Saf(er) Sex

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

Somewhere on these pages I talked about personal responsibility and that the decisions one makes are what determines his or her lot in life. I was looking for an example that could have not only personal implications, but an impact on society as well. It didn’t take long, try this, the out-of-wedlock birthrate in the US is 38%, 28% of white children are born to a single mother, 50% among Hispanics and 71% for blacks. :-5

Could this contribute to poverty levels, to the number of uninsured, to welfare costs and eventually to crime and who knows what else? But wait, I suspect that all this is the fault of the educational system, hedge fund managers or at least the wealthy in American who obviously have bought up all the birth control devices. If I wanted to sound like a right wing evangelist, I might even suggest some new moral standard has something to do with it.

[RedGlitter]

Who cares. Women bear the sole responsibility for raising their children anyway for the most part and until men step up that's the way it'll always be. Even a marriage is no guarantee of responsibility.

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

RedGlitter;904993 wrote: Who cares. Women bear the sole responsibility for raising their children anyway for the most part and until men step up that's the way it'll always be. Even a marriage is no guarantee of responsibility.


You are kidding right, "who cares?"

Women may be the primary care giver, but if there is a husband and father around, it might be a family.

[K.Snyder]

RedGlitter;904993 wrote: Who cares. Women bear the sole responsibility for raising their children anyway for the most part and until men step up that's the way it'll always be. Even a marriage is no guarantee of responsibility.


I think men are influential to their children's lives more than you think...

I can't speak for everyone but I know that I would always make the effort to be involved in my childs life...I know I'm not the only one either...

I know alot of this has to do with the fact that more men have full time jobs than women when it comes to families but that's not to suggest those men never have an impact on their children...

[RedGlitter]

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;904994 wrote: You are kidding right, "who cares?"

Women may be the primary care giver, but if there is a husband and father around, it might be a family.


Sorry Quinn, a family is as a family does. Just having a man around does not a family make. I'm surprised you cannot see that. Perhaps that's the problem with men to start with. Just being around is not enough. How about men doing their job? And I don't mean just making the money either. Women already do that as well.

[RedGlitter]

K.Snyder;905006 wrote: I think men are influential to their children's lives more than you think...

I can't speak for everyone but I know that I would always make the effort to be involved in my childs life...I know I'm not the only one either...

I know alot of this has to do with the fact that more men have full time jobs than women when it comes to families but that's not to suggest those men never have an impact on their children...


I didn't say all men nor do I intend to imply that. Raising a kid IS a full time job. Not to mention mothers often have to hold down an outside job to help pay the bills. In my life I haven't seen a hell of a lot of effort from men and that is what I have to go on.

[K.Snyder]

RedGlitter;905009 wrote: I didn't say all men nor do I intend to imply that. Raising a kid IS a full time job. Not to mention mothers often have to hold down an outside job to help pay the bills. In my life I haven't seen a hell of a lot of effort from men and that is what I have to go on.


I absolutely understand...

Just that this man will raise his children the best he can...

[RedGlitter]

K.Snyder;905013 wrote: I absolutely understand...

Just that this man will raise his children the best he can...


With you I have no doubt of that.

[Patsy Warnick]

Wow Quinn

You want to stir the pot....

Snyder - best of luck to ya - majority do have the best intent, Life has a way to alter that.

rj

I feel the poverty level has a huge factor in the "out of wedlock" birth level.

several factors contribute.

Is this percentage high or lower or varied much than the last survey???

Patsy

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

RedGlitter;905008 wrote: Sorry Quinn, a family is as a family does. Just having a man around does not a family make. I'm surprised you cannot see that. Perhaps that's the problem with men to start with. Just being around is not enough. How about men doing their job? And I don't mean just making the money either. Women already do that as well.


You seem to read a lot into words, I never said just having a man around makes a family. Most of us are smart enough to know that. You also seem to be reflected a bad personal expereince with men. No doubt there are some bums out there, but most of us know our responsibilities as men, husbands and fathers..and for me at least as grandfather and I enjoy them all. Nothing comes before family as far as I am concerned.

