Quote:Everyone is responsible for their own reaction to these
Reactions will not undo the disadvantages of being born into poverty or being discriminated against or having no role models as a kid. They remain obstacles burned into their brains that even predetermine the will to react at all and how to react. Not everyone is ingrained with the ambition and self-confidence it takes to overcome their setbacks. In fact most aren't. That's what the disadvantages do. They prelimit the kind of person you become and sap you of your ability to better yourself. That's why outside help is needed. It is NOT a personal failing. It is a disadvantage that must be compensated for to get them even with those not born with them. That's why we continue to help the disadvantaged. Because they have little hope otherwise.
The only prolonged disadvantages are those inculcated in thinking and beliefs, which can be changed (but only by refusing to enable the excuses that promulgate them). And you can't really help someone who won't help themselves. They will just absorb any help, keep their self-limiting beliefs, and pass them on to their children (generational poverty, which forever needs assistance). Predetermination is just another excuse for abdicating personal responsibility. The multitude of successes in spite of such disadvantages prove them not insurmountable.
Outside help alone will never change self-limiting beliefs, so material assistance does nothing to end its need. It just ensures dependence...right where you seem to like them. You continue to want to help them because you actually think they can't help themselves. Now maybe you think you can't help yourself either, but that just means you share the same bad, self-limiting beliefs. You're excusing yourself by way of excusing others.
Quote:Everyone is responsible for their own reaction to these
Reactions will not undo the disadvantages of being born into poverty or being discriminated against or having no role models as a kid. They remain obstacles burned into their brains that even predetermine the will to react at all and how to react. Not everyone is ingrained with the ambition and self-confidence it takes to overcome their setbacks. In fact most aren't. That's what the disadvantages do. They prelimit the kind of person you become and sap you of your ability to better yourself. That's why outside help is needed. It is NOT a personal failing. It is a disadvantage that must be compensated for to get them even with those not born with them. That's why we continue to help the disadvantaged. Because they have little hope otherwise.
The only prolonged disadvantages are those inculcated in thinking and beliefs, which can be changed (but only by refusing to enable the excuses that promulgate them). And you can't really help someone who won't help themselves. They will just absorb any help, keep their self-limiting beliefs, and pass them on to their children (generational poverty, which forever needs assistance). Predetermination is just another excuse for abdicating personal responsibility. The multitude of successes in spite of such disadvantages prove them not insurmountable.
Outside help alone will never change self-limiting beliefs, so material assistance does nothing to end its need. It just ensures dependence...right where you seem to like them. You continue to want to help them because you actually think they can't help themselves. Now maybe you think you can't help yourself either, but that just means you share the same bad, self-limiting beliefs. You're excusing yourself by way of excusing others.
No..the disadvantages of your raising, genetics, and environment cannot be thought or believed away. They make us who we are, which is why we need outside help to overcome them. This is especially true with those raised in poverty and racism and without good role models. Studies show as I posted that children raised in poverty are set back years and lack skills and abilities the well off acquire. This is just the way it is. Your moralistic myth that everyone is responsible for their own condition is total bullshit and serves only to stigmatize the poor and disadvantaged. Help is needed, so help is provided. EOS...
(Mar 8, 2018 12:17 AM)Syne Wrote: Who said anything about being pure? Race and subspecies are both classifications of phenotype (appearance and behavior). In humans, we call it "race", but in every other species, we call it "subspecies". But it's the exact same differentiating criteria in either. IOW, race and subspecies are classification synonyms.
Same as race. Broad phenotypic (appearance and/or behavior) differences.
Neanderthals are considered either a distinct species, Homo neanderthalensis, or more rarely a subspecies of Homo sapiens (H. s. neanderthalensis).
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal
If you are of the few who classify neanderthal as a subspecies, then race is below the level of subspecies classification.
Since race is an informal term, it really doesn't matter much where you choose to place it. Subspecies just seems to be the closest scientific classification.
(Mar 8, 2018 06:26 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: No..the disadvantages of your raising, genetics, and environment cannot be thought or believed away. They make us who we are, which is why we need outside help to overcome them. This is especially true with those raised in poverty and racism and without good role models. Studies show as I posted that children raised in poverty are set back years and lack skills and abilities the well off acquire. This is just the way it is. Your moralistic myth that everyone is responsible for their own condition is total bullshit and serves only to stigmatize the poor and disadvantaged. Help is needed, so help is provided. EOS...
That's just your own self-limiting beliefs speaking.
