Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Reply to "Trump DOJ to prosecute universities for anti-white affirmative action policies "
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous] PP here. I haven't skewed anything. Forty percent of births to unwed mothers in the US is fact. The cause of that is up for debate and your argument seems to be that the root cause is values. From there, you'd have to agree that the value of a family with married parents has gone down overall. Right? Are we still on the same page here?[/quote] Children born out of wedlock to single mothers is a rising trend for all races. Macro phenomenons like this have macro causes and indicates a shift in culture. I would argue that the bulk of this change in culture is due to the effects of new feminism and modern liberal/progressive mantra that regard traditional family structures as patriarchal and oppressive to women. Not only is there now little social stigma to single motherhood, but that it is somehow celebrated in certain circles as a sign of strength, rather than an undesirable condition. For blacks, the situation is far worse due to the problem of mass incarceration that is the result of the war on drugs, and the inclination for black urban leaders to ask for tougher sentencing laws back in the 90's. This has greatly destabilized urban areas to the detriment of AAs and Hispanics alike. The vicious cycle of fathers turned into criminals who then are not there to be role models for their kids leads to glorification of substitute male figures of those in sports/athletics and Hollywood. [quote=Anonymous] I would posit that there are lot of factors that bring down the value of marriage. Chief among them is the mental, emotional and financial preparation to enter into a long term contract. Fewer people - of all races - have that these days. When you have fewer resources - time and money, to be sure, but a whole lot of other socioeconomic supports that can't really be measured, like social capital - short term objectives like paying bills overwhelm one's ability to think long term. And if you've been married for a while, as I have, you know that long term thinking is prerequisite for long term marriage.[/quote] LOL, wat? There is nothing emotionally or financially draining about marriage. Quite contrary, formal monogamous marriage has been the default outcome of people all over the world despite a wide and varying degree of access to resources. Marriage is subject to limits of resources only insofar as the resources are prescribed by culture - dowry, male family providing primary residence, and etc. Even there, there is usually a high degree of flexibility in "trying your best" in these types of situations. People don't need to be rich or have access to resources to get married. I will agree that there is a lot of mental doubt that people have about marriage, which is leading them to marry less - this is a cultural shift, and not due to some basic lack of mental capacity or ability to commit to marriage. The doubt is sown in by people and organizations who espouse the ideals of being free to do anything and being spontaneous, while at the same time deriding traditional marriage as archaic or even detrimental. [quote=Anonymous] Long term thinking is not something you're born with. It's learned, and the learning requires proof of efficacy (i.e. real life examples) and it requires practice. I include myself among those who would say higher education provides practice. And you have a greater chance at success when there are examples all around you. Without acquiring the skill of long term thinking, mere survival compels your brain to think and act on short term objectives. So yes, I believe more kids, regardless of race or whether or not they have two married parents, should be getting access to higher education. Our economy, our culture, and our long term survival all need long term thinkers. [/quote] Once again, I would argue that the evidence does not agree with your ideas here. The poorest villages of remote China, India, and Africa practices monogamous and lifelong marriage as a default path for a person to take. You do not have to be highly educated to make good choices about whether or not marriage is a good idea. Marriage is a cultural manifestation of the monogamous inclinations of humans. It absolutely does not rely on education. [quote=Anonymous] If our culture valued education, there'd be greater emphasis on long term thinking in general and we'd include robust vocational training in our knowledge capital investments. We [i]don't [/i]value education. We sure as hell don't value merit. We'd very much like to keep the caste system we've got, and preserve the right to heap criticism on anyone with the temerity to break out of it. It's proven that poor white kids who get into elite schools also struggle. <<--If you want to eliminate race-based affirmative action, start paying attention to things like this.[/quote] But we *DO* value education and merit. I am not aware of a caste system, and I don't know anyone who isn't a fringe personality that would want to put a caste system in place. I know people would disagree with me, but I believe the US has one of the most practical system of education in the world and is one of the key reasons why our economy is so much stronger compared to other landmasses of similar size and population. [quote=Anonymous]And as I keep saying, you just can't do away with race-based affirmative action by making a race-based argument against it. Read your final paragraph above, maybe scratch your head a little bit, and see if you can figure out what I mean. Maybe your long term thinking can free itself of long-held race-based beliefs.[/quote]Why not? It was raced based argument that put affirmative action in place. Therefore it would take race-based arguments to eliminate it. [/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics