Should interracial marriages be allowed? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 14, 2024, 09:15:36 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Should interracial marriages be allowed? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Should interracial marriages be allowed?
#1
Yes (D)
 
#2
No(D)
 
#3
Yes(R)
 
#4
No(R)
 
#5
Yes(I)
 
#6
No(I)
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 154

Author Topic: Should interracial marriages be allowed?  (Read 30675 times)
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,936


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

« on: March 14, 2005, 06:01:11 PM »

Wow, someone actually voted no. That's sad.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,936


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

« Reply #1 on: March 14, 2005, 06:43:24 PM »

One "Democrat" voted no? Sorry, you're not a Democrat.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,936


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

« Reply #2 on: March 17, 2005, 02:08:49 AM »

LOL Ebowed, a "conservative" organization, hilarious. Please keep it up.

dazzle: do you want to discuss the science? I am more than prepared to do so. You might "think" one thing, but like Ebowed, and like a lot of people, you believe it because you've been told that by the media.

Anyone that knows basic genetics knows there is such a thing as race, period. And anyone so ignorant they have to cite some weirdo "Christian" website has no business making declarative scientific statements.

Race is arbitrary, and a given "race" can be fairly genetically diverse. See here for more information.

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1165.html
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,936


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

« Reply #3 on: March 17, 2005, 02:15:09 AM »


A lot of liberals are going to call you out because you go too far dude. All you do is bash liberals for being politically correct...you're just a huge hypocrite. Most liberals aren't politically correct at all...as a matter of fact I'd go so far as to say the average conservative is much more politically correct then the average liberal.

Yeah, I really don't get people who think that liberals are all politically correct.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,936


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

« Reply #4 on: March 17, 2005, 02:17:40 AM »



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.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,936


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

« Reply #5 on: March 17, 2005, 02:20:20 AM »

Crime Data
FBI Uniform Crime Report, 2003
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm

2003, Section IV

note on data: since hispanic is not a race, many are included in the "white" crime rates, thus skewing them to the left. The number of non-hispanic whites is roughly 5.4 times the population of blacks in the US. Using that number will actually underestimate black crime rates because of the aforementioned hispanic confusion of the data, but nevertheless the data is statistically significant.

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.

Now, in terms of the idea blacks commit more crime because they are more often in poverty:

2004 US Census Press Release

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:e6p-Ou2fnowJ:www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/002484.html+income+data+by+race&hl=en

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.

Taking into account the Uniform Crime Report's inclusion of hispanics into their "white" dataset, the property crime rates seem to follow the above numbers.

In other words, it is not surprising that 28.9% of forgery arrests were made on black offenders; though they make up roughly ~25% of those in poverty, that is a fairly small difference.

The inconsistencies emerge with regard to violent crimes. Blacks, for instance, again commit ~29% of arsons designed to attack property-- but 37% committed for violent purposes.

Blacks commit 23.9% of non-rape sex offenses, which again is higher per capita than whites but not unreasonable given poverty rates. However, they commit 33.3% of forcible rapes, well above the expected number.






If anyone is interested in intelligent discussion, which I doubt, the topic is more than suitable.




Hey, I could argue that those statistics prove that whites own more cars, and are less likely to get caught for non driving crimes.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.029 seconds with 12 queries.