Should interracial marriages be allowed?

[danwxman]

Neighborhoods of one race are never fun. Not variety and no culture.

Personally, I like living in mixed neighborhoods.

[dazzleman]

I am a conservative, not a politically correct liberal.  So please keep that in mind.

I liked all of your post, dazzleman, except this part.  Certainly not all Democrats, or liberals, are "politically correct."  I haven't mentioned this in any threads on this board, but I happen to be a huge opponent of Internet filtering in schools and libraries, and censorship on television, which as far as I know isn't politically correct.  Throwing around terms like "politically correct," when not applicable, is dangerous in these sorts of debates.

By politically correct, I meant a mindless denial of certain well-known facts.  Example:  You have just as much of a chance of being mugged by a group of white kids as you do by a group of black kids.  Or:  There's violence in all schools; the busing of large numbers of blacks from ghetto neighborhoods will not necessarily lead to increased violence.  WRONG!  This is the type of politically correct garbage I see being thrown around out in the world.

There are many facets to political correctness.  I think we're better just facing certain facts, distasteful though they may be, and working with them, rather than denying them.

A lot of liberals are going to call you out because you go too far dude. All you do is bash liberals for being politically correct...you're just a huge hypocrite. Most liberals aren't politically correct at all...as a matter of fact I'd go so far as to say the average conservative is much more politically correct then the average liberal.

It depends on the type of political correctness.  What is commonly referred to as political correctness is a left-wing creation.  Sorry, but those are the facts.  Yes, I bash liberals for it, because they deserve it.  If you don't exhibit political correctness, then it doesn't apply to you.  I happen to think you are anti-white and anti-southern, based on your prior posts.  You should not be throwing stones when you live in a glass house when it comes to calling me a hypocrite, as you have exhibited plenty of bigotry from what I have seen.  You just exhibit a type of bigotry that is acceptable to those of your political leanings.  

I just tell the truth as I see it, and sometimes paint with a broad brush.  But that doesn't make me a hypocrite.

You simply have a different definition of political correctness than I do, obviously.  Your definition probably has something to do with some of the hypocrisies inherent in extreme Christian fundamentalism, or something like that.

[Gabu]

Gabu, I was talking on a macro level, and pointing out that whites largely do shun blacks as a group because of the social problems that blacks have, and the negative effects of these problems.  It is largely a statistical thing, and it can filter down to the personal level, depending upon the type of person involved.

I know.  I was talking about your point in relation to what AuH2O is talking about, not attempting to discount it or anything.  I would imagine that the micro and the macro levels pretty much stem from the same roots, though.

[dazzleman]

Neighborhoods of one race are never fun. Not variety and no culture.

Personally, I like living in mixed neighborhoods.

Mixed is fine.  But most whites, whether they will admit it or not, have a certain "tipping point" when it comes to the blackness of a neighborhood.

I read an interesting study on this once, that demonstrates largely why integration has failed so badly.  The common white view of integration is a black percentage in a neighborhood similar to the general black population, i.e., 10-15%.  This is something most whites can be comfortable with, and they will consider such a neighborhood mixed or integrated.

But the black definition of integration is 50% black and 50% white.  So blacks are uncomfortable living in a neighborhood in which they only comprise 10-15% of the population, while few whites, even liberal ones, can tolerate living in a neighborhood that is 50% black.

And BTW, I never said a neighborhood had to be all white.  I said I would not live in a neighborhood that was "predominantly black."  There's a big difference.

[danwxman]

I am a conservative, not a politically correct liberal.  So please keep that in mind.

I liked all of your post, dazzleman, except this part.  Certainly not all Democrats, or liberals, are "politically correct."  I haven't mentioned this in any threads on this board, but I happen to be a huge opponent of Internet filtering in schools and libraries, and censorship on television, which as far as I know isn't politically correct.  Throwing around terms like "politically correct," when not applicable, is dangerous in these sorts of debates.

By politically correct, I meant a mindless denial of certain well-known facts.  Example:  You have just as much of a chance of being mugged by a group of white kids as you do by a group of black kids.  Or:  There's violence in all schools; the busing of large numbers of blacks from ghetto neighborhoods will not necessarily lead to increased violence.  WRONG!  This is the type of politically correct garbage I see being thrown around out in the world.

