Racists Very Upset Over Interracial Family in Cute Cheerios Commercial

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Still waiting for your explanation, when you have the time. xoxo!

No, seriously, you're talking to a different poster and you're also embarrassing yourself. A lot. You sound like you're 13 at best. It's probably best for you to back away from your computer and take a deep breath. I am not even being snarky.

Deflection is a moron's best friend

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Um, yes, of course. Can you point me to where I've stated to the contrary? But overall the trend of procreating someone from say, a different continent, is the best way to obtain greater genetic diversity. That isn't to say that should be your ultimate goal - there are many, many more important reasons in finding a partner/spouse/mate/etc. But it's really incredibly naive to say that people who are mixed aren't any better looking than those who aren't. On the whole, mixed people = genetic diversity. Genetic diversity = healthier people, with better "fitness" (ie, more attractive). There are always exceptions to the rule, but again, overall, science knows best.

No, that's not the rule. Attractiveness and health are based on so many different factors that is a gross over-simplification. Continue to insist otherwise, it doesn't matter.

[Anonymous]

Wow, this thread is still going. Fourteen pages. So much to discuss and debate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Still waiting for your explanation, when you have the time. xoxo!

No, seriously, you're talking to a different poster and you're also embarrassing yourself. A lot. You sound like you're 13 at best. It's probably best for you to back away from your computer and take a deep breath. I am not even being snarky.

Deflection is a moron's best friend

Ok... are you actually 13?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Um, yes, of course. Can you point me to where I've stated to the contrary? But overall the trend of procreating someone from say, a different continent, is the best way to obtain greater genetic diversity. That isn't to say that should be your ultimate goal - there are many, many more important reasons in finding a partner/spouse/mate/etc. But it's really incredibly naive to say that people who are mixed aren't any better looking than those who aren't. On the whole, mixed people = genetic diversity. Genetic diversity = healthier people, with better "fitness" (ie, more attractive). There are always exceptions to the rule, but again, overall, science knows best.

No, that's not the rule. Attractiveness and health are based on so many different factors that is a gross over-simplification. Continue to insist otherwise, it doesn't matter.

Of course there are a multitude of factors, but for you to pretend like diversification of genes is irrelevant, is frighteningly naive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Um, yes, of course. Can you point me to where I've stated to the contrary? But overall the trend of procreating someone from say, a different continent, is the best way to obtain greater genetic diversity. That isn't to say that should be your ultimate goal - there are many, many more important reasons in finding a partner/spouse/mate/etc. But it's really incredibly naive to say that people who are mixed aren't any better looking than those who aren't. On the whole, mixed people = genetic diversity. Genetic diversity = healthier people, with better "fitness" (ie, more attractive). There are always exceptions to the rule, but again, overall, science knows best.

No, that's not the rule. Attractiveness and health are based on so many different factors that is a gross over-simplification. Continue to insist otherwise, it doesn't matter.

Of course there are a multitude of factors, but for you to pretend like diversification of genes is irrelevant, is frighteningly naive.

Why do you feel a compulsion to call names and imply people said things that they didn't in every single thing you post?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Um, yes, of course. Can you point me to where I've stated to the contrary? But overall the trend of procreating someone from say, a different continent, is the best way to obtain greater genetic diversity. That isn't to say that should be your ultimate goal - there are many, many more important reasons in finding a partner/spouse/mate/etc. But it's really incredibly naive to say that people who are mixed aren't any better looking than those who aren't. On the whole, mixed people = genetic diversity. Genetic diversity = healthier people, with better "fitness" (ie, more attractive). There are always exceptions to the rule, but again, overall, science knows best.

No, that's not the rule. Attractiveness and health are based on so many different factors that is a gross over-simplification. Continue to insist otherwise, it doesn't matter.

Of course there are a multitude of factors, but for you to pretend like diversification of genes is irrelevant, is frighteningly naive.

Why do you feel a compulsion to call names and imply people said things that they didn't in every single thing you post?

Saying someone is factually naive is now name-calling? Ah, makes sense - you're the anti interracial marriage racist. Stay classy, you crazy racist, you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Um, yes, of course. Can you point me to where I've stated to the contrary? But overall the trend of procreating someone from say, a different continent, is the best way to obtain greater genetic diversity. That isn't to say that should be your ultimate goal - there are many, many more important reasons in finding a partner/spouse/mate/etc. But it's really incredibly naive to say that people who are mixed aren't any better looking than those who aren't. On the whole, mixed people = genetic diversity. Genetic diversity = healthier people, with better "fitness" (ie, more attractive). There are always exceptions to the rule, but again, overall, science knows best.

No, that's not the rule. Attractiveness and health are based on so many different factors that is a gross over-simplification. Continue to insist otherwise, it doesn't matter.

Of course there are a multitude of factors, but for you to pretend like diversification of genes is irrelevant, is frighteningly naive.

Why do you feel a compulsion to call names and imply people said things that they didn't in every single thing you post?

