Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

More blacks in college or in jail?

wamba
Posts: 688
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2011 1:26:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/5/2011 1:24:16 AM, PoeJoe wrote:
Why the sudden interest in racial studies?

(for the record, your very own chart w/r/t avg. penis size)

It's interesting to me to talk about different racial stereotypes, problems, etc.

It get's people offended/excited/etc. It's typically conversation that's uncomfortable to talk about in real life and thus a needed discussion to have over the internet.

Also feel free to talk about any racial stereotypes of my race as I think it would be ridiculously interesting.
wamba
Posts: 688
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2011 1:26:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/5/2011 1:24:39 AM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 1/5/2011 1:24:16 AM, PoeJoe wrote:
(for the record, you misread your very own chart w/r/t avg. penis size)

how so?
wamba
Posts: 688
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2011 1:28:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/5/2011 1:26:51 AM, wamba wrote:
At 1/5/2011 1:24:39 AM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 1/5/2011 1:24:16 AM, PoeJoe wrote:
(for the record, you misread your very own chart w/r/t avg. penis size)

how so?

yar I did (re-looked at the chart)
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2011 1:57:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
So we are only looking at black men? Why not all blacks? Or how about all blacks aged 18 - 35? Because they show different results?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
wamba
Posts: 688
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2011 2:01:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/5/2011 1:57:41 AM, OreEle wrote:
So we are only looking at black men? Why not all blacks? Or how about all blacks aged 18 - 35? Because they show different results?

Because black women do not commit crime at such a high degree and thus it's not a societal problem?

The age range that measures the amount of blacks in prison is identical to the age range of most college attendees.

Even taking out the age statistic and looking at the fact that 1/3 of black males will have been in jail at one point. It's still ridiculously significant and I think merits discussion.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2011 9:49:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/5/2011 1:26:27 AM, wamba wrote:
It get's people offended/excited/etc. It's typically conversation that's uncomfortable to talk about in real life and thus a needed discussion to have over the internet.

Also feel free to talk about any racial stereotypes of my race as I think it would be ridiculously interesting.

Talking about stereotypes is basically the same as talking about pop culture or a high-school rumor. It's just several people recycling the same idea that already exists through the group.

Stereotypes often have some sort of foundation, legitimate or otherwise, and depending on whether it is positive or negative, get blown up by the media and perpetuated by whoever has the power to send the message and by the size of the group of people receptive to that message.

That's why western media controls the world. "default" human is White, as defined by whites. That's why stereotypes really don't exist for them. Without stereotypes, there are no glass ceilings either. So they maintain control.

As for being offensive/exciting, I agree that it can be both. But there's a point of offensiveness when there really seems to be no point in continuing with a discussion involving stereotypes, namely when you are of the group being stereotyped and everyone else is not. I felt that way during my brief participation in the "40% Asian" topic. The offensiveness had nothing to do with the stereotype though, it was more so the fact that the stereotypes were so ingrained, that "statistics" were being deliberately interpreted in a faulty manner just to substantiate them, and normally intelligent people seem to abandon their critical thinking skills in favor of defending them.

Stereotypes are memes, not points of discussion.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2011 9:56:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/5/2011 2:01:56 AM, wamba wrote:
It's still ridiculously significant and I think merits discussion.

I agree, but what would you like to discuss? The roots of the problem? Potential solutions?
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2011 9:58:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/5/2011 9:49:05 AM, Kleptin wrote:
Stereotypes are memes, not points of discussion.

The point of discussion wasn't meant to be a stereotype but the statistics.
President of DDO
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2011 10:03:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/5/2011 9:58:29 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 1/5/2011 9:49:05 AM, Kleptin wrote:
Stereotypes are memes, not points of discussion.

The point of discussion wasn't meant to be a stereotype but the statistics.

The intention of the topic can differ from what the conversation actually turns into.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2011 10:08:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/5/2011 10:03:49 AM, Kleptin wrote:
At 1/5/2011 9:58:29 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 1/5/2011 9:49:05 AM, Kleptin wrote:
Stereotypes are memes, not points of discussion.

The point of discussion wasn't meant to be a stereotype but the statistics.

The intention of the topic can differ from what the conversation actually turns into.

That's why I asked him what his intention was instead of just assuming it was going to turn into a racial tirade. I asked if he wanted to try and find the root, or talk about potential solutions, etc. Most non-liberals are extremely insensitive to racial issues; I'm curious to hear what his entire point is. Surely he doesn't believe in affirmative action, or giving more financial help to low-income families and neighborhoods (the primary cause for such crime) so I'm wondering what he's getting at.
President of DDO
wamba
Posts: 688
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2011 10:52:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm just interested in hearing other's potential solutions to the problem. As it is clearly a huge problem in the U.S.

