|
|
On August 04 2012 06:30 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2012 04:42 sunprince wrote:On August 04 2012 04:08 DoubleReed wrote:On August 04 2012 03:24 sunprince wrote:On August 04 2012 03:13 DoubleReed wrote:On August 04 2012 02:14 sunprince wrote:On August 03 2012 14:18 HunterX11 wrote:On August 03 2012 13:44 RavenLoud wrote:On August 03 2012 09:13 HunterX11 wrote:On August 03 2012 09:07 sunprince wrote:[quote] Stop talking about race already. You keep bringing up that strawman to inject emotional arguments related to racism instead of addressing the actual issue. No one is arguing that "racial factors" have anything to do with intelligence; the argument is that genetics and natural selection is relevant to SES (which is affected by, among other things, intelligence). [quote] The study I showed merely demonstrates that humans evolve at a comparable rate to other species. Considering that only 50 years of breeding was enough to produce significant changes in the silver fox, it's not a stretch to argue that several centuries of slavery results in significant effects (not to mention the selection effect behind slave capture). [quote] Again, stop with the bullshit about "race". It's a strawman. "Race" is not a valid scientific concept (e.g. skin color is not a defining part of genetics). Ethnic groups are (e.g. mitochondrial DNA haplogroups). [quote] All humans are hybrids. Nevertheless, reasonable inferences can be made about population clusters based on their general characteristics. How about YOU stop talking about this altogether, you ignorant racist. User was warned for this post I find it ironic seeing that it was him who started this whole thing by misunderstanding sunprince. As a reminder in case he edits it later, sunprince posted these words himself: On August 01 2012 11:52 sunprince wrote:On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity? I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better. Not a liberal, but I'd argue that the issue here isn't the culture of "blacks" or "Asians" as a group. Rather, one must consider that there are multiple cultures within those groups. For example, if you look deeper into the socioeconomic status of "Asians", you'd find significant differences between Chinese/Indians/Koreans and Vietnamese/Cambodians/Laotians. Similarly, you can find differences between African-Americans descended from slaves and those who immigrated more recently. This suggests that the "cultural differences" that you point to actually arise from selection effects. Asian immigrants (with the exception of refugee groups) tend to be the best and brightest from their home countries, so Asian-Americans tend to have a culture disposed towards socioeconomic success. By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help. TL;DR: people who come to America voluntarily tend to be above-average; people who come to America involuntarily tend to be below-average.As a side note, it's also actually rather interesting that you frame your argument as a conservative one. The fact that you attribute the disparity to strictly cultural differences, rather than as a combination of genetic and cultural differences, strikes me as a rather politically correct liberal explanation already (while the suggestion that genetic factors are at work here is probably controversial, I don't think it's a huge stretch to consider the genetic selection effects of several centuries of slavery). He is not saying that black people are inferior. He is not saying that it is the fault of African-Americans that they are inferior. But he is still saying that they are inferior and that there is even a genetic component to it. If this is a misunderstanding, he hasn't corrected anyone's misunderstanding of his plain and obvious language at all except for claiming that his position is scientific and that disagreeing is motivated by political correctness. African-Americans have lower socio-economic status because the selection effects of slavery have left them genetically/culturally/historically predisposed towards lower socioeconomic status. This doesn't imply they are inferior as a population group, the same way that Asian-American genetic/cultural/historical selection effects leaving them predisposed towards lesser political status doesn't imply that Asian-Americans are an inferior population group. Every population group has a unique set of advantages and disadvantages. The point about political correctness is that libtards who believe in cultural determinism completely deny that genetic selection has any effect, when in truth it's one of a number of causes for the present situation. TL;DR: Saying that Protoss has a weaker economy doesn't imply that you think Protoss is an inferior race; it's just a statement of fact that certain fanboy noobs will insist isn't true despite the evidence. What? How does that not imply that? If they are " genetically predisposed to a lower socioeconomic status" then how does that not imply they are inferior as a population group??? Because there's more to life than socioeconomic status. Are engineers inferior to businessmen? On August 04 2012 03:13 DoubleReed wrote:On August 03 2012 21:42 DoubleReed wrote:
