[k2director]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

When it comes to baiting, you're a master

There, you see, I'm all for success and achievement being recognized, especially when it's mine.

But am I wrong? That's not a huge problem in the black community? Children born out of wedlock, or at least outside of traditional family units? Teen moms who are still children themselves? A heavy addiction to state assistance ever since the bone-headed Great Society, which leaves so many blacks unable to compete in the real world (federal and state governments employ huge numbers of blacks, far more than their representative share of the general U.S. population....take away the crutch of a government job, and the black community would be in far worse shape than it is now).

In the end, I'm tired of the habit of many blacks to call other people "racist" when things don't go their way. Making a list of all the things holding blacks back in this country (and that's essentially the gist of this news story....ie, what's holding blacks back) I think you'd find racism far down the list, below a lot of far bigger issues.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by k2director 

There, you see, I'm all for success and achievement being recognized, especially when it's mine.

But am I wrong? That's not a huge problem in the black community? Children born out of wedlock, or at least outside of traditional family units?

So in cases like this one where it's clearly not a problem, your logic is that someone should step in and change the rules to make it a problem? Like if the underdog manages to win the match, we should weight their score against them so the ultimate result is that they lose anyway? Kind of cowardly, don't you think?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by k2director 

There, you see, I'm all for success and achievement being recognized, especially when it's mine.

But am I wrong? That's not a huge problem in the black community? Children born out of wedlock, or at least outside of traditional family units? Teen moms who are still children themselves? A heavy addiction to state assistance ever since the bone-headed Great Society, which leaves so many blacks unable to compete in the real world (federal and state governments employ huge numbers of blacks, far more than their representative share of the general U.S. population....take away the crutch of a government job, and the black community would be in far worse shape than it is now).

Here's the issue with this mindset among those for whom the shoe fits .....

There are those who take legitimate issue with certain negative behavior ... but they get really bent out of shape about it when it's done by minorities but only somewhat annoyed when other people (i.e. the more melanin challenged among us) do the same thing. And it's quite evident by the tone and the focus of their commentary. There's nothing wrong with being against able bodied people living off welfare for decades or even generations on end. I most definitely agree with that sentiment myself. But let's keep things in perspective. Of the miniscule percentage of your tax dollars that even go to welfare programs ... the majority of it goes to support white females and their out of wedlock children. Despite the higher out of wedlock birthrate in the black community. Even if it was half black and half white ... what difference does that make? You open yourself up to legitimate criticism for such comments because it gives the distinct impression that you are more upset about your tax dollars going to black people on welfare ... as opposed to people on welfare in general. And the truth you cited in the part where you started out with "Am I wrong?" doesn't change that. It's the same phenomenon I observe in affirmative action debates. In the Michigan case a white student sued the school because a few black students with lower test scores were admitted and she was not. Yet this same student took no issue when hundreds of other white students with lower test scores were admitted and she was not. Just as this same student took no issue with black students with higher test scores who were also not admitted. So simply looking at the situation logically it became quite evident that the issue wasn't students with lower test scores getting a slot over her ...... the issue was black students with lower test scores getting a slot over her. And again, all the legitimate points that were made about "academic merit" and "preferences" didn't change that fact.

But in any event, I fail to see how this entire tangent is even relevant to the issue at hand. Being named "valedictorian" is an academic achievement. Period. Perhaps this young lady is a total a*shole. Then again she might volunteer at a retirement home. Maybe she never cleans her room is is totally disrespectful to her mother. Or she could be the most popular kid at her local church. She might even be a complete fashion disaster. Or she could be the most stylish girl in the neighborhood. Maybe she enjoys smoking weed on a regular basis. Then again she may never touch any sort of narcotic or alcohol. Perhaps she's in the habit of sucking random d*cks M-F and carpet munching on the weekends. OR NOT. All of that would be completely beside the point in the context of an academic achievement. As is the fact that she is a teen mother.

Now you can post whatever you want as is your prerogative. But I must say that I find it interesting that your entire contribution to the thread thus far that actually addresses the topic at hand was ....

Originally Posted by k2director

Racism? I doubt it.

A simple, blanket dismissal completely devoid of anything to substantiate it. Now to be fair, it was the expression of an opinion .... and an opinion doesn't necessarily need to be proven. Ok fine. But from that point on you chose to go completely OT about "teen mothers" and "black flash mobs". Nothing whatsoever to do with the issue being discussed. So it's quite appropriate for people to wonder why ... n'est-ce pas?

OAW

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by k2director 

First of all, I never said "single moms", did I? Go ahead and actually read my post and you'll see that I was referring to "teen moms". Pay attention next time, or is this conversation above your intellectual pay grade?

Other than the fact that this changes nothing about my post, that's an accurate observation.

P.S. She gave birth her junior year, but found the time to excel in school, and her mother also works at the school....so who's raising the baby?

Obviously, the state is paying for a round-the-clock nanny, just like every other welfare addict.

P.P.S The girl's mother is a joke. She manages to fling the racism charge at school administrators on such weak evidence, but what about her own guilt in raising a daughter that got pregnant, most likely as a high school sophomore? If anybody should be hauled into court, it's her.

Yes, jailing the mothers of teen moms would go a long way to improving the lives their children.

[k2director]

OAW, a few things:

1) First of all, I don't have census or other government data in front of me, but I can assure you that white single mothers on welfare could only outnumber blacks on a pure numerical basis, due to the fact that they make up a far far greater percentage of the overall U.S. population. Given that blacks make up about 12% of the U.S. population (somewhere around there), the number of blacks needing social welfare services is far greater than their small 12% of the population should account for.

Now why does it appear I'm singling out blacks in this thread? Well, it might have something to do with the fact that this thread is about blacks....ie, a black woman who claims she and other blacks at her high school are being racially discriminated against, when there are clearly other very plausible explanations available (like her teen pregnancy at a time when teens having babies is a plague on communities, especially the black communities that are already so behind much of the country). However, I can assure you that I'm EQUALLY CRITICAL of all able-bodied people, of ALL races, who don't carry their own weight, and increasingly demand that society's producers get saddled with the yoke of socialism to pay for their irresponsible behavior. But again, this is a thread about blacks in America, and my comments were aimed at blacks in America, particularly the ones that embody the bad habits weighing the country down (and me with it).

2) Who are you to say what this particular high school's criteria for Valedictorian should be?? You say the recognition is solely about the highest academic achievement, but that's bullshit. Type "define valedictorian" into Google and you'll see multiple sources that state the award is "usually" or "typically" for the highest academic achieve, which indicates that that's not ALWAYS the case. Also some definitions say that the Valedictorian distinction is for "one of the top" achievers, which would definitely support this woman's high school's position. And we've also seen people on this thread state that their high schools had multiple valedictorians!

Finally, I'd argue that any reasonable school administration would also take into account other aspect's of the students' life/behavior. For instance, what if a white high school senior has the highest GPA at graduation, but a week before the ceremony, a video is found on YouTube showing him driving around with his friends screaming "F*ck You N*gger!!" to black pedestrians, and other racial insults to Hispanics, or whoever else. That's not against the law, that's protected by the 1st amendment, but do you honestly think that a high school administration would let that kid up on stage to deliver his completely earned Valedictorian address? I don't think so. I think the administration would be well within its rights to point out that the valedictorian is a distinction of honor, and dishonorable (though legal) behavior can disqualify you, regardless of your GPA.

