Almalieque wrote:
I know. That's literally what I said your argument was. I countered to argue that there is no singular nail to pull. That the nail that you are referring to is actually multiple pieces of smaller objects.
I disagree with that though. I've already written at length about how the things you keep bringing up are themselves either unrelated to the issue of poverty, or are side effects of poverty. To follow the analogy, if we pull out the nail, we also pull out all those other things attached to it and can now patch the tire. But you're arguing that we shouldn't pull the nail out because there's these other things involved. But what you've failed to argue is that pulling the nail out (eliminating or at least sharply reducing welfare) will make those other things worse.
The things you keep bringing up don't in any way constitute valid arguments against what I'm saying about welfare. That's why I keep saying they only serve as a distraction.
Quote:
I'm not in any way shape or fashion arguing that you have to solve everything or nothing. I'm literally proposing the exact argument of solving one problem at a time. You just refuse to accept any problem as a problem unless its welfare.
No. I'm refusing to accept that talking about a problem other than welfare addresses the problem of welfare. You're not arguing for solving any problem. You're just whining about problems. And when I attempt to argue in favor of a possible solution for just one, you switch to talking about another. Again, this is why I keep saying they only serve as a distraction. You happily bring things up that are "bad", but you change the subject as soon as someone responds with a suggested way of dealing with that bad thing. When you do this over and over, it rapidly becomes apparent that you don't want to consider fixes for the problems around you, but just want to wallow in the misery that is a world full of such problems.
You also don't seem to grasp the difference between causes and symptoms. Talking about symptoms can absolutely tell us *why* something is wrong and should be fixed, but it doesn't tell us how to fix that thing. For that, you have to look at *what* is causing that symptom.
Quote:
The simple fact that you have to go in great details in order to differentiate the two means that your statement was "remotely similar", especially given the context of this conversation.
No. I have to go to great detail because you continually forget what was said, so I have to go back and remind you. In this case, the difference was that I was talking about poverty in general, and you turned it into something specific to race. The fact that what you keep saying is "remotely similar" to what I said has the reference to race removed should be your first clue that they aren't actually "remotely similar". If that difference wasn't significant, you wouldn't keep stripping it out when attempting to argue that I was wrong to say they weren't similar.
If you want to argue that "welfare creates and perpetuates poverty among the poor" and "Poverty is because of welfare" are similar, I have no problem with that (other than the latter being vague). But when you argue "you're wrong to say that you never said anything remotely similar to that" while ignoring that I was talking about your claim that I said that "welfare was the reason for black poverty", then I'm going to call you on it. Because those are not remotely the same thing. I did not say that welfare was the reason for black poverty. As I have said repeatedly, blacks were disproportionately poor prior to the implementation of welfare (specifically Johnson's "great society"). Welfare did not create that condition. What it has done is prevent that condition from correcting itself in a post civil rights era.
I get that maybe this is a hard concept for you to grasp, but I'm hoping that maybe a light bulb will go off at some point and you'll get what I'm trying to say. Well, and if not you, then maybe others who are reading this might get it at least. Or maybe I'm just bored enough at work between other stuff that I don't mind engaging in even this semi-meaningless argument.
Quote:
That's absurd. We amend laws (constitution), rules, regulations, etc. all of the time, not because they are inherently bad, but because people will always find ways to exploit them in a way previously not thought of.
I think you're just getting stuck on a very narrow meaning for "bad". If a law can be exploited in ways not previously considered, then the law is "bad", right? You're getting way too caught up in semantics. Doesn't matter what we label it. The fact that welfare creates a condition that discourages economic advancement among the population of currently poor people, is a problem that we should address. Right?
Quote:
What part of "I'm arguing that candidates who have policies and beliefs that just so happens to appeal to minorities are shunned." don't you understand? That's not the same as candidates being shunned for appealing to minorities.
Um... Again, I think you're getting caught up in the language. When I respond to you with a slightly differently worded restatement of what you said, unlike you, I'm not actually trying to commit a straw man fallacy. Pretend that I mean exactly what you meant.
I disagree that GOP candidates are shunned by conservatives for <whatever the heck you said>. Got it? Whether they "happen to appeal to" or are "appealing to", or whatever. Don't care how you word it. I disagree that this happens. I'm waiting for you to show any sort of correlation between the two. Can you give an example that supports your claim (however the heck you want to word it)?
Quote:
That's going down a rabbit hole that is not only irrelevant, but has no end. You're claiming that black people only vote for Democrats because they are pressured and deceived to. I gave you an entire list of policies and reasons why black people support that primarily come from the Democratic party. Whether you agree with those policies are completely irrelevant to your claim. Of course you're not going to agree with them, because if you did, you would be a Democrat.
