Somewhat related, in some ways to the question of “proof that liberal policies have harmed black Americans”
I like Zo. I don’t agree with everything he says in every video, but his videos on race in politics are enlightening to say the least.
The fact he had to even make that video, in 2012, is proof that the liberals purchasing the political faith of black Americans has harmed them as a culture.
Look up what happened to Stacy Dash when she said she support Romney recently. The vile things said to her by liberals is unacceptable.
An American, in the year 2012 can’t publicly be a conservative without vitriol and hate from liberals if their skin pigmentation isn’t white. I’m dead serious. And then any white conservative is called a racist, because no people of color are openly conservative.
The liberals have literally prevented a large proportion of a population of people from having independent thought by turning them on themselves if they do.
Antonio Gramsci is winning.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:<<< because no people of color are openly conservative. >>>[/quote]My pastor is. Doesn’t work on him because his standard is the Word of God. Not tired old finger pointing, sniveling self victimization. He, and several other black Detroit clergy took heat in 08 for not supporting Obama, having the God given insight to see through his lying Marxist agenda.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
What’s Black History Month got to do with it? You’ve got a one track mind. Look at the link on the previous page I posted that shows a direct link between the breakdown of the family unit and poverty, crime, education, health etc. And it shows, not just children that were born out of wedlock but children growing up in a one parent household.[/quote]
My comment initially was about Black History Month. If you are trying to make some scientific connection between family units and crime, you will have to do better than some correlational study focused on race.[/quote]
Didn’t read the link did you? The correlation has nothing to do with race and shows graphs indicating the same phenomena with white people.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Both of you seem to be missing the point. You are discussing some SUBJECTIVE opinion of what a “strong family” even is. Unless one of you provides some proof of this, you are speaking out of your ass.
[/quote]
It’s not subjective no. If a man impregnates a woman then leaves her to raise the kid by herself then clearly the family unit has broken down. And if you claim that a 15-year-old girl raising a child by herself is the same as a married couple raising a child then you need to explain the correlations with crime, health, education etc. that studies have indicated every since the Moynihan report.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
x2 this makes ZERO sense…so if a woman (heaven forbid) enjoys sex and likes to have it with more men than you feel is right, then she cannot be a good mother??[/quote]
First off, here is the study that shows women with many sexual partners have a high rate of divorce:
It only takes 5 pre-marital partners before that risk jumps to 70%
Yes, I would say having many sexual partners irreversibly damages women from becoming good wives and mothers as it spits in the face in their ancient roles (I’m talking evolutionary psychology here). It’s unnatural for them.
Before access to contraception, abortion and economic opportunity women use to refrain having many sexual partners because there were NATURAL consequences.
These consequences no longer exist due to social engineering.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
If a man has sex with a few dozen women, does that mean he cannot be a good father?
[/quote]
Nope.
Men and women are wired differently. Men are naturally wired to seek out diversity and spread their seed while women are designed to seek out a single high quality male to have offspring with.
Why do you think there are several examples of polygamous societies (even today) while little to no examples of polyandrous ones?
Why do you think men can have children at practically anytime during their adult lives while a woman’s window to reproduce is so small? I just read about a man in India who had a kid at 96.[/quote]
Fair enough on the wife part. But I can’t buy the “can’t be a good mother” line based on divorce rates.[/quote]
I read the study that the raj discussed and there is not mention of being a good mother whatsoever.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:<<< Didn’t read the link did you? The correlation has nothing to do with race and shows graphs indicating the same phenomena with white people.[/quote]Indeed. It’s not about bein black. It’s about bein human. Liberals have for 50 years focused incessantly on the foundationally incidental racial component in order to very successfully manufacture a permanently dependent voting demographic. Intact faithful families mean self supporting people MOST of the time. A thing the liberal democrats especially CANNOT have if they intend to stay in office.
Once ANY person black or white (or any other color) develops enough character to see that they’ve been manipulated and used and manage to get their lips off the teats of the soul crushing nanny state, they never go back. Not the ones I know anyway.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Both of you seem to be missing the point. You are discussing some SUBJECTIVE opinion of what a “strong family” even is. Unless one of you provides some proof of this, you are speaking out of your ass.
