Well, I’m a huge advocate of personal responsibility but when you talk about grown children needing assistance, no thanks. I’ve tried everything to get my step son on the straight and narrow and sometimes, they’re just too stubborn to learn. When they’re kids, yes, it’s on the parents but once you become an adult, the worst thing in the world to do is make someone else, be it government or the parent, responsible for the damage they cause.
I didnt know it either. We got by. Only in retrospect do I think about getting 2nd hand Christmas presents and having to wear my pajamas under my clothes on cold days. We never went hungry though. Both my mother and father worked. My SO grew up poor too. Libs think only poor black families were out in the field picking cotton or tobacco. My SO’s family -all of em- picked tobacco in southern Maryland. She was teased about her clothes too. Damn the libs that tell poor people that is an excuse to demand free stuff from everyone else.
Point being, if someone insists they need assistance and want government to mandate it, why should it be tax payers instead of the people who raised them and are related to them? So I am not saying they should be supported, but instead saying, if society insists they must be, it would be infinitely more fair that the people who raised them be the ones supporting them as opposed to total strangers who had zero responsibility for the outcome of their not being able to support themselves. I get that some people can’t be saved and that plenty of people with perfectly good parents who did everything they could turn out wrong.
I was a cabbage catcher when I was seven, that’s the kid who is in the back of the truck catching heads of cabbage from the cutters. I picked tomatoes for Heinz when I was ten. I was glad to get the work.
I agree that government’s a bad place for assistance. I’m all for helping but I prefer private charities. Sometimes, the parents aren’t to blame and even worse, not available.
1 Like
The parents are always more to blame then a totally unrelated citizen who had absolutely nothing to do with the child’s rearing, they may not be totally to blame, just more to blame. If society insists that someone other than the individual who failed share the blame and has to share the cost, it just seems a lot fairer to me to assign that cost to their parents than to the unrelated tax payer.
No, there isn’t. Do you have a source?
In theory, I understand that, in reality, can’t do it. Parents cannot be held for the bad choices of their kids once they’re adults. I think society needs to get their head out of their ass stop demanding others be responsible for your actions.
My point stands, it would fairer to hold them responsible than it is to hold unrelated tax payers responsible.
Fairer, yes. Unconstitutional though.
No more unconstitutional than making me pay for it.
1 Like
I believe the American DoD discovered, during the ‘recruiting phase’ of the Vietnam War (might have been WW2) that the average IQ of the ‘black’ enlistees was higher than the average IQ of the ‘white’ enlistees.
Can’t be bothered to look for the reference, I suggest Google.
Translation:
Translation:
“I know there are sources but libdom has done a fine job of discrediting them so I will wait to see what you post and then copy/paste the narrative’s outrage and lies about that source.”
1 Like
No no, it’s all nurture, everyone is a potential Einstein, there is no genetic basis for intelligence. Just throw out everything you know about people and listen to social scientists and you will agree.
1 Like
Interesting deflection.
What is your point?..
of course there is a genetic component. There is just not a racial component.
In this article, the authors argue that the overwhelming portion of the literature on intelligence, race, and genetics is based on folk taxonomies rather than scientific analysis. They suggest that because theorists of intelligence disagree as to what it is, any consideration of its relationships to other constructs must be tentative at best. They further argue that race is a social construction with no scientific definition. Thus, studies of the relationship between race and other constructs may serve social ends but cannot serve scientific ends. No gene has yet been conclusively linked to intelligence, so attempts to provide a compelling genetic link of race to intelligence are not feasible at this time. The authors also show that heritability, a behaviorgenetic concept, is inadequate in regard to providing such a link. (PsycINFO Database Record © 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2005-00117-006
It is widely accepted that race differences in intelligence exist, but no consensus has emerged on whether these have any genetic basis. The present book is the first fully comprehensive review that has ever been made of the evidence on race differences in intelligence worldwide. It reviews these for ten races rather than the three major races (Africans, Caucasians, and East Asians) analyzed by Rushton (2000). The races analyzed here are the Europeans, sub-Saharan Africans, Bushmen, South Asians and North Africans, Southeast Asians, Australian Aborigines, Pacific Islanders, East Asians, Arctic Peoples, and Native American Indians. Studies of these are presented in Chapters 3 through 12; Chapter 13 summarizes these studies and gives evidence on the reliability and validity of the IQs of the races. Chapter 14 discusses the extent to which race differences in intelligence are determined by environmental and genetic factors. Chapters 15, 16, and 17 discuss how race differences in intelligence have evolved over the course of approximately the last 100,000 years. These discussions are preceded by accounts of the nature of intelligence and the measurement of race differences given in the first chapter, and of the concept of race in Chapter 2. (PsycINFO Database Record © 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2007-01201-000
Some have argued that the cause of Black–White differences in IQ is a pseudoquestion because “race” and “IQ” are arbitrary social constructions (Tate &Audette, 2001).
You can talk about the genetics of race. You can talk about the genetics of intelligence. The genetics of race and the genetics of intelligence are two different fields of research.
Throw in the outside factors experience, education, training, social interaction, family, wealth, environment and measuring intelligence becomes blurred as to cause and effect.
Can you find anywhere in the world people of different races that have not been affected by the factors above to measure and compare intelligence?
Well let’s start with the absurd strawman that because they haven’t found a gene responsible for intelligence it can’t have a genetic component. Who said it was one gene? And who thinks we know our genome so well that it is sure to have been identified in the unlikely event it was?
And I love the fall back of oh we don’t even know what intelligence is, really? Lol
Let’s start with the straw man that doesn’t read the post.