YOu have confused the the cause with the symptom. I have a surpise for you: black people actually like being in stable marriages, having long-term relationships, and creating stable families just as much as white people do. I know, it's shocking.
Why do we restrict the voting rights of felons?
- Thread starter sirkickyass
- Start date
YOu have confused the the cause with the symptom. I have a surpise for you: black people actually like being in stable marriages, having long-term relationships, and creating stable families just as much as white people do. I know, it's shocking.
margodydek
Well-Known Member
Couldn't disagree more.
Fatherlessness is a symptom of the underlying roots of the problem.
As they did up until the 1960's. African Americans had higher marriage rates than them fornicatin' whites from 1890-1950's.
So you will stop additional areas from becoming a problem. Good.
So basically you are going to flood these areas with police and then spin a good image of them in the media. Great, I guess.
That still does not address the issue of parents/communities not being involved in schools (various reasons), better nutrition and what not.
Perhaps with time better sources of nutrition will become avaiable but that does not mean they will properly use those sources.
Come on now. He bolded your first sentence and disagreed with that.
margodydek
Well-Known Member
I specifically bolded your first sentence, but nice job of trying to twist my response.
Of course he did.
Absolutely. They (that's a singular they) disagree that that blacks not being married is a symptom of the of the problem, and feel that blacks natural aversion to marriage is a cause of the problem, instead. That's exactly to what I was referring.
It's that disagreement that made it obvious. So, by all means, expound on that, then. Tell us how broken families came about as the cause of poverty, as opposed to a symptom of it, and what you think is the real reason for lower marriage rates. I'm all ears. Prove me wrong.
Glad to see that guilty until proven innocent is still alive and well on the board.
I'm just following evidence. If you have a better explanation for thems saying that they have cause and effect properly attributed, I'm all ears.
No. You are just following what you want them to mean.
margodydek
Well-Known Member
I'm not going to prove anything. You think the chicken came first and I think the egg did - I don't think I'm going to change your mind to reflect my opinion.
I obviously don't think it's a black (pun) and white scenario, but I'm just not of the opinion that people who grow up in impoverished areas don't have their agency. I'm sure I'm going against the grain (which in turn makes me a bigot), but I just don't like the excuse that high crime or poor education are results of poverty. I believe that crime and poor education are results of poor choices. Case in point - I have a friend who grew up in Brooklyn. He went to a public high school which was about 60% black and about 30% white (mostly Jewish of course). They all came from rather humble neighborhoods, but guess who had a higher drop out rate.
Last I heard about 70% of African American children were born to unmarried women, but last I checked African Americans don't have a monopoly on growing up in poverty.
Don't you consider it unfair to judge those raised in high crime areas, malnourished, with very few role models, where everyone who is remotely successful and could lift the community a little moves away instead, where even poorer immigrants move in and take all the remaining jobs for less pay, where retailers run from your neighborhoods and take those jobs with them, where violence is rampant, and where no matter how hard you try in school you will most likely be met with no reward?
Crediting every human with their agency does not mean we can judge everyone by the same standards or expect remotely similar outcomes of choice.
In this case, the egg (poverty) came a decade before the chicken (unmarried women).
margodydek
Well-Known Member
I'm never going to say this is what I would do if I were in so-and-so's situation. I have no idea what it's like to live in a high crime/impoverished area, so who's to say what I'd do. But to address your last sentence, what about those poor Jewish communities?
I guess to sum up my feelings, do I think that poverty/malnourishment could in turn result in more unmarried women? Sure. But I don't think it should. And I know what the common response to that is - "well that's easy for you to say", and you know what? You're probably right.
When you come up with an alternative reasoning, let me know. The marks my third post that I'm willing to listen to such. So far, instead of offering some actual non-racist reasoning, you've just complained about my conclusion. Complaints and protestations are not convincing.
Of course not. I've spent too much time around actual people to think there is some sort of cultural impetus against marriage. Now, you could possibly convince me that your reason for think some such impetus exists in not rooted in your assumption of some fundamental difference between black and white people.
I heard that some guy who came from a broken home became President. I guess coming from an intact home isn't important, right? Or, do you only accpet anecdotes as evidence when they support your position?
So, what do you think changed in the 1960s?
margodydek
Well-Known Member
[in pouty voice] OK fine, One Brow, you can say it.