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

Patsy Warnick;905042 wrote: Wow Quinn

You want to stir the pot....

Snyder - best of luck to ya - majority do have the best intent, Life has a way to alter that.

rj

I feel the poverty level has a huge factor in the "out of wedlock" birth level.

several factors contribute.


Is this percentage high or lower or varied much than the last survey???

Patsy


I think you have that backwards, the out of wedlock birth level is one of the major causes of poverty and its perpetuation, a vicious cycle.

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

rjwould;905018 wrote: What do you think is the reason for the differences in races?


Is that a trick question? Seriously, I don't know how to answer that without coming across as a racist.

Why is the family unit among blacks (at least in some areas) in such turmoil? I have heard that it all goes back to the way whites have treated blacks over the years in part demoralizine black men, and perhaps there is a lot of truth in that. Everything I have read tells me that the women in the black culture are the ones who hold the family together and the grandmother seems to fill a role that I would see as the husband and fathers role.

In addition, it is actually somewhat of a status symbol to have a child and I don't understand that either.

Some woud say it's simply low moral values, I can say for sure that areas of the black culture clearly demean women, just read a few rap music lyrics or watch black music videos, I don't understand how black women tolerate that.

Logic tells me that there has to be a strong base of black midddle class Americans who do have strong families values with responsible parents at the helm, but they seem to be invisible.

Regardless of the reasons, it is a major self-destructive problem that perpetuates poverty and all that goes with it.

Tell us your views.

[RedGlitter]

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;905156 wrote: You seem to read a lot into words, I never said just having a man around makes a family. Most of us are smart enough to know that. You also seem to be reflected a bad personal expereince with men. No doubt there are some bums out there, but most of us know our responsibilities as men, husbands and fathers..and for me at least as grandfather and I enjoy them all. Nothing comes before family as far as I am concerned.


I really disagree with the first half of your response.You seem to assume you know something about me. Quinn, if you're going to postulate with your commentary, be prepared for feedback you may not like. My "bad personal experience" is what I see around me every day. Perhaps you'd do well to send out a call to the UNWED FATHERS instead of the women left raising their kids.

[Victoria]

[QUOTE=RedGlitter;905225 Perhaps you'd do well to send out a call to the UNWED FATHERS instead of the women left raising their kids.


Well said Red. At least these women are raising their kids.

There are far too many men who don't face up to the responsibilty of fatherhood, or when something better ( read younger, fresher, no kids) come along they take off.

I believe the latest catchphase is 'i have commitment issues'

Yeah right. why is it that mothers don't have that in their vocabulary? Because having a child is commitment for a woman... commitment to her child.

BTW

I have no negative experience of men. I am simply saying what I have seen happening around me.

[Accountable]

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;904988 wrote: Somewhere on these pages I talked about personal responsibility and that the decisions one makes are what determines his or her lot in life. I was looking for an example that could have not only personal implications, but an impact on society as well. It didn’t take long, try this, the out-of-wedlock birthrate in the US is 38%, 28% of white children are born to a single mother, 50% among Hispanics and 71% for blacks. :-5



Could this contribute to poverty levels, to the number of uninsured, to welfare costs and eventually to crime and who knows what else? But wait, I suspect that all this is the fault of the educational system, hedge fund managers or at least the wealthy in American who obviously have bought up all the birth control devices. If I wanted to sound like a right wing evangelist, I might even suggest some new moral standard has something to do with it.
Holy Crap! Did this thread ever get caught with a side shear wind?!? :yh_sweat



Nowhere in this post do I see anything negative about the parent that stuck with the kid. Single-parenting involves one sticking around and one leaving. The one sticking around can't possibly be held more responsible for the family's level of poverty than the one that left. How anyone can read that different is beyond me.



Also, when talking about single-parent families and poverty, ethnicity is completely irrelevant. A poor hispanic mother is no better or worse off than a poor black father with identical incomes. They have identical incomes!



