Why don't race realist ever come up with solutions?

I feel like I'm being reeled back in by this reasonable post, but you are exactly right: the main problem that needs to be solved is single motherhood. The crime rate among black Americans can be directly traced to this. Young men growing up without fathers join gangs to replace the family they never had, and are never taught how to be men. This in turn becomes a cycle, in which those fatherless criminals go to prison, leaving a new generation fatherless in the process.

I guess that depends on what you consider a "racial problem" to be. True, it isn't the act of being black that causes the rate of single motherhood and the accompanying criminality. But these problems definitely are more prevalent among black Americans than other races. To me, being a race realist simply means (as I've said) accepting uncomfortable data such as this regarding race (including the data on IQ). Whether the underlying cause of the data is choices made, genetics, or something else is secondary. The facts must be met head on.

 

I don't recall him saying that anything is possible. If that is his claim that is false. However what he said about free will in the sense of having the ability to make choices is correct. We all have the ability to make choices. That doesn't mean you can do anything and some things will be hard or impossible to attain without certain natural talents or attributes but you can still make the best of a bad situation and make improvements to better your life. That's what having free will means. Your life can turn out very differently depending on the choices you make.

Single motherhood doesn't lead to criminality. While it plays a factor in a child's development there are plenty of youth who have good upbringings that were raised by a single mother who grew up to become successful. Look no further than the last President of the United States, Barack Obama. He wrote a full book about the negative psychological effect that his father's abandonment had on him and he grew up to be a success. In fact he used this abandonment to motivate himself to do better than his father becoming more successful academically, being a greater role model for society and even a better father.

He had his shortcomings including drug abuse and not taking school seriously but he didn't let his family problems or identity crisis defeat him. I do believe that a two parent household has benefits including being raised by a father and a mother who can teach you good values and boys having a good father to teach them how to be men is also important but having you father in the house doesn't mean you will grow up to be a model citizen. There are bad fathers living right there in the house with their sons some of whom are abusive.

The real problem in poor communities in general is the bad environment that poverty causes. Gang violence is a symptom of growing up in a bad neighborhood where children grow up poor, have bad schools and are surrounded by bad influences turn to a life of crime to make money and turn to gangs for protection and a sense of belonging to a group they think looks out for them. Boys who grow up without fathers are particularly susceptible to this lifestyle but there are plenty of boys out there who turn to crime and gangs whose father lives with them.

I don't know anyone who has ever been involved in these conversations who after being exposed to the data denies the data exists. If the data is valid then it is valid. The explanation for the data is the key issue and more importantly the solution to the data if indeed it is a problem is what people should focus on. Self-proclaimed race-realists are generally people who use statistics, IQ data, genetic research etc. to make arguments about racial differences in mental ability to promote racism.

There is a huge difference between accepting data, acknowledging that there is a problem within a community and using that knowledge to promote a racist ideological agenda.

 

Bang, right off the bat!
The 'Anecdote Fallacy'!
That is, trying to make (or rebut) an argument (in this case solid stats) by personal anecdote.
ie,
"Black people can't be on Average less intelligent because I know a smart black guy."
(in this case, LOL, yourself)
How smart is that?
One goofy post after another. Illogical Fallacies and lies.
+

 

Did you mean brass tacks?

 

OK, so in other words, you've not been following this thread and just jumped in because you saw "race" in the thread title.

 

I read every post. Show me the post where he said anyone can do anything.

 

You only have to jump up to post #44. Thanos stated that he thought he had an IQ of 80-85 but "... I decided to teach myself anything I could about computer science. I got old beaten up computers, I installed compilers, and I programmed. I comitted my entire life to my craft. I went to college after getting my GED, and learned computer science fundamentals like algorithmic design and analysis. I learned about algorithmic thinking. I taught myself the abstract mathematics needed to understand computers at the most fundamental level.

Had I not had free will, I would have been just another dumb negro who was broke without a job. It is my will and determination to succeed. That is why I was able to be successful."

 

Sorry this it not me "stating that anyone could do anything". I do not think if everyone was just a "little more determined" that we'd see a surge in black nuclear physicist. However this does not mean that it is useless. And you're better off trying and doing your best to succeed than you are looking at your IQ score and using that as an excuse for not succeeding in life. When I see failure I blame the person and the lack of motivation, I don't think "Man he must be functioning on a 95 IQ"

 

Egalitarianjay used the term "stating that anyone could do anything." I just said that you seem "to be arguing that anything is possible via triumph of the will, including a low IQ person becoming a computer scientist."

 

I read that post and directly addressed it. First of all what he said here is not the same as saying "Anyone can do anything."

