The Real Root Causes of Violent Crime: The Breakdown of Marriage, Family, and Community

[JohnEngelman]

Most of it sounds good to today's Democrat Party as well.

And to a large segment of the American people, especially young people.

------------

Democrats More Positive About Socialism Than Capitalism, Gallup, AUGUST 13, 2018​

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- For the first time in Gallup's measurement over the past decade, Democrats have a more positive image of socialism than they do of capitalism. Attitudes toward socialism among Democrats have not changed materially since 2010, with 57% today having a positive view. The major change among Democrats has been a less upbeat attitude toward capitalism, dropping to 47% positive this year -- lower than in any of the three previous measures...

Fewer Than Half of Young Americans View Capitalism Positively

Americans aged 18 to 29 are [more] positive about socialism (51%) [than] they are about capitalism (45%).

https://news.gallup.com/poll/240725/democrats-positive-socialism-capitalism.aspx

 

[YDB95]

“A Clash of Police Policies,” a column written by Thomas Sowell, presents some readily available statistics:

Correlation is not causation.

Academics and the media blame poverty and discrimination for today’s crime. No one bothers to ask why crime was falling in the 1930s, ’40s, and ’50s, when blacks faced far greater poverty and discrimination.

Not true. There have literally been dozens if not hundreds of books written about exactly that topic. You just don't want to consider those other perspectives.

The 1960s riots were blamed on poverty and discrimination. Poverty and discrimination were worse in the South than in the rest of the country, but riots were not nearly so common there...

There were fewer big cities in the South, especially back in the '60s.

You're the idiot. The Democrat Party of today has morphed into the New Communist Party. Show me the major between the Democrat party platform and that of the CPUSA.

You made the claim, you back it up with something other than your usual bucketloads of attitude.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Correlation is not causation.

Not true. There have literally been dozens if not hundreds of books written about exactly that topic. You just don't want to consider those other perspectives.


There were fewer big cities in the South, especially back in the '60s.

You made the claim, you back it up with something other than your usual bucketloads of attitude.

I can explain why increases in black crime and illegitimacy, and five years of black ghetto rioting followed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the War on Poverty. You can't.

The increase in black social pathology happened because punishment became less frequent and less server, and welfare benefits became more generous and easier to qualify for.

 

[YDB95]

I can explain why increases in black crime and illegitimacy, and five years of black ghetto rioting followed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the War on Poverty. You can't.

Wrong. You've got a hypothesis that you are convinced is correct because it fits with your racist beliefs. I could provide any number of studies that provide better-supported answers, but everyone here knows you would ignore them.

The increase in black social pathology happened because punishment became less frequent and less server, and welfare benefits became more generous and easier to qualify for.

Anyone who believes that 1) has never tried living on welfare, and 2) is willfully ignorant of how the cops treat Black Americans in general today.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Wrong. You've got a hypothesis that you are convinced is correct because it fits with your racist beliefs. I could provide any number of studies that provide better-supported answers, but everyone here knows you would ignore them.


Anyone who believes that 1) has never tried living on welfare, and 2) is willfully ignorant of how the cops treat Black Americans in general today.

When Aid for Families with Dependent Children was introduced during the 1930's as part of the New Deal, it was specifically restricted to widows, deserted wives, and their legitimate children.

Unmarried women and their illegitimate children became eligible with the War on Poverty. Illegitimacy rates soared. A coincidence? I think not.

I am always willing to listen to a good argument, and usually to a bad argument - which is the reason I am responding to your comment.

Good arguments are not what I get here, only insults and name calling. Calling me a racist does not in any way disprove the validity my criticisms of the social reforms of the Great Society.

Those who continue to blame the increase in black social pathology on white racism cannot explain why black social pathology became worse after 1963. I can.

The woke perspective can only thrive when opposing views are suppressed.

 

[YDB95]

When Aid for Families with Dependent Children was introduced during the 1930's as part of the New Deal, it was specifically restricted to widows, deserted wives, and their legitimate children.

Unmarried women and their illegitimate children became eligible with the War on Poverty. Illegitimacy rates soared. A coincidence? I think not.

Of course you don't. You're ignoring the fact that at that same time, second-wave feminism and the sexual revolution were helping put an end to the stigma of out-of-wedlock births, and that what really soared was not the rate of illegitimacy but rather of reported illegitimacy. Before then, people lied about their daughters going to "visit her aunt in the Midwest" and then put the baby up for adoption, or raise hir to think hir mother was really hir sister.

AFDC is better than nothing, but it does not pay enough for anyone to choose to have a baby they otherwise wouldn't have - and never has.