Well sunprince kind of distracted us from Mr. Stereotypes-are-Valid xDaunt. Though we already shot down all of xDaunt's arguments, and he basically accepted defeat so there wasn't much to say. I feel like sunprince was just absolutely refusing to clarify his position and instead yammering on about political correctness, which is the kind of bullshit that racists say. I've clarified my position repeatedly. If by "refusing to clarify", you mean "refusing to apologize in the face of accusations of racism", then sure, I refused to do that. Well apologies don't make sense, assuming you aren't a racist. But constantly talking about "politically correct libtards" makes you look like a unabashed racist regardless of your argument (and your argument shouldn't even be that strong if you want to talk about accuracy). I don't really know why you want to do that to yourself. It makes me think you haven't had discussions or exposure with actual racists. I've dealt with plenty of racists, including in violent face-to-face encounters (as an ethnic minority myself). This doesn't change the fact that I have a strong distaste for people who try to shut down logical debate with fallacies and insults, whether they are bigoted religous conservatives, or culturally deterministic liberals. Blindly crying "racism" when someone talks about ethnic issues is about as legtimate as blindly crying "antisemitism" whenever Israel is criticized, or "misogynist" when feminists are criticized. I'm sorry, I didn't think you were implying that blacks were genetically predisposed towards engineering... I'm sure you actually understood that the analogy was pointing out that differences in socioeconomic status do not imply superiority or inferiority. On August 04 2012 04:08 DoubleReed wrote:Look, you show me evidence of something like that, then I'll change my tune. But what you've shown me so far is wild speculation. What I've said is a logical inference given contemporary understanding of genetic and cultural selection effects, in the absence of any studies to suggest the contrary. If you haven't noticed, there is a ridiculous double standard regarding "burdens of proof" in this thread depending upon the idea that you're propounding. In this case, you're going to be hammered unless you provide a dissertation in support of your point.
I asked you to define what you meant by "culture" and provide some evidence to back up your claim - any evidence. Apparently that was already too much :-)
|
What the hell has happened to this thread? I go to a wedding and this is the BS I come back to!
|
Anyway,
The Tax Policy Center's study may gain traction, because it proves indisputably exactly what everyone expected: that Romney's proposed tax cut will either drive up middle class taxes OR explode the deficit. It CANNOT be revenue neutral without closing tax preferences that benefit the middle-lower classes.
Why is this an issue? Ezra Klein breaks it down pretty succinctly, but here's his best points.
1) The Tax Policy Center bent over backwards to make Romney’s promises add up. They assumed a Romney administration wouldn’t cut a dollar of tax preferences for anyone making less than $200,000 until they had cut every dollar of tax preferences for everyone making over $200,000. They left all preferences for savings and investment untouched, as Romney has promised. They even tested the plan under a model developed, in part, by Greg Mankiw, one of Romney’s economic advisers, that promises “implausibly large growth effects” from tax cuts. The fact that they couldn’t make Romney’s numbers work even when they stacked all these scenarios on top of one another shows just how impossible Romney’s promises are.
2) If they thought releasing more details would make the plan look better rather than worse, they would have released them rather than letting outside organizations fill in the blanks. It’s essentially the same theory as refusing to release the tax returns. But now the Romney campaign is receiving pressure — including from conservatives — to release those details, which they know they can’t do. And unlike on the tax returns, no one can say that the details of Romney’s plans for governing the country are irrelevant to this campaign.
3) They tried to brush the Tax Policy Center’s analysis off as “just another biased study from a former Obama staffer.” That former Obama staffer is Adam Looney, one of the study’s three co-authors, who was a staff economist on the Council of Economic Advisers from 2009 to 2010. But William Gale, one of Looney’s coauthors on this study, was a staff economist on George H.W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. And the Tax Policy Center is directed by Donald Marron, who was actually a principal on George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. Calling the Tax Policy Center biased is ridiculous. Just ask…the Romney campaign, which referred to the TPC’s work as “objective, third-party analysis” during the primary. Oops.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/02/nine-takeaways-on-romneys-tax-plan/
Meanwhile, unlike the Romney Campaign, GOP senator Tom Coburn is putting his hard work where is mouth is and issued a facsinating 63-page report on tax breaks he feels should be eliminated. It looks a little like a high school book report, but christ -- it's nice to know there are republicans out there actually doing leg work and digging into detail, instead of huffing and puffing and shitting their pants over taxes.
Did you know there is a tax break on tackle boxes?
Tackle Box Tax Break
Manufacturers, producers and importers of fishing tackle boxes were required to pay a 10 percent excise tax on all equipment they sold until 2004 when the law was changed, reducing the amount of the tax to only three percent.
