Should interracial marriages be allowed?

[John Dibble]

You make an assumption that is a big no-no: genes don't affect culture. IF they do, then it is not a valid defense to talk about rappers-- the violent rhetoric actually represents genetic tendency, not random cultural developments.

You are making a big ass leap here - back it up. And no, the 'religion gene' is not sufficient evidence for this.

Would it be possible for you to engage in actual discussion and (heaven forbid) use things like evidence and explanation, rather than nitpicking my arguments?

Also, maybe you're not familiar with statistics-- I was questioning an assumption made by Gabu, NOT making a statement of fact. If you don't know the difference then don't bother criticizing.

A bad argument should be deconstructed. Leaving it up is idiotic. It is a logical fallacy to say 'Item A is due to genetics, therefore item B is also due to genetics'. If you are going to make the claim, back it up with hard evidence.

Now, further on this, you seem to ignore upbringing. How someone's parents raise them is perhaps the largest factor in how someone turns out. Don't you think that this definitely might have a good deal to do with it?

Further, let's look at another fact that flies in the face of the idea of the idea that violence is inherent in blacks - violent crime rates dropped dramatically in the previous decade. If blacks where inherently prone to violence, wouldn't the number of crimes they commit be rather stable?

[AuH2O]

lol

So you don't understand statistics at all, do you?

If you construct an argument making use of certain types of assumptions, you can compromise your results.

Assuming there is no genetic effect on culture, which empirically is a dubious proposition but is not currently the topic of discussion, is bad EVEN IF THERE IS NOT. If you assume what you're trying to disprove, you mix variables and invalidate the results.

Your crime rate trend claim is just retarded-- that's like saying stocks are all the same because they generally follow the overall market trend.

JJ: Honestly, I thought we were talking about crime rates.

[John Dibble]

So you don't understand statistics at all, do you?

I understand them quite well. I also understand you can't always draw accurate conclusions about causation from them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not arguing against that - but the opposite assumption is equally bad. Maybe it's just me, but that seems to be what you are doing.

[AuH2O]

I dunno, maybe you didn't actually read my comments fully. I was disagreeing with the way in which Gabu set up his crime-prediction model. If you can contribute to that discussion, do so, if not, stop posting on this thread.

It is a mistake, if you are just analyzing the data, to assume what is and what is not genetic. However, fundamentally a person's genes determine the vast majority of their traits... when combined with the environment, you have the final result.

IF blacks are genetically more prone to violence, as we are looking at, then THAT WOULD BE REFLECTED IN THEIR CULTURE. So Gabu's argument assumes what it is trying to prove, which is a HUGE FLAW. In fact, a fatal one.

You do not understand statistics if something that obvious is unclear to you, period. Any high school stats student that passes the class could understand it.

[opebo]

IF blacks are genetically more prone to violence, as we are looking at, then THAT WOULD BE REFLECTED IN THEIR CULTURE.

Perhaps so, but your definition of violence is a very narrow one.  Keep in mind that White violence is perpetrated less by individuals and more by the apparatus of the State, which they control.  Or at least the top 2% control.  The situation is almost exactly analagous to the Isreali/Palestinian situation, in which the arabs bombings are termed terrorism, while the nearly indistinguishable acts by the Jewish state are not. 

[John Dibble]

It is a mistake, if you are just analyzing the data, to assume what is and what is not genetic.

Did I not just say something just like that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The nature vs. nurture issue is highly debated among psychologists. The degree one's genes vs. upbringing affects one's behavior is extremely difficult to determine - further it is made difficult by the fact that some traits are determined by genetics more than others. Some genes have only an extremely small effect. If you can not prove within a margin of error what the ratio for the particular trait you are looking at is, in this case aggression or likeliness to commit a crime, then you should not make claims either way.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well that's the thing - it's an IF statement. Gabu may be wrong for assuming one way, but as I said, the opposite assumption is wrong.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You clearly didn't read my last post - I said that the opposite assumption is EQUALLY wrong, meaning to assume is wrong either way. Also, as I said, you can't always draw accurate conclusions from statistics. Even IF genetics are a factor, they may not be the only one - heck, they may be the smallest one. The issue at hand is very complex, it is foolish to assume that the cause is singular or simple.

[AuH2O]

When you claimed to understand statistics, that was a lie.

I PROPOSED TO ASSUME NEITHER.

Run that through your head for a while.

[John Dibble]

I PROPOSED TO ASSUME NEITHER.

How is that different from what I said? You obviously don't understand how to READ.

[Gabu]

IF blacks are genetically more prone to violence, as we are looking at, then THAT WOULD BE REFLECTED IN THEIR CULTURE. So Gabu's argument assumes what it is trying to prove, which is a HUGE FLAW. In fact, a fatal one.

