Should interracial marriages be allowed?

[dazzleman]

LOL Ebowed, a "conservative" organization, hilarious. Please keep it up.

dazzle: do you want to discuss the science? I am more than prepared to do so. You might "think" one thing, but like Ebowed, and like a lot of people, you believe it because you've been told that by the media.

Anyone that knows basic genetics knows there is such a thing as race, period. And anyone so ignorant they have to cite some weirdo "Christian" website has no business making declarative scientific statements.

I'm not sure what your discussion point would be.  I am well aware of physical differences between the races.  I am also well aware of ongoing cultural differences that continue to this day, and I have not been a fan of the liberal view or the media view of racial issues.

But I still think that the similarities of the human races far outweigh the differences.  And I see nothing wrong with people of different races procreating with each other.

[AuH2O]

Um yeah whites and blacks are both homo sapiens, i.e. the same species.

BUT, the subgroups of homo sapiens are VERY different from one another. Some people don't even accept that obvious fact.

Once you do, there still is the question of how it is relevant. I think it's relevant in many ways, but PC gets in the way.

[Ebowed]

Racial differences are irrelevant and insignificant.  In all reality there is only one human "race."  Just because one person has darker skin than someone else doesn't mean they are fundamentally different, and should be grouped differently, or not be allowed to inter-marry.

[Ebowed]

Um yeah whites and blacks are both homo sapiens, i.e. the same species.

BUT, the subgroups of homo sapiens are VERY different from one another. Some people don't even accept that obvious fact.

Once you do, there still is the question of how it is relevant. I think it's relevant in many ways, but PC gets in the way.

Oh?  How's it relevant?

[dazzleman]

I think the cultural differences between the races are far more significant than the biological differences.

The biggest difference is in the way we think.  In our society, blacks and whites think completely differently.  That is a gap far bigger than any biological difference.

[angus]

AuH2O, not only are they the same species, but (I think) they are the same strain of the same species:  Home sapiens sapiens, to be exact.

Not like, say Escerichia coli coliformus vs Eschericihia coli negrofasciatum, for example.

So, if we're using terms loosely here, and obviously we are, we can equate "race" in the old sense with "strain" or we can use it while referring to the "human race"  That was my only point.  I'm not trying to start an argument about the technicalities of generally recognized racial differences (i.e., the epicanthic fold of tissue under the eyes of east asians, or the coarse kinky hair of african populations, all of which arose via natural selections due to climactic extremes of the gobi desert sand blowing in the eyes or the equatorial sun burning the skin of the scalp).  All of which suggest that the more diversity of genetic material you can provide to an offspring, the better that offspring will be equipped to deal with the harsh reality of physical life.

Sure, emotional life is an entirely different issue, and as dazzleman points out, it becomes cultural at some point.  This we must consider.  Lots of mixed children have social problems.  This, no doubt, would be an issue discussed seriously and at great length by interracial couples contemplating progenesis.

[Ebowed]

I think the cultural differences between the races are far more significant than the biological differences.

The biggest difference is in the way we think.  In our society, blacks and whites think completely differently.  That is a gap far bigger than any biological difference.

I agree that cultural differences far outweigh any biological differences, because biological differences are trivial and insignificant.

[Alcon]

Um yeah whites and blacks are both homo sapiens, i.e. the same species.

BUT, the subgroups of homo sapiens are VERY different from one another. Some people don't even accept that obvious fact.

Once you do, there still is the question of how it is relevant. I think it's relevant in many ways, but PC gets in the way.

Subgroup? Hmm? And what scientific subgroup would blacks belong to? Levels of skin pigmentation are not really an acceptable differentiation between varying species. That's like arguing that a black cat is a different species from a white cat coming from the same parents. It's just all about genes.

And if by "very different," you mean skin pigmentation, you have fairly poor perspective on biological differences, although this is not my realm.

[Gabu]

Um yeah whites and blacks are both homo sapiens, i.e. the same species.

BUT, the subgroups of homo sapiens are VERY different from one another. Some people don't even accept that obvious fact.

Once you do, there still is the question of how it is relevant. I think it's relevant in many ways, but PC gets in the way.

I recall reading about a scientific study that was researching the topic of how different races are from each other.  The scientist had people look at a group of bones, and take a guess at the race that each bone's owner was.

The number of correct responses given was no larger than what one would expect to get if completely random answers were given.

