Suppose scientific racism is correct. How will you react? How will society?

[Jokodo]

You'll notice race isn't mentioned there.

by ROGER CLEGG October 4, 2012 11:13 AM Yesterday the federal government released its latest figures on births in the United States, including out-of-wedlock births. The numbers are very close to last year’s: 72.3 percent of non-Hispanic blacks are now born out-of-wedlock; 66.2 percent of American Indians/Alaska Natives; 53.3 percent of Hispanics; 29.1 percent of non-Hispanic whites; and 17.2 percent of Asians/Pacific Islanders. That’s 40.7 percent overall: a disaster.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/329432/latest-statistics-illegitimate-births-roger-clegg

If 40.7% out-of-wedlock births is "a disaster", you should bring the news to Iceland (66.9% as of 2012, homicide rate 0.3/100,000), Slovenia (58% as of 2013, homicide rate 0.7), Sweden (54%, 0.7).

 

[Trodon]

by ROGER CLEGG October 4, 2012 11:13 AM Yesterday the federal government released its latest figures on births in the United States, including out-of-wedlock births. The numbers are very close to last year’s: 72.3 percent of non-Hispanic blacks are now born out-of-wedlock; 66.2 percent of American Indians/Alaska Natives; 53.3 percent of Hispanics; 29.1 percent of non-Hispanic whites; and 17.2 percent of Asians/Pacific Islanders. That’s 40.7 percent overall: a disaster.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/329432/latest-statistics-illegitimate-births-roger-clegg

If 40.7% out-of-wedlock births is "a disaster", you should bring the news to Iceland (66.9% as of 2012, homicide rate 0.3/100,000), Slovenia (58% as of 2013, homicide rate 0.7), Sweden (54%, 0.7).

In those countries nearly everyone is white. This lowers the crime rate. Nevertheless, I am confident that high illegitimacy rates tax their welfare systems, and lead to other negative consequences as well.

Here is another essay discussing the negative effects of illegitimacy.

---------

Brain development, measured by IQ, is highly correlated with the strength of what is called maternal-infant attachment. The stronger the bond between them, the more the mother interacts, coos and plays with her baby. It is the degree of stimulation she provides that promotes development of the infant’s brain and expansion of its massive neuronal network. Simply put, the quality of mothering is critical for the development of her infant’s intelligence.

Married women have more time to cuddle, teach and play with their infants. Married women are constantly talking to their babies. One study estimated the difference to be millions of words during the first year compared to mere thousands...
http://californiapolicycenter.org/w...mic-failure-americas-true-race-to-the-bottom/

 

[Jokodo]

If 40.7% out-of-wedlock births is "a disaster", you should bring the news to Iceland (66.9% as of 2012, homicide rate 0.3/100,000), Slovenia (58% as of 2013, homicide rate 0.7), Sweden (54%, 0.7).

In those countries nearly everyone is white. This lowers the crime rate.

This comes nowhere close to explaining why their crime rates are a mere fraction not only of the overall US crime rates, but also of the crime rates among US whites. If illegitimacy were a major contributor, we'd expect them to be significantly higher than those among whites in the US, with their illegitimacy rates double and more that of US whites.

 

[Trodon]

In those countries nearly everyone is white. This lowers the crime rate.

This comes nowhere close to explaining why their crime rates are a mere fraction not only of the overall US crime rates, but also of the crime rates among US whites. If illegitimacy were a major contributor, we'd expect them to be significantly higher than those among whites in the US, with their illegitimacy rates double and more that of US whites.

Crime is influenced by a number of factors. Illegitimacy is only one of them. Other factors include race, and the likelihood of punishment. When incarceration declined during the 1960's the crime rate doubled.

 

[Jokodo]

Brain development, measured by IQ, is highly correlated with the strength of what is called maternal-infant attachment. The stronger the bond between them, the more the mother interacts, coos and plays with her baby. It is the degree of stimulation she provides that promotes development of the infant’s brain and expansion of its massive neuronal network. Simply put, the quality of mothering is critical for the development of her infant’s intelligence.

Married women have more time to cuddle, teach and play with their infants. Married women are constantly talking to their babies. One study estimated the difference to be millions of words during the first year compared to mere thousands...
http://californiapolicycenter.org/w...mic-failure-americas-true-race-to-the-bottom/

This article is the essence of stupid. If the author is afraid of the effects of lack of bonding during an infant's early development, she should argue for paid maternity leave. The world at large understands that:



Other helpful options include part-time/job-sharing options for parents and high quality subsidised daycare options that provide plenty of stimulation even when the kid's away from parents. A lot of countries understand that as well.