I am always willing to listen to a good argument,

No, you're not. You always just respond with "What have I ever said that isn't true?", ignoring the fact that I and others have answered that dozens of times already.

Good arguments are not what I get here, only insults and name calling.

As I said, that is because you always just ignore a good argument. Why bother?

Calling me a racist does not in any way disprove the validity my criticisms of the social reforms of the Great Society.

Which is why I explained above why you've got it all wrong.

Those who continue to blame the increase in black social pathology on white racism cannot explain why black social pathology became worse after 1963. I can.

You can put forth your simplistic, racist hypothesis as many times as you want. In no way does that prove you've got the answer or that others haven't.

The woke perspective can only thrive when opposing views are suppressed.

The racist perspective really, really wants to claim victimhood.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Of course you don't. You're ignoring the fact that at that same time, second-wave feminism and the sexual revolution were helping put an end to the stigma of out-of-wedlock births, and that what really soared was not the rate of illegitimacy but rather of reported illegitimacy. Before then, people lied about their daughters going to "visit her aunt in the Midwest" and then put the baby up for adoption, or raise hir to think hir mother was really hir sister.

You are denying statistics that you choose not to believe.



You resemble ll74, who likes to pretend that since 1990 blacks have miraculously closed the IQ gap.


They haven't. The least intelligent people in the United States, and the world, are having the most children. A high percentage of them are illegitimate, and subsist on welfare. While this is happening computer technology and automation are eliminating the jobs most people have the intelligence to learn. If this continues, a growing percentage of people will be congenitally incapable of doing anything useful for a living. Human evolution is taking a U turn.

 

[JohnEngelman]

No, you're not. You always just respond with "What have I ever said that isn't true?", ignoring the fact that I and others have answered that dozens of times already.

As I said, that is because you always just ignore a good argument. Why bother?

Which is why I explained above why you've got it all wrong.

You can put forth your simplistic, racist hypothesis as many times as you want. In no way does that prove you've got the answer or that others haven't.

The racist perspective really, really wants to claim victimhood.

You have not presented any facts. You just keep jumping up and down yelling "Racist! Racist! Racist!" I present facts that I document.

Calling me a racist is not a good argument. It proves that good arguments on your side of the dispute are impossible.

 

[VinnyVeritas]

You have not presented any facts. You just keep jumping up and down yelling "Racist! Racist! Racist!" I present facts that I document.

Calling me a racist is not a good argument. It proves that good arguments on your side of the dispute are impossible.

It is their essential argument, a way to virtue-signal their Social Justice mores which makes them better people than you or I. When Racist is your go-to to shut down discussion, then you do not need to think, debate or even provide proof. All that you have to do in the minds of so many Leftists is to scream it loud and long, spike the ball and declare victory (over Racism).

Facts are meaningless when you have such a serious charge with which to shut down give and take.

You say, "Man, it's a nice day outside," and the obligatory rejoinder is, "That's because you're a Racist making it a miserable day outside for minorities, women, children, the elderly, the handicapped, the sensitive, the "educated" liberal snowflakes like me...,"

 

[schism666]

You say, "Man, it's a nice day outside," and the obligatory rejoinder is, "That's because you're a Racist making it a miserable day outside for minorities, women, children, the elderly, the handicapped, the sensitive, the "educated" liberal snowflakes like me...,"

sounds ruff.

 

[JohnEngelman]

It is their essential argument, a way to virtue-signal their Social Justice mores which makes them better people than you or I. When Racist is your go-to to shut down discussion, then you do not need to think, debate or even provide proof. All that you have to do in the minds of so many Leftists is to scream it loud and long, spike the ball and declare victory (over Racism).

Facts are meaningless when you have such a serious charge with which to shut down give and take.

You say, "Man, it's a nice day outside," and the obligatory rejoinder is, "That's because you're a Racist making it a miserable day outside for minorities, women, children, the elderly, the handicapped, the sensitive, the "educated" liberal snowflakes like me...,"

 

[VinnyVeritas]

Funny. Good one.

 

[LLCox]

A friend of mine had a picture on his wall of a black baby in a swaddling blanket. The caption was, " good kid gone bad." But the REAL problem is money. If you will notice when mothers had to stop raising children and had to go to work to help support the family that was before only needing the father to work. It changed the whole dynamic to latch key children no matter what the color of their skin.

 

[JohnEngelman]

A friend of mine had a picture on his wall of a black baby in a swaddling blanket. The caption was, " good kid gone bad." But the REAL problem is money. If you will notice when mothers had to stop raising children and had to go to work to help support the family that was before only needing the father to work. It changed the whole dynamic to latch key children no matter what the color of their skin.

