Zone1 Black MAGAs are a clear and present danger

[Hector12]

You'd have more credibility if you didn't cite the crazy right wing site.

Also, you wingnuts would have more credibility on "Monogamy" if your fearless leader wasn't a thrice married adulterer who pays porn stars for sex.

I voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. I voted for Joe Biden in 2020. I hate Trump.

 

[Hector12]

By “characterized” are you referring to racist stereotypes?

Here is some interesting data to chew on….monogamy vs. promiscuity.

The ten most promiscuous countries:

Most Promiscuous Countries 2024

1. Finland - 50.50
2. New Zealand - 47.69
3. Slovenia - 46.26
4. Lithuania - 46.10
5. Austria - 45.73
6. Latvia - 43.93
7. Croatia - 42.98
8. Israel - 40.95
9. Bolivia - 40.9
10. Argentina - 40.74

Among the 10 least promiscious (and likely monogamous) are Botswana, Ethiopia, and Zimbabwe (all African).

Your frequent references to inherent differences in monogamy based on race doesn’t hold up.

That is only one source of data.

It is easier to measure illegitimacy:

Late last year, the final data for 2018 were published here (the key is Table 9 on page 25), and here’s what we learn: For all racial and ethnic groups combined, 39.6 percent of births in the United States were out-of-wedlock (incidentally, isn’t that appalling?). And there was as always a tremendous range among groups. For blacks, the number is 69.4 percent; for American Indians/Alaska Natives, 68.2 percent (Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders were at 50.4 percent); for Hispanics, 51.8 percent; for whites, 28.2 percent; and for Asian Americans, a paltry 11.7 percent.

Percentage of Births to Unmarried Women | Center for Equal Opportunity

www.ceousa.org

 

[IM2]

Whites stormed the Nations capital and we see some idiot trying to say something about BLM allegedly vandalizing a monument of the 54th.

You know, it's funny how these threads get run off topic by the same idiots every time. BLM is not the topic here, blacks who participate in the anti black MAGA movement are.

 

[Markle]

That we know of. The fact is, we know very little of most of what happened before 6000 years ago, that's the only period we have records for.

 

[Markle]

By “characterized” are you referring to racist stereotypes?

Here is some interesting data to chew on….monogamy vs. promiscuity.

The ten most promiscuous countries:

Most Promiscuous Countries 2024

1. Finland - 50.50
2. New Zealand - 47.69
3. Slovenia - 46.26
4. Lithuania - 46.10
5. Austria - 45.73
6. Latvia - 43.93
7. Croatia - 42.98
8. Israel - 40.95
9. Bolivia - 40.9
10. Argentina - 40.74

Among the 10 least promiscious (and likely monogamous) are Botswana, Ethiopia, and Zimbabwe (all African).

Your frequent references to inherent differences in monogamy based on race doesn’t hold up.

And for black Americans?

 

[Markle]

By “characterized” are you referring to racist stereotypes?

Here is some interesting data to chew on….monogamy vs. promiscuity.

The ten most promiscuous countries:

Most Promiscuous Countries 2024

1. Finland - 50.50
2. New Zealand - 47.69
3. Slovenia - 46.26
4. Lithuania - 46.10
5. Austria - 45.73
6. Latvia - 43.93
7. Croatia - 42.98
8. Israel - 40.95
9. Bolivia - 40.9
10. Argentina - 40.74

Among the 10 least promiscious (and likely monogamous) are Botswana, Ethiopia, and Zimbabwe (all African).

Your frequent references to inherent differences in monogamy based on race doesn’t hold up.

You do love throwing up information and "facts" that have nothing, whatsoever to do with the issue at hand.

This is actually relevant. Unlike your "Facts" which relate to who is sleeping with whom regardless of their marital status.

https://statisticalatlas.com/United-States/Marital-Status

 

[Hector12]

By “characterized” are you referring to racist stereotypes?

Here is some interesting data to chew on….monogamy vs. promiscuity.