What is not helpful is guilt-tripping single parents who try to make ends meet, and the jump from "attachment is vital for development" to "we need to restore traditional family values and welfare has been a pandora's box" is a non-sequitur if ever I saw one.

 

[Jokodo]

This comes nowhere close to explaining why their crime rates are a mere fraction not only of the overall US crime rates, but also of the crime rates among US whites. If illegitimacy were a major contributor, we'd expect them to be significantly higher than those among whites in the US, with their illegitimacy rates double and more that of US whites.

Crime is influenced by a number of factors. Illegitimacy is only one of them. Other factors include race, and the likelihood of punishment. When incarceration declined during the 1960's the crime rate doubled.

Race is out - while it's true that those countries are mostly white, that could only ever explain why their rates are lower than US total, not why they're a fraction of white US.

Likelihood of punishment is out too. None of those countries have capital punishment, and while they all have imprisonment for life on the book, in Sweden and Iceland it is not a mandatory sentence for any crime, nor do they ever impose it on juvenile perpetrators. All of them have among the world's lowest incarceration rates, ranging from 47 in Iceland to 66 per 100,000 in Slovenia (US Whites by comparison: 380/100,000).

 

[AthenaAwakened]

BTW

Just so you know

Marriage Rates Are Near Their Lowest Levels In History — Here's Why

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/causes-of-low-marriage-rates-2014-5#ixzz3XEFyZxcJ

Notice, "blackness" is not listed

 

[Trodon]

Brain development, measured by IQ, is highly correlated with the strength of what is called maternal-infant attachment. The stronger the bond between them, the more the mother interacts, coos and plays with her baby. It is the degree of stimulation she provides that promotes development of the infant’s brain and expansion of its massive neuronal network. Simply put, the quality of mothering is critical for the development of her infant’s intelligence.

Married women have more time to cuddle, teach and play with their infants. Married women are constantly talking to their babies. One study estimated the difference to be millions of words during the first year compared to mere thousands...
http://californiapolicycenter.org/w...mic-failure-americas-true-race-to-the-bottom/

This article is the essence of stupid. If the author is afraid of the effects of lack of bonding during an infant's early development, she should argue for paid maternity leave. The world at large understands that:

View attachment 2759

Other helpful options include part-time/job-sharing options for parents and high quality subsidised daycare options that provide plenty of stimulation even when the kid's away from parents. A lot of countries understand that as well.

What is not helpful is guilt-tripping single parents who try to make ends meet, and the jump from "attachment is vital for development" to "we need to restore traditional family values and welfare has been a pandora's box" is a non-sequitur if ever I saw one.

These programs tax responsible married couples to help irresponsible single mothers. In the process they encourage more unmarried women to behave irresponsibly. I am confident that even in these countries legitimate children usually turn out better than illegitimate children.

 

[bilby]

This article is the essence of stupid. If the author is afraid of the effects of lack of bonding during an infant's early development, she should argue for paid maternity leave. The world at large understands that:

View attachment 2759

Other helpful options include part-time/job-sharing options for parents and high quality subsidised daycare options that provide plenty of stimulation even when the kid's away from parents. A lot of countries understand that as well.

What is not helpful is guilt-tripping single parents who try to make ends meet, and the jump from "attachment is vital for development" to "we need to restore traditional family values and welfare has been a pandora's box" is a non-sequitur if ever I saw one.

These programs tax responsible married couples to help irresponsible single mothers. In the process they encourage more unmarried women to behave irresponsibly. I am confident that even in these countries legitimate children usually turn out better than illegitimate children.

I suspect your confidence is misplaced. It certainly isn't evidence.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

This article is the essence of stupid. If the author is afraid of the effects of lack of bonding during an infant's early development, she should argue for paid maternity leave. The world at large understands that:

View attachment 2759

Other helpful options include part-time/job-sharing options for parents and high quality subsidised daycare options that provide plenty of stimulation even when the kid's away from parents. A lot of countries understand that as well.

What is not helpful is guilt-tripping single parents who try to make ends meet, and the jump from "attachment is vital for development" to "we need to restore traditional family values and welfare has been a pandora's box" is a non-sequitur if ever I saw one.

These programs tax responsible married couples to help irresponsible single mothers. In the process they encourage more unmarried women to behave irresponsibly. I am confident that even in these countries legitimate children usually turn out better than illegitimate children.