[/quote]
It’s not subjective no. If a man impregnates a woman then leaves her to raise the kid by herself then clearly the family unit has broken down. And if you claim that a 15-year-old girl raising a child by herself is the same as a married couple raising a child then you need to explain the correlations with crime, health, education etc. that studies have indicated every since the Moynihan report.[/quote]
? Your personal idea of what a “strong family” is would be SUBJECTIVE. There is no OBJECTIVE criteria you are using. If there were, you would have written it by now.
A broken family does not equal “weak family”. The parents could be separated and still love the kids and provide for them in stable households. You are claiming they can’t?
[quote]Professor X wrote:<<< You are claiming they can’t?[/quote]I am. It is a disastrously traumatic life altering experience with overwhelmingly deleterious effects just about every time. We used to KNOW that as a society, but now that we don’t? Well, we get Detroit. YOUR definitions are subjective Doc. This culture was founded, prospered and thrived on the new testament model of marriage, sex and family. Your demand for “proof” is like these jackasses that worship laboratory studies for their info on nutrition and weight training when you and I both KNOW what works by the results. How many times did we have that discussion with how many gym noobs? It’s in plain site everywhere.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:<<< You are claiming they can’t?[/quote]I am. It is a disastrously traumatic life altering experience with overwhelmingly deleterious effects just about every time. We used to KNOW that as a society, but now that we don’t? Well, we get Detroit. YOUR definitions are subjective Doc. This culture was founded, prospered and thrived on the new testament model of marriage, sex and family. Your demand for “proof” is like these jackasses that worship laboratory studies for their info on nutrition and weight training when you and I both KNOW what works by the results. How many times did we have that discussion with how many gym noobs? It’s in plain site everywhere.
[/quote]
Bullshit. What if they never get married in the first place?
What is traumatic if there was no marriage?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
? Your personal idea of what a “strong family” is would be SUBJECTIVE. There is no OBJECTIVE criteria you are using. If there were, you would have written it by now.
[/quote]
I’m saying a strong family is one where the father contributes to the upbringing of the children and is a loving husband and father. If you want to deny that, then you have to explain the correlations with crime, health, education etc. that are clearly evident and that I have posted statistics on. That’s where we’re at and there’s no point in going around in circles.
[quote]
A broken family does not equal “weak family”. The parents could be separated and still love the kids and provide for them in stable households. You are claiming they can’t?[/quote]
I’m saying it’s harder for a single mother to raise a child on her own. Many do an excellent job despite the difficulties. Are you saying that 70%+ of black children born out of wedlock is not a problem? If you are, then again you need to explain the correlations.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:<<< You are claiming they can’t?[/quote]I am. It is a disastrously traumatic life altering experience with overwhelmingly deleterious effects just about every time. We used to KNOW that as a society, but now that we don’t? Well, we get Detroit. YOUR definitions are subjective Doc. This culture was founded, prospered and thrived on the new testament model of marriage, sex and family. Your demand for “proof” is like these jackasses that worship laboratory studies for their info on nutrition and weight training when you and I both KNOW what works by the results. How many times did we have that discussion with how many gym noobs? It’s in plain site everywhere.
[/quote]
Bullshit. What if they never get married in the first place?
What is traumatic if there was no marriage?[/quote]Are you actually making the case that a child growing up in an intact faithful loving family consisting of his or her own parents, themselves and their siblings is not in every way and on every level more advantageous and healthy than one growing with no family structure? Is that what I’m hearing?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:<<< You are claiming they can’t?[/quote]I am. It is a disastrously traumatic life altering experience with overwhelmingly deleterious effects just about every time. We used to KNOW that as a society, but now that we don’t? Well, we get Detroit. YOUR definitions are subjective Doc. This culture was founded, prospered and thrived on the new testament model of marriage, sex and family. Your demand for “proof” is like these jackasses that worship laboratory studies for their info on nutrition and weight training when you and I both KNOW what works by the results. How many times did we have that discussion with how many gym noobs? It’s in plain site everywhere.
