|
Obdicut posted:No. You are making a special pleading claim that the black community is led by its leadership in a special way that differs from the white community, and that Hillary's support is a result of 'buttering up' those leaders, who the black population tend to follow. This is extremely patronizing towards the black population in a number of ways; it assumes that the 'leaders' if they exist, are not chosen by the black community on merit, no matter what else you think of them, and that the black community cannot recognize that its leaders are lobbied and approached--the 'butter' is not simply rhetoric, it results in actual real gains for the black community. quote:I didn't say churches don't have a lot of influence in black communities.
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 13:22 |
|
|
Job Truniht posted:Hey shithead, back your claims with citations or shut up. Okay. https://www.guttmacher.org/media/presskits/abortion-US/statsandfacts.html Pregnancy is correlated with birth; about 6 out of 10 known pregnancies result in a birth--this excludes pregnancies that went unknown because of early miscarriage. Feather posted:You just can't help yourself. Literally nothing you wrote applies to my comment. It's a straw man you've set up to knock down. Please proceed. You said; quote:For example, the church figures largely in many places because of the deep roots it has back into the days of slavery. Leaders are well respected, and community members take their endorsements very seriously. "Buttering up" has an implication that it is dishonest and that the person being so 'buttered' is either falling for it, or corrupted by it. If that was just poor word choice on your part, then that would be different. In addition, the reason why church figures largely is not because of the deep roots it has back into the days of slavery, but because of the functions it performs in the community. quote:Hahah, you just did exactly that. Then quote me doing so. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Jul 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:Hey shithead, back your claims with citations or shut up. I don't. Uh. What citations are you wanting, exactly, for the claim that sex leads to pregnancy leads to (in the majority of cases these days) childbirth leads to that child (in the majority of cases these days) growing up, and that these events can be easily followed in the statistics for related issues even if direct abortion statistics can't? You see, when a mommy and a daddy love each other very much...
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Black people only form opinions with the help of the church, white people are powerful independent thinkers
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:I like how nobody here actually rushed to defend her claim on academic performance and teenage pregnancy are correlated. I like how nobody backed up her statement with any actual data. You have an incredibly accurate custom title. Also here you can just literally google Teen Pregnancy in US and click the CDC link. http://www.cdc.gov/teenpregnancy/about/index.htm I know this is more about you backpedaling and covering your stupid rear end via pedantry that even fishmech would be proud but jesus christ. Evil Fluffy posted:Man your red text is so loving spot on it's painful. Also this, and locally (because nationwide statistics don't really represent the scope of the problem) teen pregnancy, while having made VAST strides in the last 2 decades, is still a tremendously expensive and socially devastating problem. My wife did teen pregnancy work in SC for 5 years and it's hilariously bad down there and in other Southern states.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
whitey delenda est posted:You have an incredibly accurate custom title. You're not even following the argument and you completely went on tangent to what I said. gently caress off. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:No. You are making a special pleading claim that the black community is led by its leadership in a special way that differs from the white community, and that Hillary's support is a result of 'buttering up' those leaders, who the black population tend to follow. This is extremely patronizing towards the black population in a number of ways; it assumes that the 'leaders' if they exist, are not chosen by the black community on merit, no matter what else you think of them, and that the black community cannot recognize that its leaders are lobbied and approached--the 'butter' is not simply rhetoric, it results in actual real gains for the black community. You're going to need to walk those claims back because Feather said neither of the two things you're claiming he said. To refresh our memory: Feather posted:Politics in the black community (disclaimer: clearly a generalization here, blacks aren't a hive-mind, obviously) is different due to certain historical considerations. For example, the church figures largely in many places because of the deep roots it has back into the days of slavery. Leaders are well respected, and community members take their endorsements very seriously. You have outright invented the idea that Feather is saying that black leaders are elected without merit, as well as inventing the idea that Feather said that the black congregations don't know what their leaders are doing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
A Neurotic Jew posted:I don't really see the issue with that NPR article. It's a speculative piece that's based on a solid premise. It's closer to the truth of how things stand currently than stoking a false horse race narrative to provoke interest, at least. When I read it I couldn't tell who the poster thought objectivity was being sacrificed for. It stated a lot of facts, then swapped back forth between enthusing over how surprisingly well Bernie has been doing and pragmatically noting that it's good enough to take the air out of the room for anyone else but probably not enough to win the primary. Is it sacrificing objectivity for Bernie with its tongue in cheek hinting that he could be Obama II? Is it sacrificing objectivity for Hillary by implying that his run is a political ploy to benefit her? Is it sacrificing objectivity because it went beyond pure recitation of fact and included any speculation at all? /Shrug