Now, I don't think that this black teen getting pregnant is as bad as my white racist example. But it shows that there may be some grey area beyond pure GPA to picking a valedictorian. And if you consider how many kids drop out of high school because they get pregnant, or how pregnant students may disrupt the learning environment for other kids, then it's possible to see why that particular high school's administration may have felt uncomfortable with giving the stage entirely to a kid who had a baby in her junior year. (For all we know, she could have been encouraging all her friends to do the same thing, or bragging about how being a mother wasn't hard at all....since apparently, she only missed 3 weeks of school). Some people (like you) may say that girl would be an inspiration to other potential teenaged-mothers-to-be, but other, wiser people would recognize that the girl's "success" story was a fluke, and the vast majority of other teen girls would not be able to follow in her footsteps.

Anyway, the black so-called "victim" said on a Fox News interview that her being a teen mom was another reason the administration wanted to take her sole Valedictorian credit away, so even she recognizes that there are other forces at work besides the dreaded "racism" boogeyman.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

To me there are 3 issues
Teenagers having children.
Anyone who thinks welfare isn't short term assistance.
Any official, lacking divine right, making up the rules as they go.

This story is just full fail.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by k2director 

OAW, a few things:

1) First of all, I don't have census or other government data in front of me, but I can assure you that white single mothers on welfare could only outnumber blacks on a pure numerical basis, due to the fact that they make up a far far greater percentage of the overall U.S. population. Given that blacks make up about 12% of the U.S. population (somewhere around there), the number of blacks needing social welfare services is far greater than their small 12% of the population should account for.

Indeed. But of course, that in no way contradicts what I said. Black people in the US are disproportionately on welfare because black people in the US are disproportionately in poverty. Recent poverty statistics show the following .....

Poverty by Race/Ethnicity

- 8.6% of all Whites
- 11.8% of all Asian Americans
- 23.2% of all Hispanics
- 24.2% of all American Indians and Alaska Natives
- 24.7% of all African-Americans.

So on the surface Blacks are 3 times as likely to be in poverty than Whites. But break that down further by Family Status and you will see the following ....

Poverty by Race/Ethnicity and Family Status

Married Families: 5.8% overall lived in poverty.

- 5.4% of Whites
- 8.3% of African-Americans
- 14.9% of Hispanics

Single Parent Families: 26.6% overall lived in poverty

- 30% of Whites
- 40% of African-Americans
- 30% of Hispanics

Single Individuals living alone: 19.1% lived in poverty

- 18% of Whites
- 27.9% of African-Americans
- 27% of Hispanics

Now what these more detailed statistics show is that by far .... Family Status has a stronger correlation to poverty than does Race/Ethnicity. And again, since the usage of "social welfare services" is based upon poverty then why is the discussion being steered toward a racial angle when that isn't even the main factor? Especially considering how the financial value of your tax dollars that go toward "social welfare services" is not increased or lessened based upon the race/ethnicity of the recipient? So I'll reiterate what I said before .... if a person is irked more by black people receiving welfare than they are about people in general receiving welfare ... then that is a reflection of that person's racial attitudes. Because from a purely financial standpoint .... from a "this is a waste of my taxes" standpoint .... a dollar contributed to the "social welfare services" pot is still a dollar. REGARDLESS of who receives it.

Originally Posted by k2director 

Now why does it appear I'm singling out blacks in this thread? Well, it might have something to do with the fact that this thread is about blacks....ie, a black woman who claims she and other blacks at her high school are being racially discriminated against, when there are clearly other very plausible explanations available (like her teen pregnancy at a time when teens having babies is a plague on communities, especially the black communities that are already so behind much of the country). However, I can assure you that I'm EQUALLY CRITICAL of all able-bodied people, of ALL races, who don't carry their own weight, and increasingly demand that society's producers get saddled with the yoke of socialism to pay for their irresponsible behavior. But again, this is a thread about blacks in America, and my comments were aimed at blacks in America, particularly the ones that embody the bad habits weighing the country down (and me with it).

Now in full disclosure to those who may not be following the entire thread, the parts of your post that I quoted above that are in bold are "EMPHASIS MINE". And I highlight those parts in order to take issue with the fundamental premise underlying them. You see this thread was NOT about "blackS" ... as in plural. This thread is not about "blacks in America". It's about a particular African-American young lady who made a claim about what she perceived to be racial discrimination in a particular situation. Your comments here (along with those of a few others) reveal an underlying and perhaps subconscious attitude that any discussion involving an individual black person who has made a claim of racist or discriminatory treatment is some sort of referendum or proxy for a discussion about race relations in general. I'm just waiting on somebody to bring up Al Sharpton and Tawana Brawley up in this b*tch! And I say that only half in jest because it's a discernible pattern around here. For those whom the shoe fits ... there is little to no regard for the particulars of the situation because the immediate, knee-jerk assumption is that this is simply a case of a black person with a "blame whitey" mentality. Because they've convinced themselves that they know how black people think better than black people do. They bandy about these "victim mentality" narratives that black people presumably have .... yet you are 10 times more likely to hear them in conversations that they have amongst themselves than you would in a conversation you might have with an actual black person. And little things like facts are totally beside the point. And I must say that I find it somewhat amusing because the reality is that the typical black person doesn't think about "whitey" nearly as much as these people like to think they do. Because as quiet as it's kept ... most are too busy going about their daily grind trying to make a living and live life to the fullest just like everybody else. I mean just about every black person I know is a helluva lot more concerned about what's going to happen on the next episode of True Blood than they are about "the white man trying to keep a brotha down".

In any event, my point here is that this thread is not about "blacks in America". The topic at hand is about this particular situation. Now I totally understand how threads often go off onto tangents the longer they become. I get that. But perhaps at this point you might understand why one might question your motivations about going OT in the second sentence of your very first post? I'm just saying ...

Originally Posted by k2director 

2) Who are you to say what this particular high school's criteria for Valedictorian should be?? You say the recognition is solely about the highest academic achievement, but that's bullshit. Type "define valedictorian" into Google and you'll see multiple sources that state the award is "usually" or "typically" for the highest academic achieve, which indicates that that's not ALWAYS the case. Also some definitions say that the Valedictorian distinction is for "one of the top" achievers, which would definitely support this woman's high school's position. And we've also seen people on this thread state that their high schools had multiple valedictorians!

I never said what this particular high school's criteria for Valedictorian should be. Now perhaps you missed it, but way back on page 1 in my second post to the thread I said this ....

The bottom line is that this should be fairly simple to determine what's going on here one way or the other. The Valedictorian of a class is generally understood to be the student with the highest GPA. The Salutatorian is generally understood to be the student with the second highest GPA in the class. And of course, in the case of a tie either A) there is a "Co-" appended to these awards, or B) some other criterion has to be used to determine who gets the award solely. Now if this particular school uses a different set of criteria than this norm then it can easily publicize this written, pre-existing policy. And then that's the end of it! Yeah it'll still kinda suck for the black student involved ... but it clearly couldn't be chalked up to a case of racial bias. But if they can't ... well then this black student has a legitimate gripe. Forget all the speculation about this or that person's motives or what so-and-so had to say. Just break out the policy and call it a day.

