Are interracial couples acceptable?[ W: 330]

[MildSteel]

Questions are not evidence.

Questions in themselves are not evidence. Not being able to answer the questions that I asked certainly indicate that the person putting forward the evidence has not considered the research very carefully. Science is not easy.

 

[RiverDad]

This is childish. I have posed some reasonable, objective questions that have not been answered. Anyone that's actually done serious scientific research will understand.

I rest my case your honor.

All scientists ask questions. That's the name of the game. That's fine.

What you're doing is subtly different. The fact that you ask questions doesn't mean that you have the better case, or better position. For that to happen you have to falsify the opposing position. That's how you make a better case.

 

[Ray410]

Questions in themselves are not evidence. Not being able to answer the questions that I asked certainly indicate that the person putting forward the evidence has not considered the research very carefully. Science is not easy.

No one has a duty to answer your questions. Do you have any evidence to present or not?

 

[MildSteel]

All scientists ask questions. That's the name of the game. That's fine.

What you're doing is subtly different. The fact that you ask questions doesn't mean that you have the better case, or better position. For that to happen you have to falsify the opposing position. That's how you make a better case.

That's right they ask questions and that's what I'm doing. I honestly can't say that I know for a fact that the conclusion is false. What I can say is that based on what has been put forward here so far, that research is suspect.

 

[MildSteel]

No one has a duty to answer your questions. Do you have any evidence to present or not?

We are going around in circles. If you can't answer the questions, just say so.

 

[MildSteel]

Your posts are just mindless silliness. Understand also that presentation of a continual high degree of self-righteous anger has no bearing whatsoever on the merits of your arguments. Even if you had any arguments.

Sorry, but what is mindless, silliness is that you can't understand that I made an assertion. What is that? My assertion is that, based on what has been put forward here, the research that was presented is suspect. My evidence is that fact that no one could provide answers to the questions that I asked. Those were reasonable, objective questions that anyone who was seriously examining the research would ask.

If you don't understand that, then you are the one who is mindless and silly, not me.

 

[RiverDad]

That's right they ask questions and that's what I'm doing. I honestly can't say that I know for a fact that the conclusion is false. What I can say is that based on what has been put forward here so far, that research is suspect.

If you believe the research to be suspect you have to explain why. You have to actually show a failing. I'm going on memory here regarding the back and forth between you and Gatjhomas88 but what I recall was you asking for Gathomas88 to answer your questions about how the sample was constructed and so on. That's not good enough. If you were on the peer review committee that looked at that paper, then you could ask that question to the researcher but gathomas is not that guy, he doesn't have access to that information. This doesn't weaken his case and thereby strengthen your case.

You're entirely free to see the research as suspect but that feeling of yours carries no weight in a debate. Why not track down the published study, instead of the pop science media take on the study, read that study and see if you see flaws in the real deal? If you want answers then that's probably the first place to look.

 

[MildSteel]

If you believe the research to be suspect you have to explain why. You have to actually show a failing.

What I have said is simple to understand. There should be an answer to the questions that I asked. What has been put forward here as sources do not answer the questions and neither can the persons putting the evidence forward. That is a failing.

 

[opendebate]

You might have missed my earlier post that spurred that whole exchange with Agent J.... but, in a nutshell: I answered the OP that I myself have dated women of other races (I'm white, by the way), and when I see a white man with a woman of another race, I think "good for him."

When I see a white woman with a man of another race, though, my initial gut reaction is negative. Also, I typically assume that there's something wrong with her: maybe she has a bad reputation, maybe she has an STD, maybe she's really awkward and doesn't have any friends, something like that.

I admitted that my negative gut reaction to seeing white women with men of other races was not something I decided on consciously, so I'm not really sure what the reason for it is.

Like I said, maybe I am a racist and just don't realize it.

However, I happen to believe it's something else. I think I get the most pleasure out of seeing couples where the man reminds me of myself, and the least pleasure out of seeing couples where the man is very different from me. For example, if I see a beautiful woman with an older man, I get a negative gut reaction. If I see a beautiful woman with a very short man, I get a negative reaction. If I see a woman with a foreign man (regardless of race), I get a negative gut reaction. If I see a beautiful woman with a man who looks/sounds like me, I literally feel joy.

I would say it comes down to me having an enormous ego and wanting every beautiful woman in the world to fawn over me, and no other man. Ego and sexual possessiveness.

I suppose I see men of other races as dissimilar to myself. One exception, though: my friends who are black and asian - if they date white women I'm legitimately happy for them. I want the people in my circle to have the very best things in life and if that's what makes them happy, I wish it for them.

In part, I have to commend you for being honest.

Tell me what you think of this. "Negative reaction" is somewhat vague. A lot of things can fall under that umbrella. But when you add the details of that negative reaction with regard to seeing a white woman with a man from another race specifically-

Also, I typically assume that there's something wrong with her: maybe she has a bad reputation, maybe she has an STD, maybe she's really awkward and doesn't have any friends, something like that.