It is a fact that everyone is responsible for their own decisions. Just because you refuse to hold yourself responsible for your own is a personal problem, common among narcissists.
Quote:It is a fact that everyone is responsible for their own decisions
Decisions maybe. But even decisions are prelimited by the options that are available. A middle class white kid has more options than a poor black kid. And the poor black kid is confronted with more bad options, like joining a gang or selling drugs or crime due the depriving environment he is born into and raised in. Our degree of freedom is predetermined by our conditions, both genetic and enviromental. We can only decide what is decideable within those preexistent constraining parameters.
(Mar 8, 2018 09:33 PM)Syne Wrote: And? You seem to be arguing some straw man derived from you own misunderstanding of subspecies.
Nope. You seem to be arguing some straw man derived from your own misunderstanding of race.
In biological taxonomy, race is an informal rank in the taxonomic hierarchy, below the level of subspecies.
Most biologists agree that race is only a social concept. Humans don’t even meet the criteria for race but you want to take it a step further and call them a subspecies. Whatever floats your boat, I guess.
The concept of human races is real. It is not a biological reality, though.
In biological terms, the concept of race is integrally bound to the process of evolution and the origin of species. It is part of the process of the formation of new species and is related to subspecific differentiation. However, because conditions can change and subspecies can and do merge, this process does not necessarily lead to the development of new species.
In biology, a species is defined as a population of individuals who are able to mate and have viable offspring; that is, offspring who are also successful in reproducing. The formation of new species usually occurs slowly over a long period of time.
For example, many species have a widespread geographic distribution with ranges that include ecologically diverse regions. If these regions are large in relationship to the average distance of migration of individuals within the species, there will be more mating, and thus more exchange of genes, within than between regions.
Over very long periods of time (tens of thousands of years), differences would be expected to evolve between distant populations of the same species. Some of these variations would be related to adaptations to ecological differences within the geographic range of the populations, while others might be purely random.
Over time, if little or no mating (or genetic exchange) occurs between these distant populations, genetic (and related morphological) differences will increase. Ultimately, over tens of thousands of years of separation, if little or no mating takes place between separate populations, genetic distinctions can become so great that individuals of the different populations could no longer mate and produce viable offspring.
The two populations would now be considered two separate species. This is the process of speciation. However, again, none of these criteria require that speciation will ultimately occur.
Since speciation develops very slowly, it is useful to recognize intermediate stages in this process. Populations of a species undergoing differentiation would show genetic and morphological variation due to a buildup of genetic differences but would still be able to breed and have offspring that could successfully reproduce.
They would be in various stages of the process of speciation but not yet different species. In biological terminology, it is these populations that are considered “races” or “subspecies”. Basically, subspecies within a species are geographically, morphologically, and genetically distinct populations but still maintain the possibility of successful interbreeding.
Thus, using this biological definition of race, we assume that races or subspecies are populations of a species that have genetic and morphological differences due to barriers to mating. Furthermore, little or no mating (or genetic exchange) between them has persisted for extremely long periods of time, thus giving the individuals within the population a common and separate evolutionary history.
Given advances in molecular genetics, we now have the ability to examine populations of species and subspecies and reconstruct their evolutionary histories in an objective and explicit fashion. In this way, we can determine the validity of the traditional definition of human races “by examining the patterns and amount of genetic diversity found within and among human populations” and by comparing this diversity with other large-bodied mammals that have wide geographic distributions.
In other words, we can determine how much populations of a species differ from one another and how these divergences came about.
A commonly used method to quantify the amount of within -- to among -- group genetic diversity is through examining molecular data, using statistics measuring genetic differences within and between populations of a species. Using this method, biologists have set a minimal threshold for the amount of genetic differentiation that is required to recognize subspecies.
Compared to other large mammals with wide geographic distributions, human populations do not reach this threshold. In fact, even though humans have the widest distribution, the measure of human genetic diversity (based on sixteen populations from Europe, Africa, Asia, the Americas, and the Australia-Pacific region) falls well below the threshold used to recognize races for other species and is among the lowest value known for large mammalian species. This is true even if we compare humans to chimpanzees.
Maybe your search engine has developed a cognitive bias or something. BTW, I never observed you using that term until I zinged you with it years ago at the old place.
Quote:It is a fact that everyone is responsible for their own decisions
Decisions maybe. But even decisions are prelimited by the options that are available. A middle class white kid has more options than a poor black kid. And the poor black kid is confronted with more bad options, like joining a gang or selling drugs or crime due the depriving environment he is born into and raised in. Our degree of freedom is predetermined by our conditions, both genetic and enviromental. We can only decide what is decideable within those preexistent constraining parameters.