My opinion is that the state should expand highschools into boarding schools for students with bad homelives. I think this should be done for students who have bad homelives as a way to break the cycle.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2011 11:01:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
My opinion is that the state should expand highschools into boarding schools for students with bad homelives. I think this should be done for students who have bad homelives as a way to break the cycle.:

1. What constitutes a bad home life?
2. Who is going to pay for the boarding school?
3. By sending only black kids to boarding school, will it give the impression of "separate but equal?"
4. How will your plan help?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
wamba
Posts: 688
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2011 11:18:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/5/2011 11:01:54 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
My opinion is that the state should expand highschools into boarding schools for students with bad homelives. I think this should be done for students who have bad homelives as a way to break the cycle.:

1. What constitutes a bad home life?
2. Who is going to pay for the boarding school?
3. By sending only black kids to boarding school, will it give the impression of "separate but equal?"
4. How will your plan help?

1. Parent in jail, family on welfare
2. Taxpayers
3. Not sending only blacks anyone who meets criteria in number one
4. It will provide stable authority figures who discipline children and instill ethics and hardwork.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2011 11:29:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/5/2011 11:18:54 AM, wamba wrote:
At 1/5/2011 11:01:54 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
My opinion is that the state should expand highschools into boarding schools for students with bad homelives. I think this should be done for students who have bad homelives as a way to break the cycle.:

1. What constitutes a bad home life?
2. Who is going to pay for the boarding school?
3. By sending only black kids to boarding school, will it give the impression of "separate but equal?"
4. How will your plan help?

1. Parent in jail, family on welfare

This covers an awful lot of successful single-mother households where the father is in jail.

2. Taxpayers
3. Not sending only blacks anyone who meets criteria in number one
4. It will provide stable authority figures who discipline children and instill ethics and hardwork.

Judging from the authority figures in foster care (where 75% of kids in the system experience sexual abuse http://www.hg.org...) this doesn't seem all that smart.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
wamba
Posts: 688
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2011 11:35:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/5/2011 11:29:58 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 1/5/2011 11:18:54 AM, wamba wrote:
1. Parent in jail, family on welfare

This covers an awful lot of successful single-mother households where the father is in jail.

define "an awful lot"

Judging from the authority figures in foster care (where 75% of kids in the system experience sexual abuse http://www.hg.org...) this doesn't seem all that smart.

Sort of a difference between foster care parents and school teachers.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2011 11:40:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/5/2011 11:35:27 AM, wamba wrote:
At 1/5/2011 11:29:58 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 1/5/2011 11:18:54 AM, wamba wrote:
1. Parent in jail, family on welfare

This covers an awful lot of successful single-mother households where the father is in jail.

define "an awful lot"

That statistic isn't readily available, but it seems coercive to say that if your husband is in jail, even if he abandoned the family, that that means your kid can't live with you.

Judging from the authority figures in foster care (where 75% of kids in the system experience sexual abuse http://www.hg.org...) this doesn't seem all that smart.

Sort of a difference between foster care parents and school teachers.

I don't know a whole lot of inner city school teachers who would be willing to live in dorms with their students. You'd have to find a different group of people to proctor the kids at night; at least, that was my assumption. Otherwise, you've taken an already undesirable job for teachers and made it much worse without enough more compensation.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2011 11:52:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/5/2011 11:40:52 AM, bluesteel wrote:
it seems coercive to say that if your husband is in jail, even if he abandoned the family, that that means your kid can't live with you.

Coersion seems necessary with the statistics presented.

I don't know a whole lot of inner city school teachers who would be willing to live in dorms with their students. You'd have to find a different group of people to proctor the kids at night; at least, that was my assumption. Otherwise, you've taken an already undesirable job for teachers and made it much worse without enough more compensation.

The teachers of boarding school would receive higher compensations to fill the demand.
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2011 12:05:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/5/2011 11:40:52 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 1/5/2011 11:35:27 AM, wamba wrote:
At 1/5/2011 11:29:58 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 1/5/2011 11:18:54 AM, wamba wrote:
1. Parent in jail, family on welfare

This covers an awful lot of successful single-mother households where the father is in jail.

define "an awful lot"

That statistic isn't readily available, but it seems coercive to say that if your husband is in jail, even if he abandoned the family, that that means your kid can't live with you.

Judging from the authority figures in foster care (where 75% of kids in the system experience sexual abuse http://www.hg.org...) this doesn't seem all that smart.

Sort of a difference between foster care parents and school teachers.

I don't know a whole lot of inner city school teachers who would be willing to live in dorms with their students. You'd have to find a different group of people to proctor the kids at night; at least, that was my assumption. Otherwise, you've taken an already undesirable job for teachers and made it much worse without enough more compensation.