Are single-parent families contributing to poverty levels? Well, raising a kid and trying to work makes it damned hard to make enough for life and have anything left over for saving up to move up, that's for sure. In such situations, I lay the lion's share of the responsibility at the feet of the "parent" who left. Unfortunately, sometimes a mother chooses not to tell the father, or refuses assistance from him. Sometimes such a mom is a teenager who may or may not finish school while caring for the child. Such people are selfish and deserve what they get, and their children are victims of abuse, imo.



Is the education system et al responsible for the situation? Only insofar that we as a society have discounted the importance of the church as a counterbalance to government and capitalism, and haven't found a suitable replacement for teaching morality (which was the role of the church).

[Tigerlily]

It's hard not to agree with RedGlitter on this one because we see examples of irresponsible men all around us. However, we also see women with multiple children by multiple fathers and none in residence, then you have to wonder why the mother didn't take responsibility herself for contraception rather than produce extra mouths to feed when she has poor resources and is merely contributing to the poverty cycle.

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

rjwould;905258 wrote: Not a trick question at all, it was meant to do exactly what it did, provoke a thoughtful response....Thank you!:)

You obviously have done some reading on the subject as well as some serious thinking on it....More of us white people should follow your example.

Its true that the females in the black community hold the family together, but the question is why. What I'm about to say is not absolute, but comes from many conversations with both black and white people. I have had many black friends in my life and black people are amazingly open about the subject of racism and the psychology associated with it in their own community, and many have a very clear understanding of the problem.

Black men are beaten down from a young age, not only by society, but oddly enough by their own community. They are seen by many black females as failures from the get go. Black mothers push their male children into sports and music because that is where they have succeeded traditionally. With a few exceptions, until recently, very few black parents cared about education for their children because American education was white. Americas leadership in government and in the corporate world were white, so in the minds of many black family members, it was closed to them.....why try? Consequently, if black men didn't make it in music or sports they've had nothing other to sustain them. You can see that the black community bought into the same racism that the white community did, that blacks were simply not equipped intellectually to make it in a white world/country.

It makes sense, given what I've said above, that the torch of success would then have to be carried by the females in the black community. The problem has of course been that they too are black, but they can give life and black females flaunt that fact, especially in the face of black males.

Many black men actually despise black females for the betrayal they feel from them.

Balck people are no different than white people. Of course they have values exactly like any other American, except they've been told over and over again that they can't measure up....they themselves believed it as a community.

Poverty will always be with us, especially in America because it is the opposite reflection of wealth, and so long as we continue to be a competitive driven society, we will have to accept the ugly twin. There is no question that racism contributes to poverty within the black community, however, there are only so many jobs, and if and when black peoples employment number increase, another segment of the populations will decrease.


America's economy is considered strong when unemployment hovers around 4.7-5.0 percent, thats approximately 17 million people out of work, right now the majority falls into the black race, but in time it will slowly change.


Can't argue with anything you say , but I am not sure of your conclusions on poverty as poverty has been with the world since time began. Racism has contributed in the US no doubt, but I am not sure that is the case so much today as is the lack of education and training, a vicious cycle I admit, but we (and many in the black community) do not seem to be able to break the mindset of preconceived failure. Jobs change but the available pool does grow over time.

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

Victoria;905451 wrote: Well said Red. At least these women are raising their kids.

There are far too many men who don't face up to the responsibilty of fatherhood, or when something better ( read younger, fresher, no kids) come along they take off.

I believe the latest catchphase is 'i have commitment issues'

Yeah right. why is it that mothers don't have that in their vocabulary? Because having a child is commitment for a woman... commitment to her child.

BTW

I have no negative experience of men. I am simply saying what I have seen happening around me.


Let's stay on the mark here. Nobody is defending irresponsible men who father a child and then move on like they dropped off a book at the library. Such behavior is beyond my comprehension, but apparently quite common. It's like the "conquest" of a women is some kind of achievement or something.

My sister became pregnant in high school (many years ago) and in those days it was something to be ashamed of, even though she was married and stay married to this day, my father kicked her out of the house and never saw her or talked to her for 30 years and only reconciled about ten years before he died. That was not right thing to do, but I wonder if routine acceptance is the wrong thing at the other extreme (and I am talking equally about the man and women, all too often the man simply disappears with no consequences whatsoever).

