"I don't like what you said, so you are wrong." is the same mentality on why universities and others are scrubbing valid studies, because leftists don't like the results.

The more you absolutely refuse to show why I am wrong, the more I know I'm right.

@Grotomode:

I do not have to have an explanation for something you claim, dude.

But that was scrutiny is. You make a claim, people express their reasonable doubts and then its on you to prove your point. Prove it then.

No honey, this is you turning every disagreement into a political "debate".

I get it, its an easy way for you to dismiss anyone that calls you on your baseless claims, but you have to grow out of it at some point, dont you think?

And yet again, you claim I'm wrong, but you can't explain why I'm wrong other than you don't like my explanation.

You didn't make any REASONABLE doubt, you just said I was wrong.

Maybe you should just link me to AOC's Instagram page so you don't have to spend so much time typing gibberish non-sense.

I am not making a claim dude. Get your head straight.

You claimed that one person preferring another person of their own "race" is "natural" (and you further clarified that for you natural = the way we are wired, alluding of course to genetics).

I asked you why you claim that. You provided some studies thinking they support your claim, but they dont.

Its as simple as that. If you actually have read those studies, I am sure you will be able to quote the part where they support your claim that the conclusion is some sort of genetic predisposition is at play, right?

Unless you have no idea what the studies actually conclude, which would make sense, since your first and only "rebuttal" to me stating the obvious (that the studies' findings do not support your use of the word "natural") is to say that the disagreement is about finding racism everywhere.

Again, try to leave logical fallacies outside, and actually present data that support your conclusion.

Alternatively, you could tone down your commentary on social and political issues by using modifiers such as "I believe", "in my personal opinion", "maybe", "perhaps", "I could be wrong but…" and so on.

Regardless of what name for it you want to use, it shows that we are wired a certain way.

Hell, even liberals use those studies to demand that more minorities, especially blacks, are hired to watch CCTV to track suspects.

Just because you are an outlier doesn't make anything not true.    I'm nearly 7 inches taller than the UK's average male height.  Does that make the average UK male height wrong?  The average Ukrainian male height is 1.26 inches taller than the UK's.  Does that make the UK's number wrong?

"Not necessarily true" isn't the same as "not true" or "never true".

I never, ever said 100% true 100% of the time.

If you have a problem with the results of the studies, fight with the ones conducting the studies.

By "recognize" we were talking about facial recognition studies which show it's easier for people to recognize people of their own race.

In one major study, the test subject was shown a photo of a person for 1 minute and then was timed for how fast they could find that person in a photo of a crowd/group without the use of the reference photo.

People were faster and more accurate with their own race.

People of one race that grew up in an area of mostly 1 other race found it easier to find people of that dominant race, but nothing like how easy they found it to find their own race.

The worst results came from people trying to find a person of another race while living in an area dominated by their own race.

In regards to your original argument, you were saying based on that unrelated and off topic concept, (which is actually called the "Cross Race Effect". In which a person is able to tell specific things apart from a race that they themselves belong to, and identify people of their race better. People outside that race, they say based on that concept, may not be able to differentiate as such, and come up with epithets such as, "all [certain race of people] look the same.", or get celebrities that look similar mixed up, and what not.)

But that's also bullshit, because I'm black myself. (I actually look sort of identical like Donald Glover/Childish Gambino) and I get so many famous black men mixed up with someone else, it's not funny. Athletes, entertainers, musicians/rappers. It's not funny. But based on that theorem, I should have no issue telling people of my race apart, but I do quite often.

That also has nothing to do with sexual attraction and adornment and infatuation, and preference when it comes to personal relationships and romantic relationships. I grew up in the inner city, and aside from paternal grandmother, who's best friend was a white Jewish woman, who would visit us sometimes, I grew up around black people. The only thing is, I would watch Jim Carrey movies being six years old, and thought Jim Carey was an interesting man, and he was funny and handsome and charming to me. I was also really into Backstreet Boys and NSYNC when I was in Elementary school and yeah. I was just drawn to what I was attracted to, and I had no control over that aspect.

