Should interracial marriages be allowed?

[J. J.]

After reading this thread, and excluding most of Goldie's claptrap, there is one point that I disagree with.  I have heard too many Black people referring to bi-racial people as "swirlies" in Phila to say that Black people are more willing to tolerate interracial relationships than White people.

Two points I will give to Goldie, however.  Yes, there are genetic differences between Black and White Americans.  This, however, generally has to do with long term environmental effects and not a difference in species.  It's the same reason that Eskimos tend to have body types that retain heat and people from Sweden tend to be blond.  It's the same reason that Jews have certain genetic diseases at vastly higher rates than non-Jews.  It's neither good or bad.

Second, much like any region of the country, there are differences between White and Black culture, within urban areas.  It has largely to do with the origin of the population, not a racial factor.   It rapidly disappears in the suburbs.  (One factor is Church attendence; it tends to be greater in the urban Black centers.)  It is not tied to race.

I personally have no problem with someone else dating outside of their race; for the record, I do, though that is far from the sole factor.  Flyers just happens to have a purely personal preference; he doesn't find women with darker skin attractive.  I know more than a few Black people with a personal preference against dating White people.  

[J. J.]

Why? It's entirely irrelevant. You don't shun people because some group they happen to by birth belong to commits more crimes than another group.

Sure you do.  Why do you think most whites choose to live in neighborhoods that exclude blacks?  It's for reasons of practical self-interest.  Decent people would never shun an individual person for the reasons you suggested, but at the group level, you better believe it happens.  Our whole society is structured around it.

This is certainly true.  Statistically, blacks are more likely to commit violent crimes; the issue is whether or not this is because they're black.  I'll freely admit that when I see a black person, my immediate reaction is one of suspicion.  I'm not proud of it, but it's just a fact, and it's one that I might as well admit, given that there's exactly zero I can do about it.  It doesn't last long, and I can easily get over it, but no matter what I do, it's always there.  It's a natural human reaction that comes with the interest of self-preservation that makes humans wary of those who they subconsciously perceive as being more dangerous than others.  It's only when you do this after it becomes apparent that the person is not dangerous that it turns into destructive racism.

That said, however, we're not talking about statistics; we're talking about what's inherent in having a certain skin color.

I'm trying the the 70ish widows that are about 5 feet tall (at most) that live accross the street trying to mug me.  :-)

It's age with me; if see someone under 30, I view them with suspicion goes up.  Race isn't a factor.

[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.

[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.

[J. J.]

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.

Actually, the article said neither.  Are you making these claims (on the day after Robert Blake was found not guilty)?

[J. J.]

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.

Okay,  here are three sites with statistics on church attendance:

US Overall:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/leaders/newsletter/2001/cln10221.html

US Catholic:

http://www.fatimaperspectives.com/sv/perspective382.asp

Canada overall:

http://www.augustana.ca/rdx/eng/documents/fireandice.htm

There are some pretty wild swings over short periods that could not be explained by genetics (especially a 10 point increase from 1950 to 1955).  In Canada, it's dropped about 38 percentage points in 50 years.   

Now is there a genetic factor that makes it more likely that someone will be religious?  Possibly.  Clearly, however, there is something more important that is causing the numbers to move. 

Unless genetics stop working north of the US-Canadian boundry, the case cannot be made that genetics is an important factor in religion.

[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. 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.

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.

Actually, I noted that fastest woman in a marathon was of English extraction.  By your theory, there should be something that genetically makes the English really fast, especially the women.

I wonder how really fast the Queen was, back in the day?

[J. J.]

a) actually I don't think you even provided evidence for that claim, but I could be wrong

b) you are the only person I know that considers a sample size N=1 to be valid.

Heck, at N=60 post-election data indicates hispanic Protestants went 2-1 for Bush. Must be a fact.

Actually, we don't have a huge number of marathon winners.