So right there I'm clearly allowing for the possibility that there may be more to the criteria for being Valedictorian than grades alone. And if that's the case then it seems the school could simply publicize their policy to clear all this up. I've also said in the thread that to date the school has not done so. Which I find odd because if the school officials could easily nip this sh*t in the bud ... then why wouldn't they? Which IMO lends at least some credence to this young lady's complaint. Now who knows how this will all pan out? But given the facts that are on the ground at this stage in the game ... summarily dismissing her complaint is unwarranted.

Originally Posted by k2director 

Finally, I'd argue that any reasonable school administration would also take into account other aspect's of the students' life/behavior. For instance, what if a white high school senior has the highest GPA at graduation, but a week before the ceremony, a video is found on YouTube showing him driving around with his friends screaming "F*ck You N*gger!!" to black pedestrians, and other racial insults to Hispanics, or whoever else. That's not against the law, that's protected by the 1st amendment, but do you honestly think that a high school administration would let that kid up on stage to deliver his completely earned Valedictorian address? I don't think so. I think the administration would be well within its rights to point out that the valedictorian is a distinction of honor, and dishonorable (though legal) behavior can disqualify you, regardless of your GPA.

I see where you are coming from. But IMO ... how that situation should be handled depends on the policy in place for Valedictorian. If said policy was based solely on academics ... then the student should be named Valedictorian and that should be on his transcript because that complies with the policy. However, the school would be well within its rights to preclude him from giving a Valedictorian address at graduation ... or perhaps not even allowing him to walk onto the stage at all due to his deplorable behavior. Just send the diploma to him in the mail and call it day. See you bye! But OTOH ... if said policy was based on academics and student behavior then I agree with you that it would appropriate for the school to take other factors besides academics into account.

Originally Posted by k2director 

Now, I don't think that this black teen getting pregnant is as bad as my white racist example. But it shows that there may be some grey area beyond pure GPA to picking a valedictorian. And if you consider how many kids drop out of high school because they get pregnant, or how pregnant students may disrupt the learning environment for other kids, then it's possible to see why that particular high school's administration may have felt uncomfortable with giving the stage entirely to a kid who had a baby in her junior year. (For all we know, she could have been encouraging all her friends to do the same thing, or bragging about how being a mother wasn't hard at all....since apparently, she only missed 3 weeks of school). Some people (like you) may say that girl would be an inspiration to other potential teenaged-mothers-to-be, but other, wiser people would recognize that the girl's "success" story was a fluke, and the vast majority of other teen girls would not be able to follow in her footsteps.

Anyway, the black so-called "victim" said on a Fox News interview that her being a teen mom was another reason the administration wanted to take her sole Valedictorian credit away, so even she recognizes that there are other forces at work besides the dreaded "racism" boogeyman.

So continuing from my reply above ... this all boils down to the policy in place regarding how a student(s) is named Valedictorian n'est-ce pas? Wouldn't you agree that instead of making knee-jerk "blame whitey" or "race card" ASSUMPTIONS ... a more reasoned approach would be to refrain from going OT about "teen mothers", "black flash mobs", et al and question what the policy actually says?

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Now what these more detailed statistics show is that by far .... Family Status has a stronger correlation to poverty than does Race/Ethnicity. And again, since the usage of "social welfare services" is based upon poverty then why is the discussion being steered toward a racial angle when that isn't even the main factor?

Your statistics suggest that african americans are more likely to be in single-parent families. This at least is something it's ok to be mad about, if you believe this is a choice that ultimately results in that demo collecting more welfare. Any thoughts?

[turtle777]

Pfff, these are not choices. It's the white man that makes them do that.

-t

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Your statistics suggest that african americans are more likely to be in single-parent families. This at least is something it's ok to be mad about, if you believe this is a choice that ultimately results in that demo collecting more welfare. Any thoughts?

Oh without question. African-Americans are more likely to be in single-parent families. Now we can quibble as to why that is the case ... but there's no denying that the rate of out-of-wedlock births in the black community has skyrocketed over the last several decades. The thing is though .... it's gone up considerably across the board. In 2007 nearly 40% of all births were to unwed mothers. And you can best believe that black women aren't doing that alone. So my point here is that if you are taking issue with single mothers collecting welfare .... then take issue with single mothers collecting welfare. The pigmentation of the single mother welfare recipient is irrelevant ... because again, a dollar of tax money that is contributed to the "social welfare services" pot is still a dollar ... regardless of the race/ethnicity of the contributor or the recipient. Beyond that, my mother was a math teacher so when you say "collecting more welfare" I'm going to look at the numbers. A simple example ....

Say you have 100K people in the country. 10% are black ... the rest are white. So we have 10K black people and 90K white people. Now let's say that 10% of the black people are single mothers on welfare ... but only 5% of the white people are single mothers on welfare. Now there are those who will fall all over themselves harping about how "black people are twice as likely to be on welfare than white people". And they would be right. But even still ... that means that of all the single mothers on welfare only 1000 of them are black but 4500 are white. So how does that translate into blacks "collecting more welfare"? The last time I checked 4500 was greater than 1000 ... n'est-ce pas? Beyond that the vast majority of people .... black AND white .... are NOT on welfare. And the money that is going into the "social welfare services" pot is coming out of their pockets .... black AND white. This is why I say that a dollar contributed to the pot is still a dollar. Regardless of the race/ethnicity of contributor or the recipient. So why the focus on blacks .... because mathematically it simply doesn't make any sense?

You see what seems to be going on here is that there are some amongst our fair-skinned brothers and sisters who are under the mistaken impression that only white people pay taxes and it's primarily black people on the welfare rolls. And given media portrayals and what not that's not surprising. But the first thing out of their mouths when talking about welfare or crime or :::insert your random social ill:::: is to focus on race/ethnicity when it comes to minorities. And when you point out that white people are not immune from said situations then they give you some half-assed acknowledgement and immediately return to the focus on minorities. As if somehow getting knocked up out-of-wedlock is magically worse when a black woman does it than when a white woman does it? As if that black person strung out on crack in the ghetto is somehow worse than some white person strung out on meth in a trailer park? As if white kids in the suburbs aren't more likely to use drugs and alcohol than black kids in the inner city? And it's really interesting how the "disproportionate" argument doesn't seem to matter when its white people who fall onto the negative side of a particular statistic. Case in point ... and I need to bug out of here so I don't have time to find the actual stats like I normally do ... but somewhere around 90% of black murder victims are killed by other blacks. And we constantly hear people going on and on about "black on black crime". Yet about 80-85% of white murder victims are killed by other whites. You see the reality is that most PEOPLE are killed by people that look like them ... because most PEOPLE are killed by someone they know or interact with regularly. But when was the last time you saw a news segment with "white on white crime" as the byline?

