If you're comparing creationism to the tooth fairy, it's fair to point out that the alternate scientific theory is that we magically appeared out of nothing, like Dr. Who's telephone box. I'm not arguing for either theory, and certainly not arguing for the teaching of creationism in schools.
I assume that when you say "I'm not arguing for either theory" that you're attempting to come across as balanced in some way. Which is sad, because not arguing for the theory with a massive weight of evidence behind it is completely ridiculous.
I'm not sure whether you're referring to the Big Bang or abiogenesis when you say "magically appeared out of nothing," but either way, there's a great deal of evidence that these events did actually happen, even if the exact mechanism for how it happened is not known. In contrast, creationism is outright fiction, like Star Wars or Harry Potter.
> If you're comparing creationism to the tooth fairy, it's fair to point out that the alternate scientific theory is that we magically appeared out of nothing, like Dr. Who's telephone box.
If that's your understanding of evolution, it's fair to point out that maybe if you hadn't been taught creationist lies, that time could have been spent teaching you evolution, which you clearly needed more time learning, since you don't understand it.
To add to thatswrong0's comment. The line between possession and dealing is arbitrary, and not exactly cut and dried[1]. See also sentencing disparity in crack vs powder cocaine.
Are you American? If so, why do you think the parent is more qualified than you to answer such a question? What if only all-white juries were allowed to prescribe punishment for white defendants? I think there are much better solutions to the problem than the one you suggest (the recent crack/powder cocaine sentencing reform is one). You'll have to ask why congress has refused to enact laws that would reduce disparity in sentencing.
The OKCupid research doesn't account for socioeconomic backgrounds, which is ridiculous. Marriages are essentially financial transactions with significant economic considerations. Most people date within their socioeconomic background. This is much likely a greater bias than racial bias. Blacks are underrepresented in higher economic classes which are dominated by whites - not hard to see why dating between both races would be affected as a result.
It's also likely the case that the OkCupid research samples heavily from the US population. Interracial dating in the US is encumbered by massive historical baggage from the slavery era. For instance, black women in the US are the only group of women that I'm aware of that are more inclined to "marry down" than to "marry out".
The OkCupid research shouldn't be presented as some universal scientific fact. It doesn't account for socioeconomic backgrounds for one, nor does it account for country of origin. Having lived in Africa, Europe and the US, it's clear that interracial dating carries much more historical baggage in the US than it does in Europe and Africa. It's also probably clear to most people in the US, that acceptance of interracial relationships has changed markedly in the past decade alone. A second OkCupid study in 2019 would very likely show significantly different results.
The OKCupid analyis is based on US dating data...right? Why would anyone try to analogize that to universal human behavior, rather than taking it as a description of the situation in the US?