What he is saying is that he thinks he has a low IQ potential but was capable of becoming a self-made success because of his will power. I clearly addressed this by saying that I don't think he has low intellect but more than likely a mental disorder. I further stated that there are people who have intellectual limitations because of mental problems. Where in this conversation did Thanos36 state that all people can do literally anything? Did you even ask him this question? Again I read the whole conversation and this was never directly brought up. I knew this was the direction you and others were going in which is why I addressed it in my post. Apparently you didn't notice that.

So again, I recognize the importance of genetics in intellectual potential. I know full well that not everyone can work the most cognitively demanding jobs just like not everyone can be a super star athlete because they don't have the genetic potential to do it. However free will is the ability to make choices and race-realism promotes the idea that we are slaves to our genes whose outcomes are predetermined by our genetic ancestry. So when racists cite statistics on IQ or crime rates etc. and say that racial biology is the cause they are saying this is the way the world is and there's nothing that can be done to change it. They are wrong for the reasons I outlined. Environmental differences between groups influence life outcomes. There's no such thing as a natural-born criminal. Out of wedlock births are not genetically determined either. Marriage itself is a socially-defined concept and history shows that government policy (e.g. welfare) has influenced the number of people who get married and have children. Genes have nothing to do with who decides to become a criminal or obey the law. Genes have nothing to do with who decides to get married before they have children.

As for IQ your intelligence is not fixed by your genes. Intelligence has to be nurtured in order for a person to reach their full genetic potential and IQ can be stunted by environmental variables. There is also no scientific reason why genes related to intelligence would be unevenly differentiated across geographic populations. The persistence of advocates of race-realism to promote this idea is rooted in a desire to rationalize racist ideology not the scientific pursuit of truth. If they were genuinely interested in science they would address the fallacies of their argument. They never do so in an honest way and instead engage in dishonest debate tactics to make it look like their position has validity when it doesn't.

I have addressed all of the relevant points in this discussion. I will let Thanos36 tell us whether or not he agrees.

 

Citing Obama is completely anecdotal. Of course there will be exceptions to the rule. But the rule is this:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publication/abstract.aspx?ID=167327

But if you blame poverty (which I doubt is a significant cause of criminality, because neither the Great Depression nor the recent Great Recession were accompanied by huge upticks in crime), then you can still point right back to single motherhood as the root cause, because single-parent households are far more likely to be impoverished. This is fairly self-evident, as there can only be one breadwinner in such a household, and that just isn't tenable in our modern economy.

OK, we've been discussing the explanations for the data. We just disagree about the cause.

 

That's not a rule, that research simply shows that statistically boys who become violent criminals and gang members were raised by single mothers because not having a father in the home has negative effects on the family which I clearly acknowledged.

Poverty is correlated with many variables that can negatively affect a person's upbringing. Single motherhood where the father plays no active role in their child's life is a symptom of growing up in a bad environment.

The real issue here is the environment. Raising children in a good environment and teaching them good moral values increases the chance of them being productive, law-abiding citizens who can be positive role models and responsible parents who raise children of their own so that future generations will exhibit the same good behavior. Having a responsible father in the home is one of many solutions to the problem of criminality.

Hopefully we can have a more productive discussion now that that issue has been addressed.

 

That's your phrase. Really the rest of your comment doesn't have anything to do with what I said, you are creating a strawman.

Sorry, not interested.

.[/QUOTE]

 

Not true....

You are the one who interpreted his comment that way. Thanos36 has clarified that that is not what he meant, which is no surprise to me as I never thought he meant that, so that issue is settled.

The rest of my post directly addresses the relevant points in this thread. Of course you would ignore it as you have a habit of dodging posts you can't address but others are free to provide feedback if they want.

 

This was already responded to on post #57. I'm not interested in you constantly reposting the same things over and over. You already had my answer and didn't like it. You'll just have to find a way to live with that I'm afraid.

 

The rest of my post addressed all of the points brought up by others that are relevant to the actual topic. All you did in post #57 is quote Thanos36 which we've already established is not consistent with the claim that "anyone can do anything" or "anything is possible via triumph of the will."

What Thanos36 was really saying is that people can accomplish a lot through willpower even with intellectual deficits. Some intellectual deficits put limits on ability and he acknowledged that. That part of the discussion is over. My posts have been on-topic and directly address the OP and points made by others. If you don't want to address them that is your choice. As far as I'm concerned the debate is settled. Once again I have shut down the arguments of racists without any real challenge.

 

I'm not sure the distinction you're trying to make by calling it "not a rule" while you acknowledge that the research does in fact make clear that the negative effects of single motherhood result in increased criminality.

It seems to me that you are taking a strange point of view. That is, you call single motherhood "a symptom of growing up in a bad environment". And you seem to define "bad environment" as poverty. Well, I would argue the reverse: that a single-parent household IS the bad environment, and that poverty is a symptom of that. And I believe that the research I cited backs that up. It identified single motherhood, not poverty, not bad schools, not a nebulous concept of a bad environment, as the leading indicator of criminality.