Yet, other sport fishing equipment is still subject to the full excise tax, including manufacturing of fishing rods and poles (capped at $10), fishing reels, lures and hooks. The revenue produced from the tackle boxes and other fishing equipment pays for federal and state sport-fishing programs.
Link to full report below.
Tom Coburn: Reforming Tax Expenditures …
|
Romney has no economic plan.
EVANSVILLE, Ind. (AP) — Mitt Romney is calling for "something dramatic" to help the economy recover, but he's not saying exactly what.The Republican presidential says he opposes another federal stimulus package and new government programs. He also says that if the Federal Reserve were to undertake another "massive" program of buying government bonds and mortgage-backed securities, with the goal of driving long-term interest rates even lower, it wouldn't help the recovery. "I can absolutely make the case that now is the time for something dramatic and it is not the time to grow government. It's the time to create the incentives and the opportunities for entrepreneurs and businesses big and small to hire more people and that's going to happen," Romney said an interview aired Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union." "You're going to see that happen in this country but not under this president." Democrats tried to cloud Romney's message Sunday by renewing calls for the former businessman to release years of personal tax returns. Romney insisted as recently as Friday that he won't release more than two years of returns, although most presidential candidates, including his father, released many more. "What is it that he is hiding?" Obama senior adviser David Axelrod said on "Fox News Sunday." He also addressed Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid's recent decision to share an anonymous claim that Romney hasn't paid taxes for 10 years. Republican Party chairman Reince Priebus, on ABC's "This Week," branded Reid a "dirty liar." Romney in recent days called on Reid to "put up or shut up." Axelrod said Romney and his campaign "can resolve this in 10 seconds. They can release the tax returns." As each side debated Romney's personal taxes, the Republican candidate is trying to promote an economic agenda he said repeatedly this past week would create 12 million jobs in his first term. Pushed to explain how, Romney said in the CNN interview, "That's what happens in a normal process.""When you come out the kind of recession we've had you should see this kind of job creation," he said. "Good things happen when you have a private sector that's thriving." Campaigning in Indiana on Saturday, Romney attacked what he called "an extraordinary series of policy failures" from President Barack Obama. The Republican candidate planned to spend Sunday and Monday in private meetings at his vacation home in New Hampshire. The former Massachusetts governor so far has been slow to release specifics for his economic plans. He repeated his opposition to Obama's tax plan that would preserve tax cuts passed in the George W. Bush era for all Americans but those who earn more than $250,000. Romney would preserve the tax cuts for everyone, although he has not detailed how he would pay for the plan. "I also hope people understand when they talk about raising taxes on the wealthy — as the president does — he is also talking about the same tax rate that applies to small business," Romney said. "The great majority of small businesses pay taxes at the individual rate so as he raises these taxes "on the wealthy" he is raising taxes on small business." The Romney campaign on Sunday also released a television advertisement highlighting his recent trip to Israel. In the ad, he criticizes Obama for not visiting the Jewish state. The president last visited Israel during his 2008 campaign. While in Israel, Romney said that cultural differences help explain the economic disparity between Israelis and Palestinians. The comment prompted accusations of racism from Palestinian leaders. http://news.yahoo.com/romney-wants-something-dramatic-aid-economy-130451788.html?_esi=1
|
Republican strategist Ed Rollins joined several other high profile conservatives Sunday in saying that Mitt Romney should release more tax returns in an appearance on “Fox News Sunday.” “I would have put out five or six years,” Rollins said. “Two years is not enough, obviously.”
Rollins said releasing the returns is the only way to keep the issue from dogging him for the rest of the campaign.
“I think at this point in time, it’s gonna dog him all the way and he needs to get it behind him. He’s paid a lot of money in taxes, he’s made a lot of money – I think he should release more taxes.”
“Really?” host Chris Wallace asked.
“Sure, absolutely,” Rollins affirmed. “At the end of the day, you come to a point where you basically give a little bit more, and then you move forward. He’s gotta do that. Two years is not enough, obviously.”
Source
|
On August 06 2012 02:03 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +EVANSVILLE, Ind. (AP) — [u]
While in Israel, Romney said that cultural differences help explain the economic disparity between Israelis and Palestinians.
Wonder what he had to say about apartheid?
|
On August 06 2012 04:23 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2012 02:03 paralleluniverse wrote:EVANSVILLE, Ind. (AP) — [u]
While in Israel, Romney said that cultural differences help explain the economic disparity between Israelis and Palestinians. Wonder what he had to say about apartheid?