I can only assume that you didn't get what my model was trying to show.

What the conclusion my model reached was that if we assume that levels of violence is unrelated to genes, we can still construct a model that produces the expected murder rates.  Nowhere in my argument was I actually trying to prove that levels of violence actually are unrelated to genes.

I'll repeat that:

Nowhere in my argument was I actually trying to prove that levels of violence actually are unrelated to genes.

In logic, the statement "a implies b" does not in any way make a statement about the actual truth value of a in reality.  All it's saying is that IF a is true, THEN b is also true.

In my case, a is the statement "levels of violence are unrelated to genes" and b is the statement "you can form a model that correctly predicts the murder rates."

You are correct in saying that I assumed a, but I was not trying to prove anything about a itself, so your assertion that assuming a is a flaw is false.  In fact, since I was trying to prove "a implies b", it was necessary for me to assume a.

As I said before, my argument was not trying to prove that levels of violence are unrelated to genes, only that the increased level of crime among blacks does not prove anything.  It's still up in the air regarding whether or not the increased level of crime is genetic.

[J. J.]

JJ: Honestly, I thought we were talking about crime rates.

Actually, we were discussing genetics and culture.  You've made a lot of erroneous points relating to it, and you are being called on them.

[J.R. Brown]

Yes, we are all God's children. The Bible says that gay marriage is an abomination, but the laws in which that decree from God was included in also said that if you cursed your parents you would be put to death and that if a man purchased a slave that slave had to live with him for 6 years. Some heterosexual marriages are more of an abomination than some homosexual. Marriages based on power and greed and lust. You don't know that homosexual marriages are based on lust either. And when it comes right down to it none of us has the mental capacity to understand the power and the reach of God or the the true meanings of the laws of God.  Not even the wisest theologians. We only have individuals such as Abraham, Joseph and Moses to try to interpret what God spoke to them. And of course God himself who came in the form of man, Jesus Christ, telling us that love was the only way to fight hate, and these marriage laws promote hate. I think it was Martin Luther King, Jr. that said that "the only way to change the hearts and minds of the people was to create institutions that promoted the neccessary changes." My fear is that these institutions that President Bush wants to create will promote hate towards homosexuals and divide this country even further. I don't want to see anymore blood shed in the name of hate against homosexuals, like Matthew Shepard. I'm not saying we need to legalize gay marriage. It would not matter if we gave gay couples civil unions, the churches wouldn't recognize them and real Christians would support any measure to reduce hate crimes, which this might do if we specify that it's up to the churches to decide who they will marry in their community. Let the government issue non-religious binds. If the couple can get a minister or a priest to marry them then the government has no right to interfere with their religious practices, unless Bush gets this amendment through. It just goes against everything written in the Constitution.

[dazzleman]

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.

Hey, do you think I'm anti straight white male just because because I'm a liberal?

That would be pretty funny, since I'm a straight white male.

I really wouldn't know.  I just know that you think Bush lost Ohio (margin 118,000 votes) but Kerry won Wisconsin (margin 10,000 votes).  That and that you're far left, that's all I know about you.

All liberals aren't politically correct, but almost all who are politically correct are liberals.  And many who are politically correct either don't know it or would never admit it.

The fact that all you liberals are denying being politically correct proves what a liability it has become.  That is a victory in itself.

And in case you didn't notice, jfern, we're on the same side of this issue.  I believe in intermarriage, and don't believe race should be a factor.  I believe racial differences are largely superficial and cultural.  But I am not politically correct enough to deny that there are serious problems in black American culture that affect most people's (even some black people's) perception of blacks as a group.  Those who are politically correct deny these cultural issues.  I have seen it.  They became enraged and tag anybody who brings up these issues as racist.  I don't know whether you do or not; I haven't read your posts carefully enough.  But you can be sure that most of the people doing that aren't on the conservative side of the political spectrum.

Some conservatives have begun to play this game recently, and it's a little degrading.  The labeling of all opposition to Condi Rice's nomination as "racist" is an example.  But let's not forget who started this little game.  Liberals did, and if it ends up hurting the liberal cause, all the better.

[phk]

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.

Hey, do you think I'm anti straight white male just because because I'm a liberal?

That would be pretty funny, since I'm a straight white male.

All liberals aren't politically correct, but almost all who are politically correct are liberals.  And many who are politically correct either don't know it or would never admit it.

The fact that all you liberals are denying being politically correct proves what a liability it has become.  That is a victory in itself.

Not necessarilly, an evangelical girl was whining about how Biology class was "anti-Christian" in high school and force us to be politically correct toward her hatred of education.