I agree that the issue is the environment. To me, however, family is more important than money when it comes to the quality of the environment. I think we generally agree, but our priorities are different.

 

You didn't answer a Single post of mine.
Like in virtually Every string we're both in, you Whiff,.. for years now.

Your game (LOFL) of endlessly citing/Burying people under Yo Uncle Joe Graves OPINION as "rebuttal", and posting your own spun Title of a Suzuki/Rushton youtube, (DOH!) long ago was obsolete, and always Fallacious/Ridiculous
You claimed there weren't races, wasn't IQ difference, etc etc.

Now you've had to Back off alot as I and others have posted and Thrashed you with New Info (ie, my Coyne), New Stats, (Trans-racial adoption studies), etc.

Now you acknowledge a NON-100%-Environment/nurture position instead of your old one.
You've Lost the debate and know it. Butcha still gonna call reality .. "racism."

You've been backing off for a few years in position, internet activity, and opinion, while still Dissing the Race Realists who've educated you while you're doing it. In fact, you now call most of us 'Scientific Racists' since that IS an acknowledgement of the FACT-based position that grows steadily stronger.

Genetics/the genome marches on, and more differences are being found monthly.

Oh, and I was the only one who did answer the String Topic, while you just Dissed 'Race Realists' as Racists.

Those answers being:
1. We don't have to have a solution to post scientific facts.
2. I was the one who posted the out-of-wedlock suggestion, or rather re-posted it from a previous string in which Thanos Dismissed it!

Yet it's he saying we don't offer solutions.
NOW it's the main theme since I did that re-posting
Your welcome... and you're in the the final stages of being finished off as genetics uncovers yet more differences
+

 

They are correlated. The real issue isn't single motherhood but rather how children are raised and the decisions they make. A child can be raised by their mother who has good values and raised them properly and end up just fine. A child can be raised by two parents who aren't good parents and end up becoming a dangerous criminal.

The real issue is good parenting and making good choices. Living in a two parent household isn't the "fix" but statistically it is true that two parent households provide more stability for children to grow up in good environments. Growing up in a good environment is the real answer to how most children end up becoming productive, law-abiding citizens.

Imagine this scenario: Take a single mother with a good a good job, who has good values and parenting skills who raised her children to be productive, law-abiding citizens. Is a single-parent household in that situation a bad environment? Some people have that upbringing. Most single parents can not provide that for their children. Why? Because they are poor. Poverty is correlated with a lot of variables that create a bad environment. It's not the only variable but it is a huge factor.

Family is very important however the quality of the family is the key factor and quality is not exclusive to two parent households. When you put too much emphasize on one variable you miss the larger picture. You can grow up in a two parent household that is also very wealthy and still end up with problems. The key issue here is making good choices in life and upbringing does play a major role in that.

Racism doesn't solve any problems.

 

The last time I debated you, on race and testosterone, you did the same showboating you are doing here and then you got shut down and fled from the debate. I directly addressed the OP. I am fully capable of debating you and shutting you down as I have done time and time again.

Your claims are rooted in ideology not science. We can have that debate again but I predict that you will not present any new arguments or research that supports your position.

 

Are you calling me a racist?

 

I'm going to respond to all of the above, as it seems to have coalesced into a single argument: that all it takes is the right kind of single mother, and then everything will be groovy. You give the example of a virtuous mother with a well-paying job and good parenting skills. First of all, such a woman would be unlikely to be single in the first place. She would be a "catch", and having great parenting skills would inform her that a two parent household would be better for her child/children. Secondly, most high paying jobs require a lot of work, leaving little time for parenting. Raising children really is a two person job. Ok, sure, maybe somewhere out there such a superwoman exists, and she somehow has a job that pays her well for only working a few hours. But that is a rare bird indeed, and such statistical outliers will have a negligible effect on the problem as a whole. For the vast majority, single parent households are a recipe for poverty, and other things you would describe as "bad environment". You can't make a case based on outliers.

This is a strange way to end your post, as it seems unrelated to everything else you said in it. I guess you're trying to tie it back to the OP. I suppose my response would have to be that race realism and racism are not synonyms. Racism is driven by disdain. Race realism is driven by data and evidence, and if there is an emotion involved in a conversation such as this, is it not disdain, but pity.

 

Again, my opinions on this, and all my early previous posting on it is "rooted" in my pro-Evolution posts against creationists! Something I still do.

It later became apparent to me there were PC "Liberal Creationists" who demanded that Evo stopped 200,000 Years ago!
Which it certainly did Not. This was even more amazing and hypocritical. Thus...

Your motivation, OTOH, is personal, and is more from the usual 'Black History', and 'better athletics is OK, but no intellect difference' dept.
IOW, 'Heads I win, tails we are Equal' dept.