Yes, why have a mature discussion about tax rates when we can just throw pies at eachother.
Maybe Romney wants to cut spending on the military and is just afraid to tell the rest of the GOP  Why is there always so much focus on the tax rates, is the government already spending so little that there is nothing to cut? I find that hard to believe.
|
On August 01 2012 11:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 11:16 Probulous wrote:On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears. Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity? I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better. And yet you say you don't want to drag this thread into the mud. Honestly how can people take you seriously? Even if you have a point you cannot preach your almighty ability to abstain and then bring up something as divisive as this. I've asked a legitimate question: specifically why African Americans have done poorly in the US when compared to Asians when both groups started off in this country in remarkably similar circumstances. I understand precisely why the question makes people uncomfortable, particularly because it calls into question a number of liberal ideals.
See Mr Daunt. Here is the problem I have with your position. You clearly stated that you didn't want to drag this thread into the mud and then promptly did exactly that. When pointed out to you, you claim it is a legitimate question. I left it, in the hope it would disappear but twenty pages later it is still going. So my point it proven. You brought up this topic knowing it was going to cause a shitstorm and for what purpose? What exactly does this have to do with the current election?
The whole thing has completely devolved from the original question which was about Romney's comments on palestinian/Israeli culture. It has precisely dick to do with how African American culture affects their prosperity. The only reason you brought this up was to give "liberals" a kick in the pants. In case people hadn't noticed, a topic as complicated as the interplay of genetics, history, socio-economics, culture and even god damn geography is not going to be calmly debated in this thread. But you already knew that.
So please, don't deliberately derail the thread. This goes to everyone here. This thread is supposed to be about the election but I have to wade through pages and pages of bullshit before there is something relevant.
/rant
|
On August 06 2012 08:32 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 11:28 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:16 Probulous wrote:On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears. Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity? I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better. And yet you say you don't want to drag this thread into the mud. Honestly how can people take you seriously? Even if you have a point you cannot preach your almighty ability to abstain and then bring up something as divisive as this. I've asked a legitimate question: specifically why African Americans have done poorly in the US when compared to Asians when both groups started off in this country in remarkably similar circumstances. I understand precisely why the question makes people uncomfortable, particularly because it calls into question a number of liberal ideals. See Mr Daunt. Here is the problem I have with your position. You clearly stated that you didn't want to drag this thread into the mud and then promptly did exactly that. When pointed out to you, you claim it is a legitimate question. I left it, in the hope it would disappear but twenty pages later it is still going. So my point it proven. You brought up this topic knowing it was going to cause a shitstorm and for what purpose? What exactly does this have to do with the current election? The whole thing has completely devolved from the original question which was about Romney's comments on palestinian/Israeli culture. It has precisely dick to do with how African American culture affects their prosperity. The only reason you brought this up was to give "liberals" a kick in the pants. In case people hadn't noticed, a topic as complicated as the interplay of genetics, history, socio-economics, culture and even god damn geography is not going to be calmly debated in this thread. But you already knew that. So please, don't deliberately derail the thread. This goes to everyone here. This thread is supposed to be about the election but I have to wade through pages and pages of bullshit before there is something relevant. /rant
When I said that I didn't want to drag this thread into the mud, I was referring to my refusal to respond to another poster's invitation to have me respond to his incredibly inflammatory characterizations of my political positions.
When I brought up this culture issue, I was responding to the chorus of liberal posters in this thread arguing that Romney was absolutely wrong to say that Palestinian culture is responsible for the current plight of Palestinians.
And yes, I did use this response as an opportunity to raise a very interesting and controversial point. Interestingly, very few people actually respond to the question that I posed, and most chose to engage in this argument over genetics. Of course, all of you fair minded liberals clearly don't think that there is anything wrong with black Americans culture, but that's besides the point.