And as I said before, that leads to much of the poverty in America.

[K.Snyder]

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;905770 wrote:

And as I said before, that leads to much of the poverty in America.


You don't feel that the individual IQ these kids possess are the result of poverty?...What about the lack of competence in the institutions responsible for these kids to whom you speak of?...Maybe it's the lack of funding the public is willing to endure to see that these kids grow up competent enough to sustain a respectful job in society?...Maybe the public is to blame for the poverty?...Maybe the public doesn't pay these taxes that would eventually lead to these kids getting the proper attention they need to be successful in society because they're not paid enough themselves...Maybe the public isn't paid enough because of to whom the public works for doesn't pay them near the amount in which they're profiting because they're greedy...Maybe these employers get so greedy it's not enough to not pay the local public what is considerably a sufficient amount of income to sustain a healthy living condition so they take their business to other countries whoms people will accept even more of a lack of willingness to relinquish their own personal profits...

Quite simply maybe it's just the rich...

[Accountable]

[quote=K.Snyder;905780]You don't feel that the individual IQ these kids possess are the result of poverty?... No



What about the lack of competence in the institutions responsible for these kids to whom you speak of?... The parents are the ones responsible for these kids to whom he speaks of. There's no requirement for competence.



Maybe it's the lack of funding the public is willing to endure to see that these kids grow up competent enough to sustain a respectful job in society?...Maybe the public is to blame for the poverty?... Every job is respectful, er, respectable. No one is 'to blame' for poverty. Every functional adult is responsible for his/her own choices in life.



Maybe the public doesn't pay these taxes that would eventually lead to these kids getting the proper attention they need to be successful in society because they're not paid enough themselves... Paid by whom? No one pays the public. :-2



Maybe the public isn't paid enough because of to whom the public works for doesn't pay them near the amount in which they're profiting because they're greedy... If I get you, you're implying that employers should pay employees so much that they would gladly pay more taxes?



Maybe these employers get so greedy it's not enough to not pay the local public what is considerably a sufficient amount of income to sustain a healthy living condition so they take their business to other countries whoms people will accept even more of a lack of willingness to relinquish their own personal profits... I'm dizzy.



Quite simply maybe it's just the rich... The rich are responsible for the poor being poor?? Surely you're joking.

[K.Snyder]

Accountable;905788 wrote: [quote=K.Snyder;905780]You don't feel that the individual IQ these kids possess are the result of poverty?... No



What about the lack of competence in the institutions responsible for these kids to whom you speak of?... The parents are the ones responsible for these kids to whom he speaks of. There's no requirement for competence. Yes but this is irrelevant considering that the decision that these parents made in the leaving of their children has already happened...I'm talking about a current issue not a psychiatric viewpoint as to why parents leave children...



Maybe it's the lack of funding the public is willing to endure to see that these kids grow up competent enough to sustain a respectful job in society?...Maybe the public is to blame for the poverty?... Every job is respectful, er, respectable. No one is 'to blame' for poverty. Every functional adult is responsible for his/her own choices in life. I rather liked the word respectful...

Yes but what you have here is the end resulting in the amount of poverty being the prime reason as to why the public is affected by crime(Another topic perhaps which I'm sure already exists)

Maybe the public doesn't pay these taxes that would eventually lead to these kids getting the proper attention they need to be successful in society because they're not paid enough themselves... Paid by whom? No one pays the public. :-2 Paid by the people who employ the public...



Maybe the public isn't paid enough because of to whom the public works for doesn't pay them near the amount in which they're profiting because they're greedy... If I get you, you're implying that employers should pay employees so much that they would gladly pay more taxes? Yes...Absolutely...Are taxes not to the primary benefit of those very same people?...



Maybe these employers get so greedy it's not enough to not pay the local public what is considerably a sufficient amount of income to sustain a healthy living condition so they take their business to other countries whoms people will accept even more of a lack of willingness to relinquish their own personal profits... I'm dizzy."their" in this case is in reference to the employers...