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:"Buttering up" has an implication that it is dishonest and that the person being so 'buttered' is either falling for it, or corrupted by it. If that was just poor word choice on your part, then that would be different. I don't think I can sufficiently communicate how asinine this is. You literally rewrote his post then made a sweeping conclusion about the rewritten post. Obdicut posted:In addition, the reason why church figures largely is not because of the deep roots it has back into the days of slavery, but because of the functions it performs in the community. Have you considered that a large reason that they're able to perform those functions is because of the deep roots that Feather is referencing?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Okay. That's not what correlated means. Let's go back to your very first statistics class: What does correlation mean?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
I feel like the phrase buttering up to implies corruption or at least corruptabilty, as tho the only reason a black leader would support Hilary is because of receiving favours. That's a little patronizing Edit: yeah basically what Obdicut said
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:"Buttering up" has an implication that it is dishonest and that the person being so 'buttered' is either falling for it, or corrupted by it. If that was just poor word choice on your part, then that would be different. quote:In addition, the reason why church figures largely is not because of the deep roots it has back into the days of slavery, but because of the functions it performs in the community.  quote:Then quote me doing so.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
greatn posted:Children who know in fifth and sixth grade college will be available to them tuition free and have single payer healthcare are probably a lot less likely to get pregnant in the intervening years. And hell maybe if they do get pregnant we could destigmatize abortion just a tiny bit. What fantasy world do you live in where 5th and 6th graders regard college as anything other than something that might happen in the nebulous future and base their lives around it, overshadowing their immediate hormonal desires and social pressure to have sex? Hell, talking about hormonal high school kids would be ridiculous, since they aren't exactly famous for not being short sighted or for being immune to social pressures. Comprehensive sex education and access to inexpensive contraceptives go a long way to fixing the issue, not tuition incentives.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Nah, Hillary won because she's the presumptive nominee and they want to curry favor with her. Very simple. Also want to add that there's nothing sinister about this. It's the business of groups lobbying for favor to decide what the most likely avenue for seeing their interests represented is in any given instance. Here, they correctly realize that regardless of who they back, Hillary is by far the most likely democratic candidate. Backing someone else, from their perspective, would be a futile gesture. In case anyone is interested, most major unions have followed the same playbook in the last couple decades. They back and contribute to "safe" candidates rather than trying to push their own guy through. One could argue this is a symptom of their increasing weakness and relative irrelevance in politics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
So, I wanted to compare the campaign promises thus far between Clinton and Sanders. I quickly realize Clinton has really gone ahead and listed most everything her campaign is about on her website, while Sanders has not. Heck, the Sanders website doesn't even list a single economic proposal. So instead, I broke down the Clinton promises into different groups: Huge Promises from Clinton:
Things Sanders and Clinton Agree on:
Sanders doesn't mention explicity, but probably agrees:
Normal/Good Governance (Any candidate agrees):
To the Right of Sanders:
And Bonus Clinton "promises" phrased as poo poo Congress must do:
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Brannock posted:You're going to need to walk those claims back because Feather said neither of the two things you're claiming he said. To refresh our memory: What was said was that Hillary would get a pass because she buttered up the leadership. Not that she had made strong ties with the leadership, or that they believed she would actually deliver things that the black community wants, but because she had buttered them up. This buttering, it's claimed, will make ordinary black people overlook Hillary's support for racist policies. I don't think that Feather actually thinks this way about black people, I think that the argument is unintentionally patronizing because Feather has a vested interest in attacking Hillary and supporting Sandres, which is leading to this unfortunate line of argument. If the black community is led around by leaders who can just be 'buttered up', rather than soberly picking a candidate who they believe represents the best interests of their community, then that does, in fact, imply the black community is duped by its leaders.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Brannock posted:You're going to need to walk those claims back because Feather said neither of the two things you're claiming he said. To refresh our memory: It's an implication, deliberate or otherwise, from his description of the relationship between Hillary, the black community, and their leaders. Job Truniht posted:That's not what correlated means. Let's go back to your very first statistics class: What does correlation mean? This is some world-class pedantry in an attempt to cover up claims that can be disproven by cursory google searching.