It would have to be a transition. Like starting with the elementary school students that are in "trouble" families, rather then the high schools. Then as those elementary school kids graduate, you extend the program to include some middle schools, then then some high schools.

However, I believe that the border schools ought only be done if both parents are having issues (dad's in jail and mom's spending all day getting high rather then working). If dad's in jail, but mom's working hard (just struggling because she has the responsibility of both parents now), then a middle ground ought be found. Like an extended school, one that goes from 7 am to 5 pm (plenty of time for mom to have a full time job and even a little "me" after that job before the kids get home), and maybe in-home tutors that help with both school would and work ethic (though if school is that long, homework ought be limited).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
wamba
Posts: 688
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2011 12:34:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/5/2011 12:05:38 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/5/2011 11:40:52 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 1/5/2011 11:35:27 AM, wamba wrote:
At 1/5/2011 11:29:58 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 1/5/2011 11:18:54 AM, wamba wrote:
1. Parent in jail, family on welfare

This covers an awful lot of successful single-mother households where the father is in jail.

define "an awful lot"

That statistic isn't readily available, but it seems coercive to say that if your husband is in jail, even if he abandoned the family, that that means your kid can't live with you.

Judging from the authority figures in foster care (where 75% of kids in the system experience sexual abuse http://www.hg.org...) this doesn't seem all that smart.

Sort of a difference between foster care parents and school teachers.

I don't know a whole lot of inner city school teachers who would be willing to live in dorms with their students. You'd have to find a different group of people to proctor the kids at night; at least, that was my assumption. Otherwise, you've taken an already undesirable job for teachers and made it much worse without enough more compensation.

It would have to be a transition. Like starting with the elementary school students that are in "trouble" families, rather then the high schools. Then as those elementary school kids graduate, you extend the program to include some middle schools, then then some high schools.

However, I believe that the border schools ought only be done if both parents are having issues (dad's in jail and mom's spending all day getting high rather then working). If dad's in jail, but mom's working hard (just struggling because she has the responsibility of both parents now), then a middle ground ought be found. Like an extended school, one that goes from 7 am to 5 pm (plenty of time for mom to have a full time job and even a little "me" after that job before the kids get home), and maybe in-home tutors that help with both school would and work ethic (though if school is that long, homework ought be limited).

I agree with this completely.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2011 12:45:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Back in the day our parents took care of us. Look at em now - they even fvckin scared of us. Callin the city for help cuz they can't maintain - damn, sh!t done changed. If I wasn't in the rap game, I'd probably have a key knee deep in the crack game. Because the streets is a short stop - Either you're slinging crack rock or you got a wicked jump shot -- Biggie

The trend seems to be that even if you put the best teachers and send exorbitant amounts of funding to inner city kids, their home life simply overshadows anything that can be done school-wise. Kids are like sponges and absorb everything around them. They're going to be more fascinated by gang life and educated about life in the projects as compared to wanting to go home and do math homework.

One suggestion I'd have is instead of putting all of these low-income people in housing projects (and using rent control in some of the most popular and expensive housing districts of big cities) to send them to the midwest instead and hook them up with jobs, even if it's small wage labor. It's SO cheap to live in the midwest as compared to places like NY. People can actually live off a minimum wage job... maybe not become home-owners, but at least afford rent and get by without relying on the government. This would change and improve a lot of the social aspects of their lives and be most advantageous socially and economically.
President of DDO
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2011 1:29:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/5/2011 12:45:59 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Back in the day our parents took care of us. Look at em now - they even fvckin scared of us. Callin the city for help cuz they can't maintain - damn, sh!t done changed. If I wasn't in the rap game, I'd probably have a key knee deep in the crack game. Because the streets is a short stop - Either you're slinging crack rock or you got a wicked jump shot -- Biggie

The trend seems to be that even if you put the best teachers and send exorbitant amounts of funding to inner city kids, their home life simply overshadows anything that can be done school-wise. Kids are like sponges and absorb everything around them. They're going to be more fascinated by gang life and educated about life in the projects as compared to wanting to go home and do math homework.

One suggestion I'd have is instead of putting all of these low-income people in housing projects (and using rent control in some of the most popular and expensive housing districts of big cities) to send them to the midwest instead and hook them up with jobs, even if it's small wage labor. It's SO cheap to live in the midwest as compared to places like NY. People can actually live off a minimum wage job... maybe not become home-owners, but at least afford rent and get by without relying on the government. This would change and improve a lot of the social aspects of their lives and be most advantageous socially and economically.

I don't know why they are living inner city to begin with. It is not cheap to live inner city. Move out to the suburbs where you can get a 2 bed 2 bath apartment for $600 a month (at least that is what it is here in the Portland area, and I'm sure some places are even cheaper). That gets you out of inner city schools and out of inner city crime.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2011 1:42:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/5/2011 1:29:04 PM, OreEle wrote:
I don't know why they are living inner city to begin with.