So I agree with you to a certain extent. My only contention here is that the focus should be on what the problem actually is. The poverty rate for married blacks is only slightly higher than than poverty rate for married whites. So clearly race/ethnicity is not the issue. It's the single motherhood thing that's the issue. And yeah ... it's quite alright to be upset about having to fork over your tax dollars to raise someone else's kid(s) when they are able-bodied. Hell I know I'm not crazy about it. Which is why I and most other black people weren't all that upset about welfare reform back during the Clinton Administration. But again, if the pattern of one's commentary over time reflects a focus on the race/ethnicity of the recipient ... then I certainly don't think it's out of bounds to suggest that such angst is as much if not more motivated by racial animosity. Especially when one considers the fact that the portion of one's tax dollars that even goes into the "social welfare services" pot is MINISCULE compared to other items in the federal budget. I'm just saying ....

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Pfff, these are not choices. It's the white man that makes them do that.

-t

Exhibit A.

OAW

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Exhibit A.

Of what ?

Your sarcasm impairment ?

-t

[OAW]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Of what ?

Your sarcasm impairment ?

-t

Of this …

Originally Posted by OAW

And I say that only half in jest because it's a discernible pattern around here. For those whom the shoe fits ... there is little to no regard for the particulars of the situation because the immediate, knee-jerk assumption is that this is simply a case of a black person with a "blame whitey" mentality. Because they've convinced themselves that they know how black people think better than black people do. They bandy about these "victim mentality" narratives that black people presumably have .... yet you are 10 times more likely to hear them in conversations that they have amongst themselves than you would in a conversation you might have with an actual black person. And little things like facts are totally beside the point.

Unless the plethora of such comments that you've made all throughout the PWL over the LAST DECADE are just a figment of my imagination.

OAW

[hyteckit]

Since we are talking about teenage pregnancies. Isn't Arkansas like in the top 3 state with the highest teenage pregnancies?

I blame Christianity. I'm being serious. Blacks and Hispanics tend to be very religious, and they also have high rates of teenage pregnancy, divorce, and single parents. Teenage pregnancies, single parents, and divorce rates are among the highest along the bible belt.

Pew Forum: A Religious Portrait of African-Americans

Religion’s Link to Teen Pregnancy

Asians who are Christians are under 30%. Yet, they have the lowest divorce rates, lowest teenage pregnancy rates, and lowest single parent rates. Atheists have much lower divorce rates compare to Christians.


I say if we exclude teenage moms from being valedictorians because of the link between teenage moms and welfare/poverty, I say we should exclude Christians from be valedictorian because of the link between Christianity and teenage pregnancies.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Unless the plethora of such comments that you've made all throughout the PWL over the LAST DECADE are just a figment of my imagination.

Nah, you're just projecting, but what else is new. You've done it a millions times around here. That's what you do.

-t

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Say you have 100K people in the country. 10% are black ... the rest are white. So we have 10K black people and 90K white people. Now let's say that 10% of the black people are single mothers on welfare ... but only 5% of the white people are single mothers on welfare. Now there are those who will fall all over themselves harping about how "black people are twice as likely to be on welfare than white people". And they would be right. But even still ... that means that of all the single mothers on welfare only 1000 of them are black but 4500 are white. So how does that translate into blacks "collecting more welfare"? The last time I checked 4500 was greater than 1000 ... n'est-ce pas? Beyond that the vast majority of people .... black AND white .... are NOT on welfare. And the money that is going into the "social welfare services" pot is coming out of their pockets .... black AND white. This is why I say that a dollar contributed to the pot is still a dollar. Regardless of the race/ethnicity of contributor or the recipient. So why the focus on blacks .... because mathematically it simply doesn't make any sense?

I think you're being a little disingenuous. If you replace "welfare" with "traffic stops" so you end up with "more blacks" getting pulled over in traffic even though only 1000 blacks get stopped while 4500 whites get stopped, I think you would agree that the "twice as likely" per capita is relevant.

So I agree with you to a certain extent. My only contention here is that the focus should be on what the problem actually is. The poverty rate for married blacks is only slightly higher than than poverty rate for married whites. So clearly race/ethnicity is not the issue. It's the single motherhood thing that's the issue. And yeah ... it's quite alright to be upset about having to fork over your tax dollars to raise someone else's kid(s) when they are able-bodied. Hell I know I'm not crazy about it. Which is why I and most other black people weren't all that upset about welfare reform back during the Clinton Administration. But again, if the pattern of one's commentary over time reflects a focus on the race/ethnicity of the recipient ... then I certainly don't think it's out of bounds to suggest that such angst is as much if not more motivated by racial animosity.

So to summarize...
• It's not about race
• It is about having kids out of wedlock
• Apply those ideals to the OP and you're arguing the same thing as k2direct (except for the part about vehemently defending "single mothers" while vilifying "teen mothers" ).

I have to say I didn't see that one coming.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I think you're being a little disingenuous. If you replace "welfare" with "traffic stops" so you end up with "more blacks" getting pulled over in traffic even though only 1000 blacks get stopped while 4500 whites get stopped, I think you would agree that the "twice as likely" per capita is relevant.

Uhhhh .... actually I'm not.

I certainly don't claim perfection but I do try to be precise in what I say. And since this is a debate forum after all ... I suppose I expect that others do the same. In any event, that may not always be the case ... but at the end of the day I can only respond to what you posted which may not necessarily accurately reflect your intent. So let's look at what you said that I responded to ....

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Your statistics suggest that african americans are more likely to be in single-parent families. This at least is something it's ok to be mad about, if you believe this is a choice that ultimately results in that demo collecting more welfare. Any thoughts?

Again, for full disclosure purposes the parts in bold are EMPHASIS MINE. Now the relevant part of my response to the FIRST CLAIM in bold was this ....

Originally Posted by OAW

Oh without question. African-Americans are more likely to be in single-parent families.

And the relevant part of my response to the SECOND CLAIM in bold was this ...

Originally Posted by OAW

Say you have 100K people in the country. 10% are black ... the rest are white. So we have 10K black people and 90K white people. Now let's say that 10% of the black people are single mothers on welfare ... but only 5% of the white people are single mothers on welfare. Now there are those who will fall all over themselves harping about how "black people are twice as likely to be on welfare than white people". And they would be right. But even still ... that means that of all the single mothers on welfare only 1000 of them are black but 4500 are white. So how does that translate into blacks "collecting more welfare"? The last time I checked 4500 was greater than 1000 ... n'est-ce pas?

Now it's my response to the SECOND CLAIM that you just tried to rebut. But you see the problem is that you (and others) are conflating the two claims when they are not the same. That is the fundamental issue that I am raising here! Now it was real smooth how you tried to put that over on me ... but I'm not falling for the "ole banana in the tail pipe" trick.

So even if you do as you say and replace "welfare" with "traffic stops" you don't get "more blacks getting pulled over than whites" .... that's crazy talk! What you get is "blacks are more likely to get pulled over than whites". Capiche?

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

So to summarize...
• It's not about race
• It is about having kids out of wedlock
• Apply those ideals to the OP and you're arguing the same thing as k2direct (except for the part about vehemently defending "single mothers" while vilifying "teen mothers" ).

