Racial Tension in the U.S.

[-Akronite-]

The Democrat Senator from New York must be part of a hate group.

You're obsessed with her. Do you have a crush or something?

 

[Huber.]

You're obsessed with her. Do you have a crush or something?

 

[Maximus]

Not this leftist shibbeloth again....

First, I raised the point, I don't hate the idea of contraception, so try addressing the meat of the argument rather than a red herring..

Second, contraception is far more accessible now than at any point in the past, yet unmarried pregnancies particularly among blacks are through the roof. And if abortion is your thing, the abortion rate among black teens is at 41% -- more than twice the national average of 18% - which includes the high rate of black abortions. In other words, unfortunately for the dream of Margaret Sanger, you can't kill black babies fast enough to solve this problem.

The whole cutesy leftist argument about conservatives and abortion/contraception v. individual responsibility is irrevelant to current policy because conservatives have lost that argument, and contraceptive/abortion policy -- particularly in urban areas -- is controlled by Democrats.

Since we are tearing down statues, when does Sanger's get defaced and removed?


“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” Sanger wrote. —Letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble on Dec., 10, 1939

 

[-Akronite-]

The whole cutesy leftist argument about conservatives and abortion/contraception v. individual responsibility is irrevelant to current policy because conservatives have lost that argument, and contraceptive/abortion policy -- particularly in urban areas -- is controlled by Democrats.

But that's not really true when you have Republican legislatures/governors constantly finding ways to make abortions less accessible. We also have instances in states where an increase in accessibility to birth control reduces unwanted pregnancies and abortions (Colorado I believe), and vice versa (Texas if I'm not mistaken).

You make the argument that unmarried pregnancies are still high among blacks even though we have, overall, an increase in accessibility to birth control... But you ignore the fact that teen pregnancy has been on the decline in EVERY demographic.

And while you may see it as a red herring, it is true that the most fervent anti-abortion advocates seem to have no solutions for this issue. I'm glad you, and I would imagine most conservatives, are actually in favor of birth control as a concept because come on.

 

[-Akronite-]

JOIN THE CAUSE!

 

[Nathan S]

Not this leftist shibbeloth again....

First, I raised the point, I don't hate the idea of contraception, so try addressing the meat of the argument rather than a red herring..

Second, contraception is far more accessible now than at any point in the past, yet unmarried pregnancies particularly among blacks are through the roof. And if abortion is your thing, the abortion rate among black teens is at 41% -- more than twice the national average of 18% - which includes the high rate of black abortions. In other words, unfortunately for the dream of Margaret Sanger, you can't kill black babies fast enough to solve this problem.

The whole cutesy leftist argument about conservatives and abortion/contraception v. individual responsibility is irrevelant to current policy because conservatives have lost that argument, and contraceptive/abortion policy -- particularly in urban areas -- is controlled by Democrats.

I'm glad that you agree that contraception is helpful in controlling the rate of unplanned pregnancies and indirectly the rate at which children are born into families without the resources to care for them.

I'd like to point out that in my initial post in which I said it would be good to look at outside sources instead of talking in circles, I specifically requested unbiased sources. That request was obviously ignored.

Why do you think children in poor families are less likely to finish high school, less likely to get full-time jobs, and more likely to have children before the age of 21? And if you don't think the government should be involved, how do you propose solving these problems?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

“Family Research Council believes that homosexual conduct is harmful to the persons who engage in it and to society at large, and can never be affirmed. It is by definition unnatural, and as such is associated with negative physical and psychological health effects.”
– Family Research Council website, 2016

“The reality is, homosexuals have entered the Scouts in the past for predatory purposes.”
– FRC Vice President Rob Schwarzwalder, on radio’s “The Janet Mefferd Show,” Feb. 1, 2013.

“[H]omosexual activists vehemently reject the evidence which suggests that homosexual men … are … relative to their numbers, more likely to engage in such actions [childhood sexual abuse] than are heterosexual men.”
– Peter Sprigg, Senior Fellow for Policy Studies at FRC, on why the Boy Scouts should not allow LGBT Scouts or leaders, FRC blog, February 1, 2013.