There are many facets to political correctness.  I think we're better just facing certain facts, distasteful though they may be, and working with them, rather than denying them.

A lot of liberals are going to call you out because you go too far dude. All you do is bash liberals for being politically correct...you're just a huge hypocrite. Most liberals aren't politically correct at all...as a matter of fact I'd go so far as to say the average conservative is much more politically correct then the average liberal.

It depends on the type of political correctness.  What is commonly referred to as political correctness is a left-wing creation.  Sorry, but those are the facts.  Yes, I bash liberals for it, because they deserve it.  If you don't exhibit political correctness, then it doesn't apply to you.  I happen to think you are anti-white and anti-southern, based on your prior posts.  You should not be throwing stones when you live in a glass house when it comes to calling me a hypocrite, as you have exhibited plenty of bigotry from what I have seen.  You just exhibit a type of bigotry that is acceptable to those of your political leanings. 

I just tell the truth as I see it, and sometimes paint with a broad brush.  But that doesn't make me a hypocrite.

You simply have a different definition of political correctness than I do, obviously.  Your definition probably has something to do with some of the hypocrisies inherent in extreme Christian fundamentalism, or something like that.

I'm anti-white? LOL!! I'm white.

You're so extremely anti-politically correct that it's just as bad as those who actually are politically correct.

I'm certainly not fond of any kind of serious biggotry, but I don't have a problem with joking around about people, especially whites -- who have been part of a privaleged class in American society.

[A18]

Crime Data
FBI Uniform Crime Report, 2003
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm

2003, Section IV

note on data: since hispanic is not a race, many are included in the "white" crime rates, thus skewing them to the left. The number of non-hispanic whites is roughly 5.4 times the population of blacks in the US. Using that number will actually underestimate black crime rates because of the aforementioned hispanic confusion of the data, but nevertheless the data is statistically significant.

Arrests by race

Murder
white: 49.1%
black: 48.5%

-- Blacks are slightly more than 5 times more likely than whites to commit murder.

Larceny (theft)
white: 68.5%
black: 28.8%

-- after a ratio adjustment, blacks are still more likely to commit larceny, but the rate is far lower. If economic factors drive crime, then in theory blacks should be even more likely to steal than they do.

Aggravated Assault
white: 64.7%
black: 33%

-- This contradicts the idea blacks are simply in a more violent environment as an explanation for their murder rate. They are more likely to commit assault, by roughly 2.7 times, but nowhere near their proclivity in terms of murder rates.

Drunk Driving
white: 88%
black: 9.6%

-- Used to demonstrate the data is not somehow biased against blacks; in fact, as we will see, quite the opposite-- it is probably biased in their favor overall.

Now, in terms of the idea blacks commit more crime because they are more often in poverty:

2004 US Census Press Release

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:e6p-Ou2fnowJ:www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/002484.html+income+data+by+race&hl=en

Whites account for 44% of Americans in "poverty." Taking into account black population size at the time of the census, roughly 8.6 million blacks were in poverty; slightly less than hispanics and only slightly more than half the number of whites in poverty.

Taking into account the Uniform Crime Report's inclusion of hispanics into their "white" dataset, the property crime rates seem to follow the above numbers.

In other words, it is not surprising that 28.9% of forgery arrests were made on black offenders; though they make up roughly ~25% of those in poverty, that is a fairly small difference.

The inconsistencies emerge with regard to violent crimes. Blacks, for instance, again commit ~29% of arsons designed to attack property-- but 37% committed for violent purposes.

Blacks commit 23.9% of non-rape sex offenses, which again is higher per capita than whites but not unreasonable given poverty rates. However, they commit 33.3% of forcible rapes, well above the expected number.






If anyone is interested in intelligent discussion, which I doubt, the topic is more than suitable.

Okay. Now are you against men dating women because men commit more violent crimes?

[dazzleman]

Gabu, I was talking on a macro level, and pointing out that whites largely do shun blacks as a group because of the social problems that blacks have, and the negative effects of these problems.  It is largely a statistical thing, and it can filter down to the personal level, depending upon the type of person involved.