So I really hate all that, "You grow up around your preferences." when that's not necessarily true at all.

In one major study, the test subject was shown a photo of a person for 1 minute and then was timed for how fast they could find that person in a photo of a crowd/group without the use of the reference photo.

People were faster and more accurate with their own race.

People of one race that grew up in an area of mostly 1 other race found it easier to find people of that dominant race, but nothing like how easy they found it to find their own race.

The worst results came from people trying to find a person of another race while living in an area dominated by their own race.

Well, I provided reasons to back up my comment.

I say it's natural, as seen in the areas I already mentioned and more.  You on the other hand use my examples and claim they are due to racism.

Blacks find it easier to recognize other blacks, white find it easier to recognize other whites, etc, etc, etc.  Clearly, that must be racism to liberals.

Marriage certificates show that 89% - 93% marry their own race, so it must be racism to liberals.

It can't be natural, because that doesn't fit the liberal dogma.

A lilly white liberal chick can call a black woman a "nappy ass ho" and liberals say that's not racist.

Liberals dumb down their language and get "ghetto" when speaking to blacks, but that's not racist.

30 years ago, everyone wanted a "brown baby" but that's not racist.

Let's not forget the ever popular; "only whites can be racist".

I don't give a solitary damn if every other gay black man in the universe, prefers and "recognizes" (whatever in the hell that means) with another black man. I don't. So therefore, that doesn't apply to me, and is a flawless argument for myself, to make. Unless the argument is universal, such as, "cars need gas to run." Which even then there are caveats, as some cars are electric, or run on alternative fuel. But still, you get the idea.

I know I like all races of men, and I'm currently single, and will take love and a boyfriend or a partner or companion or spouse, where I find it, and it presents itself to me. I don't go into those incorrect tropes and assumptions at all. Especially due to the fact, most of my crushes and infatuations, deal with white and non black men. I am of course a gay black man.

So all of that is so dismissive, it's not funny.

It's no use, because the gay male community is very much divided as of late. Any gay man that has any sort of liberal or leftist view or opinion, or inclusive or vibrant or cultural opinion, or is different with an open mind, it's always a fiasco. Especially being a gay black man, and I try to be optimistic, and say times will change. But I think I'm possibly mistaken, and I see it now. I'm starting to see patterns. I don't want to say the "R" word is at play, but if the boot fits. People either get it, or they fucking don't. So I feel all of the above was quite probably a waste of time, but for the open minded guys on here, I hope you guys heard where I was coming from, and yeah. That's what I had to say, in regards to this topic.

I do not have to have an explanation for something you claim, dude.

But that was scrutiny is. You make a claim, people express their reasonable doubts and then its on you to prove your point. Prove it then.

No honey, this is you turning every disagreement into a political "debate".

I get it, its an easy way for you to dismiss anyone that calls you on your baseless claims, but you have to grow out of it at some point, dont you think?

And yet again, you claim I'm wrong, but you can't explain why I'm wrong other than you don't like my explanation.

You didn't make any REASONABLE doubt, you just said I was wrong.

Maybe you should just link me to AOC's Instagram page so you don't have to spend so much time typing gibberish non-sense.

So to the topic at hand: What do you mean by "natural"? That it is not inherently bad? Sure no problem there.

Do you mean natural as in the dichotomy of nurture vs nature?

I think part of the problem in the discussion here is that the word "natural" isn't a good fit for the phenomenon of many (possibly most) people having a preference for "their own."  This would suggest that it is "unnatural" for someone to prefer a person of a different background.

That would lead to awkward parallels, such as saying that people who are left-handed are "unnatural"–and closer to home, that men who are gay are "unnatural."  I don't accept that conclusion.

Although I’m not currently looking for a BF, or for any hookups or friends, I would appreciate to have those filter tools available to use.

But that was scrutiny is. You make a claim, people express their reasonable doubts and then its on you to prove your point. Prove it then.

No honey, this is you turning every disagreement into a political "debate".

I get it, its an easy way for you to dismiss anyone that calls you on your baseless claims, but you have to grow out of it at some point, dont you think?

