You don't know much about scientific research or statistics because what you have put forward again is rubbish. If you don't understand the nature of scientific research then you should be quiet. It's not about liking the conclusion, it's about how you arrive at the conclusion. Since you don't know how the women were chosen, for all you know they may have gone out and picked the ugliest black women they could find. Even in the more concrete, hard sciences, there has been so much research that has turned out to be fraudulent because people have devised or tampered with the conditions under which they purported to conduct the research.
Translation:
Again, if you want to dispute the study's findings, go ahead and do so.
If you want to be taken seriously, however, I would suggest finding an objective and factual basis on which to attack its methodology, rather than flying into unjustifiable hysterics and simply
assuming its conclusions must be false out of hand because they happen to make you feel uncomfortable.
But in the case of attractiveness, that is something that will be very hard, because it tends to vary from person to person
This is simply false. With at least some level of accuracy, the physical attractiveness of a given person
can be objectively measured and quantified using scientific and mathematical principles.
I have already demonstrated this, and here is another source discussing the issue.
BBC Science - Attraction
Physical indicators of good health, fertility, and gender distinct verility are more or less universal. Indicators of individual genetic compatibility are more variable, but even they can be predicted with some degree of accuracy in most cases.
I'm sorry, but the simple fact of the matter is that, at its core, human behavior is usually pretty damn predictable. We are animals like any other, governed primarily by innate biological instinct.
The burden of proof is not on me, it's on the researcher to demonstrate that they have conducted the research under objective conditions, with reasonable assumptions, and have results that can be replicated.
Which they have already done, by posting their results and their methodology for academia and the general public to see.
If you have doubts, look into them, and come back with some valid criticisms of the techniques used by the researchers in question to reach their conclusions. All you've done so far is throw out blind rhetoric and baseless "what if" scenarios.
The burden of proof here is on you, and you alone. It always has been.
It depends on how you define "lots". According to the graph on this page from a Pew Center survey, close to 20% of white evangelicals, 10% of white Catholics and about 15% of white mainline (I'm guessing this means Protestant?) Christians think interracial marriage is bad for society. That's not just a couple yahoos here and there.
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpolitics/upload/2011/06/0624revisedchart.JPG
ETA: From the article:
Christianity Today Politics: Opposition to Interracial Marriage Lingers Among Evangelicals
And what about non-white views on racial mixing?
Do you really imagine that reluctance and prejudice towards mixed race marriages are limited to Caucasian populations alone?
People aren't openly critical of mixed race couples, but acceptance is generally with a nagging feeling that trouble is probably on the way.
It's fashionable on these sorts of threads where the Liberals all try to top each other's declarations of tolerance "Damn, I didn't even know people were different colors!" to pretend as if mixed race marriages are even more stable than non-mixed races, but they're not. If a particular identifiable culture does not have a history of marital stability, the societal pressures of a mixed marriage are going to increase those divorces exponentially.
It's always disappointing to be in a store and see a mother with a couple mixed race babies and no wedding ring or man in sight. It would be much better if those contemplating mixed race marriage would give much more thought to the future well being of any children.
Pretty much this. While I don't have any particular problem with interracial relationships, I can honestly say that I would probably
prefer to date and eventually marry a white woman all things being equal.
Some of the reason for this may very well lie in the genetic factors involved (I simply don't find most black women to be sexually attractive, for instance), but culture is undeniably the major factor. Right or wrong, racial ethnicity does still play a predominant role in shaping a person's individual identity in our current society. Because of this, it is often easier to find shared ground with a person of your own racial background than another, for the simple reason that you are far more likely to share the same experiences, expectations, and general life goals in common with them.
Do you really think there is some instictual preference for your own race?
There is evidence to support such a conclusion, yes.
Children Use Opposite Sex Parent As Template For A Partner
Numerous studies have shown that human beings tend to prefer partners who share physical features in common with themselves and their immediate family over others.
That isn't true at all. In the age of information and with high levels of mobility, racial mixing could easily eventually result in a relatively raceless world, except for maybe in the far reaches, where people still live in tribal closed communities. Of course, even if that happens, we will still find something to fight about.
I definitely think we'll see more mixing, and I don't think that is a bad thing.
However, it is probably a bit soon to be announcing the "death of race" here. If such a thing were to happen at all, it would only happen gradually, over the course of several millenia of sustained inter-breeding.
