush period, I've never got hit once. Strange but true.

I think FuFufly is not taking a shallow point of view but has a very pragmatic concept of life. Which often works better than a naive 'ideal' concept which is easier for most to grasps.

Ideals aren't naive. Ideals are goals we reach for. And the ones we should aim for, regardless of what is commonplace.

Let us be better than "normal", OK?

[nygere 0]

Then you don't believe we should have courts? Or that they are flawed/faulty/a joke when they make a mistake? We do have right and wrong. And fairness and injustice. Not just in courts either.

In fact, yes court/justice is a flawed system. Justice is what we humans create to allow us to breed more people on earth. And the concept of fair or right is also man made - but it doesn't to any measure approximates how nature or the world works. I would even say that justice/court system fails more times than it suceeds. Look at it - those who kill, steal, con, etc are all 'bad guys' and we prosecute them why? It is because it hinders others to survive - hence which also means everyone HAS to survive in our society. And that is our system that allows us to breed and infest every corner of the earth and give us the rights to tap every resource on earth! If there is right and wrong it should be applied to the animal kingdom too. Right and wrong is only a bubble we create around our majority of the society and we say that everything inside is right and everything outside is wrong. That fundamental arguement is weak and flawed. In nature NOTHINg operates in that manner. If you want to survive you do what it takes. So like I argued before in another topic what about....

"We killed millions of animals to gain resources for ourselves and do not tell me that animal is nothing compared to a human being much less 33 of them that died. We fished till the coral reefs are destroyed, we drill in the ocean to fuel the car you drive everyday and leached greenhouse gas in to the air, we kept searching to buy the cheapest diamonds where children are raped and killed in Africa in the process, we cut trees and destroyed habitat to build our big golf courses and build huge mansions and in the process killing animals, we dump our waste back in to the ocean increasing the toxicity, we melted the ice bergs, we skin the fur out of animals, we rape our own women and children in Cambodia, Africa and India, we grow Cocaine in Colombia, Peru, Venezuala, We build silicone chips for your phone, computers, and tv and leached lead and toxic chemicals in to our groundwater which is our biggest source of freshwater in the world, we till lands and build our own island for our airports, we wiped our protective ozone, we call using our phones that threatened the survival of colonial bees, we buy and consume sharks, turtle, whale, etc, we test fired intercontinental ballistic missiles for no reasons what so ever, we only buy cheap stuffs which promotes country like India and China to exploit child labor, we sell our historical land for monumental skyscrapers, we filled the air with micro and radio waves that distort pigeons navigations, the list is endless. And the effects will just snow ball like a domino effect. One tipped balance means more destruction along the line for animals and ecosystem that dependent on it. So who is fighting justice for the ecosystem? Or it should only apply to support only OUR survival !?!?!?!? If in fact it is Justice is NOT FAIR - Sleep on that."

So what is the definition of right/justice/court in your context is just a custom that is favorable for our species to EVADE THE PLANET, REPRODUCE IN BILLIONS and SPREAD ALL OUR HANDS TO EVERY INCH OF THE PLANET and EVADE AND MULTIPLY SOME MORE. So my challenge to you is to answer a 'seemingly' easy question that why killing is wrong? Don't preach me what have your parents, teachers and priests have preach to you such as 'Because everything deserves to live','Because if you do you go to jail','because it violates the 7 commandments', etc etc. Give me a solid reason why for example in the VT massacre, killing 33 people it is not favorable to the well being of the PLANET, give me a reason why it is not favorable to the ECOSYSTEM, give me a reason why it is not favorable to EVERYBODY and EVERYONE on the planet? Why should Cho be persecuted if he is alive??? and How does that favors the ecosystem, everybody, animal, and nature?? Asking this questions does not in any way suggest that I am saying that it is right. To me nothing is right nor wrong they are just the way they have been, ought to be and are going to be.

I've never seen you quote more than one independent source. That's why I didn't think you've really researched it thoroughly. Statistics are not perfect. The results vary from survey to survey. More importantly, they represent trends rather than certainty. And certainly not fact.

Okay, but what is your sources when you made your arguement? To this date I do not see any supporting scientific sources that you quote me. And I made an effort to support my conclusions with facts but it may not be enough I agree. But I only need to use so much to get my point accross I am not writing a thesis on it.

We all know that the accident rates rise and fall according to the time of year. That one is based on fact cos it is data collected by the RTD. But does that mean that I'm more likely to get hit during the CNY rush period? Maybe I should stay home. Or maybe I should consider that in all my years of driving through the rush period, I've never got hit once. Strange but true.

Ideals aren't naive. Ideals are goals we reach for. And the ones we should aim for, regardless of what is commonplace.

Let us be better than "normal", OK?

AGAIN, I did not say that because statistics are true that you should lick your wounds and sit on your hands. Statistics give you information about one general trend - whether you become a statistic or not is totally up to you. Statistics does not suggests that it is written in stone. In fact I dont know why you made this arguement. When I use statistic to argue that humans do see 'skin colours' and it DOES happen - that's it. I didn't say anything about all darker skin coloured human should sit at home because they have a higher chance to get unfair justice in courts. Your arguement is weak because I didn't even make that sort of point.

Idealities are naiveness to simplify the world enough so that normal/average humans could easily grasps and easier to preach to other people. But in fact, nothing in the world operates in idealities. In physics we assumed that energy is conserved all the time but in fact energy is lost EVERYTIME we convert it in the real world. try to strive for perfection in this case is foolish because we can never achieve 100% efficiency. In fact, the definition of idealities are flawed. I challenge you again to explain to me what is IDEAL in society. Define the meaning of idealities in scietific terms and basis. Is ideal something good/right/wrong/perfect? So what is good/right/wrong/perfect? In fact i speculate that good right wrong and perfect is just the same concept we create so that we can populate earth to the brink of ecosystemic Meltdown! Make your point with Facts and Quote your sources. I want to know how thorough you make your arguement/conclusion.

ps: I'm sorry but I absolutely need to get the last word on this discussion.

Edited April 27, 2007 by nygere

[CyBeR 0]

You DO realise we're way off topic? lol Fred's going to come in here any time now and delete the whole lot of our "work"

[nygere 0]

You DO realise we're way off topic? lol Fred's going to come in here any time now and delete the whole lot of our "work"

I couldnt care any less...

just need the last word.

so you are stopping?

Edited April 27, 2007 by nygere

[CyBeR 0]

dunno.

Hey. You were the one to tarik me off topic. Bad boy.

Edited April 27, 2007 by CyBeR

[nygere 0]

dunno.

Hey. You were the one to tarik me off topic. Bad boy.

I am dark.

[brendon 0]

Nothing wrong with interracial marriages as long as both are contented with each other. Afterall beauty is in the eye of the beholder mah. The most important thing is to respect each others culture and customs.

[alex 0]

people tend to prejudice when seeing a girl with a gwailo. people tend to stare when a girl is with an indian. people shake head when seeing a girl with a malay. what is going on in their heads?

there are more opportunities now than 10 or 20 years back when people tend to stick to their own race for marriage. advanced technology helps also. so don't jump to conclusions when next time you see a local girl with anyone other than her own race.