It gets a little more interesting because of the assumptions you are making, at a gut level, about the woman and the quality of the man she is being seen with. Is it only beautiful women that you react to in this way? Do you pursue that any further? Do you question the validity of those assumptions at all?

 

[paddymcdougall]

Interracial couples and children are completely acceptable to me, we are all really of only one race, the human race. I do however, lament that one day we will all be an amalgamation of all races and so the distinct differences between the races, that which helps make life interesting, may completely evaporate.

How bland would that be?

reminds me of a science fiction book - because everyone had blended, they bio-engineered some "all white", "all black", "all oriental" kids and raised them in enclaves where the caretakers wore disguises to look like they were the same race... it had gotten too boring, so they wanted some variety.. .

 

[RiverDad]

But when you add the details of that negative reaction with regard to seeing a white woman with a man from another race specifically-

It gets a little more interesting because of the assumptions you are making, at a gut level, about the woman and the quality of the man she is being seen with.

Here is the income data on new interracial marriages. He spoke in negative terms about the white women who married black men. We can make some educated guesses by looking at the low percent who complete college and the income of that married couple. We can also look at the gender data on blacks and whites who marry out of their racial group. Black men far more than black women marry out.

 

[Peter Grimm]

In part, I have to commend you for being honest.

Tell me what you think of this. "Negative reaction" is somewhat vague. A lot of things can fall under that umbrella. But when you add the details of that negative reaction with regard to seeing a white woman with a man from another race specifically-



It gets a little more interesting because of the assumptions you are making, at a gut level, about the woman and the quality of the man she is being seen with. Is it only beautiful women that you react to in this way? Do you pursue that any further? Do you question the validity of those assumptions at all?

Yes, only beautiful women. If I see a white woman who isn't attractive with a man who is dissimilar to me, I pretty much just assume that they settled for each other and I don't really pay attention to them.

I don't pursue the thoughts I have about interracial couples any further than what I mentioned, since who other people choose to date doesn't affect my life. If a woman, even a beautiful one, is interested in a man so dissimilar to me, then she's not worth worrying about anyway and so the thoughts are usually fleeting and it's certainly not something I get worked up about for more than a brief moment. More like I notice the couple, I have a negative emotion for a second, the thought might pop in to my head where I wonder why she settled for that guy, then something else typically catches my interest and I'm distracted. Often another woman.

 

[Arcana XV]

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?

Of course there's prejudice in non-white populations. Why would you think I'm not aware of that? The graph includes only Black Protestants, but of course there would be a significant number of anti-mixed race relationships in other religious groups. The discussion between Cephus and TED and between TED and I was about fundamentalist Christians, though, and they generally tend to be mostly white in the US, so I didn't really go looking for any further studies. The point was not to single out whites, but to prove to TED that Cephus did have a point when he said that a lot of fundamentalist Christians have a problem with the idea of interracial marriage.

 

[Peter Grimm]

Of course there's prejudice in non-white populations. Why would you think I'm not aware of that? The graph includes only Black Protestants, but of course there would be a significant number of anti-mixed race relationships in other religious groups. The discussion between Cephus and TED and between TED and I was about fundamentalist Christians, though, and they generally tend to be mostly white in the US, so I didn't really go looking for any further studies. The point was not to single out whites, but to prove to TED that Cephus did have a point when he said that a lot of fundamentalist Christians have a problem with the idea of interracial marriage.

But that has nothing to do with Christianity. What you have here is a case where you have a correlation but no causation is implied.

I can't believe I just used that line. Yuck.

Anyway, most "fundamentalist" christians (whatever that is) are conservatives. Conservatives, by nature, are conservative (duh). Being conservative types, they see the past as iconic and they resist progressive change. Since interracial marriage was frowned upon in the past, and the past, according to their ideology, was good, therefore interracial marriage should be frowned upon.

Just like it was in daddy and graddaddy's day.

Christianity talks about marriage - it says two people should be "equally yoked." (A yoke is a device that ties two oxen together to drag a plow or a carriage. If one oxen is bigger than the other, then they are "unequally yoked" and the smaller one is usually injured). So a Christian would be against a marriage in which one person is significantly older and more powerful, or significantly more intelligent, significantly different religions, or something else that would prove to be a burden on the "smaller" partner. Christianity says nothing about interracial marriage being right or wrong... and it's not like they didn't have different ethnic groups when the book was written.

 

[RiverDad]

Anyway, most "fundamentalist" christians (whatever that is) are conservatives. Conservatives, by nature, are conservative (duh). Being conservative types, they see the past as iconic and they resist progressive change. Since interracial marriage was frowned upon in the past, and the past, according to their ideology, was good, therefore interracial marriage should be frowned upon.