BTW

Just so you know

U.S. Birthrate Falls -- Again

Birthrates have fallen across the board. The absolute number of births fell by 20,000 from 2012 to 2013, even as the number of women in their prime childrearing years (ages 20-39) continued growing. And the crude birthrate—the number of births each year per thousand women ages 15-44—fell to 62.5 in 2013, the lowest level ever recorded. Though not at a similar record low, the total fertility rate (a calculation of how many children a woman would bear over a lifetime if she experienced fertility rates at every age in the current year) fell to 1.87—the lowest we’ve seen since 1986.

Absolute Number of Births Per Year (2000-2013)
Absolute Number of Births Per Year (2000-2013)

What concerns experts is not the fall itself, but the fact that it accelerated when we were supposedly experiencing an economic recovery. In 2008, birthrates began falling dramatically before bottoming out in 2011. However, the numbers largely leveled off in 2012, leading many to believe that a rise was imminent and that birthrates would recover steadily along with the economy. But now, even as the economy shows modest signs of improvement, birthrates have dropped yet again.


The continuing decline may indicate that the economic recovery, such as it is, isn’t affecting women of childbearing age. Despite aggregate economic growth, the average GDP per worker has risen faster than the average wage. And the average wage is rising faster than the median wage, the measure relevant to the most people. What’s more, median wages for the vast majority of new mothers have been particularly hurt: Early-wave Millennials and early-wave Xers experienced the largest median wage declines of any age group—and late-wave Xers’ median wages increased by a paltry 0.1%.

Further evidence of the link between income and fertility is news that the birthrate of immigrants fell the most of all subgroups in 2013. The crude Hispanic birthrate fell 2% from 2012 to 2013, the largest decline among any ethnic group. To be sure, this group’s birthrate was falling before the recession even began, but the economic downturn has amplified the trend: Hispanic (both foreign- and U.S.-born) rates of poverty and unemployment grew more sharply than those of the general population following the recession.

Regardless of the extent to which the economy affects fertility, demographers also disagree about the timing of that effect. If women have fixed lifetime birth expectations, then they may react to a short-term economic downturn by not having kids—but have them later when they can’t wait any longer, regardless of the economy (a phenomenon known as the “tempo” effect). Possible evidence of this is the fact that nearly all of the recent fertility decline has been among women under age 30—those who presumably believe that they can afford to wait. What’s more, polls find that Americans without kids “want to have children someday” even more than they did before the recession.

All this points to a possible fertility rebound in the near future. But we can’t be too sure. History provides many examples of long eras of low fertility that did ultimately cause an entire generational group of women to have significantly fewer children than they at first intended. Just look at the 1930s: About 22% of women who began their childbearing years at the onset of the Great Depression never had children at all. (Contrast this with the much smaller share—only about 10%—of childless women who came of age just after World War II.) This effect may be relevant again today

 

[Jokodo]

This article is the essence of stupid. If the author is afraid of the effects of lack of bonding during an infant's early development, she should argue for paid maternity leave. The world at large understands that:

View attachment 2759

Other helpful options include part-time/job-sharing options for parents and high quality subsidised daycare options that provide plenty of stimulation even when the kid's away from parents. A lot of countries understand that as well.

What is not helpful is guilt-tripping single parents who try to make ends meet, and the jump from "attachment is vital for development" to "we need to restore traditional family values and welfare has been a pandora's box" is a non-sequitur if ever I saw one.

These programs tax responsible married couples to help irresponsible single mothers. In the process they encourage more unmarried women to behave irresponsibly.

No, they don't. Paid maternity leave is not something only single parents (why talk about mothers only? How is a single mother who's doing her best to make ends meet under adverse circumstances more irresponsible than a deadbeat dad?) benefit from. It provides oftentimes a major share of the household incomes of married couples with young infants, and indeed, since many married couples feel they can't make ends meet unless both parents work, it would increase the opportunities for parent-infant bonding even in a hypothetical scenario where only married couples have kids. If anything, they tax childless people (married or not) to help those who are irresponsible enough to still have kids (married or not). And in most cases, the additional taxes procured when both parents work will outweigh the cost of the subsidies to the infrastructure to make that possible.

 

[Trodon]

These programs tax responsible married couples to help irresponsible single mothers. In the process they encourage more unmarried women to behave irresponsibly.

No, they don't. Paid maternity leave is not something only single parents (why talk about mothers only? How is a single mother who's doing her best to make ends meet under adverse circumstances more irresponsible than a deadbeat dad?) benefit from. It provides oftentimes a major share of the household incomes of married couples with young infants. If anything, they tax childless people to help those who are irresponsible enough to still have kids. And in most cases, the additional taxes procured when both parents work will outweigh the cost of the subsidies to the infrastructure to make that possible.

