• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Black men are succeeding in America (CNN)

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
36,718
2,555
1,520
Best Coast
You're the one making the claim.
The article in the OP and the subsequent statistics and research-papers linked so far indicate that's the case.
What are you defining "welfare" as, who claimed that it was responsible, and what part of the article specifically mentioned that your definition of "welfare" definitely was not a factor?
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
12,072
21,564
1,185
USA
dunpachi.com
You're the one making the claim.
Incorrect. Read the thread.

What are you defining "welfare" as, who claimed that it was responsible, and what part of the article specifically mentioned that your definition of "welfare" definitely was not a factor?
Well, education, work, and marriage were three factors leading to the success of black men. All three of those reduce or eliminate one's entitlement to welfare services. It's not difficult to figure this out.

The one making the claim that welfare was helping can be found on the previous page:

You can thank those pesky equality quotas at businesses for this.

But there's still a long way to go.

Eventually we will drop forced equality ratios and move to equal opportunity but that requires free post secondary education first.
The article does not indicate forced equality was responsible for the outcome.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
12,072
21,564
1,185
USA
dunpachi.com
You said:

Where in the article does it say that "welfare" wasn't a cause? Also dragon referenced business quotas, which I assume he means affirmative action. That's welfare?
I already explained: the research states that work, education, and marriage were three key factors in the success of black men entering the middle class. All three of these reduce or eliminate one's entitlement to welfare. That is how welfare laws work. You don't get to be married, make 50k a year, and also get welfare payouts (in most cases).

It seems like you're more interested in extracting a gotcha out of me specifically instead of... you know... actually adding anything. If you would like to read the OP and dispute specific findings, be my guest. Trying to make me re-explain something that is already in the article and available throughout the thread is a dead-end.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
36,718
2,555
1,520
Best Coast
It seems like you're more interested in extracting a gotcha out of me specifically instead of... you know... actually adding anything.
No, that's your assumption. I'm attempting to illuminate your built in assumptions. First regarding "political weaponization", and second regarding cause and effect.

From the article:
Tracking black men from young adulthood through their 50s using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979, we identified three factors that are associated with their success: education, work, and marriage.
Does that rule out welfare? Are those 3 things all necessarily causal effects or simply correlated effects? Or a mix of both?
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
12,072
21,564
1,185
USA
dunpachi.com
No, that's your assumption. I'm attempting to illuminate your built in assumptions. First regarding "political weaponization", and second regarding cause and effect.

From the article:

Does that rule out welfare? Are those 3 things all necessarily causal effects or simply correlated effects? Or a mix of both?
Those are great questions. If the research indicated welfare was a part of their success, I would assume it would also have been listed as a factor.

I couldn't find anything in the article or the supplementary links that indicated welfare helped, though. If you are asking me to prove a negative (show me in the article where they say welfare played no role), I unfortunately will not be able to help you there. I already stated my reasons for why it appears clear that welfare was not involved.

If you want to dig deeper and find that info I am missing, go ahead. Begging the question over and over isn't a real conversation.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
36,718
2,555
1,520
Best Coast
Those are great questions. If the research indicated welfare was a part of their success, I would assume it would also have been listed as a factor.

I couldn't find anything in the article or the supplementary links that indicated welfare helped, though. If you are asking me to prove a negative (show me in the article where they say welfare played no role), I unfortunately will not be able to help you there. I already stated my reasons for why it appears clear that welfare was not involved.
Then that is part of your assumption bias.
Is not education assistance a social service i.e. welfare? Is not subsidized job training or unemployment relief? What about government programs designed to confer tax breaks i.e. handouts to spur job creation in impoverished zones like what Trump recently signed? https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-lifting-american-communities-left-behind-2/

Why do you assume that marriage is the cause of a middle class life? Is it not more of a symptom? As in, a middle class or a path to a middle class life encourages marriage, and not the other way around? If you all of a sudden decreed tomorrow that everyone must get married after they reach adulthood by law, I doubt you'd see much of a positive impact.
I already stated my reasons for why it appears clear that welfare was not involved.
Yes, which is why you can't also necessarily conclude that welfare was definitely not a factor in the uptick in success for black men over the years.