Anyway, as a bottom line response to your post, no, I did not drag the thread into the mud. No, I did not raise an irrelevant point. Y'all took the ball and ran with it, so get off my nuts.
|
On August 06 2012 08:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2012 08:32 Probulous wrote:On August 01 2012 11:28 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:16 Probulous wrote:On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears. Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity? I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better. And yet you say you don't want to drag this thread into the mud. Honestly how can people take you seriously? Even if you have a point you cannot preach your almighty ability to abstain and then bring up something as divisive as this. I've asked a legitimate question: specifically why African Americans have done poorly in the US when compared to Asians when both groups started off in this country in remarkably similar circumstances. I understand precisely why the question makes people uncomfortable, particularly because it calls into question a number of liberal ideals. See Mr Daunt. Here is the problem I have with your position. You clearly stated that you didn't want to drag this thread into the mud and then promptly did exactly that. When pointed out to you, you claim it is a legitimate question. I left it, in the hope it would disappear but twenty pages later it is still going. So my point it proven. You brought up this topic knowing it was going to cause a shitstorm and for what purpose? What exactly does this have to do with the current election? The whole thing has completely devolved from the original question which was about Romney's comments on palestinian/Israeli culture. It has precisely dick to do with how African American culture affects their prosperity. The only reason you brought this up was to give "liberals" a kick in the pants. In case people hadn't noticed, a topic as complicated as the interplay of genetics, history, socio-economics, culture and even god damn geography is not going to be calmly debated in this thread. But you already knew that. So please, don't deliberately derail the thread. This goes to everyone here. This thread is supposed to be about the election but I have to wade through pages and pages of bullshit before there is something relevant. /rant Of course, all of you fair minded liberals clearly don't think that there is anything wrong with black Americans culture, but that's besides the point.
There are obviously problems with black American culture. The interesting question is, why do these problems exist?
(it should go without saying that there are problems with white American culture also, and big ones)
|
On August 05 2012 01:08 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2012 00:14 sunprince wrote:On August 04 2012 23:50 DoubleReed wrote:On August 04 2012 23:06 sunprince wrote:On August 04 2012 22:11 DoubleReed wrote:On August 04 2012 20:44 sunprince wrote:On August 04 2012 12:07 DoubleReed wrote:On August 04 2012 11:29 sunprince wrote:On August 04 2012 06:35 DoubleReed wrote:On August 04 2012 04:42 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
I'm sure you actually understood that the analogy was pointing out that differences in socioeconomic status do not imply superiority or inferiority.
[quote]
What I've said is a logical inference given contemporary understanding of genetic and cultural selection effects, in the absence of any studies to suggest the contrary. Ugh, I am between conceding for the sake of being ending this topic and arguing for the sake of how many baseless assumptions you'd have to make before that is true. And of course, because I like wasting my time, let's go with the latter. 1. You'd have to assume that significant selection was occurring. Admittedly, that's sort of assumed with evolution, but things like slavery and how super-awesome humans are at surviving complicate things a bit. The study you showed was resistance to certain diseases, which you would be expected even without a slave trade. The study I linked illustrates that there was a significant selection process over a single generation even in spite of modern technology (particularly medical science) sustaining unfit individuals who would otherwise have perished. Given that this is the case, how can you deny that significant selection would occur given the far greater number of generations as well as the far stronger selection pressures of slave capture and slavery? Well, selection to survive disease would obviously be more significant over a shorter number of generations, but sure. I don't see how slave capture and slavery is necessarily a strong selection pressure though. On August 04 2012 04:08 DoubleReed wrote:
2. You'd have to assume that the traits being favored while they were slaves would have negative impacts on them once they were no longer slaves. I'm not quite sure how you get around this idea, because traits like "hard working" would generally be favored here, while traits like "violent behavior" would be generally less favored. That doesn't exactly fit our stereotypes. And genetics definitely have a role to play in terms of our personality, so those traits, while simplified, are fair game. I haven't claimed to support any "stereotypes" that you suggest. Generally speaking, though, the selection process of slave capture and slavery would likely select in favor of traits such as physical strength/endurance, earler puberty (which we know results in lower SES outcomes), and fecundity (which plays a big role in reinforcing the cycle of poverty), while selecting against traits such as intellectual curiosity (slaves who attempted to learn were brutally suppressed). I was partly joking about the stereotypes. But is there evidence suggesting that modern blacks have those traits? That seems like a relatively easy thing to find out and have evidence for. Like, you have a claim, and here's a great way to check it. Selection pressures aren't exactly simplistic, you could easily be wrong that those traits necessarily would have been chosen more than common white people at the time. On August 04 2012 04:08 DoubleReed wrote:
3. We should not pretend as if white people did not have children with black people during slavery, because the fact is it was rather common. Black people were far from an isolated population during this 'selection process'. Genetic studies indicate that current African-Americans inherited only ~14-17% of their ancestry from Europeans. So while we certainly do know that many slaveowners and overseers took sexual liberties with their slaves, this did not constitute a majority of the genetic total. A majority wouldn't make sense, and is not needed for me to throw a wrench in your claims. (Actually the things I've seen put it more at 20% but whatever). 14-17% is actually pretty significant. The population simply was not isolated very much. It's more likely that they became more similar to the white people during this time, rather than less. As often happens with minority subpopulations, they became more hybridized with the majority population. On August 04 2012 04:08 DoubleReed wrote:
4. With all these concerns, you would need to show that the genetic factors are not only there, but of noticeable significance compared with nurture and cultural factors. Nurture = cultural factors; I think what you meant to say was historical. Yes, genetic factors are only a part of the picture here, alongside cultural and historic factors. That said, it's a rather naieve P.C. argument to suggest that genetic factors aren't in play at all, considering what we do know. The argument from ignorance you're making is no different from the European feminsts insisting that there are no differences between men and women except the external one, and that everything is culturally determined. It completely falls apart given what we know about biology, and is a far more extreme position than the default assumption that both nature and nurture each play a role (to unknown degrees). No, I'm not making these arguments. What I'm saying is that genetic factors are far insignificant compared to social factors in these cases. At least as far as the population of black people is concerned. Your argument is based on faith. I thought we both acknowledged that we don't know what the exact effect of genetics is? On what basis are you concluding that genetic factors are not significant? Given what we know about genetics, the default position is that genetics is a significant factor. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate otherwise. On August 04 2012 12:07 DoubleReed wrote:
As I have said repeatedly, genetic variability within a race is far greater than the genetic distance. Seriously? Are you even reading at all? How many times do I have to debunk this factoid until you get it? Your statement is a strawman because "race" is not a valid scientific concept. Of course there is great genetic variability between people with the same skin color; it's not a valid way of grouping people. But if we use legitimate classifications like haplogroups, then we quickly see why your strawman is wrong. Genetics are a significant factor is the default position? No, it doesn't work like that. We don't just assume that poor people are genetically predisposed to being poor. That's the opposite of default. That's something that needs some kind of evidence. That's Social Darwinism. You can't even find studies about the most basic parts of your claims to be true, and you're telling me that you're using logical inference. Based on faith? Are you for real? Are you serious? You have yet to show any evidence, and you're telling me that my arguments are based on faith. My argument is based on skepticism. I don't believe claims with a lack of evidence. It's not like the evidence would be impossible to obtain or anything, in fact with the traits you said we probably have done studies on that. The evidence I see is that the genetic variability within African Americans wouldn't make them any less 'genetically prone to lower socioeconomic status,' (whatever that means) than the majority population. I'm sorry, this is nothing but wild speculation, compounded with many layers of gross assumptions. We've established the following premises: 1. Genetics influence human traits. 2. Human traits influence socioeconomic outcomes. 3. Culture also influences socioeconomic outcomes. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that socioeconomic outcomes are influenced by both "nature" and "nurture" (African-Americans additionally suffer from the historical effects of slavery followed by widespread discrimination). Of course, we might revise this logical inference when and if we get experimental data on this topic, but for the time being this conclusion is logically reasonable. Despite this, you seem to be arguing that human traits don't signficantly influence socioeconomic outcomes in the specific case of African-Americans. Unless you can explain why this would uniquely qualify as an exception to the above premises and conclusion, it makes no sense to go with your argument. The burden of proof is on you to establish why the socio-economic status of African-Americans are an exception to the reality shared by every other population group with regards to every other human trait. No, I'm saying you're trying to explain the modern outcomes of a poorly-defined racial group (because we are talking about African Americans here, which even in haplogroups it's pretty silly) based on selection processes which may not have negatively affected them in that way, compared to white people at the same time (because white people are also undergoing selection processes even without slavery). African-Americans are a population group composed primarily of specific haplogroups. As far as populations go, "African-American" is actually fairly well defined. It's also not a huge inference that slavery has certain negative selection effects, and although white Americans have also undergone selection processes, they underwent vastly different selection processes for several hundred years (as well as different initial selection if you consider which groups immigrated from Europe). On August 04 2012 23:50 DoubleReed wrote:
