How to fix black America?

[theprestige]

How else can you "cure" poverty? Poverty is a lack of wealth (which is what I should have said rather than just money which is only part of a person's wealth). To solve the issue of (absolute) poverty people have to be wealthier and the facts are very stark: in general without luck you will remain poor if your family is poor.

Going on about making better opportunities and the like is buying into the fantasy of "it just takes hardwork". And a quick objective look around you should be enough to dispel that fantasy unfortunately I think that for many people the fantasy is too comforting to want to face reality.

I actually agree with all of this, at least in principle. Which leads me to the same questions Ziggurat had asked:

For whom? Distributed how? Why would that fix things?

What are your thoughts on how the "more money" would be spent?

I mean, there's a periodic stipend: "As long as you remain poor, we'll make up the difference every month."

Or there's a single lump sum: "Here's enough money to make you not poor for, say, three months. It's up to you to take advantage of this, and stay not poor after that."

Those are a couple direct funding options, for using "more money" to cure poverty.

Then there's indirect funding: Debt forgiveness/deb servicing. Scholarships (which we all seem to agree are possibly not helpful). Skills training. Etc.

Say you've got all the money you need to fix poverty the simple way. What would spending that money look like, in your plan?

 

[Darat]

That makes no sense. It's not a question of knowing whether or not something will work, it's a question of whether or not we're even addressing the cause of a problem. And we know of multiple factors which are causative for crime. Furthermore, you still haven't answered my original question, making your proposal the equivalent of saying you solve a problem by fixing it.

To remind you the actual question you asked me:

How else can you "cure" poverty?

Why is poverty your only concern?

I again remind you that I have not said or implied poverty is my only concern or even if it is a concern of mine....

 

[Ziggurat]

To remind you the actual question you asked me:

That was not my original question. This was my original question:

More money.

For whom? Distributed how? Why would that fix things?

 

[Darat]

Is it possible that your sentence is incomplete? I don't understand your request.

Yes it was incomplete - sorry about that:

Have you any evidence for your contention that education (in a country like the USA and the UK) cures poverty?

But is it the money itself that makes the difference? It might seem like a silly question, but having money in the family isn't the same as getting higher tax returns.

I would say it is the intergenerational play of a family's wealth that is the bedrock of way people will remain as poor or rich as the family they are born into.

Assets being transferred amongst the family, family wealth offering support when bad luck does strike and of course the social network of other similar families I think plays a large part as well.

Education doesn't help if the job goes to the son of Bob who I've played golf with for the past 20 years.

 

[Darat]

That was not my original question. This was my original question:

I am sure I can find a post from 10 years ago in which I asked a question and you still haven't answered that original question....

Problem of course is that your original question was not what you actually asked me.

 

[Ziggurat]

I am sure I can find a post from 10 years ago in which I asked a question and you still haven't answered that original question....

Problem of course is that your original question was not what you actually asked me.

What are you talking about? Follow the link. It's from this very thread, it's from yesterday, and I most definitely asked you. It's the post immediately after yours, and I even quoted you in that post. How can you possibly think I was asking my question of anyone else? I mean, I can understand that maybe you didn't notice that post at first if the thread moved on and you didn't go back to read it, but now that I've pointed it out to you, how can you possibly think I'm not asking you that question? And since it's the first question in this thread by me, how the hell does that NOT qualify as my original question? Seriously, what the hell, Darat?

And I'm not the only one who still wants an answer to it either.

 

[Darat]

What are you talking about? Follow the link. ...snip...

I am talking about the question you asked me, which was "Why is poverty your only concern?". And no amount of twisting and turning will get you out of the strawman you created. You will not find anywhere in this thread where I said or implied that poverty was my only concern nor even that I was concerned about it at all.

Your question was and remains a strawman posing as a question.

 

[Mumbles]

1) Could you post the numbers, please?

To be blunt, I'd prefer to watch Luke Cage than type everything out - a link to the Department of Education's 2013-2014 Civil Rights Data Collection report is available here, for a start.

2) Are we simply assuming that suspension rates are due to discrimination, or have we eliminated other possibilities (e.g. black students being less disciplined -- which I must admit, is frightening, seeing how undisciplined students normally are.)?

Note that the disparity begins in *preschool*, which makes it doubtful. And this is before we get into the disparities use of police for discipline, frequent surprise drug sweeps, and the like.

 

[Belz...]

Have you any evidence for your contention that education (in a country like the USA and the UK) cures poverty?

I thought it was well-known that education allows you to, you know, get a job.

I would say it is the intergenerational play of a family's wealth that is the bedrock of way people will remain as poor or rich as the family they are born into.

Sure. It's an important factor. But you can't change the bedrock, hence my suggestion about education. But again, education is available, so what's missing?

Education doesn't help if the job goes to the son of Bob who I've played golf with for the past 20 years.

It helps statistically. Like Aspirin, it might not work for you.