Begging the question over and over
That's not what that means.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
12,072
21,564
1,185
USA
dunpachi.com
Then that is part of your assumption bias.
Is not education assistance a social service i.e. welfare? Is not subsidized job training or unemployment relief? What about government programs designed to confer tax breaks i.e. handouts to spur job creation in impoverished zones like what Trump recently signed? https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-lifting-american-communities-left-behind-2/

Why do you assume that marriage is the cause of a middle class life? Is it not more of a symptom? As in, a middle class or a path to a middle class life encourages marriage, and not the other way around? If you all of a sudden decreed tomorrow that everyone must get married after they reach adulthood by law, I doubt you'd see much of a positive impact.

Yes, which is why you can't also necessarily conclude that welfare was definitely not a factor in the uptick in success for black men over the years.

That's not what that means.
You are welcome to answer these questions you continue to pose, but weren't you just scolding me for including affirmative action under "welfare"? Yet now you want to use subsidized job training, unemployment relief, and education assistance (none of which were mentioned in the article, but okay) as your evidence.

You are taking us backwards now. I can't answer for why these things weren't listed as factors of success for black men in America. Ask CNN. Ask the researchers. My conclusion is that they weren't a major factor, which is why they weren't listed. You are welcome to show me how much impact welfare had -- big or small -- but neither the article nor the research suggest that.

Like I said earlier, trying to get me to answer non-questions about my standpoints is a dead-end. I am going based on what the article says and drawing my own conclusions. I have stated my reasons for drawing those conclusions and I have linked my evidence. Nothing about my stance is ambiguous or confusing. Clearly, you know this because you're not confused about my standpoint, you just disagree.

So, disagree with me! I have yet to see you present something suggesting welfare helped these black men attain their middle-class status, either in this particular study or through adjacent studies.

If you would like to add more information, I'd be happy to read it. Tying yourself into knots trying to tell me I can't conclude that welfare is not a major contributing factor is pointless. I've already come to that conclusion. Feel free to convince me otherwise with counter-evidence, though.
 

#Phonepunk#

Member
Sep 4, 2018
4,700
5,641
570
The 2008 bailout and financial crash ended up relocating a lot of money from the lower classes to the upper. This ended up putting lower class white closer economically to lower class blacks. This is why we always hear people minimizing concerns of “economic uncertainty” and are highliting racial issues.

They don’t want to address this and help poor whites or poor blacks. Hence the divide and conquer identity politics strategy
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
36,718
2,555
1,520
Best Coast
but weren't you just scolding me for including affirmative action under "welfare"?
Um, no? I wasn't scolding you. I was asking for clarification about what you mean.

Yet now you want to use subsidized job training, unemployment relief, and education assistance (none of which were mentioned in the article, but okay) as your evidence.
I want you to clarify what you mean by "welfare". That is why I asked you in the beginning, since so many people have different definitions, and it helps in conversations to make sure definitions are consistent. Since you didn't answer that, I just went with the commonly held, "social assistance" definition.
My conclusion is that they weren't a major factor, which is why they weren't listed.
And my point is that just because something isn't listed, doesn't mean that you conclude that it wasn't a factor.

You are welcome to show me how much impact welfare had -- big or small -- but neither the article nor the research suggest that.
Nor does it suggest it wasn't that. I'm saying that both conclusions - "welfare was definitely a contributing factor" or "welfare was definitely not a contributing factor" are conclusions that are not supported by the article.

That's why this:
I am going based on what the article says and drawing my own conclusions
even though the article and other research indicates otherwise
Is not necessarily true, and that is a conclusion based on your own assumptions and not on what was actually in the article.
So, disagree with me! I have yet to see you present something suggesting welfare helped these black men attain their middle-class status, either in this particular study or through adjacent studies.
I'm not arguing that it did though.

Tying yourself into knots trying to tell me I can't conclude that welfare is not a major contributing factor is pointless.
I don't think "tying myself into knots" is a reasonable interpretation of my behavior. If anything, I put forward the more simple and logic based interpretation.