Quite simply maybe it's just the rich... The rich are responsible for the poor being poor?? Surely you're joking.
No...Everywhere in the world there is an economic system that represents the amount of capitol within every society...There is no delusional concept that money is endless...Every country in the world has resources from which they gain their capitol...The people within those countries work for others and the people who employ those people are the main proprietors based on laws that prevent others from benefiting from those resources equally...This is called "ownership" by those to whom don't question it and pure extortion by those who do...

[K.Snyder]

K.Snyder;905799 wrote:

No...Everywhere in the world there is an economic system that represents the amount of capitol within every society...There is no delusional concept that money is endless...Every country in the world has resources from which they gain their capitol...The people within those countries work for others and the people who employ those people are the main proprietors based on laws that prevent others from benefiting from those resources equally...This is called "ownership" by those to whom don't question it and pure extortion by those who do...


And the countries who are not considered poor countries are countries whos share holders find it to their worth while to pay their employees at least a respectable amount of money while still being content on their profits...You see this with countries whom have a very significant amount of resources...Obviously with the exception of countries who's greedy to the point of famine...

How often do you see a business whos entire product is done solely by their employees while the owners still reap the majority of the rewards?...I can understand one saying that it's up to the individual to start out working hard so that they may get to that very same point but it all had to begin somewhere...Not to mention that keeping all of the profits of that business while doing none of the work isn't very ethically inclined...

[Accountable]

rjwould;905836 wrote: There is no poverty unless it is measured against what one perceives to be non-poverty. Its all a myth. Both are created through perception.



Thats the reason I don't think in terms of success and failure, because if some choose not to play at the same intensity as others or not at all, the judgments made are skewed with the assumption and illusion/delusion that all are participating equally and are divided in terms of;

smart/dumb,

healthy/sick,

motivated/lazy.





To me the entire thing is silly.
I agree, so long as you're comfortable with the consequences of ignoring the myth (but that's another thread).



For this thread, poverty is a legal term that is otherwise meaningless. give a third-world poverty-stricken woman half of what our average poor guy has and she can live like a queen.

[Patsy Warnick]

Quin & All

This thread has taken several different avenues. Quin posted percent on unmarried pregnant females & the race of the females.

Red - I hear your heart and you speak from your heart.

I actually looked at the percent rate and this vicious cycle as Quin pointed out.

rj

your a very strict man

you live within these rules/guidlines and that's it - no grey

then you stated "MORE OF US WHITE PEOPLE SHOULD FOLLOW THIS EXAMPLE"

WHAT THE HELL ????

Maybe I missed something? ARE YOU BLACK? HOw can you quote black & what Black will do & don't ???

Quin - love the avenues & interest this thread has taken

interesting

Patsy

[Patsy Warnick]

NO rj - I just enjoy a RACIST

Are you reply monitor - am I not allowed to reply to a thread of my interest ?

Do you jump from thread to thread to correct one's reply & try to dominate ?

Your not Black - yet state - Black Women have babies to flaunt that so called power of birth - Black men despise Black Women and on & on about Blacks.

Who's critiquing ? your BS is general & here say and lumping all blacks in one catagory.

Don't be curious about me

Patsy

[Accountable]

rjwould;906465 wrote: You're very, very defensive about racism, Patsy. Why is that? You obviously haven't read my post carefully, but I'm not surprised as that seems to be common with you. Why are you so emotional about race?
You made unfair and unfounded generalizations as if you were the resident expert and called you on it. Seems to me you're the one getting defensive.

[K.Snyder]

rjwould;906551 wrote: You know, the most offensive form racism is the denial of its existence. Its a tough subject and rattles a lot of nerves, but white people are going to have to learn to deal with it.




Speak for yourself RJ...

I'm not white I'm human...

And before you bring up the garb about if "I weren't white I'm human" weren't a direct result of if I had truly believed that I wouldn't have recognized myself as white ultimately leading to the challenging of my statement above I say to you that others have deemed myself to be white and am only making it convenient to those of you racists who see color so as to minimize confusion...

[Patsy Warnick]

rj

are you drunk ?

your the racist - you have your rasicm thread that explains your attitude.

Don't ask Accountable about accusations - READ YOUR OWN REPLIES HERE ...