Saying someone is factually naive is now name-calling? Ah, makes sense - you're the anti interracial marriage racist. Stay classy, you crazy racist, you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Um, yes, of course. Can you point me to where I've stated to the contrary? But overall the trend of procreating someone from say, a different continent, is the best way to obtain greater genetic diversity. That isn't to say that should be your ultimate goal - there are many, many more important reasons in finding a partner/spouse/mate/etc. But it's really incredibly naive to say that people who are mixed aren't any better looking than those who aren't. On the whole, mixed people = genetic diversity. Genetic diversity = healthier people, with better "fitness" (ie, more attractive). There are always exceptions to the rule, but again, overall, science knows best.

No, that's not the rule. Attractiveness and health are based on so many different factors that is a gross over-simplification. Continue to insist otherwise, it doesn't matter.

Of course there are a multitude of factors, but for you to pretend like diversification of genes is irrelevant, is frighteningly naive.

Why do you feel a compulsion to call names and imply people said things that they didn't in every single thing you post?

Saying someone is factually naive is now name-calling? Ah, makes sense - you're the anti interracial marriage racist. [b]Stay classy, you crazy racist[i][u], you. [/b]

Bolded, underlined, italicized. Facts are facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Um, yes, of course. Can you point me to where I've stated to the contrary? But overall the trend of procreating someone from say, a different continent, is the best way to obtain greater genetic diversity. That isn't to say that should be your ultimate goal - there are many, many more important reasons in finding a partner/spouse/mate/etc. But it's really incredibly naive to say that people who are mixed aren't any better looking than those who aren't. On the whole, mixed people = genetic diversity. Genetic diversity = healthier people, with better "fitness" (ie, more attractive). There are always exceptions to the rule, but again, overall, science knows best.

No, that's not the rule. Attractiveness and health are based on so many different factors that is a gross over-simplification. Continue to insist otherwise, it doesn't matter.

Of course there are a multitude of factors, but for you to pretend like diversification of genes is irrelevant, is frighteningly naive.

Why do you feel a compulsion to call names and imply people said things that they didn't in every single thing you post?

Saying someone is factually naive is now name-calling? Ah, makes sense - you're the anti interracial marriage racist. Stay classy, you crazy racist, you.

+1 Bingo! My guess is the racist will give her fancy biological analysis on how genetic diversity is "discord" or something

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I saw this commercial a few days ago, and couldn't get over (A) how unbelievably adorable the little girl is, and (2) how nice it is to see a mixed family in a national campaign by a large company (I'm mixed myself, thought not of the same mix).

I wonder what Ms. Anti-Interracial Marriage poster would say - is she worried about "cultural discord" between Wheaties-loving families and Cheerios-loving families?

In any case, it's an adorable commercial. Really incredible that in this the year 2013, Cheerios has been forced to block comments due to an influx of racists spouting their vile, antiquated hate.

http://jezebel.com/racists-very-upset-over-interracial-family-in-cute-chee-510647487

I'm the "Ms. Anti-Interracial Marriage poster". The video is cute, but if I'm being honest, it looks like Cheerios is trying too hard.

So you must really flip your shit at multigrain Cheerios, huh? All those different colors of beige and brown mixing together in the white milk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does any of this have to do with Cheerios???

Unfortunately, there are some people who think that keeping a low gene pool is productive for the human species. Yeah-I don't get the appeal of cousins, either.

What is with you and the obsession with incest?

Not me, but there are some people who don't understand that genetic diversity is actually an incredibly important thing.

Well since you are talking about cray-cray, I think Miss Halle Berry is a contender. Yes, she is pretty, but her public mental and emotional actions are crazy.

[Anonymous]

I think 15:52 may, in fact, BE Halle Berry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does any of this have to do with Cheerios???

Unfortunately, there are some people who think that keeping a low gene pool is productive for the human species. Yeah-I don't get the appeal of cousins, either.

What is with you and the obsession with incest?

Not me, but there are some people who don't understand that genetic diversity is actually an incredibly important thing.

Being mixed race does not automatically mean that you are "genetically diverse." Even being "genetically diverse" does not mean you are automatically more healthy or more attractive, which is what you have been claiming. You have been weirdly insistent that being mixed race is superior, which is just sort of weird. You are out of your depth here.

I've never argued that "mixed race" is superior, but that genetic diversity absolutely does trend towards making healthier humans - and with that, better looking humans - better "fitness" (evolutionary speaking). Please explain to me how a small genetic pool is somehow beneficial for the human species.

Okay, so You think that your Blasian, Eurasian, Mulatto, etc, child is more genetically superior to my child. I doubt that your child is any more healthy, fit, intelligent than my child, who is the progeny of an African American woman with family ties of two-centuries in this country and a second generation Ethiopian American. We are of the same race. And your child is definitely not superior to mine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think 15:52 may, in fact, BE Halle Berry.

Better Halle Berry, than David Duke.