I have to say I didn't see that one coming.

That's an interesting take on it. But allow me to summarize my position on the OP. And then feel free to say if you still maintain that k2director and I are arguing the same thing ....

Originally Posted by OAW's Position Summary

• Being named "valedictorian" is generally based on academic criteria.

• A school will typically have a written policy regarding the criteria it uses to name a "valedictorian" ... academic and/or otherwise.

• School officials have publicly stated that "valedictorians are chosen based on both grades and difficulty of course work."

• The news report cited in the OP said that school officials claimed that the co-valedictorian was named because she had more credits. The young lady making the racial bias allegations claimed that the number of credits was only applicable in the case of a tie in GPA which was not the case. Additionally, the young lady also said she had a 4.0 GPA while taking honors and advanced placement courses. The young lady also claimed that the white student agreed that if the situation were reversed she would not be named "co-valedictorian".

• Others are speculating that the young lady being a "teen mother" may have something to do with it and the school officials are concerned about the "message" it would send if she was named sole valedictorian. I'm not sure where all that is coming from since nothing of the sort was mentioned in either of the two articles cited in the OP. The fact that she had a child was a passing reference at best. Neither she nor any school officials were cited as saying that had anything to do with the situation at all.

• At this stage in the game ... I'm not prepared to say what the deal is because I can't say that I know for a fact what the school policy is for naming a "valedictorian". If the white student being named a "co-valedictorian" is in compliance with school policy then this young lady is just SOL. But if it's not in compliance then she has a legitimate gripe. Having said that, I do find it odd that to date school officials have chosen not to publicize said policy or respond to repeated media inquiries regarding the situation .... especially considering the racial bias allegations being made. If their actions were above board then they could totally shut this entire brouhaha down by doing so. Easily! The fact that they haven't leads me to think that summarily dismissing this young lady's allegations out of hand is unjustified.

Somehow I don't think that's how k2director was viewing the situation. But I could be wrong. Doubtful though ... Furthermore, I certainly don't think I'm being unreasonable or irrational anywhere in the position that I've taken. But feel free to dispute me on that note if you disagree ...

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Now it's my response to the SECOND CLAIM that you just tried to rebut.

"Rebut" is too strong, more like "temper."

So even if you do as you say and replace "welfare" with "traffic stops" you don't get "more blacks getting pulled over than whites" .... that's crazy talk! What you get is "blacks are more likely to get pulled over than whites". Capiche?

If all you have to go on is "more," then there are two possible interpretations. "More per capita" or "more individuals" ("more per dollar?"). IMO "per capita" is the default assumption, since it is more relevant in almost every situation. But looking back, I think I am proved right by the following phrases k2 used: "far more than their representative share of the general U.S. population" and "far greater than their small 12% of the population should account for."

What do you mean by "It"? The topic at hand in the OP ... namely whether or not the young lady not being named sole valedictorian was due to racial bias .... or this tangent we went down about poverty/welfare being more correlated to family status than race/ethnicity?

Both. All of it. The moral compass that guides all policy. The underlying motivations that it is reasonable to attribute to people doing anything. The fundamental question of whether our (big picture) various differences of opinion are due to one party being downright evil or just to a misunderstanding.

You're losing me here. Who's doing the "defending" and the "vilifying"? Me or k2director?

Him

Somehow I don't think that's how k2director was viewing the situation. But I could be wrong. Doubtful though ...

I think both of you will be as surprised as I was, to realize you're on the same side as each other

• Others are speculating that the young lady being a "teen mother" may have something to do with it and the school officials are concerned about the "message" it would send if she was named sole valedictorian. I'm not sure where all that is coming from since nothing of the sort was mentioned in either of the two articles cited in the OP.

This is the interesting part. You're "not sure where all that is coming from," yet you brought out almost the exact same argument out of nowhere to address k2's welfare gripe.

He is saying "her allegations of racial bias against the school is bogus because the real issue is broken homes (her pregnancy)."

You are saying "k2's allegations of racial bias against the welfare state is bogus because the real issue is broken homes."

Do you really not see the eerie similarity here?

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

When it comes to baiting, you're a master

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

"Rebut" is too strong, more like "temper."

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No one said "than whites" until now. If all you have to go on is "more," then there are two possible interpretations. "More per capita" or "more individuals" ("more per dollar?"). IMO "per capita" is the default assumption, since it is more relevant in almost every situation. But looking back, I think I am proved right by the following phrases k2 used: "far more than their representative share of the general U.S. population" and "far greater than their small 12% of the population should account for."

Well you see on that part I was actually responding to YOU SAID. Not k2director. As I indicated in my post above ...

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Your statistics suggest that african americans are more likely to be in single-parent families. This at least is something it's ok to be mad about, if you believe this is a choice that ultimately results in that demo collecting more welfare. Any thoughts?

So when you say "that demo collecting more welfare" ... it's only reasonable to conclude that it's in comparison to some other demographic, right? Therefore "than whites" is pretty much implied given the context of the discussion. Well then the question becomes ... on what basis is the comparison being made? Now one can make all kinds of comparisons ... and some are more relevant than others. But again, this is an issue of language and precision so let me share where I'm coming from ...

I suppose in my view when you say "...that demo collecting more welfare" ... that denotes monetary payment as opposed to program participation. I mean what are they "collecting" if not some form of MONEY (check, EFT, debit card, etc.)? You don't "collect" being on the welfare ROLLS right? But regardless ... let's roll with either way of looking at it. You say per capita should be the "default assumption" because in your view it's more "relevant in almost every situation". But relevant how? On a per capita basis blacks "participate in" and "collect more" welfare than whites. Again, this is a point that is not in dispute. But how is this per capita figure calculated? Well if we are talking about "participate in" then you take the total number of people on welfare within a given race/ethnic group and divide it by the total number of people in that race/ethnic group. If we are talking about "collect more" then you take the total number of welfare dollars collected by members of a race/ethnic group and divide it by the total number of people in that race/ethnic group. But does that really tell you anything other than blacks are disproportionately on welfare because they are disproportionately in poverty? Clearly such a measure is on a group level as opposed to an individual level ... something our good friends on the right presumably abhor. But the problem here is that a race/ethnicity based per capita measure of welfare "participation" and/or "collection" is fundamentally rooted in people who are not on welfare. You can't even calculate the figure w/o them! So I would contend that if one insists upon making group level comparisons with regard to welfare "participation" and/or "collection" ... then the more "relevant" measure would be to compare only those people on welfare. Now by that measure gather all the people who are actually on welfare and put them in one place. Then throw a rock into the crowd. Well if your "more welfare" comparison is on a "participation" basis then the person who gets hit upside the head is more likely to belong to which group? If your "more welfare" comparison is on a "collection" basis then which group received more benefits? For every dollar in tax money that you or I put into the welfare pot ... how many cents ends up in the pocket of somebody black vs. somebody white? I mean ... if we insist on doing "group level" comparisons that is?