I know.  I was talking about your point in relation to what AuH2O is talking about, not attempting to discount it or anything.  I would imagine that the micro and the macro levels pretty much stem from the same roots, though.

Yes and no.  There are some out-and-out racists who simply think blacks are genetically inferior.  I don't believe that at all.  They would believe that regardless of the statistics at the macro level.

So I think in some cases the macro and micro reactions stem from the same source, but in other more extreme cases, they do not.

[danwxman]

Neighborhoods of one race are never fun. Not variety and no culture.

Personally, I like living in mixed neighborhoods.

Mixed is fine.  But most whites, whether they will admit it or not, have a certain "tipping point" when it comes to the blackness of a neighborhood.

I read an interesting study on this once, that demonstrates largely why integration has failed so badly.  The common white view of integration is a black percentage in a neighborhood similar to the general black population, i.e., 10-15%.  This is something most whites can be comfortable with, and they will consider such a neighborhood mixed or integrated.

But the black definition of integration is 50% black and 50% white.  So blacks are uncomfortable living in a neighborhood in which they only comprise 10-15% of the population, while few whites, even liberal ones, can tolerate living in a neighborhood that is 50% black.

And BTW, I never said a neighborhood had to be all white.  I said I would not live in a neighborhood that was "predominantly black."  There's a big difference.

What do you consider "predominantly black"? Like I said, I wouldn't enjoy living in an all-black neighborhood just as I wouldn't enjoy living in an all-white neighborhood.

[Ebowed]

Crime Data
FBI Uniform Crime Report, 2003
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm

2003, Section IV

note on data: since hispanic is not a race, many are included in the "white" crime rates, thus skewing them to the left. The number of non-hispanic whites is roughly 5.4 times the population of blacks in the US. Using that number will actually underestimate black crime rates because of the aforementioned hispanic confusion of the data, but nevertheless the data is statistically significant.

Arrests by race

Murder
white: 49.1%
black: 48.5%

-- Blacks are slightly more than 5 times more likely than whites to commit murder.

Larceny (theft)
white: 68.5%
black: 28.8%

-- after a ratio adjustment, blacks are still more likely to commit larceny, but the rate is far lower. If economic factors drive crime, then in theory blacks should be even more likely to steal than they do.

Aggravated Assault
white: 64.7%
black: 33%

-- This contradicts the idea blacks are simply in a more violent environment as an explanation for their murder rate. They are more likely to commit assault, by roughly 2.7 times, but nowhere near their proclivity in terms of murder rates.

Drunk Driving
white: 88%
black: 9.6%

-- Used to demonstrate the data is not somehow biased against blacks; in fact, as we will see, quite the opposite-- it is probably biased in their favor overall.

Now, in terms of the idea blacks commit more crime because they are more often in poverty:

2004 US Census Press Release

REALLY LONG LINK THAT STRECTHED THE PAGE (thanks!)

Whites account for 44% of Americans in "poverty." Taking into account black population size at the time of the census, roughly 8.6 million blacks were in poverty; slightly less than hispanics and only slightly more than half the number of whites in poverty.

Taking into account the Uniform Crime Report's inclusion of hispanics into their "white" dataset, the property crime rates seem to follow the above numbers.

In other words, it is not surprising that 28.9% of forgery arrests were made on black offenders; though they make up roughly ~25% of those in poverty, that is a fairly small difference.

The inconsistencies emerge with regard to violent crimes. Blacks, for instance, again commit ~29% of arsons designed to attack property-- but 37% committed for violent purposes.

Blacks commit 23.9% of non-rape sex offenses, which again is higher per capita than whites but not unreasonable given poverty rates. However, they commit 33.3% of forcible rapes, well above the expected number.

If anyone is interested in intelligent discussion, which I doubt, the topic is more than suitable.

Thanks for the statistics, now what did you prove?  That blacks commit more crimes in proportion to whites?  Okay now... hmm... nope, no biological reasons that make blacks inferior to whites, or make them unsuitable for inter-racial marriage.  Huh.  What do you know.