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:That's not what correlated means. Let's go back to your very first statistics class: What does correlation mean? It means the two things often occur together--such as, for example, pregnancy and birth. What do you think it means? Feather posted:So since you were exposed hurling false accusations of racism and misrepresenting my post, you'd rather argue details about whether "buttered up" implies corruption or credulity, which conveniently leaves out any more reasonable middle ground interpretation and isn't an argument I advanced anyway. In other words, more intellectual dishonesty. I'm sorry, but 'buttered up' really does imply someone is being fooled, flattered, or corrupted and it does not include 'convinced by substantive means or a real argument'. There isn't a more middle ground interpretation. if you misspoke, I'll completely accept that. Edit: I also didn't accuse you of racism, just being patronizing. I don't think you're racist. quote:Which has no relation to its roots in the time of slavery, right. It has some. It has a lot more to do with its prominence in the civil rights era. quote:I did when I quoted your responses to my comments. That doesn't show me saying that churches aren't important in black communities, though. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Jul 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Martin Random posted:As a high school dropout who went straight to a four-year, there are actually excellent, cheap, flexible systems in place, like the Junior College system, to allow matriculation into a 4 year. And you can smoke. Sooo ... The teen dads can get boot straps and the teen moms can suck it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
I think a lot of Bernie supporters get really weird about black people in this thread (see: the earlier discussion with EugeneJ about black people getting direct marching orders from the corrupt black churches), and as a black man, it makes me uncomfortable. I do hope that, in reaching out to black people about Bernie Sanders, it's done with more finesse than it's done in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:This is some world-class pedantry in an attempt to cover up claims that can be disproven by cursory google searching. Yeah, which the opposition is incapable of doing, and brought exactly one paper to the table that might have a representation of abortion statistics in the US. Are you guys going to cheerlead the rest of the thread on poo poo you care about but actually know nothing about? It's extremely unprofessional.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/butter Literally: favors in exchange for flattery
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
McAlister posted:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/11/teachers-union-endorses-hillary-clinton-in-democratic-race/ I mostly mocking the people here that say Sanders isn't getting all the minority support because they simply haven't heard of him yet. I did enjoy your post though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So, I wanted to compare the campaign promises thus far between Clinton and Sanders. I quickly realize Clinton has really gone ahead and listed most everything her campaign is about on her website, while Sanders has not. Heck, the Sanders website doesn't even list a single economic proposal. This post is useful and should be preserved in some way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So, I wanted to compare the campaign promises thus far between Clinton and Sanders. I quickly realize Clinton has really gone ahead and listed most everything her campaign is about on her website, while Sanders has not. Heck, the Sanders website doesn't even list a single economic proposal. Bernie actively wants to break up the big banks. Bernie also supports universal healthcare. Bernie has been vocal in supporting paid leave (which is listed there as a Clinton promise). Bernie is big on providing more support for veterans. I don't know if any of these things are promises, or even if any of the promises above are possible, but they are known positions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:Yeah, which the opposition is incapable of doing, and brought exactly one paper to the table that might have a representation of abortion statistics in the US. Are you guys going to cheerlead the rest of the thread on poo poo you care about but actually know nothing about? It's extremely unprofessional. Because at the moment we've been sidetracked into you defending your claim that pregnancy and childbirth aren't related and, while it's hugely entertaining, it's not very relevant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Bernie has promised to defeat the Koch brothers in Spirit Combat, which I largely support
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Zelder posted:Bernie has promised to defeat the Koch brothers in Spirit Combat, which I largely support Same.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Bernie actively wants to break up the big banks. It does probably matter whether these positions can be distilled into proposals. Wanting to break up the big banks in abstract sounds great, but something specific like "If elected President I will [do thing, probably executive action related because good luck with Congress]" is better. Universal healthcare is another tricky one since that'd surely have to go through Congress and Obamacare barely made it through in its heavily restricted form in the early days when Congress was comparatively cooperative. Having strong principles but no way to act on them outside of the same proposals that Hillary's offering is a pretty fringe benefit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:Yeah, which the opposition is incapable of doing, and brought exactly one paper to the table that might have a representation of abortion statistics in the US. Are you guys going to cheerlead the rest of the thread on poo poo you care about but actually know nothing about? It's extremely unprofessional. Please explain how 8.7 per 1,000 = 0.0087 %, since this statistic was fundamental to your argument that teen pregnancy is insignificant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Bernie actively wants to break up the big banks. Oh I agree, I listed most of those things under Clinton/Sanders agree. I just meant that Sander's web team hasn't actually put that many policy positions on his website, and Clinton has basically dumped what seems like her platform for the general and primary all at once. I was too lazy to go hunt down a bunch of campaign talking points for Sanders, so instead I just tore through the Clinton site for every promise like phrase I could. There are huge nuggets hidden in giant walls of text on her website, universal voter registration is a good example. It is something that Sanders and Clinton surely agree on, but might actually make a Republican candidate squirm on stage or when asked about during an unscripted press event.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