There obviously are differences between the races, but they're only skin deep.  Blacks can be sophisticated, and whites can be gangsters.  Asians can be untalented, and hispanics can be extremely talented.  The perceived difference is largely a cultural one more than anything: it's the same reason as why Australians act differently than Americans, who act differently than Canadians, who act differently than the English, etc., even when all people considered from each group are white.

[AuH2O]

What might seem like small differences in theory have massive implications in practice.

Race is not skin-deep, and actually there are physical differences between the races that are visible in terms of professional and olympic sports.

Those differences extend into biochemistry, which of course is regulated by genes just like anything else. In combination with variations in intellectual distribution, blacks are more likely to pursue their short-term interests at the expense of their long-term interests.

The results vary, from higher criminality to less investment and saving (i.e. more consumer spending). In other words, even law-abiding and affluent blacks exhibit the same characteristics ON THE WHOLE-- certainly there are many exceptions.

But those exceptions prove nothing. If I faced Johan Santana 100 times, I could probably get a hit, but that hit wouldn't change the fact he was dominating me.

[Ebowed]

dazzle: do you want to discuss the science? I am more than prepared to do so. You might "think" one thing, but like Ebowed, and like a lot of people, you believe it because you've been told that by the media.

I don't base my opinions on the media.  If I find something in the media I agree with I'm free to post it.

[AuH2O]

Um yeah whites and blacks are both homo sapiens, i.e. the same species.

BUT, the subgroups of homo sapiens are VERY different from one another. Some people don't even accept that obvious fact.

Once you do, there still is the question of how it is relevant. I think it's relevant in many ways, but PC gets in the way.

I recall reading about a scientific study that was researching the topic of how different races are from each other.  The scientist had people look at a group of bones, and take a guess at the race that each bone's owner was.

The number of correct responses given was no larger than what one would expect to get if completely random answers were given.

There obviously are differences between the races, but they're only skin deep.  Blacks can be sophisticated, and whites can be gangsters.  Asians can be untalented, and hispanics can be extremely talented.  The perceived difference is largely a cultural one more than anything: it's the same reason as why Australians act differently than Americans, who act differently than Canadians, who act differently than the English, etc., even when all people considered from each group are white.

You're quite simply wrong. It's clear you know virtually nothing about science. Pulling stuff out of your ass doesn't make a valid argument.

[Ebowed]

Race is not skin-deep, and actually there are physical differences between the races that are visible in terms of professional and olympic sports.

Some blacks are better than some whites at sports.  What's your point?  There are plenty of blacks who are no good at sports.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So you're saying blacks are stupid?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Certainly there are many exceptions.  In fact, so many that your ideas aren't justified.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, let's just generalize.

[Alcon]

Um yeah whites and blacks are both homo sapiens, i.e. the same species.

BUT, the subgroups of homo sapiens are VERY different from one another. Some people don't even accept that obvious fact.

Once you do, there still is the question of how it is relevant. I think it's relevant in many ways, but PC gets in the way.

I recall reading about a scientific study that was researching the topic of how different races are from each other.  The scientist had people look at a group of bones, and take a guess at the race that each bone's owner was.

The number of correct responses given was no larger than what one would expect to get if completely random answers were given.

There obviously are differences between the races, but they're only skin deep.  Blacks can be sophisticated, and whites can be gangsters.  Asians can be untalented, and hispanics can be extremely talented.  The perceived difference is largely a cultural one more than anything: it's the same reason as why Australians act differently than Americans, who act differently than Canadians, who act differently than the English, etc., even when all people considered from each group are white.

You're quite simply wrong. It's clear you know virtually nothing about science. Pulling stuff out of your ass doesn't make a valid argument.

Nor does, by the way, posting something calling another poster wrong and not backing it up. That just ends up making you stupid.

And, AuH2O, can you link me to studies that prove that being black naturally makes people more likely to commit crimes from a reputable organization? I actually am interested in this.

[angus]

Actually, I'm going to duck out of this argument, since you'd be defending on two fronts.  I agree that there are documented physical differences in human populations.  I have never been accused of being politically correct.  Well, I have been, but those people were dumbasses.  Anyway, you're correct.  Dick sizes, body fat, ass muscularity, visual perception, audio perception, eyesight, physical stamina, etc., vary from race to race.  I have no problem admitting that. 

