werepossum
Elite Member
- Jul 10, 2006
- 29,873
- 463
- 126
I think this many words together may be enraging you, so let's break down my statement line for line. Perhaps then we can determine your particular psychosis.Gawd. That's an extremely lame misrepresentation of what you actually said-
You just explained the first sentence. After that, the rest is just you skipping across the touchstones of right wing mythology, exhibiting remarkable leaps of faith. Now explain the rest in light of what you said in the final paragraph-werepossum said:I disagree. Black culture after emancipation was not notably more violent, or less moral, or otherwise worse than the mainstream white majority culture. I think we're seeing two trends colliding. Our society as a whole is getting more tolerant of - even appreciative of - violence. And blacks were disproportionately affected by the ills of our welfare system which empowers women to have children out of wedlock, due to having started at a lower economic base. Remove the single parent bias and you've largely eliminated the violence and criminality gaps between races. Also remove the economic status gap (which largely goes away with the removal of the single parent bias) and the gaps pretty much vanish, depending on who does the math.
The only way to reconcile that is to attempt to ignore it, to Deny that you contradicted yourself at all.
You just explained the first sentence. After that, the rest is just you skipping across the touchstones of right wing mythology, exhibiting remarkable leaps of faith. Now explain the rest in light of what you said in the final paragraph-
The only way to reconcile that is to attempt to ignore it, to Deny that you contradicted yourself at all.
Don't worry about defending your position, given that it's already toast. Worry about how your head works and what you might be able to do to straighten it out.
My original statements are presented in quotes. (" <- These thingies are quotes.)
"I disagree."
Self explanatory; therefore I was not attempting to explain it at all.
"Black culture after emancipation was not notably more violent, or less moral, or otherwise worse than the mainstream white majority culture."
I argue here that free blacks historically had rates of violence, immorality, and thus criminality (a function of the other two) comparable to that of whites or other races. This means that a $20,000/year black welder's family would not on average produce significantly more violent and/or criminal children than would a $20,000/year white welder's family. Are you arguing that blacks were inherently violent and dangerous creatures once freed? If so, what is the basis of this belief?
"I think we're seeing two trends colliding."
Two arguments coming up - watch for them!
"Our society as a whole is getting more tolerant of - even appreciative of - violence."
Are you disagreeing with this statement? Crime levels are decreasing so you'd have a point to argue, but they are decreasing for blacks as well. I am arguing specifically that Americans today are more likely to react violently and less likely to reject someone who commits violence than in years past. Other factors would be the amount of graphic violence considered acceptable on television or in movies and the willingness to patronize and even accept as role models those people who have committed violence.
"And blacks were disproportionately affected by the ills of our welfare system which empowers women to have children out of wedlock, due to having started at a lower economic base."
Granted, there are several concepts to understand here. First is that if you pay women who have and/or raise a children out of wedlock, there will be more children born and/or raised out of wedlock. I don't believe that concept (that if we subsidize a behavior we tend to get more of that behavior) qualifies as "right wing mythology". Do you disagree?
The next point here is a logical inference, that blacks have a greater rate of having and/or raising a child out of wedlock than do other races. Do you disagree?
A logical corollary to this is my assumption that a child raised in a single parent welfare home will generally speaking be raised in poverty. Do you disagree?
The latter part of this original statement (that means the end part - in this case, "due to having started at a lower economic base") attributes this to blacks being generally poorer. I think most people agree that one's starting economic status strongly correlates with the attraction to welfare. As an example, if one is raised in a sub-poverty level home, the attraction of having children and going on welfare (therefore gaining a home and an income) is much greater than if one raised as the child of a wealthy Senator or businessman. I also think that most people agree that blacks are on balance poorer than average. (It may help you here to think of this as being 'economically disadvantaged' or other progressive buzz words/phrases.)
Just to sum up this original sentence, you may disagree by saying that:
1. The rate at which all women have or raise children out of wedlock has nothing to do with a welfare system that pays unwed or otherwise mothers who have or raise children out of wedlock.
2. Blacks do have children out of wedlock in greater numbers than do other races, but this has nothing to do with a welfare system that pays unwed or otherwise mothers who have or raise children out of wedlock.
3. Welfare is just as attractive to young women raised in wealthy homes as to those raised in poor homes. (Aletrnately, you may argue this only for blacks.)
4. Blacks are not on average any poorer than the rest of the country.
5. Blacks do not have children out of wedlock in greater numbers than do other races.
Assuming you are ready to move on:
"Remove the single parent bias and you've largely eliminated the violence and criminality gaps between races."
Are you specifically denying that children raised by single mothers have higher rates of violence and criminality, or are you arguing that blacks remain significantly more violent and more criminal than average even when raised in two-parent households?
"Also remove the economic status gap (which largely goes away with the removal of the single parent bias) and the gaps pretty much vanish, depending on who does the math."
Are you specifically denying that being a single parent household is the strongest predictor of poverty, or are you arguing that poverty is not a significant factor in rates of violence and criminality, or are you still arguing that blacks remain significantly more violent and more criminal regardless of economic status?
This is rather humorous. You, the foamiest of proggies, are arguing that blacks (as represented by black culture) are inherently violent and excusing it as resulting from slavery - which ended a century and a half ago. I am arguing that if one corrects for certain factors which increase rates of violence for everyone (notably single parent homes and poverty), blacks are not more violent. Then you go for proggie gold and assert that arguing blacks are not inherently more violent is "right wing mythology". Certainly an amusing turn of events.