WTF? You're the one who made the claim. I think it's quite reasonable, if you think that GOP candidates who have policies and beliefs that appeal to minorities are shunned by conservative voters, that you give me an example of this happening. Because I don't see this at all. I'll repeat my assertion that you're just saying this as an excuse to avoid discussing why blacks vote Democrat at such a high percent.
It's just funny how far you'll go to avoid the discussion. And yeah, welfare is a key point here. It's an example of the kinds of social policies which the Dems endorse, and which I'm guessing would be one on your list. Which I suspect is why you don't like the kind of criticism I'm leveling at it. It doesn't fit into your "GOP isn't good for blacks" narrative, so you reject it. But isn't that rejection the very problem I'm talking about with regard to the influence over black votes? Isn't it possible that the reason you have such a visceral negative response to even the suggestion that the GOP platform might be a better one for people to support (yes, even and perhaps especially black people) is because of the very influence and social intimidation I've spoken of? Your responses do seem more like someone trying desperately to avoid even thinking about something, let alone writing about it.
At the end of the day, if you accept that welfare might actually be bad for the poor (and therefore disproportionately harmful to blacks), then this would be a negative with regards to the party that supports it. And if you accept that negative effect, you might have to challenge other assumptions that you have. And that might just lead you to *gasp* question your unflinching assumption that the Democrats are always and forever the best party for people of color to vote for.
Again. Cart before the horse. You reject what I'm saying, not because it's wrong, but because you already assume the opposite is true, and you don't want to entertain even the possibility that your assumption is wrong. This is particularly difficult for African Americans because they, more than any other group in the US, have been taught to actually weave their identity within the context of those assumptions. It's the underlying nature of the "Uncle Tom" label. That by questioning those assumptions, you actually cease to be black. And in your mind, I'm guessing that's a nearly unthinkable thing to contemplate. So you reject it instead.
I get it. I just wish that this wasn't the case. Because what's going on is a freaking tragedy IMO, made more so by those who are most harmed being the strongest voices demanding that we not fix the problem.
Quote:
Yet if you were on welfare, you would use the extra money to make yourself more competitive. Funny how everyone else is just to stupid to see the same opportunity.
Not stupid. Just statistically unlikely to make the correct long term choice when there's an easier and quicker short term payoff at hand. Again, this is not a factor unique to the poor.
Quote:
You're singling out welfare as the only scenario where there is temptation to stay mediocre or go backwards, when the intent is to move forward. That's how loans are great examples. It's also tempting to stay home with mom and dad and not pay rent or bills. Except, people actually have dreams of being independent. The bottom line is that you don't care about "upward mobility". Your problem is the fundamental disagreement of the Federal government funding it.
Yes. My problem is with the government doing this under the guise of "helping the poor". As I pointed out earlier, I totally recognize the same pattern in a number of things in our society. I know a number of people who go through life on maxed out credit cards and continual debt. I know people who lost their homes a few years back because they were living right at (and a little bit beyond) their means. And yeah, I think they are making mistakes living like that. I've argued on this subject many times on this forum. It's not a new thing.
I'm "singling out welfare" in this case because the subject was about disproportional criminality among blacks (specifically how that relates to disproportional negative interactions with police). My argument was (and is) that this disproportional condition is the result of disproportionate poverty among blacks in the US. And I then argued that it was the introduction of welfare right at the tail end of the civil rights movement that has perpetuated that poverty. It is my firm belief that had we not created the "great society" back in the mid 60s, that black poverty would not be significantly different than white poverty today, and black crime therefore not be significantly different either, and we'd not be talking about the disproportionate rates at which black men are killed by police. A whole host of social problems blamed on racism today would not exist.
And yes, when I put on my tin foil hat, I will suggest that there are some who did this intentionally. Maybe some were racists back in the 60s looking for some way to blunt the effects of civil rights on black populations in the US. Others may have just seen it as a way to buy votes from the newly re-enfranchised black voter pool. Maybe along the way, yet others realized that the disproportionate status would allow them to keep "fighting racism" and could use that for political advantage. There's probably a ton of possible reasons why welfare is so staunchly defended. And of course, obviously, there's a large number of people who honestly believe that it's a necessary thing without which the poor of this country could not possibly survive.
But regardless of what people think it is, when we objectively examine the actual effects of welfare over time in this country, it's really hard to argue that it's "helped" the problem of poverty at all. It seems really simple to say "provide needs to poor people who can't afford them", but the reality just doesn't match that simplistic belief. It's wishful thinking at this point, and requires an almost intentional dip of the head into the sand to continue to believe.