Don't accuse me as a Racist - I'm not even close & won't be.

I didn't agree with your lump view of Blacks

I didn't like you thinking you know & quoting your friends (BLACK FRIENDS)

your NO authority on Blacks

you provide data to support your BS statements on Blacks.

your a racist - you don't have black FRIENDS - you might've had a conversation with a Black Person - your not a friend to them.

That's my point - I'm defensive on rasicm - I don't like you white people to put anyone in a catagory/label

And you answer a question with a question - your back peddling

By the way I'M BLACK

Classic !!

Patsy

[RedGlitter]

rjwould;906613 wrote: Pretty tough pill to swallow huh!

If what I've said doesn't apply to you then what are you so upset about? The face of racism isn't pretty, especially when we've denied whose face it actually is.


Why is it so hard for some people to admit they're wrong when it's so blatantly obvious to everyone else?

[Patsy Warnick]

because - like I stated there is NO grey for rj he's right, just ask him..

Patsy

[K.Snyder]

rjwould;906624 wrote: Who is everyone?


I would have to assume everyone is everyone other than those to whom are wrong...

[RedGlitter]

rjwould;906624 wrote: Who is everyone? And what is it I am wrong about?


1. Pretty much everyone reading your output.

2. Damn near everything.

rjwould;906626 wrote:

Red is just still hot over the "threads" thread I created.


3. Don't flatter yourself.

[Patsy Warnick]

RJ

why didn't you answer the questions presented to you.

Patsy

[K.Snyder]

rjwould;906634 wrote: :wah:What?


As in how she used the word "everyone" from which you were referring...

[Patsy Warnick]

rj

this is a game to you

it's not a game to everyone here - their feelings are not a game.

you a racist a** - subject closed - shut up

wow - your bride is lucky..!!!

Have a good evening

Patsy

[Accountable]

Ladies, RJ has a martyr fixation. He gets off on playing the victim so he sets himself up to be attacked. When he reaches this state there is no discussion possible, only attack & evade. May as well drop it.

[K.Snyder]

rjwould;907066 wrote: (actually 4)


Who's the 4th I'm just curious?...

[RedGlitter]

Three of you have taken the position of complaining about what I've posted, but I notice you've not engaged me on it other than to accuse me of lying and having each others back.


Isn't it irritating when someone does to you as you do to them? You're whining. When you spoke for the rest "of us white people" that was your first mistake.

[Accountable]

You're an alcoholic



Am not.



See? Denial. A definite sign.



I'm not an alcoholic!



Ah. Anger. Why so defensive? How long since your last drink?



Huh? I don't know.



Mm hm. Blackouts as well, eh?

[Patsy Warnick]

rj

you accused me of being a racist - you know the denial statement

the hard pill to swallow statement

yet you have the RACIST THREAD - you remember your crying out - trying not to be a RACIST

yet your a authority on BLACK People.

Do you tape your wifes mouth shut - so your always right.??

Patsy

[RedGlitter]

And you RJ, have a habit of fancying yourself a psychiatrist.:wah: It needs to stop.

[RedGlitter]

rjwould;907078 wrote: Not a mistake at all, it was an intentional sentence.

However, if that sentence does not apply to you, why then are you defensive about it? I didn't mention you by name. Why don't you explain why you are not included in the "us Americans"?

I'm not whining, I'm confronting your obvious feelings of denial. Like I said, its a bitter pill to swallow, and very transparent.


1. It seems every time someone calls you out, you claim they are in denial. This is becoming funny.

2. Why should I or anyone explain anything to you?

3. Nobody speaks for me. Including you.

4. The only transparency here is yours, Glad Wrap.

5. I am beginning to see that racism is your hammer and all the world is a nail. We know you're a racist by your own admission. Now stop painting everyone else with the same brush. Some of us just don't have that racist bone and you're going to have to accept that.

[Patsy Warnick]

rj

you dance all around .

Insulting comments -and go on attack mode - assuming you know us "US Americans".