 

[Belz...]

To be blunt, I'd prefer to watch Luke Cage than type everything out

Hey, I can understand that. A link will do. Thank you.

Note that the disparity begins in *preschool*, which makes it doubtful.

How so?

This is the same line of argument as with arrests. A lot of people jump to the "discrimination" conclusion, but without eliminating the other possibilities -- possibly not even seeing them.

 

[Ziggurat]

I am talking about the question you asked me, which was "Why is poverty your only concern?". And no amount of twisting and turning will get you out of the strawman you created. You will not find anywhere in this thread where I said or implied that poverty was my only concern nor even that I was concerned about it at all.

Your question was and remains a strawman posing as a question.

You are confused. I admit that I have made things confusing, but nonetheless you are very confused. I will now endeavor to explain things to you. I'll step you through things in order. We begin with your post #71:

What is that simple solution?

More money.

I responded in post #72:

For whom? Distributed how? Why would that fix things?

This is my original question to you. You have never responded to this question. You don't have an obligation to respond, but this is still the question I am most interested in. You did respond to other people who also weren't impressed with post 71, saying in post 78

How else can you "cure" poverty?

I responded to post 78 in post 81 asking

Why is poverty your only concern?

Note: this is NOT my original question. This is my secondary question. You responded in post 83 saying

You've lost the thread if the discussion, no where have I said or even implied it is only poverty that is my concern. Indeed I've not even said I'm concerned about poverty!

In other words, you thought my secondary question is based on a misunderstanding of your position. I accept that. Furthermore, note that at no time since post 81 have I claimed that poverty was a concern of yours.

But you had not addressed my original question to you, and so I responded in post 86:

My previous question went unanswered. If you think I'm not following the discussion, perhaps the reason is because you aren't making it easy to follow.

"My previous question" refers to my original question, from post #72. It does not refer to my question from post 81. Had I meant my question from post 81, I wouldn't have phrased it like this. You responded in post 88:

Nope you asked me about something I haven't posted. Now I have to assume you knew it was a strawman and you weren't simply confused.

It's clear from this that you thought "my previous question" referred to post #81, and not to post #72. This was an excusable error at that point, but it was nonetheless an error.

Then in post 95 I said,

Furthermore, you still haven't answered my original question

Now, here is the part where I may have confused things, though not intentionally. In post #97 to Argumemnon, I said

Let me remind you of my original question:

"why is there any reason to believe that simply giving people enough money that they no longer qualify as "poor" will actually affect crime to any significant degree? "

Left unstated was that this was my original question to him, not to you. My original question to you was and is, "For whom? Distributed how? Why would that fix things?"

Then, in post 99, I said,

And you still haven't answered my original question.

Again, left unstated is that this is in reference to my original question to you. And note the link leading back to post #72, which should have served as a clarification.

Your next relevant post was #102. You responded to my post 95 with this:

To remind you the actual question you asked me:

How else can you "cure" poverty?

Why is poverty your only concern?

I again remind you that I have not said or implied poverty is my only concern or even if it is a concern of mine....

This suggests that you were indeed confused by my post #97, having overlooked my clarification in post #99. But again, you were operating under the belief that post #81 was my original question to you. But it is and was not. And I clarified that immediately in post #103:

That was not my original question. This was my original question:

More money.

For whom? Distributed how? Why would that fix things?

Note that I have not only directed your attention to the appropriate question, but I have not at this point repeated the claim that you care about poverty. And yet, this was your response:

I am sure I can find a post from 10 years ago in which I asked a question and you still haven't answered that original question....

Problem of course is that your original question was not what you actually asked me.

Even after a direct clarification which included the question and a link demonstrating that this question was to you, you don't accept this clarification. I responded (post 106)

What are you talking about?

You then responded

I am talking about the question you asked me, which was "Why is poverty your only concern?". And no amount of twisting and turning will get you out of the strawman you created.

So despite multiple attempts to correct the situation where I consistently pointed you to post 72, including posts that you obviously saw because you quoted them, you were still under the wrong impression that post 81 was the first question addressed to you, that I'm trying to shoehorn the question I asked to Argumemnon into our exchange, and that I'm still working with what you call a straw man that you care about poverty even though I have not once made reference to that since post 81.

Some confusion is understandable. But your outright refusal to pay attention to corrections is simply baffling. I don't get it. I really don't.

 

[Darat]

You are confused. I admit that I have made things confusing, but nonetheless you are very confused. I will now endeavor to explain things to you. I'll step you through things in order. We begin with your post #71:

I responded in post #72:

This is my original question to you. You have never responded to this question. You don't have an obligation to respond, but this is still the question I am most interested in. You did respond to other people who also weren't impressed with post 71, saying in post 78

I responded to post 78 in post 81 asking

Note: this is NOT my original question. This is my secondary question. You responded in post 83 saying

In other words, you thought my secondary question is based on a misunderstanding of your position. I accept that. Furthermore, note that at no time since post 81 have I claimed that poverty was a concern of yours.

