Often, when (most typically) defending criminal youth, their advocates will say something like, "This one mistake shouldn't affect the entire rest of his/her life."
What was the "mistake"? Often, it's something like one of these:

Armed robbery of a convenience store.
Assaulting a homeless person.
Driving way too fast and causing an accident.
Killing someone.
Stealing from his employer's inventory.

My problem is that none of these things are actual mistakes. A mistake is, literally, a missed take. A misunderstanding. Understood that way, none of the above crimes are mistakes.

One characteristic of a true mistake is that it involves, in part, a lack of intentionality. Consider some real mistakes:

I go around the house looking for my glasses until I realize to my chagrin that I'm already wearing them.
I ask someone how his father is doing, forgetting that his father had died.
I add 286+37,206 and come up with 37,493.
I show up at Josh's party in street clothes. It turns out to be a costume party.
I am wondering why my key isn't opening my car's door until I realize that it's not my car; it just looks like my car.

Have you ever thought about this? Do you agree with me?

Views: 1942

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Yes, I suggested you knew Murray’s work very well. His work needs to be shamed. As you have not refuted that he does promote racial eugenics I can only assume you concur with him. Once again, when you say you are “going to keep speaking the truth” you are still only expressing your own subjective opinion. This seems to be a fault of all those with fundamentalist right wing views, that they cannot tell the difference. You can claim ownership of the “Truth” all you want. However if the only evidence you use to support this “Truth” is from right wing extremists then I dismiss it.

Your attempt at belittling my opinion as “a pc soaked worldview” or me a “close minded liberal” only suggests to me that you are a Christian. At least that is the sort of vitriol I normal get from them.

How you come to see my suggestion that we “keep to the topic under discussion” as an “attempt to shutdown debate” is strange.

I have read all his works. He never promotes racial eugenics. If you're claiming he does, the burden of proof is on you. In "The Bell Curve", he explicitly states that he does NOT promote such policies.

Charles Murray is debunked numerous times. The American Behavioural Scientist has called his work fraudulent and even goes as far as suggesting that its authors must be well aware of the nature of the fraud. I can give you more academic opinions if you wish.

BTW, I am not talking about college educated black females. I am talking about black female from the projects. That should be self-evident from the context of this discussion; if it isn't, I will mention it explicitly.

But the dysgenic effect continues because college educated black females have a fertility of 21.8 per 1000, while black females from the projects have a fertility rate of 50.5 per 1000. And the dysgenic effect is multiplied because black females from the projects prefer to sleep with thugs.

WOW...that's some heavy racism you got going there.

Feminists support equality, right?

Then women should also be held equally accountable, just as men are. If a man is a poor father, he is shamed as a dead beat. Why is a women who is a trashy mother not held responsible and shamed? Are all women angels who have dropped from heaven?

Feminists support equality, right?

Back in the 60's during the civil rights movement I think 'equality' was the core concept...fast forward to today...WOW have times and core concepts changed when you listen to some of the more outspoken feminists.

The welfare state induces dysgenics. If you're a honest, hard working black man, black women from the projects will not give you the time of the day. If you're a drug-peddling thug with flash and bling, black women from the projects will line up to have sex with you.

Wow. You actually said that? 

I think there are (at least) two different cultures in the black community. The girls who grow up around gangsters, drop out of school, and take to the drug subculture will look for partners there. I work with a number of black women in that other black culture where they put in a day's work, pay their bills, and walk the straight and narrow. I don't think any of them are particularly attracted to men who deal, wear their pants below their ass cheeks, and like to show off ill-gotten bling.

"Wow. You actually said that? " - Yes :)

"I think there are (at least) two different cultures in the black community." - I agree. High IQ females with college degrees don't fall into the pattern I am talking about. I am talking about low IQ females with multi-generational dependency issues (females from the ghetto culture).

But females from the ghetto culture are out breeding highly educated black women by a significant amount. The rise in out of wedlock rates is primarily driven by this behavior.

Is there any evidence to show that people with an average IQ and a college degree are less likely to have multiple children with different partners than those with an average IQ and no college degree or is it only the extremes that make your point?

The black women I work with are not, to a person, college educated. White women don't need a college education to see the flaws and dead-endedness of drug and gangster culture. Why would it be different for black women? While I oppose Christianity for being without a factual basis, I think the church does largely account for the black women who don't want a wholesome boyfriend.


Black females from the ghetto have a fertility rate of 50 per 1000. Black college educated females have a fertility rate of 21 per 1000. Over many generations, this causes significant dysgenics.


© 2021   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service