Because the government subsidizes their housing and they get to live there practically rent-free. It's public housing.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
President of DDO
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2011 1:53:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't know why they are living inner city to begin with. It is not cheap to live inner city. Move out to the suburbs where you can get a 2 bed 2 bath apartment for $600 a month (at least that is what it is here in the Portland area, and I'm sure some places are even cheaper). That gets you out of inner city schools and out of inner city crime.:

People don't move to the inner city, the inner city moves around them. Often their family has lived in that area for several generations. Eventually developers come in with newer apartment complexes and homes, driving the once cheap property value higher and higher.

Some just stay because it's the only home they know.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2011 1:56:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/5/2011 1:42:40 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 1/5/2011 1:29:04 PM, OreEle wrote:
I don't know why they are living inner city to begin with.

Because the government subsidizes their housing and they get to live there practically rent-free. It's public housing.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

until gentrification hits their neighborhood
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2011 2:03:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't know why they are living inner city to begin with. It is not cheap to live inner city. Move out to the suburbs where you can get a 2 bed 2 bath apartment for $600 a month (at least that is what it is here in the Portland area, and I'm sure some places are even cheaper). That gets you out of inner city schools and out of inner city crime.:

I lived in Portland for a few years (I assume you're referring to Portland, OR). I can verify that Portland is cheap, but the economy sucks. Portland's unemployment has been consistently over 10% for close to a decade now. I can't even imagine it now that the world's economy has plummeted.

I lived on Division and 170th (Rockwood area) and it was ghetto as all hell. It didn't matter that it was close to Gresham, it was straight ghetto.

So, yeah, you can get cheap housing there, but it's cheap for a reason. Plus the cost of living versus income balances out. San Fransisco is ridiculously expensive, but their police officers start at like $85K, so it balances out. You can't just look at the cost of housing as the sole determing factor.

FACT: Portland, OR is the largest major city with the fewest amount of black people.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2011 5:32:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/5/2011 1:53:55 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I don't know why they are living inner city to begin with. It is not cheap to live inner city. Move out to the suburbs where you can get a 2 bed 2 bath apartment for $600 a month (at least that is what it is here in the Portland area, and I'm sure some places are even cheaper). That gets you out of inner city schools and out of inner city crime.:

People don't move to the inner city, the inner city moves around them. Often their family has lived in that area for several generations. Eventually developers come in with newer apartment complexes and homes, driving the once cheap property value higher and higher.

Some just stay because it's the only home they know.

They stay because the apartments are subsidized and/or rent-controlled by the government. As discussed, the cost of living varies by individual city. It doesn't make any sense for the government to sponsor public housing so poor people can live in NYC where pretty much everything (not only housing) is super expensive. To respond to the person before you, it's not the "inner city" that's bad. Cities have the most valuable property. It is specifically the GHETTOS (particularly public housing projects) within those cities that are bad. If you evicted the people who live there free, the apartments in those complexes would be worth bank as they would no longer be rent-controlled. With nowhere to go, those tenants should move to the midwest, get small jobs, live modestly and end a lot of the social problems. Putting a bunch of poor people together and keeping them poor is probably one of the worst "solutions" ever. Those are the perfect breeding grounds for gangs, which is where the drug/theft/crime culture comes from.
President of DDO
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2011 8:25:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/5/2011 5:32:20 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 1/5/2011 1:53:55 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I don't know why they are living inner city to begin with. It is not cheap to live inner city. Move out to the suburbs where you can get a 2 bed 2 bath apartment for $600 a month (at least that is what it is here in the Portland area, and I'm sure some places are even cheaper). That gets you out of inner city schools and out of inner city crime.:

People don't move to the inner city, the inner city moves around them. Often their family has lived in that area for several generations. Eventually developers come in with newer apartment complexes and homes, driving the once cheap property value higher and higher.

Some just stay because it's the only home they know.

They stay because the apartments are subsidized and/or rent-controlled by the government. As discussed, the cost of living varies by individual city. It doesn't make any sense for the government to sponsor public housing so poor people can live in NYC where pretty much everything (not only housing) is super expensive. To respond to the person before you, it's not the "inner city" that's bad. Cities have the most valuable property. It is specifically the GHETTOS (particularly public housing projects) within those cities that are bad. If you evicted the people who live there free, the apartments in those complexes would be worth bank as they would no longer be rent-controlled. With nowhere to go, those tenants should move to the midwest, get small jobs, live modestly and end a lot of the social problems. Putting a bunch of poor people together and keeping them poor is probably one of the worst "solutions" ever. Those are the perfect breeding grounds for gangs, which is where the drug/theft/crime culture comes from.

i agree with most of this but a program of shipping poor people off to the midwest seems politically unfeasible :P
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...