I'm totally with you in terms of those premises. What I'm saying is that your grouping and theory of selection within this grouping makes very little sense given what we know about how genetics works. There's no reason to assume that African Americans are genetically predisposed to a lower socioeconomic group. It's not like the majority of poor people are black, or the majority of black people are poor. It's just that black people have a higher proportion of poor people. Cultural factors could easily explain the disparity without any odd genetic theories, considering that almost all African Americans are part-white anyway. And of course, culturally it is just black and white, without haplogroups. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding here about how to understand population tendencies. If a higher proportion of African-Americans are poor, then by definition African-Americans are predisposed towards lower socioeconomic outcomes (that doesn't explain the causes of said tendency just yet, but the tendency is there). As an analogy, a larger proportion of Asian-Americans going to college means that Asian-Americans by definition are predipsosed towards higher education. You don't need a majority for a tendency to exist, you merely need an average which deviates significantly from the control group. On August 04 2012 23:50 DoubleReed wrote:Of course, we might revise this logical inference when and if we get experimental data on this topic, but for the time being this conclusion is logically reasonable. This is opposite of the way science works. The default position is skepticism, regardless of your theoretical concoction. You need evidence to hold a position. Actually, we make theories all the time based on existing data, before we have more data to test them out. Many scientific theories were developed before we had the technological means to fully verify them (e.g. evolution), by simply using the evidence we have available. On August 04 2012 23:50 DoubleReed wrote:
And I'm sorry, but I would like a link to something that says haplogroups have less genetic distance than genetic variability. I couldn't find it with a quick search. The only I found said that it was about lineages, which makes it a valid scientific grouping, but that would not say anything about its variability. Haplogroups are lineages. They're mitochondrial (matrilineal) lines of descent. They have less genetic distance pretty much by definition. You're talking about genetics and haplogroups and even specifically refer to the theory of evolution, but you're using the Creationist definition of "theory" where any logically possible conjecture can be considered a theory? What the hell is going on here?
Did you even read the context in which I used the term "theory"? I wasn't arguing that my position was a scientific theory, I merely pointed out that we can form evidence-based positions without knowing everything. I.e. gaps are permissable when developing science.
It's creationists that insist that we don't know anything until we fill in every gap, and that's what DoubleReed and others are doing here by insisting that we don't know enough about genetics to draw any inferences. In reality, the opposite is true: we don't know everything there is to know about genetics and ethnic differences, but we know enough to draw logical inferences.
|
**** everyone involved in this genetics debate. I guess it's convenient for some to completely make this non-issue all anyone can read in this thread. Otherwise people might take a gander at the Tax Policy Center report, or at Romney's diplomatic incompetency.
It's gone on for ten pages, and I for one haven't really cared to read one post of it.
|
Less genetics, more tax policy.
|
On August 06 2012 10:02 Leporello wrote:
**** everyone involved in this genetics debate. I guess it's convenient for some to completely make this non-issue all anyone can read in this thread. Otherwise people might take a gander at the Tax Policy Center report, or at Romney's diplomatic incompetency.
Tax policy is pretty much an open-and-shut case. Republican candidates are beholden to the voodoo economics that their party's 1% think tanks have fed to their rank-and-file.
Diplomatic incompetency is hilarious, but it's not a major issue. If Romney becomes President, the State department will prepare him properly for diplomatic encounters.
|
Seriously, can we start getting mods warn those who continue this race nonsense? It's already been taking away from this topic in a very tremendous way.
Anyways, I'm starting to wonder if this election will really be about substance or money. It's starting to look like Romney is going to be rolling in dough compared to Obama, with all the huge donors, but I would also assess that Obama is doing better campaign wise. Romney is getting hit pretty hard on all sides.
|
Incidentally, has xDaunt said anything about the Tax Policy Center's report? He's commented on a lot of things, but I haven't seen his response to it yet.
I might have missed it in the whole genetics thing, though.