“The videos are titled 'It Gets Better.' They are aimed at persuading kids that although they'll face struggles and perhaps bullying for 'coming out' as homosexual (or transgendered or some other perversion), life will get better. …It's disgusting. And it's part of a concerted effort to persuade kids that homosexuality is okay and actually to recruit them into that lifestyle."
— Tony Perkins, FRC fundraising letter, August 2011

"Those who understand the homosexual community—the activists—they're very aggressive, they're—everything they accuse us of they are in triplicate. They're intolerant, they're hateful, vile, they're spiteful. .... To me, that is the height of hatred, to be silent when we know there are individuals that are engaged in activity, behavior, and an agenda that will destroy them and our nation."
—Tony Perkins, Speaking to the Oak Initiative Summit, April 2011

"We believe the evidence shows … that relative to the size of their population, homosexual men are more likely to engage in child sexual abuse than are heterosexual men."
— Peter Sprigg, "Debating Homosexuality: Understanding Two Views." 2011.

“While activists like to claim that pedophilia is a completely distinct orientation from homosexuality, evidence shows a disproportionate overlap between the two. … It is a homosexual problem.”
— FRC President Tony Perkins, FRC website, 2010

“[W]elcoming open homosexuality in the military would clearly damage the readiness and effectiveness of the force – in part because it would increase the already serious problem of homosexual assault in the military.”
— Peter Sprigg, “Homosexual Assault in the Military," 2010

"A little-reported fact is that homosexual and lesbian relationships are far more violent than are traditional married households."
—Timothy Dailey, FRC publication, "Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk," 2002

“Gaining access to children has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement.”
— Robert Knight, FRC director of cultural studies, and Frank York, 1999

“[Homosexuality] … embodies a deep-seated hatred against true religion.”
— Steven Schwalm, FRC senior writer and analyst, in “Desecrating Corpus Christi,” 1999

"One of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the 'prophets' of a new sexual order."
—1999 FRC publication, "Homosexual Behavior and Pedophilia," Robert Knight and Frank York

So I suppose violence against them is perfectly fine too, eh?

Speaking of which....I was looking at images from the Boston rally, and saw a sign that said "White Silence is Violence." I figured that was one of the nuttiest things I'd ever heard. How can silence be violence? So I later tried googling the phrase to post the sign as a joke. But lo and behold, I found that "White Silence is Violence" is actually a "thing" all over the place. Saw an article in Ebony magazine, and a bunch of stuff elsewhere.

The implications of that belief are pretty staggering. Most of us would agree that violence in response to violence is often justified. But if someone's inaction -- the simple failure to parrot the desired slogans at the appropriate people - is considered violence, then seemingly random acts of violence against ordinary people and property can be justified. Because we're not out there with them marching, we are ourselves committing violence, and therefore are legitimate targets for actual violence.

And of course, the cops who are out there just trying to protect property and ordinary citizens -- even when there aren't even counter-protestors present -- are valid targets because they are protecting those who are committing "violence". Which at least partially explains why these leftists tend to riot even when there isn't even anyone out there on the other side. Because the entire system is "violent", and therefore a legitimate target.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I'd like to point out that in my initial post in which I said it would be good to look at outside sources instead of talking in circles, I specifically requested unbiased sources. That request was obviously ignored.

What problem, specifically, do you have with the Brookings Institute? Or the UK source I listed?

Why do you think children in poor families are less likely to finish high school, less likely to get full-time jobs, and more likely to have children before the age of 21? And if you don't think the government should be involved, how do you propose solving these problems?

Multiple reasons, perhaps the biggest being a cultural breakdown where things like education, marriage, and not having children out of wedlock are not valued. I don't think the government can solve that even though it probably did a lot to cause it. The road to hell, and all that....

As for how to solve that...I don't know if there is a solution. But if there is one, a major component has to be a reset of cultural values within those communities plagued by high rates of teenage pregnancy, a devaluing of education, etc..