Just like it was in daddy and graddaddy's day.

I'm not disagreeing with what you wrote because I think that you're basically correct. I do think though that you skimmed over one point pretty quickly though and Chesterton's Fence comes to mind:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.​

I get the very distinct impression that most of the fashionable people who shout from the rooftops about their support of interracial marriage are the fools that Chesterton refers to - I'm betting that they can't muster up a reason for why history has seen so much disapproval of interracial marriages other than "old timer people were just stupid, superstitious, bigoted and mean" and that's about it. These people are smart, their ancestors were stupid. All people in the past were just plain stupid and did things for no reasons whatsoever.

 

[opendebate]

Yes, only beautiful women. If I see a white woman who isn't attractive with a man who is dissimilar to me, I pretty much just assume that they settled for each other and I don't really pay attention to them.

I don't pursue the thoughts I have about interracial couples any further than what I mentioned, since who other people choose to date doesn't affect my life. If a woman, even a beautiful one, is interested in a man so dissimilar to me, then she's not worth worrying about anyway and so the thoughts are usually fleeting and it's certainly not something I get worked up about for more than a brief moment. More like I notice the couple, I have a negative emotion for a second, the thought might pop in to my head where I wonder why she settled for that guy, then something else typically catches my interest and I'm distracted. Often another woman.

Okay, now I have to ask. You of course don't have to answer. How old are you?

 

[opendebate]

Here is the income data on new interracial marriages. He spoke in negative terms about the white women who married black men. We can make some educated guesses by looking at the low percent who complete college and the income of that married couple. We can also look at the gender data on blacks and whites who marry out of their racial group. Black men far more than black women marry out.

Accept that all of that data has absolutely nothing to do with what he claims is behind his gut reaction.

 

[RiverDad]

Accept that all of that data has absolutely nothing to do with what he claims is behind his gut reaction.

Except for the fact that it does. He spoke to his negative reaction when seeing white women, not white men. See below. So the data on Black Man & White Woman pairings is directly on point.

As for why I think the way I do.... I said in the original post that it's a gut reaction and not something I've arrived at intellectually. I see a white man with a black girl, I think "good for him." I see a black man with a white woman and I think "she must have herpes or something."

 

[opendebate]

Except for the fact that it does. He spoke to his negative reaction when seeing white women, not white men. See below. So the data on Black Man & White Woman pairings is directly on point.

Do ever read past what you want to hear in someones post to what it is they actually said?

 

[TheDemSocialist]

It seems at least 8 people are bigots on this site.

 

[RiverDad]

Do ever read past what you want to hear in someones post to what it is they actually said?

Can your caterwauling ever take the form of a specific complaint or must it always be this general mush which simply tells me that you're complaining but leaves me clueless about exactly what bee is in your bonnet?

Let me help you with your remedial logic and attention deficit disorder.

Peter wrote: "I see a black man with a white woman and I think "she must have herpes or something.""

You asked:

But when you add the details of that negative reaction with regard to seeing a white woman with a man from another race specifically-

It gets a little more interesting because of the assumptions you are making, at a gut level, about the woman and the quality of the man she is being seen with.​

I provided you with data on the white women who marry black men.

You moan and groan about how I'm not on point. They're mostly low class women, low income, low education. Peter's not the only person in the world to notice reality slapping him in the face, plenty of people have observed this.

 

[Peter Grimm]

I'm not disagreeing with what you wrote because I think that you're basically correct. I do think though that you skimmed over one point pretty quickly though and Chesterton's Fence comes to mind:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.​

I get the very distinct impression that most of the fashionable people who shout from the rooftops about their support of interracial marriage are the fools that Chesterton refers to - I'm betting that they can't muster up a reason for why history has seen so much disapproval of interracial marriages other than "old timer people were just stupid, superstitious, bigoted and mean" and that's about it. These people are smart, their ancestors were stupid. All people in the past were just plain stupid and did things for no reasons whatsoever.

I'm not trying to make a case that conservatism is either good or bad, that'll open up a can of worms that will distract from the current debate. I simply meant to describe conservatives as people who generally tend to hold the past in high regard.

Christianity was once a bigger part of our society, hence conservatives tend to admire Christianity in greater numbers.

The point was that Christianity itself has nothing to say about interracial marriage, and the fact that conservative christians tend to be against it in greater numbers than the larger population speaks more to their conservatism than their unrelated christian faith.

 

[Peter Grimm]

It seems at least 8 people are bigots on this site.

OK Joe McCarthy.

 

[Peter Grimm]

Okay, now I have to ask. You of course don't have to answer. How old are you?

LMAO where is this going?

I'm 32.

 

[opendebate]

....me clueless

Awww and finally we have it. I'm so sorry. It's probably genetic or maybe you were kicked in the head as toddler by a stray mule.