The last time we had that debate (you claim I fled) I CRUSHED you with logic and tons of Bona Fide scientific data.
Unlike You, I'll be glad to link it!
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...minality-genetically-determined.506362/page-2

You just Spammed up more of Yo Uncle Joe Graves, while I posted a Score of sources.

You comically confuse 'Last-wording' with winning, and think I "fled".
Buddy, when I crush you/win, I don't last word.
A Mature and intelligent poster realizes he cannot stop the weak/weak-minded and immature from endlessly last-wording, and moves on, quite happy to leave his opponent flailing and others to judge.

Your last post/link in that string was
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/does-race-exist.html

A link which of course gives TWO opinions.
You were perhaps hoping no one would read the second?

In fact though, I use that Link far more than you do for it's Second Opinion: Forensic anthropologist George Gill, who is not only a mere proponent/opinion, but actually uses Race every day in his work!
So it really doesn't matter what Brace's abstract opinion is, Gill uses it!
The utility is far stronger, and the proof of the pudding.
I use it in virtually every race debate.

Even Funnier, I used it again last night on a different board!
and it was Me who First posted it Rebutting YOU in a discussion we were in on another board, and where you got it/first saw it!
https://www.debatepolitics.com/scie...argely-genetic-w-957-a-58.html#post1060500932
That's right, that was ME 5 years ago.
Ooops!

PS: And YOU "Fled" after I ('Bering Strait') Destroyed Joseph Graves, in the 12th post on this page on yet another board:
http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/...e-races-that-differ-in-mental-traits/?page=14
Ripped him a new one, and silenced even your last-wording.

Last-word away but either way you've been gutted many times by me and others. It has slowed you down alot. Many people know enough now, while you are static/ole Graves.
+

 

I didn't call you anything in that post. Are you denying being racist?

I'm not making a case based on outliers only making the point that correlation and causation are not the same thing. Single motherhood is highly correlated with a bad environment but not the direct cause nor the only variable nor necessarily the key variable. Also the superwoman you described is not as rare as you think. Women are becoming more independent, there are mothers who have children out of wedlock or even more likely are divorced who are raising children every day who have the income to provide for their family and the parenting skills to raise them to be good people.

Single parenting can work, it does work for certain people and it's becoming more common. I'm not promoting it as the desired alternative. I'm only making the point that the environment is the real issue and parenting is only one variable.

What I said is not strange at all to people who are familiar with racism and the arguments of racists. Race-Realism is better known in academia as Scientific Racism. There is no difference from an ideological standpoint. Using scientific arguments is simply a method that is becoming more popular with racists as their traditional approach (hate speech) has become less socially acceptable.

I have enough experience arguing with racists on the internet to know better than to accept the claim that race-realism and racism are two different things. They are not and I know they aren't because the same people who use statistics and data to make arguments about racial differences and call it science have exploded in to racist rage when they get angry in debate. Some of them don't even try to hide their racism. Others are better at masking it, show more restraint or use coded language to create the illusion that they are not racist and often deny that they are. Some are just in denial. Others may be delusional but the bottom line is no one is fooling me in to believing they're not racist. I know racism when I see it.

I've used that link years before I ever encountered you as a poster. I've been posting about racism since 2004. I've posted on other boards about racism long before I ever came to Political Forum. That link about Gill and Brace has been on the internet for years. You are a delusional narcissist who confuses showboating and ranting with winning a debate. You left the thread because you ran out of arguments and any objective observer can see that.

Spamming links does not strengthen your position. Show that those links validate your argument. You failed to do this. If you're really so confident that your position is scientifically sound then go to SciForum and debate me there with posters who are scientifically literate. Learning about the scientific research related to this topic does take time and understanding what good science is requires a rational mind and great critical thinking skills which is why it is hard for most people to properly understand the subject. What people like you do is debate within your comfort zone on political boards and racist message boards where there aren't many opponents who can refute your arguments.

If I'm lying prove me wrong. Make a thread on Sciforum and present your position. If you fear being outnumbered invite as many debate partners as you want. You won't do it because you know that you will be humiliated. Rayznack and Mikemikev stepped up, tried their hand at it and they failed. You won't do it because you know the same thing will happen to you. That's why you hang around here where at worst someone like me will shut you down and you can withdraw from the debate without feeling totally humiliated. I'm just one person. When you get feedback from a large number of people on a science message board you will know just how fringe and discredited your position really is.

 

In your reply to me you said, "If you don't want to address them that is your choice. As far as I'm concerned the debate is settled. Once again I have shut down the arguments of racists without any real challenge."

So that seems as if it is directed to me. That's why I asked the question. Why did you bother replying if you were not going to answer my question, and why did you instead ask another, unrelated question? Do you think you deserve unlimited questions of everyone without responding? And why can't you stick to the topic? It sounds like you prefer personal attacks to honest debate.