Let me tell you something.  Just because blacks make up a smaller amount of poverty in the U.S. than whites doesn't mean that they still live in urban and aggressive environments where crime is better nurtured.  The fact is, blacks come from worse neighborhoods than whites on average, and that just makes for a better influence of crime.  Poverty is only ONE factor.

[A18]

So many behavioral patterns are genetic that I find it a bit bizarre everyone is so quick to jump on AuH2O just for posting that blacks are more likely to commit violent crimes.

[dazzleman]

I'm anti-white? LOL!! I'm white.

You're so extremely anti-politically correct that it's just as bad as those who actually are politically correct.

I'm certainly not fond of any kind of serious biggotry, but I don't have a problem with joking around about people, especially whites -- who have been part of a privaleged class in American society.

It's perfectly possible to be white and anti-white.  You hold whites to a higher standard of behavior than other people, and view yourself as above other whites, or at least certain ones.  All races and groups have examples of people like this.

I think political correctness is bad, period.  When something is evil, being against it cannot really be bad.  You are falling for the old liberal moral equivalence ploy, which is a logic error.

[AuH2O]

Exactly as I predicted. Presenting a few stats to some of these idiots is like asking a monkey to run a nuclear power plant.

Fine, whatever, I know some people are just worthless and thus not really worth my time. But:

IF BLACKS COME FROM "WORSE" NEIGHBORHOODS, WHY ARE THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF CRIMES NOT EVENLY DISTRIBUTED?

WHY DON'T BLACKS ALSO COMMIT 49% OF FORGERY, JUST LIKE 49% OF MURDER?

[dazzleman]

Neighborhoods of one race are never fun. Not variety and no culture.

Personally, I like living in mixed neighborhoods.

Mixed is fine.  But most whites, whether they will admit it or not, have a certain "tipping point" when it comes to the blackness of a neighborhood.

I read an interesting study on this once, that demonstrates largely why integration has failed so badly.  The common white view of integration is a black percentage in a neighborhood similar to the general black population, i.e., 10-15%.  This is something most whites can be comfortable with, and they will consider such a neighborhood mixed or integrated.

But the black definition of integration is 50% black and 50% white.  So blacks are uncomfortable living in a neighborhood in which they only comprise 10-15% of the population, while few whites, even liberal ones, can tolerate living in a neighborhood that is 50% black.

And BTW, I never said a neighborhood had to be all white.  I said I would not live in a neighborhood that was "predominantly black."  There's a big difference.

What do you consider "predominantly black"? Like I said, I wouldn't enjoy living in an all-black neighborhood just as I wouldn't enjoy living in an all-white neighborhood.

It could mean a lot of things.  It depends more on culture than skin color.

Even 10% could be too much if the blacks in a neighborhood are ghetto types on public assistance.  And the same thing goes for whites, if they're that type of person.  But if the share my values and lifestyle, I really don't care what percentage they are.  I just know that statistically, it is unlikely that there would be a neighborhood that was, say, 60-70% black that wouldn't include an unacceptably high ghetto-type component.  There are no hard numbers.

[A18]

I'm not even refuting your point. You still haven't told me why it matters.

[Gabu]

So many behavioral patterns are genetic that I find it a bit bizarre everyone is so quick to jump on AuH2O just for posting that blacks are more likely to commit violent crimes.

It's not that part, it's that he then asserts that it's because they're black that they're doing that.

I'm currently examining what he posted.

[AuH2O]

I'm not even refuting your point. You still haven't told me why it matters.

Dog, I'm sorry, you have to understand how many angles I'm getting blitzed from. Right now I'm probably wasting my time by dealing with things like Ebowed. But since if I don't he was going to keep attacking me anyway, what can I do?

I haven't been able to make a complete argument because every single post of mine, even when obviously true, is attacked with 10 flames. Maybe we can start a thread where only people interested in actual discussion can post?

[Ebowed]

Exactly as I predicted. Presenting a few stats to some of these idiots is like asking a monkey to run a nuclear power plant.

Fine, whatever, I know some people are just worthless and thus not really worth my time.

