4 ms·

Nobody is playing games and perhaps you should look up "perhaps". He presents the idea that poor people are incapable of raising their children as a useful fac

Nobody is playing games and perhaps you should look up "perhaps". He presents the idea that poor people are incapable of raising their children as a useful fact. The only way this information could be useful is some sort of policy of intensive state interference in child upbringing. We've two competing hypotheses here, both unpleasant: 1) Genetics explains a lot of group differences. 2) Poor groups can't raise their own children and there should be intervention. How on earth #2 is less offensive is beyond me. Sounds a lot like the native american forced assimilation attempts to me.

Retric 16y ago
This is not a black a white world and nothing says you need to act on information. Is also possible for poor diet to represent 25% of the problem, poor DNA to make up 25%, bad luck to hit 25% and few options to make up the last 25%. Given that breakdown there would be plenty of options outside forced adoption or sterilization. PS: Most "black" people in the US are less than 1/2 black genetically. And there are also plenty of poor white, Latino, and Asian’s.
timwiseman 16y ago
2) Poor groups can't raise their own children and there should be intervention. I think you may be misunderstanding part of the discussion. Saying that the poor cannot provide certain advantages to their children that better off parents can provide is not saying that the poor cannot raise their own children. I think it is obvious that more well off people can provide advantages. The better off can afford extracurricular activities for their children, an abbundance of books, healthier food. At the truly high end of the economic spectrum you see private schools, private tutors, trips to other countries. And that is before you mention that generally the better off are better educated so they provide more cultured, articulate role models for their kids. Etc. This is not saying that the poor cannot raise highly moral, hard working, children that become excellent people. But it is saying that when it comes to raising children that are educated, literate, and articulate the poor tend to be at a disadvantage. And saying that the children from the poor could benefit from some appropriate assistance is not offensive, it is a simple fact. In fact, some programs for that very purpose already exist like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_Start_Program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_Start_Program and I have not yet heard it called offensive. Sounds a lot like the native american forced assimilation attempts to me. Well, one obvious difference is the word "forced", another was that was trying to deliberately destroy the Native American's culture rather than providing education for people who (generally) want education. The forced assimilation programs were a national tragedy. Attempting to level the playing field in youth so that the children of the poor have a realistic chance of competing with the children of the better off in the job market is generally a good thing for the nation, as long as the programs involved are both effective and voluntary. (edit: spelling)

Retric 16y ago

This is not a black a white world and nothing says you need to act on information. Is also possible for poor diet to represent 25% of the problem, poor DNA to make up 25%, bad luck to hit 25% and few options to make up the last 25%. Given that breakdown there would be plenty of options outside forced adoption or sterilization. PS: Most "black" people in the US are less than 1/2 black genetically. And there are also plenty of poor white, Latino, and Asian’s.

timwiseman 16y ago

2) Poor groups can't raise their own children and there should be intervention. I think you may be misunderstanding part of the discussion. Saying that the poor cannot provide certain advantages to their children that better off parents can provide is not saying that the poor cannot raise their own children. I think it is obvious that more well off people can provide advantages. The better off can afford extracurricular activities for their children, an abbundance of books, healthier food. At the truly high end of the economic spectrum you see private schools, private tutors, trips to other countries. And that is before you mention that generally the better off are better educated so they provide more cultured, articulate role models for their kids. Etc. This is not saying that the poor cannot raise highly moral, hard working, children that become excellent people. But it is saying that when it comes to raising children that are educated, literate, and articulate the poor tend to be at a disadvantage. And saying that the children from the poor could benefit from some appropriate assistance is not offensive, it is a simple fact. In fact, some programs for that very purpose already exist like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_Start_Program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_Start_Program and I have not yet heard it called offensive. Sounds a lot like the native american forced assimilation attempts to me. Well, one obvious difference is the word "forced", another was that was trying to deliberately destroy the Native American's culture rather than providing education for people who (generally) want education. The forced assimilation programs were a national tragedy. Attempting to level the playing field in youth so that the children of the poor have a realistic chance of competing with the children of the better off in the job market is generally a good thing for the nation, as long as the programs involved are both effective and voluntary. (edit: spelling)