Which brings me back to my original point on all of this. A dollar contributed to the welfare pot is still a dollar. If my concern is about the dollars coming out of my pocket for this purpose ... what does the race/ethnicity of the person who's getting that dollar matter to me? It's still a dollar! It's not $1.05 if it goes into a black person's pocket vs. $.95 if it goes into a white person's pocket! So if I think it's too high then mathematically speaking wouldn't it make more sense to concern myself with reducing the number of people who are actually on welfare ... as opposed to some supposedly "more relevant" measure that factors in all the people who are not on welfare?

Now here's an article written by a Heritage Foundation policy analyst about a decade ago addressing this issue. I cite it because many of our good friends on the right are fond of referencing it to "prove" this "blacks collect more welfare" fallacy. But one would be hard pressed to show how these figures in any way contradict what I have just said:

At present, over 70 means-tested aid programs provide cash, food, housing, medical care, social services, and training to lower income persons in the United States. Among the largest programs are Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, the Earned Income Tax Credit, Medicaid, Food Stamps, and child nutrition programs.

Total means-tested welfare expenditures by federal and state governments amounted to roughly $384 billion in 1998. Of that sum, $212 billion--55 percent--went to white recipients. Some $105 billion--28 percent--went to black recipients, and $69 billion--17 percent--went to Hispanic recipients.

Welfare Expenditures by Ethnic Group

Now when someone can explain to me how 28% > 55% ... or how $105 billion > $212 billion ... then we can talk. Because when discussing "collect more welfare" it seems to me that the more "relevant" measure would revolve around ... you know ... those people actually collecting welfare. If HALF ... a full 50% of blacks who were actually on welfare at the time were arbitrarily kicked off the rolls one day ... total welfare expenditures would be reduced by .... hold on ... wait for it ... a WHOPPING 13.6%!!! So for every dollar of our tax money that you or I put into the welfare pot ... we couldn't even put a nickel and a dime together in savings. Oh wow ... what a windfall.

The gentleman concludes ...

The per-capita welfare spending figures are higher for black recipients because the percentage of the total black population that receives welfare is greater than the percentage of the white population that receives welfare. The same is true for Hispanic recipients.

The higher rates of welfare receipt among blacks and Hispanics are largely the result of the erosion of marriage among those groups. In 1998, 69.1 percent of black children were born outside of wedlock. Among Hispanics the number was 41.6 percent, while among non-Hispanic whites the number was 21.9 percent.

Which reiterates what I said earlier. Family Status is more correlated to poverty/welfare than Race/Ethnicity. So why are we having this "...that demo collects more welfare" discussion again? Damn I'm good!

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Both. All of it. The moral compass that guides all policy. The underlying motivations that it is reasonable to attribute to people doing anything. The fundamental question of whether our (big picture) various differences of opinion are due to one party being downright evil or just to a misunderstanding.

Him

I think both of you will be as surprised as I was, to realize you're on the same side as each other

You must have started your reply when I had an earlier version of my post out there. I was unsure what you were trying to say at first but when I came back and re-read it I got your gist. I then edited my reply so see above.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

This is the interesting part. You're "not sure where all that is coming from," yet you brought out almost the exact same argument out of nowhere to address k2's welfare gripe.

Not exactly. I'm making my argument based on the info presented in the thread. The OP cited two articles and nothing was mentioned about the young lady's out-of-wedlock birth other than a passing reference. Neither made any mention of anyone claiming that it had anything to do with the white student being named "co-valedictorian". Now k2director claims the young lady said something about it in some Fox News interview ... yet chose not to provide a link. So interpret that how you wish.

Yet now you really have me confused. Because as I followed the conversation k2director came in ... dismissed the young lady's allegations out of hand ... and then veered off into all kinds of OT statements about blacks one of which was this ...

Originally Posted by k2director

And that's all this country needs right now--ie, more blacks not raising their own children, all the while leaning on the state.

Which led you to say ...

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

When it comes to baiting, you're a master.

You observation was on point ... which is why I co-signed. He then goes on to make further comments about blacks and welfare which led me to respond to him directly ... which is where I made the statement that you claim is the "exact same argument". But I fail to see how you see it that way ... because thereafter in his post he said this ....

Originally Posted by k2director

Now why does it appear I'm singling out blacks in this thread? Well, it might have something to do with the fact that this thread is about blacks....ie, a black woman who claims she and other blacks at her high school are being racially discriminated against, when there are clearly other very plausible explanations available (like her teen pregnancy at a time when teens having babies is a plague on communities, especially the black communities that are already so behind much of the country).

So he admits that he's singling out blacks, but somehow you interpret my argument ... which is rooted in demonstrating how Family Status has more to do with Poverty/Welfare than does Race/Ethnicity ... is somehow the same as what you yourself characterized as "race baiting"?

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

He is saying "her allegations of racial bias against the school is bogus because the real issue is broken homes (her pregnancy)."

You are saying "k2's allegations of racial bias against the welfare state is bogus because the real issue is broken homes."

Do you really not see the eerie similarity here?

No. He is dismissing her allegations out of hand because of what he claims he saw/read in a Fox News interview. Maybe that was said ... maybe he's talking sh*t. I don't know because he chose not to post a link. Now I for one find more credibility in a person's comments when they at least try to back up what they say. YMMV.

And I suppose I don't see how you think I'm saying what you claimed above. But to clarify what I am saying ...

- You said he was race baiting.
- I agreed.
- He acknowledged he was singling out blacks.
- I presented an argument showing why doing so is bogus. Because if the issue is "broken homes" ... why then is his/her focus on race?

You see there's an old saying ... "A broken clock is right twice a day." And I think that's the point you are missing. A person can go about race baiting and still make a valid point in at least some aspect of what they are saying. In fact, that's how it's classically done nowadays! If someone were to come in here ranting about "All these lazy nigg*rs on welfare wasting the tax dollars of good, hard-working, Christian white folk!" ... well most people would write that person off as racist. An anachronistic relic whose mentality would be more suited for decades gone by. Oh no the game is more subtle than that these days ... at least in polite company. For those whom the shoe fits ... the intent is to express a similar underlying sentiment of racial animosity (to one degree or another) ... just in a more genteel fashion.

So with that in mind ... k2director could have easily said ....

Originally Posted by k2director

You know I don't think this is an issue of racial bias. I think it's more likely an issue of the school not being comfortable naming her the Valedictorian on her own because of her teen pregnancy. I even read an interview on Fox News where she herself acknowledged that this may be part of it. Here's the link.

... or something to that effect. That would have been as cool as pie. But that's not how it went down. S/he immediately veered off into "black this" and "black that". Didn't post a link to this supposed Fox News interview ... but saw fit to post a link to some UTTERLY IRRELEVANT "black flash mob" article. So no ... I don't see this "eerie similarity" because as far as this particular tangent is concerned I'm taking issue with his race baiting. As did you. Any agreement we may have with regard to "broken homes" is incidental.

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

You're long-winded, you know that? I'll do my best to be brief. Not to snub you, but to spare the readership (if there is one).

Originally Posted by OAW 

So when you say "that demo collecting more welfare" ... it's only reasonable to conclude that it's in comparison to some other demographic, right?