Both my parents worked. I turned out reasonably well. At least I did not become a criminal. Criminals frequently do not know who their fathers are. Even their mothers are not sure.

 

[LLCox]

Both my parents worked. I turned out reasonably well. At least I did not become a criminal. Criminals frequently do not know who their fathers are. Even their mothers are not sure.

My mother started working as soon as me and my brother left home. I became a Heathen in college.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Both my parents worked. I turned out reasonably well. At least I did not become a criminal. Criminals frequently do not know who their fathers are. Even their mothers are not sure.

You turned out a racist piece of shit, that's hardly what I would call reasonably well. You aren't even apologetic about it.

 

[JohnEngelman]

You turned out a racist piece of shit, that's hardly what I would call reasonably well. You aren't even apologetic about it.

There is nothing for me to apologize for.

My racism consists of, and is restricted to, expecting most blacks to behave as well as most whites, and not making excuses for them if they do not.

Most blacks are less intelligent than most whites. That is not their fault. It is they way they were born, so I do not hold it against them. Nevertheless, we white folks do not force them to commit all those crimes. We do not force them to have all those illegitimate children that we are expected to support on welfare.

Evidence of my good upbringing can be seen in the facts that I do not insult those I disagree with, and I do not use obscene words.

Oh, by the way, my parents taught me not to hate blacks. I still don't, unless they earn my hatred.

 

[YDB95]

You are denying statistics that you choose not to believe.

View attachment 2208613

No, I have explained why 1) those statistics are unreliable, and 2) even if they were exactly right, that wouldn't prove it was a direct result of expanding AFDC to unwed mothers; there were other factors. And I have done so repeatedly, too.

You resemble ll74, who likes to pretend that since 1990 blacks have miraculously closed the IQ gap.

He and I both have explained repeatedly that that is not the issue, and you know it.

You have not presented any facts. You just keep jumping up and down yelling "Racist! Racist! Racist!" I present facts that I document.

Wrong. That's just what you always say when I do present facts (in this case, the fact that expanding AFDC to illegitimate children wasn't the only factor in the change in illegitimacy rates). No matter how well documented, you always just accuse your opponent of only calling you a racist. We do call you that because you are the very epitome of racist, but that's not all we say.

Calling me a racist is not a good argument. It proves that good arguments on your side of the dispute are impossible.

In your mind, no doubt!

 

[ll74]

You resemble ll74, who likes to pretend that since 1990 blacks have miraculously closed the IQ gap.

I've never pretended anything. Youve claimed there is no significant difference in the last thirty years and yet have never provided data that proves that claim. I merely pointed out that you're making arguments with evidence that is outdated.

 

[JohnEngelman]

No, I have explained why 1) those statistics are unreliable, and 2) even if they were exactly right, that wouldn't prove it was a direct result of expanding AFDC to unwed mothers; there were other factors. And I have done so repeatedly, too.


He and I both have explained repeatedly that that is not the issue, and you know it.

Wrong. That's just what you always say when I do present facts (in this case, the fact that expanding AFDC to illegitimate children wasn't the only factor in the change in illegitimacy rates). No matter how well documented, you always just accuse your opponent of only calling you a racist. We do call you that because you are the very epitome of racist, but that's not all we say.

In your mind, no doubt!

What matters is that black rates of illegitimacy and crime have gotten worse since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, and since the War on Poverty was declared the same year.

This cannot be blamed on white racism. It confirms arguments against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the War on Poverty when both were debated.

 

[YDB95]

What matters is that black rates of illegitimacy and crime have gotten worse since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, and since the War on Poverty was declared the same year.

But that's not what you said. What you said was that they were the direct cause of illegitimacy rates going up. Which is nonsense.

This cannot be blamed on white racism. It confirms arguments against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the War on Poverty when both were debated.

Well, it does if you're a racist anyway.

 

[JohnEngelman]

But that's not what you said. What you said was that they were the direct cause of illegitimacy rates going up. Which is nonsense.

I certainly think the increase in illegitimacy for blacks and whites is a serious problem, for reasons I have stated.

 

[ll74]

I certainly think the increase in illegitimacy for blacks and whites is a serious problem, for reasons I have stated.

Deflection.

He refuted your claim and you ignored it.

Address the claim or stop with the bullshit.

 

[Sean Renaud]

What matters is that black rates of illegitimacy and crime have gotten worse since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, and since the War on Poverty was declared the same year.

This cannot be blamed on white racism. It confirms arguments against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the War on Poverty when both were debated.

Yes it very much can be blamed on white racism.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Yes it very much can be blamed on white racism.

How can the increase in black social pathology be blamed on white racism, when blacks behaved better when they were discriminated against?