The ten most promiscuous countries:

Most Promiscuous Countries 2024

1. Finland - 50.50
2. New Zealand - 47.69
3. Slovenia - 46.26
4. Lithuania - 46.10
5. Austria - 45.73
6. Latvia - 43.93
7. Croatia - 42.98
8. Israel - 40.95
9. Bolivia - 40.9
10. Argentina - 40.74

Among the 10 least promiscious (and likely monogamous) are Botswana, Ethiopia, and Zimbabwe (all African).

Your frequent references to inherent differences in monogamy based on race doesn’t hold up.

Another way to measure promiscuity is by venereal disease rates.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Sexual Risk Behaviors And STDs During Young Men’s Transition to Adulthood CONTEXT: Racial and ethnic health disparities are an important issue in the United States. The extent to which racial and ethnic diff erences in STDs among youth are related to diff erences in socioeconomic characteristics and risky sexual behaviors requires investigation. METHODS: Data from three waves of the National Survey of Adolescent Males (1988, 1990–1991 and 1995) were used to examine 1,880 young men’s history of STDs and their patterns and trajectories of sexual risk behavior during adolescence and early adulthood. Multinomial and logistic regression analyses were conducted to test whether racial and ethnic diff erences in STDs are due to the lower socioeconomic status and higher levels of risky sexual behavior among minority groups. RESULTS: Young black men reported the highest rates of sexual risk and STDs at each wave and across waves. Compared with white men, black and Latino men had higher odds of maintaining high sexual risk and increasing sexual risk over time (odds ratios, 1.7–1.9). In multivariate analyses controlling for socioeconomic characteristics, black men were more likely than white men to have a history of STDs (3.2–5.0); disparities persisted in analyses controlling for level of risky sexual behavior. CONCLUSIONS: Race and ethnicity continue to differentiate young black and Latino men from their white peers in terms of STDs
https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/article_files/4305111.pdf

The chart in the following web site indicates that AIDS is far more of a problem in black countries than white countries;

List of countries by HIV/AIDS adult prevalence rate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Hector12]

The Europeans and Japanese have less crime because.

1) They haven't turned Incarceration into a for-profit business.
2) They have extensive poverty relief programs that make ours look pale by comparison.
3) They don't let the average citizen own a gun.
4) They treat addiction as a medical problem, not a criminal one.
5) They don't let the mentally ill wander the streets.

The French and British have extensive black populations as a result of their colonial days... but they have nowhere near our problems with race relations. Heck, the British just made a man of color Prime Minister. And people didn't freak out about it the way your side did when Obama got elected.

They have lower crime rates because they have fewer Negroes. Whites and Orientals do not need expensive welfare systems.

-----------

RACE, CRIME AND ARRESTS - GREAT BRITAIN,​

NCJ Number 65382
Author(s) P STEVENS; C F WILLIS
Date Published 1979

RESULTS SHOWED THAT THE PRESENCE OF WEST INDIANS OR ASIANS IN A COMMUNITY IS IRRELEVANT TO RECORDED INDICTABLE CRIME RATES. THE SECOND STUDY...[showed that] THE ARREST RATE FOR BLACKS WAS HIGHER THAN THAT FOR WHITES IN EVERY CATEGORY OF CRIME, WHILE THE ASIAN RATE WAS ABOUT THE SAME AS THE WHITE RATE.

RACE, CRIME AND ARRESTS - GREAT BRITAIN | Office of Justice Programs

www.ojp.gov

 

[JoeB131]

I voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. I voted for Joe Biden in 2020. I hate Trump.

Oh, no one believes that. Trump makes your racism okay. You probably have a poster of him and a MAGA hat.

Another way to measure promiscuity is by venereal disease rates.

Are you serious? Check your privilege! The reason why whites have a lower STD rate is that they have access to medical care to prevent and treat them.

Do we really want to discuss the Tuskegee Study, where black men were refused treatment for syphilis because white doctors wanted to study how long it would take to kill them?

They have lower crime rates because they have fewer Negroes. Whites and Orientals do not need expensive welfare systems.

Actually, the majority of people on "welfare" in this country are white. And that's just talking about poverty relief programs like TANF, SNAP, Section 8.

I'm not even getting into middle class entitlements like Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment Insurance, etc. that mostly benefit white folks.

