And how does negatives of inbreeding help society as a whole?

And there is evidence that outbreeding helps. Look at history. Look at how alliances among different groups of people were formed. For example, American history.

Post edited at 8:28 pm on Jan. 2, 2012 by jamjardee

---

And you have yet to include morality into the argument. When it comes to incest, morality is a huge factor. Sure, the royal families did it. But they did it for a political reason. Politics is a man-made construct. Also, the royal were most likely a very tiny percentage when compared to the people of the kingdom.

---

---

What positive traits are we talking about? If a person is unfit to reproduce and survive, it doesn't matter if positive traits are expressed.

---

---

And how does negatives of inbreeding help society as a whole?

---

---

And there is evidence that outbreeding helps. Look at history. Look at how alliances among different groups of people were formed. For example, American history.

---

---

Your argument falls flat, OP.

---

---

You stacked the deck that's for sure, but even that can't save you from your idiocy.

---

---

Outbreeding should be frowned upon? Really?

---

Your second point doesn't seem to take into account continued inbreeding. Positive traits like what versuses negatives traits like what in continued inbreeding.

So, it's okay to create retarded people, but it's not okay to create people who have a suppressed gene thats creates retardation?

"Improved" American History? Well, instead of continual bloodshed there were times of peace due to outbreeding.

This is horrible, OP. Inhumane. Something you probably can't comprehend.

-lower risk of negative traits being expressed (scientific)
-improved relationships among different groups of people (psychological)

Am I doing it right?

---

Your first paragraph confuses me. Stay on point.

---

---

Your second point doesn't seem to take into account continued inbreeding. Positive traits like what versuses negatives traits like what in continued inbreeding.

---

The only practical way to achieve a population with a high percentage of positive traits and low percentage of negative ones is to isolate it from others so that it becomes inbred, then select for breeding the individuals with desirable traits. That is what our monoracial anestors did through tens of thousands of years, and that is what race mixing destroys.

---

So, it's okay to create retarded people, but it's not okay to create people who have a suppressed gene thats creates retardation?

---

---

"Improved" American History? Well, instead of continual bloodshed there were times of peace due to outbreeding.

---

---

If people find it immoral to commit incest, they nobody's forcing them to do it, right?

---

This statement confuses me.  

---

Theoretically continued inbreeding could be positive if there are enough kids. Think about it, since it's so likely to get 2 pairs of recessive alleles, if someone gets the negative ones then they will have deformities and not reproduce. if someone doesn't have them, they're more likely to reproduce and pass on the POSITIVE recessive alleles, thus contributing to the health of the population.

---

Once again, you need to get your moral compass checked. Also, get the fact that those kids who don't have any deformities are probably carrying suppressed traits which will have a much higher risk of being expressed down the line.

And as for your last point, just stop. You're not proving me wrong in the slightest. You're just proving that your an ignorant person. And you fail in so many ways. :(

Post edited at 8:56 pm on Jan. 2, 2012 by jamjardee

---

Reasons to outbreed:

-lower risk of negative traits being expressed (scientific)

---

---

-improved relationships among different groups of people (psychological)

Am I doing it right?

---

Some reasons not to race mix:
- Mismatched alleles [genetic incompatibility] which cause negative effects such as a 250% increase in heart disease
- Higher rate of spontaneous abortion
- Higher infant death rate
- Higher rate of negative health traits for the mixed race children
- More regression to the mean - in other words less exceptional individuals
- Suppression of deleterious recessive alleles instead of the culling of such traits, effectively removing them from the gene pool
- Destruction of 10s of thousands of years of evolution
- Lower statistical likelihood of happy marriage
- Higher statistical likelihood of divorce
- Potentially higher rates of fluctuating asymmetry, or lower rates of symmetry
- Destruction of a unique form of life
etc...

-------
• Every time I pwn some tard 1 point will be added under my avatar •
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored" -Aldous Huxley
"Equality may perhaps be a right, but no power on earth can ever turn
it into a fact" -Balzac

---

This statement confuses me.

---

---

Once again, you need to get your moral compass checked.

---

---

Also, get the fact that those kids who don't have any deformities are probably carrying suppressed traits which will have a much higher risk of being expressed down the line.

---

---

And as for your last point, just stop. You're not proving me wrong in the slightest. You're just proving that your an ignorant person. And you fail in so many ways. :(

---

---

But a higher risk of these traits being suppressed and then given to future children.

---

As oppose to these traits being EXPRESSED and the CHANCE to be given future children?

---

This is false; for example, when Haitians chose to slaughter the Whites in Haiti, nobody would accept the mixed people - not the Whites or the Blacks. And they were killed.

---

So because nobody in Haiti accepted white people, then nobody in the world will except another race? Oversimplification.

---

Some reasons not to race mix:
- Mismatched alleles [genetic incompatibility] which cause negative effects such as a 250% increase in heart disease
- Higher rate of spontaneous abortion
- Higher infant death rate
- Higher rate of negative health traits for the mixed race children
- More regression to the mean - in other words less exceptional individuals
- Suppression of deleterious recessive alleles instead of the culling of such traits, effectively removing them from the gene pool
- Destruction of 10s of thousands of years of evolution
- Lower statistical likelihood of happy marriage
- Higher statistical likelihood of divorce
- Potentially higher rates of fluctuating asymmetry, or lower rates of symmetry
- Destruction of a unique form of life

---

Nope. Genes don't make people get abortions and divorce their spouses.

---

The point is that sure, maybe inbreeding is found to be immoral, but that should be enough of a justification to not inbreed, not a lawful ban...
Furthermore, some people find inbreeding perfectly moral, and others [including myself] find race mixing immoral.

---

... ...You're an idiot. Come on, think a little deeper, Einstein.

---

Morals are subjective, lol, you have no authority to claim moral righteousness.

---

Very true. But let it be known, that you are for letting negative traits being expressed just so those with suppressed traits can go on and create more negatively expressed trait children. I may not have authority over morality but logic. Sure, why not. 2+2 does not equal 5.

---

Yes, and then they will be removed from the gene pool. It takes more than one generation...

---

Why do you think it will be removed from the gene pool? Recessive genes don't just vanish if there is no outside dominant gene to take its place.

---

So are you retracting your statement? Are my statements not true? I'm pretty confused since you're so vague, please elaborate regarding what you meant.

---

One historical example is the relationship between the Spanish and the Native Americans. Your statements are true but don't have to do with the discussion. The sky is blue. So????

---

As oppose to these traits being EXPRESSED and the CHANCE to be given future children?

---

---

So because nobody in Haiti accepted white people, then nobody in the world will except another race? Oversimplification.

---

---

Nope. Genes don't make people get abortions and divorce their spouses.

---

"Indiscriminate interbreeding between distinct forms, whether 'species' or markedly different races, is not generally beneficial. The defect may show in a change in the sex-ratio of the offspring, probably caused by the early abortion of members of one sex, generally the male in the case of mammals."
From Baker's 1974 book "Race"

See this:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/4145377
The batting average of success for mixed race marriages is 0.127 compared to 0.213 for same race couples

Furthermore, it is proven that genetically similar couples are happier:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/019188699190057I

-------
• Every time I pwn some tard 1 point will be added under my avatar •
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored" -Aldous Huxley
"Equality may perhaps be a right, but no power on earth can ever turn
it into a fact" -Balzac