 

[Nathan S]

What problem, specifically, do you have with the Brookings Institute? Or the UK source I listed?

No problem with those sources! I'm referring to the Heritage Foundation, Daily Wire, The Blaze, etc.

Multiple reasons, perhaps the biggest being a cultural breakdown where things like education, marriage, and not having children out of wedlock are not valued. I don't think the government can solve that.

As for how to solve that...I don't know if there is a solution. But if there is one, a major component has to be a reset of cultural values within those communities plagued by high rates of teenage pregnancy, a devaluing of education, etc..

I agree that it's probably not as simple as just giving people more money, but the government probably could do more to foster interest in education (and to improve the quality of schools in poor areas). I'm not sure if that would solve the related but different problem of teen pregnancy, but it might help.

 

[-Akronite-]

So I suppose violence against them is perfectly fine too, eh?

Speaking of which....I was looking at images from the Boston rally, and saw a sign that said "White Silence is Violence." I figured that was one of the nuttiest things I'd ever heard. How can silence be violence? So I later tried googling the phrase to post the sign as a joke. But lo and behold, I found that "White Silence is Violence" is actually a "thing" all over the place. Saw an article in Ebony magazine, and a bunch of stuff elsewhere.

You missed AZ_'s post with the dog carrying the sign?

The implications of that belief are pretty staggering. Most of us would agree that violence in response to violence is often justified. But if someone's inaction -- the simple failure to parrot the desired slogans at the appropriate people - is considered violence, then seemingly random acts of violence against ordinary people and property can be justified. Because we're not out there with them marching, we are ourselves committing violence, and therefore are legitimate targets for actual violence.

Wow. That's quite an interpretation.

The phrase is basically saying that if you're on the sidelines, being quiet about injustice and violence, then you are complicit in it. It is an act of violence (not literal obviously) to allow the hate to persist without challenging it. It's not justifying violence at all, that's quite a leap. And if you think it's just about parroting phrases, I feel like you're probably ignoring the black and leftist movement working against white liberalism.

And of course, the cops who are out there just trying to protect property and ordinary citizens -- even when there aren't even counter-protestors present -- are valid targets because they are protecting those who are committing "violence." Which at least partially explains why these leftists tend to riot even when there isn't even anyone out there on the other side. Because the entire system is "violent," and therefore a legitimate target.

That is actually the viewpoint of some radicals I'm sure, but it's really cool how you're able to find the worst possible interpretations of anything that isn't the words of our president.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

No problem with those sources! I'm referring to the Heritage Foundation, Daily Wire, The Blaze, etc.

Then why did you say "I specifically requested unbiased sources. That request was obviously ignored." How is it "ignoring your request" when two of my three sources were 1) Brookings Institute, and 2) the UK?

Also, if you're going to object to sources that support a particular conclusion (three things to do to stay out of poverty), then it is incumbent on you to produce at least something saying that data is wrong -- even if it is just a logical argument based on anecdotal evidence. Because otherwise, you've got nothing.

I agree that it's probably not as simple as just giving people more money, but the government probably could do more to foster interest in education (and to improve the quality of schools in poor areas). I'm not sure if that would solve the related but different problem of teen pregnancy, but it might help.

Translation: You don't really have clue either, because they've been trying all that for a really long time. Those schools try to interest kids in education, and do teach them the burdens of teen pregnancy. But that ain't working.

 

[-Akronite-]

Multiple reasons, perhaps the biggest being a cultural breakdown where things like education, marriage, and not having children out of wedlock are not valued. I don't think the government can solve that even though it probably did a lot to cause it. The road to hell, and all that....

As for how to solve that...I don't know if there is a solution. But if there is one, a major component has to be a reset of cultural values within those communities plagued by high rates of teenage pregnancy, a devaluing of education, etc..

So you honestly believe that the issues of poor education and teen pregnancy in urban/black/Hispanic areas is that they just don't have the right values and the problem is possibly impossible to solve?