[/quote]
Bullshit. What if they never get married in the first place?
What is traumatic if there was no marriage?[/quote]Are you actually making the case that a child growing up in an intact faithful loving family consisting of his or her own parents, themselves and their siblings is not in every way and on every level more advantageous and healthy than one growing with no family structure? Is that what I’m hearing? [/quote]
I think X is just bucking the norm of marriage here. At least I’m reading it as saying “if a family lived together for 30 years raising children with strong values in a house full of love and trust, but the parents never married would that change the outcome than if the same couple had married?”
At least that is where I think he is going.
Basically: do you have to say “I do” to achieve the same results?
I actually do not think that is what he’s saying. We’ll see.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:<<< You are claiming they can’t?[/quote]I am. It is a disastrously traumatic life altering experience with overwhelmingly deleterious effects just about every time. We used to KNOW that as a society, but now that we don’t? Well, we get Detroit. YOUR definitions are subjective Doc. This culture was founded, prospered and thrived on the new testament model of marriage, sex and family. Your demand for “proof” is like these jackasses that worship laboratory studies for their info on nutrition and weight training when you and I both KNOW what works by the results. How many times did we have that discussion with how many gym noobs? It’s in plain site everywhere.
[/quote]
Bullshit. What if they never get married in the first place?
What is traumatic if there was no marriage?[/quote]Are you actually making the case that a child growing up in an intact faithful loving family consisting of his or her own parents, themselves and their siblings is not in every way and on every level more advantageous and healthy than one growing with no family structure? Is that what I’m hearing? [/quote]
I think X is just bucking the norm of marriage here. At least I’m reading it as saying “if a family lived together for 30 years raising children with strong values in a house full of love and trust, but the parents never married would that change the outcome than if the same couple had married?”
At least that is where I think he is going.
Basically: do you have to say “I do” to achieve the same results?
[/quote]
Uhm, of course this is what I am saying. I am speaking english here and it seems that only a few speak the same languaga. The rest apparently just see “a black guy arguing with white guys”.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’m saying a strong family is one where the father contributes to the upbringing of the children and is a loving husband and father. If you want to deny that, then you have to explain the correlations with crime, health, education etc. that are clearly evident and that I have posted statistics on. That’s where we’re at and there’s no point in going around in circles.
[/quote]
Why would he have to be a HUSBAND to be a contributing loving father who takes care of his kids?
Yes, I sure as hell do deny that you have to be a HUSBAND to pull that off.
Mind you, some of you seem to be acting as if the idea of a HUSBAND who beats his wife and hates his kids but stays married is somehow better than a FAMILY where they don’t get married and there is nothing but love between them.
How strange. It seems some of you care more about MARRIAGE than HAPPINESS.
[quote]Professor X wrote:<<< where they don’t get married and there is nothing but love between them. >>>[/quote]Where do you see these. I have been around and I don’t think I’ve ever seen one. Also, I won’t bother to quote you saying the opposite of this a day or two ago because I don’t think it would do any good. People can look back and see if they want to.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Why would he have to be a HUSBAND to be a contributing loving father who takes care of his kids?
Yes, I sure as hell do deny that you have to be a HUSBAND to pull that off.[/quote]
Okay, let’s talk absentee fathers - husband or not. Surely you’re not saying that a father who leaves his wife/girlfriend to raise a kid by herself is okay? Surely you’re not claiming there is not an epidemic of such families in the black community? Note, this will be my last attempt.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Why would he have to be a HUSBAND to be a contributing loving father who takes care of his kids?
Yes, I sure as hell do deny that you have to be a HUSBAND to pull that off.[/quote]
Okay, let’s talk absentee fathers - husband or not. Surely you’re not saying that a father who leaves his wife/girlfriend to raise a kid by herself is okay? Surely you’re not claiming there is not an epidemic of such families in the black community? Note, this will be my last attempt.[/quote]
Where is the stat for that?
Of black single moms, how often is it the case the father is absent vs the parents simply aren’t married or are in an alternate arrangement?