|
On August 06 2012 09:01 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2012 08:56 xDaunt wrote:On August 06 2012 08:32 Probulous wrote:On August 01 2012 11:28 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:16 Probulous wrote:On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears. Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity? I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better. And yet you say you don't want to drag this thread into the mud. Honestly how can people take you seriously? Even if you have a point you cannot preach your almighty ability to abstain and then bring up something as divisive as this. I've asked a legitimate question: specifically why African Americans have done poorly in the US when compared to Asians when both groups started off in this country in remarkably similar circumstances. I understand precisely why the question makes people uncomfortable, particularly because it calls into question a number of liberal ideals. See Mr Daunt. Here is the problem I have with your position. You clearly stated that you didn't want to drag this thread into the mud and then promptly did exactly that. When pointed out to you, you claim it is a legitimate question. I left it, in the hope it would disappear but twenty pages later it is still going. So my point it proven. You brought up this topic knowing it was going to cause a shitstorm and for what purpose? What exactly does this have to do with the current election? The whole thing has completely devolved from the original question which was about Romney's comments on palestinian/Israeli culture. It has precisely dick to do with how African American culture affects their prosperity. The only reason you brought this up was to give "liberals" a kick in the pants. In case people hadn't noticed, a topic as complicated as the interplay of genetics, history, socio-economics, culture and even god damn geography is not going to be calmly debated in this thread. But you already knew that. So please, don't deliberately derail the thread. This goes to everyone here. This thread is supposed to be about the election but I have to wade through pages and pages of bullshit before there is something relevant. /rant Of course, all of you fair minded liberals clearly don't think that there is anything wrong with black Americans culture, but that's besides the point. There are obviously problems with black American culture. The interesting question is, why do these problems exist? (it should go without saying that there are problems with white American culture also, and big ones)
There are problems with Black culture, White Culture and Asian American culture. Can we shut the fuck up about them now? Damn.
|
|
|
On August 05 2012 23:07 Defacer wrote:Anyway, The Tax Policy Center's study may gain traction, because it proves indisputably exactly what everyone expected: that Romney's proposed tax cut will either drive up middle class taxes OR explode the deficit. It CANNOT be revenue neutral without closing tax preferences that benefit the middle-lower classes. Why is this an issue? Ezra Klein breaks it down pretty succinctly, but here's his best points. Show nested quote +1) The Tax Policy Center bent over backwards to make Romney’s promises add up. They assumed a Romney administration wouldn’t cut a dollar of tax preferences for anyone making less than $200,000 until they had cut every dollar of tax preferences for everyone making over $200,000. They left all preferences for savings and investment untouched, as Romney has promised. They even tested the plan under a model developed, in part, by Greg Mankiw, one of Romney’s economic advisers, that promises “implausibly large growth effects” from tax cuts. The fact that they couldn’t make Romney’s numbers work even when they stacked all these scenarios on top of one another shows just how impossible Romney’s promises are. Show nested quote +2) If they thought releasing more details would make the plan look better rather than worse, they would have released them rather than letting outside organizations fill in the blanks. It’s essentially the same theory as refusing to release the tax returns. But now the Romney campaign is receiving pressure — including from conservatives — to release those details, which they know they can’t do. And unlike on the tax returns, no one can say that the details of Romney’s plans for governing the country are irrelevant to this campaign. Show nested quote +3) They tried to brush the Tax Policy Center’s analysis off as “just another biased study from a former Obama staffer.” That former Obama staffer is Adam Looney, one of the study’s three co-authors, who was a staff economist on the Council of Economic Advisers from 2009 to 2010. But William Gale, one of Looney’s coauthors on this study, was a staff economist on George H.W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. And the Tax Policy Center is directed by Donald Marron, who was actually a principal on George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. Calling the Tax Policy Center biased is ridiculous. Just ask…the Romney campaign, which referred to the TPC’s work as “objective, third-party analysis” during the primary. Oops. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/02/nine-takeaways-on-romneys-tax-plan/Meanwhile, unlike the Romney Campaign, GOP senator Tom Coburn is putting his hard work where is mouth is and issued a facsinating 63-page report on tax breaks he feels should be eliminated. It looks a little like a high school book report, but christ -- it's nice to know there are republicans out there actually doing leg work and digging into detail, instead of huffing and puffing and shitting their pants over taxes. Did you know there is a tax break on tackle boxes? Show nested quote +Tackle Box Tax Break
Manufacturers, producers and importers of fishing tackle boxes were required to pay a 10 percent excise tax on all equipment they sold until 2004 when the law was changed, reducing the amount of the tax to only three percent.
Yet, other sport fishing equipment is still subject to the full excise tax, including manufacturing of fishing rods and poles (capped at $10), fishing reels, lures and hooks. The revenue produced from the tackle boxes and other fishing equipment pays for federal and state sport-fishing programs.
Link to full report below. Tom Coburn: Reforming Tax Expenditures …
Ezra Klein has also written another article where he quotes the Tax Policy Center saying that Romney's tax plan is "not mathematically possible" without raising taxes on the middle class.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/04/romney-tax-plan-on-table-debt-collapses-table/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