But you had not addressed my original question to you, and so I responded in post 86:

"My previous question" refers to my original question, from post #72. It does not refer to my question from post 81. Had I meant my question from post 81, I wouldn't have phrased it like this. You responded in post 88:

It's clear from this that you thought "my previous question" referred to post #81, and not to post #72. This was an excusable error at that point, but it was nonetheless an error.

Then in post 95 I said,


Now, here is the part where I may have confused things, though not intentionally. In post #97 to Argumemnon, I said

Left unstated was that this was my original question to him, not to you. My original question to you was and is, "For whom? Distributed how? Why would that fix things?"

Then, in post 99, I said,

Again, left unstated is that this is in reference to my original question to you. And note the link leading back to post #72, which should have served as a clarification.

Your next relevant post was #102. You responded to my post 95 with this:


This suggests that you were indeed confused by my post #97, having overlooked my clarification in post #99. But again, you were operating under the belief that post #81 was my original question to you. But it is and was not. And I clarified that immediately in post #103:

Note that I have not only directed your attention to the appropriate question, but I have not at this point repeated the claim that you care about poverty. And yet, this was your response:



Even after a direct clarification which included the question and a link demonstrating that this question was to you, you don't accept this clarification. I responded (post 106)

You then responded

So despite multiple attempts to correct the situation where I consistently pointed you to post 72, including posts that you obviously saw because you quoted them, you were still under the wrong impression that post 81 was the first question addressed to you, that I'm trying to shoehorn the question I asked to Argumemnon into our exchange, and that I'm still working with what you call a straw man that you care about poverty even though I have not once made reference to that since post 81.

Some confusion is understandable. But your outright refusal to pay attention to corrections is simply baffling. I don't get it. I really don't.

Wow all those words rather than admit you created a strawman.

 

[fuelair]

A really good and obvious way is to elect good, hard-working Democrats to all political offices so they can actually repair the current chaos of republicker villainy especially in political offices.

 

[Ziggurat]

Wow all those words rather than admit you created a strawman.

You know, I tried to assume that your error was a good-faith one. There was, after all, a point of confusion. But you've made clear that even if it started out that way, it no longer is. You are now actively trying to maintain conflict where none is needed. The irony is that you have misrepresented my position on a continuing basis, whereas I only misrepresented yours once.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with Rule 12

.

 

[Darat]

You know, I tried to assume that your error was a good-faith one. There was, after all, a point of confusion. But you've made clear that even if it started out that way, it no longer is. You are now actively trying to maintain conflict where none is needed. The irony is that you have misrepresented my position on a continuing basis, whereas I only misrepresented yours once.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with Rule 12

.

Yet more words, wouldn't it be less effort to simply admit your deceitful discussion technique?

 

[theprestige]

Yet more words, wouldn't it be less effort to simply admit your deceitful discussion technique?

Wouldn't it be less effort to just answer his original question?

ETA: Or even just ignore Zig and answer other people's questions?

 

[Fudbucker]

So no comment about Chigozie Obioma's claim:
"There Are No Successful Black Nations and the indignity and helplessness of blacks in America won’t end until we have a first-world African nation to lift up our people."
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/08/09...nations-africa-diginty-racism-pan-africanism/

Can't say I'm too shocked, but this is supposed to be a skeptic's forum and Obioma is hardly a crank. Perhaps the point he's making deserves some merit...

 

[Ziggurat]

Yet more words, wouldn't it be less effort to simply admit your deceitful discussion technique?

I admit that in post 81 I assumed you cared about poverty. Oh noes!!!1!eleventy!!! What a terrible, deceitful thing to claim about someone!

Since post 81, however, I have never repeated that mistake. You, on the other hand, have been obsessed about an error I made once and never repeated, all the while continuing to make a false claim of your own despite multiple corrections. What shall we call that? Not deceitful, since you have deceived no one but yourself. Rather it seems... lacking in something. Like, I don't know, basic reading comprehension.

Will you admit that you didn't understand which question I was referring to? Will you admit that you didn't pay attention to what I said when I corrected you? Will you admit that you refused to examine evidence showing that you made a mistake?

I think we all know the answer is going to be no. You won't. You're still hung up on post 81, because apparently being accused of caring about poverty is an unforgivable offense.

 

[Belz...]

I admit that in post 81 I assumed you cared about poverty.

Tsk, tsk, Zig. You said poverty was his "only" concern. Don't try to pretend that the question was different.

You know, since you like semantics and all.

 

[fuelair]

Tsk, tsk, Zig. You said poverty was his "only" concern. Don't try to pretend that the question was different.

You know, since you like semantics and all.

I believe the Semantics are a good people and deserve a land to call their own without outside interference and manipulation. I hope they can find their place and bring their people together in peace!!!!!!