I am not opposed to paid maternity leave.

I think the best situation is for the mother to stay home with the children. Because of economic changes that I regret that has become unrealistic for most married couples.

 

[Jokodo]

No, they don't. Paid maternity leave is not something only single parents (why talk about mothers only? How is a single mother who's doing her best to make ends meet under adverse circumstances more irresponsible than a deadbeat dad?) benefit from. It provides oftentimes a major share of the household incomes of married couples with young infants. If anything, they tax childless people to help those who are irresponsible enough to still have kids. And in most cases, the additional taxes procured when both parents work will outweigh the cost of the subsidies to the infrastructure to make that possible.

I am not opposed to paid maternity leave.

I think the best situation is for the mother to stay home with the children. Because of economic changes that I regret that has become unrealistic for most married couples.

The best situation for whom? Even if you could establish that a stay-at-home parent is the best situation for the children (which you haven't - and why does it have to be the mother?), it may not be the best situation for the parents. Strange as it may seem to you, some people including myself have a strong opinion that having a kid should not entail having to forgo the right to make choices about your life, not even when you're female.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I am not opposed to paid maternity leave.

I think the best situation is for the mother to stay home with the children. Because of economic changes that I regret that has become unrealistic for most married couples.

The best situation for whom? Even if you could establish that a stay-at-home parent is the best situation for the children (which you haven't - and why does it have to be the mother?), it may not be the best situation for the parents. Strange as it may seem to you, some people including myself have a strong opinion that having a kid should not entail having to forgo the right to make choices about your life, not even when you're female.

The best situation for the child is to have BOTH parents available to the child throughout the day, along with extended family as needed. The best for the child is to grow up in loving community.

I mean, if you really want to talk about what is BEST for the child.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY), which contains a nationally representative sample of young mothers and their children, chart divides children into four groups:

Out-of-Wedlock, Never Married (children born out of wedlock whose mothers never married after their birth);
Out-of-Wedlock, Subsequent Marriage (children born out of wedlock whose mothers married subsequent to their birth);
Within Wedlock, Divorced (children born to married parents who later divorced);
Within Wedlock, Marriage Intact (children born to parents who were married at the time of birth and remained married).
Children born out of wedlock to never-married women live in poverty 51 percent of the time. By contrast, children born within a marriage that remains intact are poor 7 percent of the time. Thus, the absence of marriage increases the frequency of child poverty 700 percent. However, marriage after an illegitimate birth is effective, cutting the child poverty rate in half.

From the very beginning, children born outside of marriage have life stacked against them. In addition to poverty, children born into illegitimacy are more likely to experience retarded cognitive development (especially verbal development); lower educational achievement; lower job attainment; increased behavioral and emotional problems; lower impulse control; and retarded social development. Such children are far more likely to engage in sexual activity; have children outside of marriage; be on welfare as adults; and engage in criminal activity.
https://www.heartland.org/policy-documents/illegitimacy-major-cause-child-poverty

You'll notice race isn't mentioned there.

Yup--race almost never shows up as a relevant factor in anything once you control properly for other factors, generally socioeconomic status. (This applies both ways--not only are they not poorer/more criminal, but likewise their economic success in life is likewise predicted by their background, not their race.)

We see more black criminals because more blacks grow up in poverty in big cities, not because there's anything inherently criminal about blacks. It's culture, not race.

- - - Updated - - -

The crime rate has declined since 1980. The rate of violent crime has declined since 1991.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

This is partially because the prison population has more than tripled since 1980.

http://www.jacksonprogressive.com/issues/lawenforcement/punishment.pdf

An additional factor has been the increase in the abortion rate since the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973. The kind of female most likely to have an abortion is also most likely to give birth to a boy baby who will become a violent criminal. She has no husband, and a low IQ. A potential armed robber who was aborted in 1994 would have been 18 in 1992.

I cannot figure out how anything else is different in 1973 that is different today. You guys nailed it.

Actually there's one other biggie: The removal of lead from gasoline and paint.

 

[Trodon]

Yup--race almost never shows up as a relevant factor in anything once you control properly for other factors, generally socioeconomic status. (This applies both ways--not only are they not poorer/more criminal, but likewise their economic success in life is likewise predicted by their background, not their race.)

We see more black criminals because more blacks grow up in poverty in big cities, not because there's anything inherently criminal about blacks. It's culture, not race.

I have lived with poor Vietnamese war refugees. They were safe to live with. Blacks are not safe to live with. Even Jesse Jackson recognizes this.