I don't tolerate any negativity. I won't tolerate being around anyone negative.

so, I don't appreciate your comments - labels & you making every effort to justify these comments to make yourself right. That's not a conversation to me, that's why I asked if you tape your wifes mouth shut - since other opinions & feelings are obsolete

rj, you have that negative character flaw/attitude, from not being truely accepted.

you have yet to produce evidence in regards to your Black Society statement.

and I shouldn't be annoyed with the Black statements? your not Black

Racism is negative and is a bad thing rj. It's like cancer & spreads with the help of people like you.

Everyone reads a thread & takes something away from that thread

You jumped on with the authority on Blacks

Red - she jumped in with the dead beat father's who vanish - no responsibility.

we wouldn't be friends in real life

and you wouldn't talk to me in person as you have on this thread.

Patsy

[Accountable]

RedGlitter;907258 wrote: 4. The only transparency here is yours, Glad Wrap.
RJ ......... Reynolds?? :-2

[Accountable]

As I stated in post #18, ethnicity is irrelevant to this discussion. Therefore, so is racism. I'll be glad to discuss it in your racism thread, though.

[Patsy Warnick]

Quin asked for my view and I gave it

rj - your reply was I was critiquing posts.

then I was very defensive about racism - why?

then I obviously didn't read your original post carefully - which is common for me?

what ever that means..?

I explain my position about your rhetoric - obviously for you not satisfactory.

then you have to say "YOU 3 ARE SOMETHING", whatever that means?

and you wonder why I don't appreciate your view.??

As Account said this isn't a racism thread - this was unwed pregnant females and the stats.

then you always have to turn a thread to suit you - Dominate

always happens whether it's Racism - Religion.

Your a piece of work...

Oh, I look forward to your reply - as you always have to have the last word.

Patsy

[K.Snyder]

rjwould;907215 wrote: What my hard pill to swallow post was was the admittance of racism itself. You seem to think racism doesn't exist. If it applies to you personally, thats your business, however, the fact that you react so defensively only indicates that racism is an issue you would rather not deal with on a conscience level. You instead refer to others as being racist like its something bad, which it isn't, racism only is, thats all.

You have a habit it seems of getting so emotional about some difficult subjects that you become very selective in what you take from those posts.


Did it ever occur to you rj that to whom you're asking as to why that particular person your questioning is defensive over racism is because that person may have at all degrees have been the victim of it's ignorance?...

Just a thought...

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

rjwould;905836 wrote: There is no poverty unless it is measured against what one perceives to be non-poverty. Its all a myth. Both are created through perception.

Thats the reason I don't think in terms of success and failure, because if some choose not to play at the same intensity as others or not at all, the judgments made are skewed with the assumption and illusion/delusion that all are participating equally and are divided in terms of;

smart/dumb,

healthy/sick,

motivated/lazy.



To me the entire thing is silly.


I am not entirely sure what you are saying, but it sounds like poverty and wealth or at least non poverty are all relative. A person in parts of Africa is truly poor and when compared with American poverty those folks are quite well off. If that's it then I agree. 70% of the people in America who meet the definition of being in poverty, compare that with people who are in other parts of the world.

[K.Snyder]

rjwould;907981 wrote: My point was more philosophical in that poverty itself is only relevant and measurable to/by affluence and vise versa. I was referring to your comment that poverty has been with us since time began. Poverty has/is only seen by those whom measure it against affluence. There have been many societies where neither existed.


Societies where there hasn't been a contingency of poor nor a contingency of others?...I have to see this...

[K.Snyder]

rjwould;908036 wrote: Look at Native American tribal history.


Oh you meant that there weren't a contingency of poor is that it?...Not "neither existed"...

Native American tribes had different governing bodies...They were separate contingencies...Yes most tribal Native American Indians were relatively wealthy when they were still under their own law...Just as wealthy as Americans were that came in and occupied the land after the end of the Revolutionary war...Well...Just as wealthy until they were pushed out of their lands and had no means to hunt which was ultimately their entire livlihood...A phrase comes to mind..."The Rich get Richer and the Poor get Poorer"

But this is completely irrelevant in that all Native American indians today are incorporated in to the United States of America and to say that there are no poor Native American Indians because of this is laughable let alone any at all...