I can't conclude that welfare is not a major contributing factor... I've already come to that conclusion.
Well good! That was the whole point to begin with. I'm glad you agree.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
12,072
21,564
1,185
USA
dunpachi.com
Oh so that was it? We established that I my opinions are not objective statements about reality, and we've established that we can't prove an absolute negative. I'm not sure what that has to do with the topic, but I'm happy you are satisfied with the conclusion, @Rentahamster
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
36,718
2,555
1,520
Best Coast
Oh so that was it? We established that I my opinions are not objective statements about reality, and we've established that we can't prove an absolute negative.
That's an interesting rationalization about drawing unsupported conclusions, but okay.

I'm not sure what that has to do with the topic, but I'm happy you are satisfied with the conclusion, @Rentahamster
Well, ultimately it goes back to my original point about political weaponization. You know, the one about drawing unsubstantiated conclusions to advocate for a particular political position? Do you see how that's relevant now?
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
12,072
21,564
1,185
USA
dunpachi.com
That's an interesting rationalization about drawing unsupported conclusions, but okay.

Well, ultimately it goes back to my original point about political weaponization. You know, the one about drawing unsubstantiated conclusions to advocate for a particular political position? Do you see how that's relevant now?
If you're accusing me of weaponizing the news (which has been your "point" the whole time, I haven't forgotten), simply quote me where I weaponized it and we can move on.

"Unsupported conclusions" is false. I've already explained the facts that support my conclusions. Quit mischaracterizing my contributions to the thread. It's dishonest and cowardly.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
36,718
2,555
1,520
Best Coast
If you're accusing me of weaponizing the news (which has been your "point" the whole time, I haven't forgotten), simply quote me where I weaponized it and we can move on.
Nooo, I'm asking if you see how that's relevant.

"Unsupported conclusions" is false. I've already explained the facts that support my conclusions. Quit mischaracterizing my contributions to the thread. It's dishonest and cowardly.
Then what was this all about?

Tying yourself into knots trying to tell me I can't conclude that welfare is not a major contributing factor is pointless. I've already come to that conclusion.

I think you might be well suited to interpret this as a regular conversation rather than some kind of weird attack by me, which I assure you, it is not. No need to be so defensive.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
12,072
21,564
1,185
USA
dunpachi.com
Nooo, I'm asking if you see how that's relevant.

Then what was this all about?

I think you might be well suited to interpret this as a regular conversation rather than some kind of weird attack by me, which I assure you, it is not. No need to be so defensive.
Alright, I've given you attention. Do you want to discuss or not? We're back to where we were earlier on the page.

Then again you're already admitted you're not interested in conversation:

I'm attempting to illuminate your built in assumptions.
 
Last edited:

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
36,718
2,555
1,520
Best Coast
Alright, I've given you attention. Do you want to discuss or not?
We already did. I told you that you can't make the claim that "the article . . . indicates otherwise", I explained why, and you agreed with me.
Then again you're already admitted you're not interested in conversation:
I don't think that indicates what you think it does.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
12,072
21,564
1,185
USA
dunpachi.com
We already did. I told you that you can't make the claim that "the article . . . indicates otherwise", I explained why, and you agreed with me.
Yeah, the article presents no info that indicates welfare (specifically in the case of dragonfart, the claim that quotas made this possible) was responsible for this improvement.

Semantical games do not win an argument.

You have already drawn the conclusion that my statements are based on unfounded conclusions. Therefore, you blunder into the same presuppositional conflict that you accuse me of, and even though I try to answer you and explain myself, it's not good enough. Oh well.

I don't think that indicates what you think it does.
Elucidate then, if you're capable. This is a non-answer.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
36,718
2,555
1,520
Best Coast
Yeah, the article presents no info that indicates welfare (specifically in the case of dragonfart, the claim that quotas made this possible) was responsible for this improvement.
Indeed. Like I said:

I'm saying that both conclusions - "welfare was definitely a contributing factor" or "welfare was definitely not a contributing factor" are conclusions that are not supported by the article.
Semantical games do not win an argument.
This isn't semantics. I'm merely pointing out the correlation vs. causation flaw.