My argument is simply:  those differences, along with the disparate immune-system developments in different subgroups, make interracial coupling all the more better choice than isolation. 

But you shouldn't have to fight a two-front battle, so I'll come back to argue this at some later point.  Good night.  Peace and Love.

[Ebowed]

AuH2O is one of those people, it seems, who believes blacks commit more crimes because of their very nature as blacks, not because of the poor environments that many of them come from.

[Gabu]

You're quite simply wrong. It's clear you know virtually nothing about science. Pulling stuff out of your ass doesn't make a valid argument.

Hah.  Would you like me to dig up the article?  I probably can; of course, you'd just scoff at it and say that the researcher clearly knows nothing about science either.

Remind me what you know about science.

[AuH2O]

Thank you angus.

Gabu: How can I evaluate an article I can't even see? Are you high? I am supposed to take a brief and nonsensical recollection by one person of some article somewhere, sometime as EVIDENCE? Wow.

It can easily be proven blacks are more likely to commit violent crimes. But why waste my time on people that won't listen and/or are so stupid they think people with substantial visible (genetic) differences cannot possibly have non-visible (genetic) differences.

I mean, when you are THAT lacking in reason, no argument or proof could ever sway you. A million articles won't do it, because you won't understand them anyway and will come up with some reason it doesn't apply.

If someone wants a real debate, then every single claim will have to be supported by cited evidence. I'll do it. None of you will.

[AuH2O]

Also note that the crime issue can easily be proven statistically with only the FBI uniform crime report and income data with racial AND gender breakdowns. Anyone with an IQ above 50 should see as much once they examine the data; tragically, I'm not sure anyone disagreeing with me on that issue meets the qualification.

[Ebowed]

It can easily be proven blacks are more likely to commit violent crimes.

Source?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, like "it can be easily proven," with no further discussion.  Great evidence, racist.

[Ebowed]

Also note that the crime issue can easily be proven statistically with only the FBI uniform crime report and income data with racial AND gender breakdowns. Anyone with an IQ above 50 should see as much once they examine the data; tragically, I'm not sure anyone disagreeing with me on that issue meets the qualification.

Considering you're a racist scumbag who is about 50 years behind the times, I wouldn't be assuming people's IQ's if I were you.  As I said, race has nothing to do with crime.  It's all about environment.  Sadly, blacks live in more oppressive, urban, and poor environments, where crime happens more often.  Don't be stupid.

[Alcon]

Also note that the crime issue can easily be proven statistically with only the FBI uniform crime report and income data with racial AND gender breakdowns. Anyone with an IQ above 50 should see as much once they examine the data; tragically, I'm not sure anyone disagreeing with me on that issue meets the qualification.

You have, yet again, failed to actually provide a link to your sources. Also, someone with an IQ below 50 would not be capable of posting here, let alone examining and evaluating scientific data.

[AuH2O]

Fine, you want evidence, I'll give you some evidence. With some explanation of course.

But no one will actually take a rational look at the data. That is a 100% certainty.

[Gabu]

It can easily be proven blacks are more likely to commit violent crimes. But why waste my time on people that won't listen and/or are so stupid they think people with substantial visible (genetic) differences cannot possibly have non-visible (genetic) differences.

I'm not arguing that blacks commit more violent crimes than whites.  I'm arguing against your completely unsubstantiated conclusion.

Here's your argument:

1. Blacks commit more violent crimes than whites.
2. Therefore, black people are inherently more likely to commit violent crimes, regardless of the circumstances.

Gee, Mister Science, you don't suppose that the fact that blacks commit more violent crimes might have something to do with other factors, such as the larger levels of poverty among blacks, now would you?  No, that would be too logical; it must be because they're black!

If you can show that, taking relative levels of poverty into account, blacks still commit a statistically significant higher level of crime than whites, then we'll talk.

[Alcon]

Fine, you want evidence, I'll give you some evidence. With some explanation of course.

But no one will actually take a rational look at the data. That is a 100% certainty.

Being that this is the third time I've had to ask you for a link, it's pretty obvious that I want evidence.

If by "rational look at the data," you mean viewing it to contribute to the discourse, then I am 100% certain I will do just that. But if you mean "rational look at the data" as in just automatically agreeing with you because you gave me a link, you're right - I'm 100% certain that will not happen.