So you really think black people don't have the option to graduate high school, get a job, and wait until marriage to have kids?
That sounds like you think they are inferior...incapable of choices most other people are easily capable of.
Our freedom is only restricted by self-limiting beliefs.
(Mar 8, 2018 11:57 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: You seem to be arguing some straw man derived from your own misunderstanding of race.
No, just fitting a non-scientific term into the closest scientific classification.
Quote:In biological taxonomy, race is an informal rank in the taxonomic hierarchy, below the level of subspecies.
Most biologists agree that race is only a social concept. Humans don’t even meet the criteria for race but you want to take it a step further and call them a subspecies. Whatever floats your boat, I guess.
The concept of human races is real. It is not a biological reality, though.
Informal isn't classified in scientific taxonomy. So its place is just as subject to opinion as whether neanderthal is a subspecies.
Idiosyncratic definition of subspecies that includes some threshold of genetic difference, even though:
A subspecies is a taxonomic rank below species – the only recognized rank in the zoological code,[8] and one of three main ranks below species in the botanical code.[7] When geographically separate populations of a species exhibit recognizable phenotypic differences, biologists may identify these as separate subspecies; a subspecies is a recognized local variant of a species.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies#Criteria
What a subspecies is
A widely accepted definition is that of Mayr and Ashlock (1991:43): “A subspecies is an aggregate of phenotypically similar populations of a species inhabiting a geographic subdivision of the range of that species and differing taxonomically from other populations of that species.”
- https://www.zmescience.com/other/feature...ubspecies/
Now look up "phenotype".
Quote:Maybe your search engine has developed a cognitive bias or something. BTW, I never observed you using that term until I zinged you with it years ago at the old place.
Wow, you never observed me use a term until you had interacted with me a good bit. Couldn't be that I use it more than I use to, since fewer people require it explained to them.
Quote:So you really think black people don't have the option to graduate high school, get a job, and wait until marriage to have kids?
You mean black teens? Some have to quit school to support their family. Others accidentally get pregnant before marriage. Still others get involved in gangs and drugs. It happens all the time. So their options become limited. It's the effect of being raised poor in a bad environment. It's called a culture of poverty. They simply don't have the options middle class white kids do.
"Poverty has been described as an economic state that does not allow for the provision of basic family and child needs, such as adequate food, clothing, and housing. However, the debate about the effects of poverty on the growth, development, and health of children is as much involved with the culture or general context of poverty as it is with the economics of poverty. This culture of poverty is in part mediated through environmental deprivations, such as failing schools, gangs, drugs, violence, and struggling families. Heclo1 described this sociocultural and environmental dimension of poverty as “a condition of misery, hopelessness, and dependency.”
Quote:So you really think black people don't have the option to graduate high school, get a job, and wait until marriage to have kids?
You mean black teens? Some have to quit school to support their family. Others accidentally get pregnant before marriage. Still others get involved in gangs and drugs. It happens all the time. So their options become limited. It's the effect of being raised poor in a bad environment. It's called a culture of poverty. They simply don't have the options middle class white kids do.
Yeah, bad choices. Are you saying they aren't capable of not getting pregnant before marriage or avoiding gang activity or drug use?
And any parent who would let their child quit school to support their family doesn't care about their child's future.
The culture of poverty is the culture of bad decisions that keep people in poverty.
Quote:
Quote:That sounds like you think they are inferior...incapable of choices most other people are easily capable of.
No..they're not inferior.That's your assumption. They simply don't have as many good options as middle class white kids.
No, I keep asserting that all people are equally capable. You're the one saying some people are incapable of simple things others can do.
Quote:Yeah, bad choices. Are you saying they aren't capable of not getting pregnant before marriage or avoiding gang activity or drug use?
No..limited options due to poverty and raising. Like I already pointed out, they are disadvantaged by their raising and environment towards bad options which they are constantly exposed to unlike middle class white kids. It's the nature of the culture of poverty.
Quote:No, I keep asserting that all people are equally capable. You're the one saying some people are incapable of simple things others can do.
These aren't simple things when you are raised in poverty. And all people are NOT equally capable. As I showed, many have to quit school to support their family. Many get involved in gangs and drugs. Many have kids out of wedlock. It's the culture of poverty once again. Our degree of freedom is predetermined by our conditions, both genetic and enviromental. We can only decide what is decideable within those preexistent constraining parameters.
Mar 8, 2018 06:11 AM