We spend far more money keeping white people from being poor than we spend getting black people out of poverty.

 

[JoeB131]

That is only one source of data.

It is easier to measure illegitimacy:

Late last year, the final data for 2018 were published here (the key is Table 9 on page 25), and here’s what we learn: For all racial and ethnic groups combined, 39.6 percent of births in the United States were out-of-wedlock (incidentally, isn’t that appalling?). And there was as always a tremendous range among groups. For blacks, the number is 69.4 percent; for American Indians/Alaska Natives, 68.2 percent (Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders were at 50.4 percent); for Hispanics, 51.8 percent; for whites, 28.2 percent; and for Asian Americans, a paltry 11.7 percent.

Again, meaningless.

Black people have kids out of wedlock because weddings are expensive. White people get married, have kids and get divorced. The real question here is why do we cling to outdated institutions that most of us don't follow anymore.

 

[Hector12]

Again, meaningless.

Black people have kids out of wedlock because weddings are expensive. White people get married, have kids and get divorced. The real question here is why do we cling to outdated institutions that most of us don't follow anymore.

More excuses for black social pathology.

Did you watch Rocky II? When Rocky married Adrian it cost hardly anything.

Children raised to adulthood by both biological parents living together in matrimony tend to have many fewer problems in life.

-----------

The Atlantic,, April 1993

Dan Quayle Was Right, By Barbara Dafoe Whitehead​

The social-science evidence is in: though it may benefit the adults involved, the dissolution of intact two-parent families is harmful to large numbers of children. Moreover, the author argues, family diversity in the form of increasing numbers of single-parent and stepparent families does not strengthen the social fabric but, rather, dramatically weakens and undermines society.

According to a growing body of social-scientific evidence, children in families disrupted by divorce and out-of-wedlock birth do worse than children in intact families on several measures of well-being. Children in single-parent families are six times as likely to be poor. They are also likely to stay poor longer.

A 1988 survey by the National Center for Health Statistics found that children in single-parent families are two to three times as likely as children in two-parent families to have emotional and behavioral problems. They are also more likely to drop out of high school, to get pregnant as teenagers, to abuse drugs, and to be in trouble with the law. Compared with children in intact families, children from disrupted families are at a much higher risk for physical or sexual abuse.



The social-science evidence is in: though it may benefit the adults involved, the dissolution of intact two-parent families is harmful to large numbers of children. Moreover, the author argues, family diversity in the form of increasing numbers of single-parent and stepparent families does not strengthen the social fabric but, rather, dramatically weakens and undermines society
By Barbara Dafoe Whitehead

Divorce and out-of-wedlock childbirth are transforming the lives of American children. In the postwar generation more than 80 percent of children grew up in a family with two biological parents who were married to each other. By 1980 only 50 percent could expect to spend their entire childhood in an intact family. If current trends continue, less than half of all children born today will live continuously with their own mother and father throughout child hood. Most American children will spend several years in a single-mother family. Some will eventually live in stepparent families, but because stepfamilies are more likely to break up than intact (by which I mean two-biological-parent) families, an increasing number of children will experience family breakup two or even three times during childhood.

According to a growing body of social-scientific evidence, children in families disrupted by divorce and out-of-wedlock birth do worse than children in intact families on several measures of well-being. Children in single-parent families are six times as likely to be poor. They are also likely to stay poor longer. Twenty-two percent of children in one-parent families will experience poverty during childhood for seven years or more, as compared with only two percent of children in two parent families. A 1988 survey by the National Center for Health Statistics found that children in single-parent families are two to three times as likely as children in two-parent families to have emotional and behavioral problems. They are also more likely to drop out of high school, to get pregnant as teenagers, to abuse drugs, and to be in trouble with the law. Compared with children in intact families, children from disrupted families are at a much higher risk for physical or sexual abuse.

​

Contrary to popular belief, many children do not "bounce back" after divorce or remarriage. Difficulties that are associated with family breakup often persist into adulthood. Children who grow up in single-parent or stepparent families are less successful as adults, particularly in the two domains of life--love and work--that are most essential to happiness. Needless to say, not all children experience such negative effects. However, research shows that many children from disrupted families have a harder time achieving intimacy in a relationship, forming a stable marriage, or even holding a steady job.