 

[Nathan S]

Then why did you say "I specifically requested unbiased sources. That request was obviously ignored." How is it "ignoring your request" when two of my three sources were 1) Brookings Institute, and 2) the UK?



Also, if you're going to object to sources that support a particular conclusion (three things to do to stay out of poverty), then it is incumbent on you to produce at least something saying that data is wrong -- even if it is just a logical argument based on anecdotal evidence. Because otherwise, you've got nothing.

This is a misunderstanding. I was not accusing you of ignoring my request. I was pointing out that I requested unbiased sources at the very start of this discussion, and that request was ignored (but not by you).

Translation: You don't really have clue either, because they've been trying all that for a really long time. Those schools try to interest kids in education, and do teach them the burdens of teen pregnancy. But that ain't working.

I don't doubt that the schools try, but it's an open secret that they don't provide as good an education as schools in wealthier districts. I think it's reasonable to believe that they could improve the quality of their education with more money.

 

[Huber.]

So you honestly believe that the issues of poor education and teen pregnancy in urban/black/Hispanic areas is that they just don't have the right values and the problem is possibly impossible to solve?

 

[The Oi]

“Family Research Council believes that homosexual conduct is harmful to the persons who engage in it and to society at large, and can never be affirmed. It is by definition unnatural, and as such is associated with negative physical and psychological health effects.”
– Family Research Council website, 2016

“The reality is, homosexuals have entered the Scouts in the past for predatory purposes.”
– FRC Vice President Rob Schwarzwalder, on radio’s “The Janet Mefferd Show,” Feb. 1, 2013.

“[H]omosexual activists vehemently reject the evidence which suggests that homosexual men … are … relative to their numbers, more likely to engage in such actions [childhood sexual abuse] than are heterosexual men.”
– Peter Sprigg, Senior Fellow for Policy Studies at FRC, on why the Boy Scouts should not allow LGBT Scouts or leaders, FRC blog, February 1, 2013.

“The videos are titled 'It Gets Better.' They are aimed at persuading kids that although they'll face struggles and perhaps bullying for 'coming out' as homosexual (or transgendered or some other perversion), life will get better. …It's disgusting. And it's part of a concerted effort to persuade kids that homosexuality is okay and actually to recruit them into that lifestyle."
— Tony Perkins, FRC fundraising letter, August 2011

"Those who understand the homosexual community—the activists—they're very aggressive, they're—everything they accuse us of they are in triplicate. They're intolerant, they're hateful, vile, they're spiteful. .... To me, that is the height of hatred, to be silent when we know there are individuals that are engaged in activity, behavior, and an agenda that will destroy them and our nation."
—Tony Perkins, Speaking to the Oak Initiative Summit, April 2011

"We believe the evidence shows … that relative to the size of their population, homosexual men are more likely to engage in child sexual abuse than are heterosexual men."
— Peter Sprigg, "Debating Homosexuality: Understanding Two Views." 2011.

“While activists like to claim that pedophilia is a completely distinct orientation from homosexuality, evidence shows a disproportionate overlap between the two. … It is a homosexual problem.”
— FRC President Tony Perkins, FRC website, 2010

“[W]elcoming open homosexuality in the military would clearly damage the readiness and effectiveness of the force – in part because it would increase the already serious problem of homosexual assault in the military.”
— Peter Sprigg, “Homosexual Assault in the Military," 2010

"A little-reported fact is that homosexual and lesbian relationships are far more violent than are traditional married households."
—Timothy Dailey, FRC publication, "Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk," 2002

“Gaining access to children has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement.”
— Robert Knight, FRC director of cultural studies, and Frank York, 1999

“[Homosexuality] … embodies a deep-seated hatred against true religion.”
— Steven Schwalm, FRC senior writer and analyst, in “Desecrating Corpus Christi,” 1999

"One of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the 'prophets' of a new sexual order."
—1999 FRC publication, "Homosexual Behavior and Pedophilia," Robert Knight and Frank York

Deflection.