No. My post didn't specify (sorry, not my intent), so if you really cared to find out you could simply go back to the source (k2's post), where it was in fact specified. It's clear from your extended he-said-he-said that you know full well that one is in reference to the other.

There's nothing wrong with seeing what you want to see. But once it's been pointed out to you that there is another rational interpretation (as I am attempting to do), it's not productive to keep insisting your view is the only "right" view.

Which brings me back to my original point on all of this. A dollar contributed to the welfare pot is still a dollar. If my concern is about the dollars coming out of my pocket for this purpose ... what does the race/ethnicity of the person who's getting that dollar matter to me? It's still a dollar! It's not $1.05 if it goes into a black person's pocket vs. $.95 if it goes into a white person's pocket! So if I think it's too high then mathematically speaking wouldn't it make more sense to concern myself with reducing the number of people who are actually on welfare ... as opposed to some supposedly "more relevant" measure that factors in all the people who are not on welfare?

It's not about money, it's about justice. It's the same thing you'd tell KymWim: having a co-valedictorian doesn't take money out of her pocket, but it's the principle of the thing. If the story in the OP is ultimately determined to be unjust (ie racism was the cause), then don't you think it's important, even though the financial effects are negligible?

Which reiterates what I said earlier. Family Status is more correlated to poverty/welfare than Race/Ethnicity. So why are we having this "...that demo collects more welfare" discussion again?

"Family Status is more correlated to abridging valedictorian status than race/ethnicity. So why is KymWim playing the race card?"

Not exactly. I'm making my argument based on the info presented in the thread. ... Now k2director claims ... chose not to provide a link.

I don't see how you're sourcing from inside the thread any more than he is (within the context of claiming it's not race it's family structure). And I don't see how it matters either way.

Yet now you really have me confused. Because as I followed the conversation k2director came in ... dismissed the young lady's allegations out of hand ... and then veered off into all kinds of OT statements about blacks one of which was this ...

Which led you to say ...

etc etc etc.

You're probably confused because you're using a team-cheerleading mentality. I'm not subscribing to either one of you, I'm just following the conversation where it's leading.

So he admits that he's singling out blacks, but somehow you interpret my argument ... which is rooted in demonstrating how Family Status has more to do with Poverty/Welfare than does Race/Ethnicity ... is somehow the same as what you yourself characterized as "race baiting"?

Ok do you remember your post about the shoe being on the other foot (end of page 2)? Well all I'm saying is that YOUR shoe really appears to be on the other foot now. In KimWym's scenario, you agreed that it does indeed looks suspiciously like racism, while k2 says no it's ultimately about family values. But now that the shoe is on the other foot (the topic has wandered into welfare), he is the one suspecting racial motives, and you are the one saying it's ultimately about family values. What if you apply your family values explanation to the OP? What if k2 applies his racial disproportionality perspective to the OP?

Sheesh it's really not that complicated.

And I suppose I don't see how you think I'm saying what you claimed above. But to clarify what I am saying ...

- You said he was race baiting.
- I agreed.
- He acknowledged he was singling out blacks.
- I presented an argument showing why doing so is bogus. Because if the issue is "broken homes" ... why then is he focusing on race?

You see there's an old saying ... "A broken clock is right twice a day." And I think that's the point you are missing.

Ok stick with me here: consider that he made two isolated independent claims. Claim 1) KimWym's race card is crap because it's about family values. Claim 2) if you want to talk racism let's talk about welfare. Now consider that you also made two claims. Claim 1) KimWym raises a good point. Claim 2) k2's welfare race card is crap because it's about family values.

Which one of you is a stopped clock? Maybe both are? Maybe everyone in the PWL is just argumentative, and self-contradiction is just a symptom of being Mary Mary Quite Contrary?

I do it too. But I'm certainly not going to pass up an opportunity to be the first to spot when someone else does it

So no ... I don't see this "eerie similarity" because as far as this particular tangent is concerned I'm taking issue with his race baiting. As did you. Any agreement we may have with regard to "broken homes" is incidental.

So... why don't you take issue when KimWym does it? Or do you?

[Eug]

[OAW]

@Uncle Skelton

I'm out and about at the moment so I won't attempt to respond to your post above point by point for now. We all know that posting in the forums totally SUCKS on an iPhone. For the moment I'll make a few quick observations …

- What you call "long-winded" I see as "thorough" when warranted. You'll have to excuse me for not being a member of the "dems and libs", "repubs and wingnuts" crowd. I try to be more substantive than that. Sorry.

- We'll note that in your insistence on being "brief" you conveniently failed to address the fundamental point I made. Which is that even if I dont have mind reading skills about what you meant ... and I should have figured out you were referencing k2's statement … at the end of the day it really doesn't matter. Because a per capita measure is beside the point in a dicussion about "more welfare" since by definition if factors in people who are NOT on welfare. As I've said before … debating opinions is one thing. Debating math is a different ball of wax altogether.

The rest will have to wait for another time. I have a beautiful wife and a bottle of wine waiting for me when I get home.

OAW

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Eug 

so what happened?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

- What you call "long-winded" I see as "thorough" when warranted. You'll have to excuse me for not being a member of the "dems and libs", "repubs and wingnuts" crowd. I try to be more substantive than that. Sorry.

Being concise has value outside of partisan slogans.

- We'll note that in your insistence on being "brief" you conveniently failed to address the fundamental point I made. Which is... … debating opinions is one thing. Debating math is a different ball of wax altogether.

I did address that. In short, it's not about math or finances, it's about justice. Same reason KimWym is upset. It's not because she is mathematically worse off due to racism (allegedly), but because it is an injustice (would be if true that is).

The rest will have to wait for another time. I have a beautiful wife and a bottle of wine waiting for me when I get home.

Feel free to drop it. This post contains the real issue.

[OAW]

@Uncle Skeleton ....

The young lady who sued the school feels there is an "injustice" being done because she is being denied the recognition of being the top student in her class .... even though, per her side of the story, she was and that she had to share that honor with a lesser qualified white student. So the issue is that she was denied an academic honor that her work qualified her for alone. I fail to see the analogy you are trying to make with k2's comments WRT welfare. Is there a "whites are denied welfare but blacks aren't" angle here? Or even a "whites aren't allowed to receive as many welfare benefits as blacks" angle? Where is there some sort of "k2 is being denied something that is due to him/her" thing going on?

You say it's the "principle of the thing" ... but what is this principle at the root of k2's comments? Is k2director suffering some sort of "injustice" simply because s/he has to pay taxes ... a MINISCULE amount of which even goes into the "social welfare services" pot .... and the vast MAJORITY of that ends up in the pockets of non-black people? If tomorrow every black person in America disappeared except for 4 people ... and 3 of those left were on welfare ... is some "principle" being violated because a per capita welfare recipient calculation would reflect an "ASTRONOMICAL" 75%? Or is such a figure largely irrelevant to a discussion centered on who does or does not "collect more welfare"?

Seems like you are reaching to the point of making a false equivalence to me ....

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Seems like you are reaching to the point of making a false equivalence to me

While to me it seems like you are reaching.