[dazzleman]

Not necessarilly, an evangelical girl was whining about how Biology class was "anti-Christian" in high school and force us to be politically correct toward her hatred of education.

Well, it sounds as if the chickens are coming home to roost.  Liberals started it, and if they get a dose of their own nasty medicine and don't like it, I'm not going to lose much sleep over it.

[phk]

Not necessarilly, an evangelical girl was whining about how Biology class was "anti-Christian" in high school and force us to be politically correct toward her hatred of education.

Well, it sounds as if the chickens are coming home to roost.  Liberals started it, and if they get a dose of their own nasty medicine and don't like it, I'm not going to lose much sleep over it.

Actually conservatives did, where was the drive to force church-goers to be politically correct toward those who believe in science?

Its quite the reverse.

[dazzleman]

Not necessarilly, an evangelical girl was whining about how Biology class was "anti-Christian" in high school and force us to be politically correct toward her hatred of education.

Well, it sounds as if the chickens are coming home to roost.  Liberals started it, and if they get a dose of their own nasty medicine and don't like it, I'm not going to lose much sleep over it.

Actually conservatives did, where was the drive to force church-goers to be politically correct toward those who believe in science?

I don't deny there is some political correctness on the conservative side.  But it is liberals who went on the offensive with political correctness, trying to attack and suppress mainstream views, whether you disagree with those views or not.  Conservatives have not attacked mainstream views, but defended them, rather weakly, from liberal attack.

[phk]

Not necessarilly, an evangelical girl was whining about how Biology class was "anti-Christian" in high school and force us to be politically correct toward her hatred of education.

Well, it sounds as if the chickens are coming home to roost.  Liberals started it, and if they get a dose of their own nasty medicine and don't like it, I'm not going to lose much sleep over it.

Actually conservatives did, where was the drive to force church-goers to be politically correct toward those who believe in science?

I don't deny there is some political correctness on the conservative side.  But it is liberals who went on the offensive with political correctness, trying to attack and suppress mainstream views, whether you disagree with those views or not.  Conservatives have not attacked mainstream views, but defended them, rather weakly, from liberal attack.

Since when was lashing out at science, "mainstream"?

[angus]

this turned out to be a pretty goddamned good thread, james42.  15 pages so far in less than a week.  that's fairly impressive.

also, note that we finally managed to find some poster whose mind isn't controlled by the two corporate parties who votes no.  that's also fairly impressive.  distressing, maybe, if you're given to bouts of moralism, but impressive nevertheless.

[Cashcow]

Since when does being distressed by opposition to interracial marriage have anything to do with "bouts of moralism?"

[angus]

since forever.  well, I guess I can only speak for myself, but it's not entirely individualistic to say that a nonwhite man and a white woman, or two white men for that matter, should be allowed to marry.  I think there's a healthy dose of moralism in that sentiment. again, I only speak for myself.  I suppose one could make the argument in favor of its allowance entirely within an individualistic framework.  (i.e., none of the state's goddamn business who I marry, etc.)  But that's essentially libertarianism, and its logical conclusion leads to legalized bestiality, sex-slavery, and the like.  Since I don't condone some of those things, I am left to conclude that mine is a moralistic view, at least in part.  Perhaps I am mistaken.

[opebo]

But that's essentially libertarianism, and its logical conclusion leads to legalized bestiality, sex-slavery, and the like.  Since I don't condone some of those things, I am left to conclude that mine is a moralistic view, at least in part.  Perhaps I am mistaken.

Yes, you are mistaken about libertarianism - its chief tenet is that force should not be used to interfere with individuals freedom, unless they use that freedom to interfere with others.  So libertarianism would be very much for using the power of the state to prevent 'sex-slavery', if such a thing exists.

It probably would tolerate bestiality, however.

Obviously advocates of freedom of marriage are the individualists, and advocates of limits on marriage, or any other private voluntary interaction, are the 'moralists' (AKA intolerants).

[angus]

If such a thing exists?!  I have never questioned your sincerity on this fourm, Ind I'd expect you not to question mine.  As I have posted before, there were a number of documented cases of slavery in the united states and other OECD countries over the past several years.  Over a hjndred in the US alone.  And more than 99% of those cases are "sexual" slavery cases.  In fact, outside of the african continent, most slavery convictions are sexual in nature.  The UN keeps a very user-friendly database of this sort of thing.