Dan Quayle Was Right

The social-science evidence is in: though it may benefit the adults involved, the dissolution of intact two-parent families is harmful to large numbers of children. Moreover, the author argues, family diversity in the form of increasing numbers of single-parent and stepparent families does not...

www.theatlantic.com

 

[Hector12]

20 years later, it turns out Dan Quayle was right about Murphy Brown and unmarried moms, by Isabel Sawhill, The Washington Post, May 25, 2012​

a wealth of research strongly suggests that marriage is good for children. Those who live with their biological parents do better in school and are less likely to get pregnant or arrested. They have lower rates of suicide, achieve higher levels of education and earn more as adults. Meanwhile, children who spend time in single-parent families are more likely to misbehave, get sick, drop out of high school and be unemployed...

I’ve been studying single mothers since long before “Murphy Brown” was on the air. In a study I co-authored with Adam Thomas, I put them into hypothetical households with demographically similar unmarried men who, in principle, would be good marriage partners. Through this virtual matchmaking, we showed that child poverty rates would fall by as much as 20 percent in an America with more two-parent households.

Isabel Sawhill is a senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution, where she co-directs the Center on Children and Families. She is a co-author, with Ron Haskins, of “Creating an Opportunity Society.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/20-years-later-it-turns-out-dan-quayle-was-right-about-murphy-brown-and-unmarried-moms/2012/05/25/gJQAsNCJqU_story.html?hpid=z2

 

[JoeB131]

More excuses for black social pathology.

Did you watch Rocky II? When Rocky married Adrian it cost hardly anything.

Rocky is a fictional character.

Children raised to adulthood by both biological parents living together in matrimony tend to have many fewer problems in life.

Then by that logic, (white) couples with minor children shouldn't be allowed to get divorced.

Oh, and Dan Quayle was a moron. Arguing about a fictional character is silly.

 

[Markle]

Again, meaningless.

Black people have kids out of wedlock because weddings are expensive. White people get married, have kids and get divorced. The real question here is why do we cling to outdated institutions that most of us don't follow anymore.

That's just goofy talk. Even you know it is malarkey.

A MINORITY VIEW
BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2005, AND THEREAFTER
AMMUNITION FOR POVERTY PIMPS

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina's destruction of New Orleans, President Bush gave America's poverty pimps and race hustlers new ammunition. The president said, "As all of us saw on television, there is also some deep, persistent poverty in this region as well. And that poverty has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which cut off generations from the opportunity of America. We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action."

The president's espousing such a vision not only supplies ammunition to poverty pimps and race hustlers, it focuses attention away from the true connection between race and poverty.

Though I grow weary of pointing it out, let's do it again. Let's examine some numbers readily available from the Census Bureau's 2004 Current Population Survey and ask some questions. There's one segment of the black population that suffers only a 9.9 percent poverty rate, and only 13.7 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. There's another segment that suffers a 39.5 percent poverty rate, and 58.1 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. Among whites, one segment suffers a 6 percent poverty rate, and only 9.9 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. The other segment suffers a 26.4 percent poverty rate, and 52 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. What do you think distinguishes the high and low poverty populations among blacks?

Would you buy an explanation that it's because white people practice discrimination against one segment of the black population and not the other or one segment had a history of slavery and not the other? You'd have to be a lunatic to buy such an explanation. The only distinction between both the black and white populations is marriage -- lower poverty in married-couple families.

In 1960, only 28 percent of black females ages 15 to 44 were never married and illegitimacy among blacks was 22 percent. Today, the never-married rate is 56 percent and illegitimacy stands at 70 percent. If today's black family structure were what it was in 1960, the overall black poverty rate would be in or near single digits. The weakening of the black family structure, and its devastating consequences, have nothing to do with the history of slavery or racial discrimination.

