Should interracial marriages be allowed?

[John Dibble]

Generally I don't believe in it, but I don't think it should be banned. I mean, if some fat white girl wants to "marry" a thug, I don't really care.

Now, if my sister (not that she's this dumb) were to so much as go out on a date with a black guy, there would be a problem.

One of my best friends in high school was black - very intelligent and well mannered. If you suffer from the delusion that all black people are thugs, then you live in a fantasy world.

Prejudices are what fools use for reason. – Voltaire

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The entire concept of race is racist - I try to see individuals and the qualities, both good and bad, that they possess, not skin color. Principles, character, morals, beliefs, honesty, intellect, desire for accomplishment - these are worth things to judge a person on, not something as petty as the pigment of one's skin that one has no control over.

[John Dibble]

By the way, I should add that I don't believe in "race."  There's only one race: the human race.  Anything else is simply insignificant differences.

Then I don't believe in different breeds of dog. They are all identical except for some superficial differences, right? Pitbulls and collies, what's the difference...

Considering the vast differences in breeds of dogs relative to the differences in the different races of humans, I think that's not a very good comparison.

[John Dibble]

Of course you're right, and I knew that and said so all along.

Gabu sees the facts in front of him, but the best he can do is say "what does this have to do with interracial marriage?"

Looks like he's a liar:

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.

Oops. Looks like I did that, and he's not talking.

I'll have to pick myself up off the floor from the shock.

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.

I'm just going to go into a more indepth analysis on this(using data from the article you linked to get the above). I'm going to post the results whether they're what I intend to get or not.

Ok, here goes.

Total Population, 2003: 290,342,554 (July 2003 est.) (from nationmaster.com)

Total Population in Poverty: 12.5%, or 36,292,819
Since whites compose 44% of those in poverty, the total number is: 15,968,840

Total # of blacks, based on percentages Gabu gave: 23,227,404
Total Black population(24.4%) in poverty, based on article: 5,202,938

So, it seems whites beat blacks 3 to 1 in who's in poverty.


Now, the real question is 'why are blacks still more likely to commit crimes?'  Well, I have a hypothesis. The first part is urban vs. rural population - I haven't found statistics for this yet, but I would assume a higher concentration of blacks in poverty live in urban areas than whites in poverty. It's much easier to commit crime in urban areas, since there's more people and there's less people you know(most people, even criminals, would be more reluctant to victimize people they know personally). I would like to see a comparison of crime rates of poor urban whites vs. poor urban blacks, just to get an analysis of subgroups. Second, I do think that the black 'culture' is more violent in some ways - listen to rap and you'll know what I mean. Culture can influence aggression.

Of course, as I've said before, I knew a black guy who was perfeclty well mannered and intelligent - heck, if I described his behavior to you he'd sound white(he had a number of white and black friends, rather than a majority of either), so I think that reinforces my culture idea.

Oh, and this is for the liberals in the audience, particularly opebo, who claims people are worse off than they were:


Seems poverty has been going down for about everyone. Only whites seem to be remaining at a stable level. Perhaps this explains the drop in crime we had in the 90's.

[John Dibble]

No, not really. This has gotten out of control because PART of my point has to do with innate racial differences.

Well, as I pointed out, I don't feel that a lot of it is innate. I do think a lot of the black subculture does have an influence on things. As I said, I've had a mild-mannered black friend who was pretty much culturally white, and I'm sure you realize upbringing has a good deal to do with how someone turns out.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Chris Rock actually commented on something like this in one of his shows - it goes down to slavery. The masters would breed the strong slaves and the smart ones were not so encouraged, so as we know with heredity, genetic traits are inherited so there might be a case for some genetic influence in this and other behaviors(I will not discount completely that a large number of blacks may have an inherently greater level of testosterone or some other aggression inducing chemical due to genetics).

The problem you point out is simple at a glance, but accurately determining the causes and possible solutions is something that is a very complex matter. We shouldn't treat this as a simple issue, simply because it isn't one.

[John Dibble]

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.

These characteristics are the result of being a subject people - in other words of a politically and socially defined racial role, rather than any inherent racial difference.  Any violence blacks commit - especially against whites - is simply a sort of thrashing about of the victim under the bootheel.  He may not accomplish much, but you can't really blame him for thrashing.

See, here we again have someone trying to explain something that is obviously complex with something simple. *shakes head*

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[John Dibble]

I PROPOSED TO ASSUME NEITHER.

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

[John Dibble]

What do I care? It's not like I don't realize there are white girls with low self-esteem, who want to humiliate themselves publically by being with a black guy.

Of course, it's ridiculous to think that perhaps they might actually love them.