At least I have the courage to put my point of view forward for scrutiny.

Take your head out of the sand, the world, especially in the last 15 years, is very much liberal vs conservative.

"Natural as in the way we are wired" implies something inherent and/or genetic.

The data you present (with no sources but it does not make a difference) do not justify the conclusion you are trying to peddle as obvious.

You made the claim to begin with, therefore you are the one that has to prove it. Not the one who expresses doubt.

Its how argumentation works. If you do not like it, I suggest you stop commenting on issues that have nothing to do with your -it seems- favourite polarizing view of the world that everything is liberals vs conservatives.

Natural as in the way we are wired, ie the facial recognition studies.

It has nothing to do with racism or any other BS liberals tend to claim in these discussions.

You have shown me absolutely nothing to prove your side.  All you have done is claim that I am wrong and you are right.

You are a terrible commentator on pretty much anything because you fail to define the words you use even after someone asks you to do so. And that is disregarding the fact that you just tried to attribute to myself something that I did not say. Might wanna be more careful.

So to the topic at hand: What do you mean by "natural"? That it is not inherently bad? Sure no problem there.

Do you mean natural as in the dichotomy of nurture vs nature?

If so, the data you presented simply do not justify the use of the word. Simple, no?

The rest of the stuff that you blurted out are, again, completely irrelevant to what I just said, and is a consequence of you trying to find baaaad liberals/leftists to anyone who challenges anything you say. Good going dude…

I say it's natural, as seen in the areas I already mentioned and more.  You on the other hand use my examples and claim they are due to racism.

Blacks find it easier to recognize other blacks, white find it easier to recognize other whites, etc, etc, etc.  Clearly, that must be racism to liberals.

Marriage certificates show that 89% - 93% marry their own race, so it must be racism to liberals.

It can't be natural, because that doesn't fit the liberal dogma.

A lilly white liberal chick can call a black woman a "nappy ass ho" and liberals say that's not racist.

Liberals dumb down their language and get "ghetto" when speaking to blacks, but that's not racist.

30 years ago, everyone wanted a "brown baby" but that's not racist.

Let's not forget the ever popular; "only whites can be racist".

It seems some people want to make everything about racism.

So in order to not be accused of following the racism bandwagon, the reasonable conclusion is that the data you present support a "natural" preference?

All races prefer their own and countless studies prove this as do marriage records.

89% to 93%   whites and asians respectively, with the others in between

That's really lazy analysis. You're not taking into account various forms of bias, social and legal prohibitions, the intersection of race with other factors.

@Grotomode:

@raphjd:

@blndtwink:

sometimes I think I enjoy to be gay, then I insist in reading these replies..
racism isn't a preference, folks.

But there is a natural preference to be with our own.  Sexuality has nothing to do with it.

It's why you see housing clusters, marriage licenses, etc, etc.

There is a preference definitely but how come it is conclusive that it is "natural"?

Natural as in not led by environmental, social and circumstantial factors?

Look at the facial recognition studies.  People are better at recognizing people of the same race.

If it weren't natural to want to be with your own, then why is it the same all over the world.

Again do the facial recognition studies suggest that the causality is "natural"?

@raphjd:

@blndtwink:

sometimes I think I enjoy to be gay, then I insist in reading these replies..
racism isn't a preference, folks.

But there is a natural preference to be with our own.   Sexuality has nothing to do with it.

It's why you see housing clusters, marriage licenses, etc, etc.

There is a preference definitely but how come it is conclusive that it is "natural"?

Natural as in not led by environmental, social and circumstantial factors?

Look at the facial recognition studies.  People are better at recognizing people of the same race.

If it weren't natural to want to be with your own, then why is it the same all over the world.

Just my two cents...

@blndtwink:

sometimes I think I enjoy to be gay, then I insist in reading these replies..
racism isn't a preference, folks.

But there is a natural preference to be with our own.  Sexuality has nothing to do with it.

It's why you see housing clusters, marriage licenses, etc, etc.

There is a preference definitely but how come it is conclusive that it is "natural"?

Natural as in not led by environmental, social and circumstantial factors?