You're very mature.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because not every issue is black and white.  Things don't go equally across the board, much like not all blacks are sports superstars.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why don't you just respond to his point?  Sorry if you have to waste time dealing with "things like" me, I understand us ignorant retards who think blacks and whites can marry aren't worth your time.

[AuH2O]

My question:

If blacks are simply more likely to commit crime, why do they disproportionately commit VIOLENT crimes, particularly murder?

Ebowed',s response:

"Because not every issue is black and white."



LOL

I hope you had better answers when your professors gave you exams. Seriously, you are a joke. I'm done with your dog and pony show.

[J. J.]

Crime Data
FBI Uniform Crime Report, 2003
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm

Arrests by race

Murder
white: 49.1%
black: 48.5%

-- Blacks are slightly more than 5 times more likely than whites to commit murder.

Larceny (theft)
white: 68.5%
black: 28.8%

-- after a ratio adjustment, blacks are still more likely to commit larceny, but the rate is far lower. If economic factors drive crime, then in theory blacks should be even more likely to steal than they do.

Aggravated Assault
white: 64.7%
black: 33%

-- This contradicts the idea blacks are simply in a more violent environment as an explanation for their murder rate. They are more likely to commit assault, by roughly 2.7 times, but nowhere near their proclivity in terms of murder rates.

Drunk Driving
white: 88%
black: 9.6%

-- Used to demonstrate the data is not somehow biased against blacks; in fact, as we will see, quite the opposite-- it is probably biased in their favor overall.

You've made the assumption that arrests equal the numbers of crimes committed.  That may not be the case.

[AuH2O]

Yeah but keep in mind, I was trying to make it so that even Ebowed (OK, maybe not him) could understand it without difficulty.

You can statistically account for those criminals not arrested. But trust me it doesn't seriously affect the data. If you really want I could explain why and put up adjusted numbers.

[Ebowed]

Yeah but keep in mind, I was trying to make it so that even Ebowed (OK, maybe not him) could understand it without difficulty.

It's always good for you to personally insult my intelligence when you're losing an argument.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You didn't respond to my answer.  Not every issue is black and white.  Certain types of crime are better influenced than others in certain environments.

[AuH2O]

Perce, one last time:

YOU DID NOT MAKE AN ARGUMENT

NOWHERE

NONE

NUNCA

You didn't SAY anything. You didn't ARGUE anything.  You didn't EXPLAIN anything.
 
I provided statistics and an explanation. You provided nothing.

Seriously, you are a very simple person. Probably the dumbest on this board.

note: that is a standard commie trick. Refute someone's point by claiming (falsely) that it was already refuted.

So Ebowed is a fool and a liar. Big surprise. I'm no longer responding to his drivel and I hope he leaves this thread at the minimum. What a waste of bandwidth... and oxygen.

[J. J.]

Yeah but keep in mind, I was trying to make it so that even Ebowed (OK, maybe not him) could understand it without difficulty.

You can statistically account for those criminals not arrested. But trust me it doesn't seriously affect the data. If you really want I could explain why and put up adjusted numbers.

It could, and it could explain why there is a lower drunk driving arrest.  Black people might have less access to cars and have a harder time getting away.  It could be something as simple as the police being better able to find Black people.

[AuH2O]

It's actually quite the opposite. Black people are more likely to get away with murder. Two main reasons:

1) More likely to kill someone they don't know
2) Community is scared to help find them

Just today, this article:

http://kyw.com/news/local_story_074120610.html

If you want to debate this I will, but I promise you will lose. Get your evidence together and present it.

[Platypus]

I married out of my race and so did my sister and my brother. It is well-established that children of interracial marriages generally have better immune response systems. From a Darwinistic perspective, it makes good sense. Also, a disproportionately large percentage of my former girlfriends have been non-white, so I suppose it was likely that I would marry a non-white woman.

I voted (R) yes. My guess is that my sister would vote (D) yes and my brother would not vote. But if he were not stoned all the time, he might vote (L) Yes. I got me some little negro nephews and nieces and some little chink nephews and nieces. One big happy post-modern family. Yee haa!

And we all like cooked pigmeat.

You've automatically given your children an advantage if they end up gay. Halfies are HOT