Dolash posted:It does probably matter whether these positions can be distilled into proposals. Wanting to break up the big banks in abstract sounds great, but something specific like "If elected President I will [do thing, probably executive action related because good luck with Congress]" is better. Universal healthcare is another tricky one since that'd surely have to go through Congress and Obamacare barely made it through in its heavily restricted form in the early days when Congress was comparatively cooperative. Wouldn't most of that huge list of promises have to go through Congress? For example, the Hillary promise: "We will—finally and forever—make college affordable and available" is just about as impossible in the present environment as breaking up the banks or expanding healthcare.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Man your red text is so loving spot on it's painful. The troublesome question is "if those girls hadn't gotten pregnant would they still have dropped out?" or more broadly is poverty/social issues or having a kid the causative factor for the dropouts? There are two or three studies which tried to answer the question and just got a big "eh, we can't tell". The main trouble is that life is messy so we can't get a randomized controlled trials so we are forced to use other indicators with massive potential for complicating things. One of those studies for example tracked teenagers who got pregnant but had miscarriages and used them as the "control" and found that those who gave birth were no more likely to drop out. But complicating that finding is that you are excluding a chunk of teens who were pregnant but miscarried early before telling anyone and the fact that a late term miscarriage is a massive emotional trauma. Schools are trying to figure it out as well. A school a friend teaches at has a new secret day care pilot program which is for kids of students. It will be interesting to see how that works out but the reaction from the student body and parents of the students when they find out about it has been pretty drat negative. Nobody wants attend or to send their kid to Teen Mom High.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:Yeah, which the opposition is incapable of doing, and brought exactly one paper to the table that might have a representation of abortion statistics in the US. Are you guys going to cheerlead the rest of the thread on poo poo you care about but actually know nothing about? It's extremely unprofessional. Actually your entire argument is based on your inability to comprehend statistics. Tracing back the course of your arguments: First, you attempt to discredit a study on childbirth by pointing out that most of the recorded births were from mothers who were 18-19 years old and confounding the remaining 8.7 per 1,000 into 0.0087%. When it is pointed out to you that the act of childbirth is traditionally preceded by several months of pregnancy, you attempt to defend your argument by attacking the relationship between pregnancy and childbirth through a very pedantic reading of the word correlation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:"We will—finally and forever—make college affordable and available" is just about as impossible in the present environment as breaking up the banks or expanding healthcare. If you had said that in 2007 you'd be half right! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Remember the primary elections are a full year from now and the election is 16 months from now so all our speculating is as worthless as Ted Cruz's presidential ambitions. In other news, NPR continues printing blatent campaign materials, n this case for Scott "The Desperado" Walker. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:It means the two things often occur together--such as, for example, pregnancy and birth. A F-test/p-vlue, or at the very least a correlation coefficient would've been something acceptable- anything involving actual regression analysis. Voyager I posted:Please explain how 8.7 per 1,000 = 0.0087 %, since this statistic was fundamental to your argument that teen pregnancy is insignificant. That's guessed probability of someone being pregnant out of 1000 females. You cannot force someone to care about an issue where you're at best talking about less than a tenth of a thousands percent of a US population when there's a huge myriad of other issues that have to be tackled, and I'm accusing anyone otherwise claiming that is statistically significant as making poo poo up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:That's guessed probability of someone being pregnant out of 1000 females. You cannot force someone to care about an issue where you're at best talking about less than a tenth of a thousands percent of a US population when there's a huge myriad of other issues that have to be tackled, and I'm accusing anyone otherwise claiming that is statistically significant as making poo poo up. Haha do you still not see the mistake?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
McAlister posted:Sooo ... The teen dads can get boot straps and the teen moms can suck it? Yes. You have accurately summarized my post. That is exactly what I was trying to say. I appreciate your ability to read between the lines. There are many inexpensive, heavily subsidized routes to college for non-traditional students. I did it, I know dirt gently caress poor people with kids who did it, it's hard. It's Junior College. It's loving job retraining, and politicians love announcing it while wearing hard hats. Martin Random fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Jul 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 13:22 |
|
|
Job Truniht posted:A F-test/p-vlue, or at the very least a correlation coefficient would've been something acceptable- anything involving actual regression analysis. (8.7/1000)*100 = 0.87% For reference the murder rate in the US 4.7 per 100,000 people, which is 0.0047%. This is seen as a problem as well even though it is two orders of magnitude smaller. Stereotype fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Jul 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 21:55
|
|