------

There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.... After all we have been through. Just to think we can't walk down our own streets, how humiliating.
Remarks at a meeting of Operation PUSH in Chicago (27 November 1993). Quoted in "Crime: New Frontier - Jesse Jackson Calls It Top Civil-Rights Issue" by Mary A. Johnson, 29 November 1993, Chicago Sun-Times (ellipsis in original). Partially quoted in "In America; A Sea Change On Crime" by Bob Herbert, 12 December 1993, New York Times.

------

I have already posted a link that tells how safe poor Chinese and Jews are. Poverty is no excuse for crime. It is not even an explanation. Some people are born with genetic inclinations toward crime. These need to be taken off the streets, and out of the gene pool.

As I have also indicated, this can best be done with more and longer prison sentences at hard labor enforced by the whip, and plenty of executions.

 

[bilby]

Yup--race almost never shows up as a relevant factor in anything once you control properly for other factors, generally socioeconomic status. (This applies both ways--not only are they not poorer/more criminal, but likewise their economic success in life is likewise predicted by their background, not their race.)

We see more black criminals because more blacks grow up in poverty in big cities, not because there's anything inherently criminal about blacks. It's culture, not race.

I have lived with poor Vietnamese war refugees. They were safe to live with. Blacks are not safe to live with.

What, none of them? You would feel threatened living in the West Wing with Barry Obama, or if Neil De Grasse Tyson or Lenny Henry was your next door neighbour?

Your statement is as ludicrous as it is insulting.

People are not safe to live with. People are also very safe to live with. Their skin colour really doesn't give you any prior hint as to which is which - although confirmation bias and fear can make your guesses into self fulfilling prophecies.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Yup--race almost never shows up as a relevant factor in anything once you control properly for other factors, generally socioeconomic status. (This applies both ways--not only are they not poorer/more criminal, but likewise their economic success in life is likewise predicted by their background, not their race.)

We see more black criminals because more blacks grow up in poverty in big cities, not because there's anything inherently criminal about blacks. It's culture, not race.

I have lived with poor Vietnamese war refugees. They were safe to live with. Blacks are not safe to live with. Even Jesse Jackson recognizes this.

------

There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.... After all we have been through. Just to think we can't walk down our own streets, how humiliating.
Remarks at a meeting of Operation PUSH in Chicago (27 November 1993). Quoted in "Crime: New Frontier - Jesse Jackson Calls It Top Civil-Rights Issue" by Mary A. Johnson, 29 November 1993, Chicago Sun-Times (ellipsis in original). Partially quoted in "In America; A Sea Change On Crime" by Bob Herbert, 12 December 1993, New York Times.

------

I have already posted a link that tells how safe poor Chinese and Jews are. Poverty is no excuse for crime. It is not even an explanation. Some people are born with genetic inclinations toward crime. These need to be taken off the streets, and out of the gene pool.

As I have also indicated, this can best be done with more and longer prison sentences at hard labor enforced by the whip, and plenty of executions.

So Jesse Jackson doesn't live with his family?

 

[bilby]

I have lived with poor Vietnamese war refugees. They were safe to live with. Blacks are not safe to live with. Even Jesse Jackson recognizes this.

------

There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.... After all we have been through. Just to think we can't walk down our own streets, how humiliating.
Remarks at a meeting of Operation PUSH in Chicago (27 November 1993). Quoted in "Crime: New Frontier - Jesse Jackson Calls It Top Civil-Rights Issue" by Mary A. Johnson, 29 November 1993, Chicago Sun-Times (ellipsis in original). Partially quoted in "In America; A Sea Change On Crime" by Bob Herbert, 12 December 1993, New York Times.

------

I have already posted a link that tells how safe poor Chinese and Jews are. Poverty is no excuse for crime. It is not even an explanation. Some people are born with genetic inclinations toward crime. These need to be taken off the streets, and out of the gene pool.

As I have also indicated, this can best be done with more and longer prison sentences at hard labor enforced by the whip, and plenty of executions.

So Jesse Jackson doesn't live with his family?

He does; but he claims hazard pay.

 

[Trodon]

I have lived with poor Vietnamese war refugees. They were safe to live with. Blacks are not safe to live with.

What, none of them? You would feel threatened living in the West Wing with Barry Obama, or if Neil De Grasse Tyson or Lenny Henry was your next door neighbour?

Your statement is as ludicrous as it is insulting.

People are not safe to live with. People are also very safe to live with. Their skin colour really doesn't give you any prior hint as to which is which - although confirmation bias and fear can make your guesses into self fulfilling prophecies.

I should have said "black neighborhoods are not safe to live in." I speak on the basis of personal experience, sympathetic listening, and adequate reading.