As for libertariansism, I don't claim to be an expert, but it seems to me that it is about individual freedom.  If I want to decriminalize drugs, prostitution, gay marriage, interracial marriage, etc., it can be argued that these are libertarian positions.  But the moralist would obviously argue that it is exploitation of that kid who I have selling coke on the corner, or exploitation of that young woman (or man) selling the body on the street, even if she (or he) doesn't realize that she is being exploited.  This idea of government non-interference versus government interference has been the subject of debates over abolition of slavery, prohibition of alcohol, criminalization of bestiality, and the like.  If you want to debate these points, that's one thing.  But to claim that these debates don't exist, or to claim that modern sex-slavery doesn't exist, is offensive for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that you are basically saying that I'm making stuff up.  That's really not the proper etiquette in reasonable debate.

[opebo]

If such a thing exists?!  I have never questioned your sincerity on this fourm, Ind I'd expect you not to question mine.  As I have posted before, there were a number of documented cases of slavery in the united states and other OECD countries over the past several years.  Over a hjndred in the US alone.  And more than 99% of those cases are "sexual" slavery cases.  In fact, outside of the african continent, most slavery convictions are sexual in nature.  The UN keeps a very user-friendly database of this sort of thing.

As for libertariansism, I don't claim to be an expert, but it seems to me that it is about individual freedom.  If I want to decriminalize drugs, prostitution, gay marriage, interracial marriage, etc., it can be argued that these are libertarian positions.  But the moralist would obviously argue that it is exploitation of that kid who I have selling coke on the corner, or exploitation of that young woman (or man) selling the body on the street, even if she (or he) doesn't realize that she is being exploited.  This idea of government non-interference versus government interference has been the subject of debates over abolition of slavery, prohibition of alcohol, criminalization of bestiality, and the like.  If you want to debate these points, that's one thing.  But to claim that these debates don't exist, or to claim that modern sex-slavery doesn't exist, is offensive for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that you are basically saying that I'm making stuff up.  That's really not the proper etiquette in reasonable debate.

The 'if such a thing exists' comment was not the main thrust of my post, obviously.  It was merely a rhetorical flourish to remind you that I believe that nearly all prostitution is voluntary,and that such 'sex slavery' is exceedingly rare.

But I think my point holds, that critiquing private behaviour such as consensual sex or marriage based on race, gender, or whether money was exchanged is clearly the 'moralist' position.  I consider all moralists, moral absolutists, and religious to be the problem with the world - they're nothing but freedom-hating intolerants.

[Platypus]

since forever. well, I guess I can only speak for myself, but it's not entirely individualistic to say that a nonwhite man and a white woman, or two white men for that matter, should be allowed to marry. I think there's a healthy dose of moralism in that sentiment. again, I only speak for myself. I suppose one could make the argument in favor of its allowance entirely within an individualistic framework. (i.e., none of the state's goddamn business who I marry, etc.) But that's essentially libertarianism, and its logical conclusion leads to legalized bestiality, sex-slavery, and the like. Since I don't condone some of those things, I am left to conclude that mine is a moralistic view, at least in part. Perhaps I am mistaken.

crap.

I agree with angus.

[AuH2O]

JJ: Honestly, I thought we were talking about crime rates.

Actually, we were discussing genetics and culture.  You've made a lot of erroneous points relating to it, and you are being called on them.

I might have been "called" on making correct statements, but no evidence of any kind was ever presented against me. So I got sick of the thread. I prefer to deal with the real world, not fantasy land where it's random chance Kenyans win 99% of marathons. Maybe once people understand 10th grade statistics or biology then they could make arguments on their own credentials, but lacking that, at least find one quack article to back yourself up.

And Gabu, who went through all that trouble to make up a completely silly "model," where the variable would properly be titled "variable that allows you to explain away black crime rates," still never addressed the discrepency between the various types of crime.

No one on this thread ever answered my central question, which was, one final time: if blacks are more likely to commit crime because of their environment and culture (assuming you live in a dream world where culture has nothing to do with genes), then why is murder so disproportionate to all other violent crimes?

If someone gives a good answer for that I will recant all my anti-interracial marriage remarks.

What this thread truly shows is how people will blatantly lie- to themselves and others- for the sake of maintaining their world view. I have no such problem because my world view has changed various times and I'm not afraid of changing it again... I vacillate between being pro-war and against all war, so clearly I could change my mind on less life and death issues.

However, people like JJ and Gabu and the rest, however able in other areas or rational most of the time, will just delude themselves when it comes to race. This is a fairly common occurence, due to the media and the national (international) emphasis on "diversity," which biologically speaking roughly translates as "suicide."

Angus makes a very good point to recognize the communitarian aspect of my view. In other words, I realize I am against a choice that can be freely made (in the US at any rate), but for the sake of a greater cause. The loss is a slice of freedom and, in a stretch, the love of tens of thousands of couples. The gain is the survival of a certain type of society and civilization. It is selfish to pick the former at the expense of the latter.