Dr. Charles Murray, an American Enterprise Institute scholar, argues in an article titled "Rediscovering the Underclass" in the Institute's On the Issues series (October 2005) that self-destructive behavior has become the hallmark of the underclass. He says that unemployment in the underclass is not caused by the lack of jobs but by the inability to get up every morning and go to work. In 1954, the percentage of black males, age 20 to 24, not looking for work was nine percent. In 1999, it rose to 30 percent, and that was at a time when employers were beating the bushes for employees. Murray adds that "the statistical reality is that people who get into the American job market and stay there seldom remain poor unless they do something self-destructive.

I share Murray's sentiment expressed at the beginning of his article where he says, "Watching the courage of ordinary low-income people as they deal with the aftermath of Katrina and Rita, it is hard to decide which politicians are more contemptible -- Democrats who are rediscovering poverty and blaming it on George W. Bush, or Republicans who are rediscovering poverty and claiming that the government can fix it." Since President Johnson's War on Poverty, controlling for inflation, the nation has spent $9 trillion on about 80 anti-poverty programs. To put that figure in perspective, last year's U.S. GDP was $11 trillion; $9 trillion exceeds the GDP of any nation except the U.S. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita uncovered the result of the War on Poverty -- dependency and self-destructive behavior.

Guess what the president [President George Walker Bush] and politicians from both parties are asking the American people to do? If you said, "Enact programs that will sustain and enhance dependency," go to the head of the class.

Ammunition for poverty pimps

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina’s destruction of New Orleans, President Bush gave America’s poverty pimps and race hustlers new ammunition. The president said, “As all of us saw on television, there is also some deep, persistent poverty in this region as well. And that poverty has roots in a...

walterewilliams.com

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/05/poverty.html

 

[JoeB131]

That's just goofy talk. Even you know it is malarkey.

A MINORITY VIEW
BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS

Sorry, I was done reading after it was serial Uncle Tom Walter Williams.

Seriously, being such a self-loathing black man must be sad.

 

[Markle]

Sorry, I was done reading after it was serial Uncle Tom Walter Williams.

Seriously, being such a self-loathing black man must be sad.

I understand!

There is no reason for you to allow facts to enter your mind and jumble all your misinformation.

Keep up the good work!

 

[Hector12]

Sorry, I was done reading after it was serial Uncle Tom Walter Williams.

Seriously, being such a self-loathing black man must be sad.

You must think

Jesse Jackson is also self-loathing.

 

[JoeB131]

I understand!

There is no reason for you to allow facts to enter your mind and jumble all your misinformation.

No, he's a sad ass Uncle Tom telling white people what they want to hear.

Any black man who quotes a Nazi like Charles Murray like he's an authority really has no business being taken seriously.

 

[JoeB131]

You must think Jesse Jackson is also self-loathing.

I think Jesse Jackson is a two-bit hustler and has been since he shook down Anhauser Busch to get beer distributorships for his useless sons.

I'm old enough to remember when he used to brag about spitting in white people's soup and serving it with a smile.

I was six years old when he flew up to Chicago wearing a bloody shirt after MLK was killed and incited a riot.

It sickens me that this man was ever given a perch of moral authority in this country. Save us from malignant narcissists no matter what their color or politics are.

In this case, which you take that quote of context, was that he was trying to address how his community needs to do more about crime, which you racists have turned around to validate your racism, because of course you do.

 

[Hector12]

Rocky is a fictional character.



Then by that logic, (white) couples with minor children shouldn't be allowed to get divorced.

Oh, and Dan Quayle was a moron. Arguing about a fictional character is silly.

My point is that weddings do not have to be expensive at all. My parents' wedding was inexpensive. The only photograph I have of that event was Mom and Dad walking together the next morning. Dad was wearing his lieutenant uniform in the U.S. Army. I attended my parents' Golden Wedding Anniversary. They never got divorced.

Calling Dan Quayle a moron is an example of name calling. Name calling is the lowest form of discourse. If you read the two articles I posted you read excellent evidence that Dan Quayle was right.

Your insults, name calling, and obscene words do not refute truths you hate, and cannot disprove. Insults, name calling, and obscene words are not impressive in polite society. They expose you in ways I decline to explain in detail.