You say it's the "principle of the thing" ... but what is this principle at the root of k2's comments? Is k2director suffering some sort of "injustice" simply because s/he has to pay taxes ... a MINISCULE amount of which even goes into the "social welfare services" pot .... and the vast MAJORITY of that ends up in the pockets of non-black people? If tomorrow every black person in America disappeared except for 4 people ... and 3 of those left were on welfare ... is some "principle" being violated because a per capita welfare recipient calculation would reflect an "ASTRONOMICAL" 75%? Or is such a figure largely irrelevant to a discussion centered on who does or does not "collect more welfare"?

You insist on focusing entirely on the quantitative effect of this scenario, but not the other scenario. All I ask is that you apply the same standard to both.

The young lady who sued the school feels there is an "injustice" being done because she is being denied the recognition of being the top student in her class .... even though, per her side of the story, she was and that she had to share that honor with a lesser qualified white student. So the issue is that she was denied an academic honor that her work qualified her for alone. I fail to see the analogy you are trying to make with k2's comments WRT welfare. Is there a "whites are denied welfare but blacks aren't" angle here? Or even a "whites aren't allowed to receive as many welfare benefits as blacks" angle? Where is there some sort of "k2 is being denied something that is due to him/her" thing going on?

So just try to do the same thing here, quantify the effect of there being another valedictorian. What exactly is the harm, numerically? She is not "denied an honor" as you say. She is still valedictorian. Her gripe is that someone else gets the same award too. It helps the white student without harming her.

Numerically speaking, that is. If you start talking about fairness and merit, then it's a whole different story.

In both situations, the "plaintiff" party is not harmed in any non-MINISCULE way (), numerically speaking. Meanwhile the other party gets a certain benefit, that they might not really deserve in an ideal world, however it is in practice essentially a free lunch and a victimless crime, and furthermore the question of whether they deserve it is a close one anyway (the co-valedictorian is no doubt a good student even if not the best, and the "extra" welfare recipients are no doubt in genuine need even if it's a need of their own making).

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

While to me it seems like you are reaching.

We shall see. See below.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You insist on focusing entirely on the quantitative effect of this scenario, but not the other scenario. All I ask is that you apply the same standard to both.

Will do.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

So just try to do the same thing here, quantify the effect of there being another valedictorian. What exactly is the harm, numerically? She is not "denied an honor" as you say. She is still valedictorian. Her gripe is that someone else gets the same award too. It helps the white student without harming her.

Fair enough. You get no argument from me on that.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Numerically speaking, that is. If you start talking about fairness and merit, then it's a whole different story.

Well therein lies the rub! This is the fundamental issue being discussed.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

In both situations, the "plaintiff" party is not harmed in any non-MINISCULE way (), numerically speaking.

Touche'.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Meanwhile the other party gets a certain benefit, that they might not really deserve in an ideal world, however it is in practice essentially a free lunch and a victimless crime, and furthermore the question of whether they deserve it is a close one anyway (the co-valedictorian is no doubt a good student even if not the best, and the "extra" welfare recipients are no doubt in genuine need even if it's a need of their own making).

Well now we are getting somewhere. The thing is I could understand where you are coming from when you start talking about "fairness and merit" if k2director was taking issue with welfare across the board. If the position taken was that it isn't "fair" for k2director's tax dollars to be given to people as a "free lunch" because they don't "merit" it .... well that would be one thing. But that's not what was happened. S/he made comments which you yourself referred to as "race baiting". Some added perspective that is relevant ....

Myth: People on welfare are usually black, teenage mothers who stay on ten years at a time.

Fact: Most welfare recipients are non-black, adult and on welfare less than two years at a time.

Summary

According to the statistics, whites form the largest racial group on welfare; half of all welfare recipients leave in the first two years; and teenagers form less than 8 percent of all welfare mothers.

More recent statistics ....

There were about 2.0 million adults living in TANF households in FY 2006. Of all those adults, 52 percent were TANF recipients and 48 percent were not. Of those not receiving assistance, 63 percent were parents, 32 percent were caretakers, and 5 percent were other persons whose income was considered in determining eligibility (see Appendix Table 10:9).

Most TANF adult recipients were women, as men only represented 10 percent of adult recipients. Nearly 95 percent of adult recipients were the head of the household. There were about 74,000 teen parents whose child was also a member of the TANF family, representing about 9 percent of recipients aged 13-19. Only 11 percent of adult recipients were married and living together.

TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES PROGRAM - Eighth Annual Report to Congress

So I'm confused as to how on the one hand you view those comments as "race baiting" ... but on the other hand you say it's "the principle of the thing"?

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The thing is I could understand where you are coming from when you start talking about "fairness and merit" if k2director was taking issue with welfare across the board. If the position taken was that it isn't "fair" for k2director's tax dollars to be given to people as a "free lunch"

You're still in the numerology rut. Ignore costs and all other numbers for a minute ok? (like you do for KimWym). They aren't a necessary part of this process.

Let's start here,
Suppose there's a de facto "whites too" policy for this school's valedictorian, such that a small number of whites benefit while no one else loses. What do you care? What is the principle that is being crossed?
Three sentences or less, if you please. And again, no numbers please. I don't think this is asking too much.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You're still in the numerology rut. Ignore costs and all other numbers for a minute ok? (like you do for KimWym). They aren't a necessary part of this process.

Let's start here,
Suppose there's a de facto "whites too" policy for this school's valedictorian, such that a small number of whites benefit while no one else loses. What do you care? What is the principle that is being crossed?
Three sentences or less, if you please. And again, no numbers please. I don't think this is asking too much.

Certainly …

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

If you start talking about fairness and merit, then it's a whole different story.

OAW

PS: Now perhaps you can actually answer my question from my post above? If that wouldn't be too much trouble?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Certainly …

Well believe it or not, some people feel the same way if they think there's a de facto policy where a small number of blacks benefit while no one else loses. Same principle.

PS: Now perhaps you can actually answer my question from my post above? If that wouldn't be too much trouble?

You didn't exactly ask any question in the last post
?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I can't believe you posted a pic of this racist game

-t

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Well believe it or not, some people feel the same way if they think there's a de facto policy where a small number of blacks benefit while no one else loses. Same principle.

Well that's because they either don't understand basic arithmetic and/or they have ulterior motives.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You didn't exactly ask any question in the last post
?

Sure I did .....

Originally Posted by OAW

So I'm confused as to how on the one hand you view those comments as "race baiting" ... but on the other hand you say it's "the principle of the thing"?

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I can't believe you posted a pic of this racist game

-t

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Well that's because they either don't understand basic arithmetic and/or they have ulterior motives.

Then why don't you explain the basic arithmetic of the valedictorian

You've really got a strong attachment to a double-standard here.

So I'm confused as to how on the one hand you view those comments as "race baiting" ... but on the other hand you say it's "the principle of the thing"?

Uh, yes?
I don't know what answer you're looking for. People do things because of reasons. Being a dick is one of those things, and feeling taken advantage of is one of those reasons. If you're confused by this, the only one who can explain why is you.

Don't you think people who happen to be black ever act like dicks due to an underlying motivation that happens to be just, like objection to racism?