You have already drawn the conclusion that my statements are based on unfounded conclusions. Therefore, you blunder into the same presuppositional conflict that you accuse me of, and even though I try to answer you and explain myself, it's not good enough. Oh well.
No I'm not. I told you that you made a logical error. You agreed. My initial assertion was both reasonable and correct. That should be the end of the story, so I'm not entirely sure what else you're trying to "explain". Oh well.

Elucidate then, if you're capable. This is a non-answer.
"If I'm capable"? lol. You really need to divorce your emotions a little more from this conversation.

I'm capable of saying this: You quoted my post about appealing to create a higher understanding of the issue via conversation as some kind of evidence that I'm not interested in having a conversation. Which, ironically, is another (erroneous) assumption. You can't seriously claim that I'm not interested in having a conversation if I specifically tell you the goals of the conversation that I am actively participating in with you.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
12,072
21,564
1,185
USA
dunpachi.com
Indeed. Like I said:

This isn't semantics. I'm merely pointing out the correlation vs. causation flaw.

No I'm not. I told you that you made a logical error. You agreed. My initial assertion was both reasonable and correct. That should be the end of the story, so I'm not entirely sure what else you're trying to "explain". Oh well.

"If I'm capable"? lol. You really need to divorce your emotions a little more from this conversation.

I'm capable of saying this: You quoted my post about appealing to create a higher understanding of the issue via conversation as some kind of evidence that I'm not interested in having a conversation. Which, ironically, is another (erroneous) assumption. You can't seriously claim that I'm not interested in having a conversation if I specifically tell you the goals of the conversation that I am actively participating in with you.
"I am here to illuminate your built in assumptions" does not sound like someone engaging in good faith with the other. Rather, it sounds like someone who already drew their conclusions and is now playing the impassive, disinterested arbiter when the person points out the absurdity of the accusation.

So, I pointed it out. Your attitude is not the premise of a conversation.

Don't confuse pushback as a sign of emotional involvement. Don't confuse correcting your misunderstanding as being "defensive". Once again, blundering into your own accusations and failing to see it. Generally, the first person who must resort to "u mad bro?" in order to remain engaged in the conversation has played their whole hand, and you've done it twice now.

Our conversation now boils down to this:



which doesn't tend to be fruitful. I hope you got what you wanted out of the conversation. I feel like I got trolled, though.
 
Last edited:

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
36,718
2,555
1,520
Best Coast
"I am here to illuminate your built in assumptions" does not sound like someone engaging in good faith with the other.
Sounds like it to me.

it sounds like someone who already drew their conclusions and is now playing the impassive, disinterested arbiter when the person points out the absurdity of the accusation.
Of course I already drew a conclusion because that's how this conversation started. You made a claim. I concluded that your claim was false and explained why. You then agreed with my explanation. What is absurd about that?

Don't confuse pushback as a sign of emotional involvement. Don't confuse correcting your misunderstanding as being "defensive". Once again, blundering into your own accusations and failing to see it. Generally, the first person who must resort to "u mad bro?" in order to remain engaged in the conversation has played their whole hand, and you've done it twice now.
Irrationally questioning someone's ability isn't something that is necessary in a regular conversation. "Scolding", "blundering", etc. are a series of word choices with a negative implication that you chose to prove your point.
Our conversation now boils down to this:

Again, no. You made a claim, I said it was false, then you agreed with me. I don't know why you're trying to read more into it than there is. That is another sign of emotional investment, btw.

I feel like I got trolled, though.
You didn't though.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
12,072
21,564
1,185
USA
dunpachi.com
Sounds like it to me.

Of course I already drew a conclusion because that's how this conversation started. You made a claim. I concluded that your claim was false and explained why. You then agreed with my explanation. What is absurd about that?

Irrationally questioning someone's ability isn't something that is necessary in a regular conversation. "Scolding", "blundering", etc. are a series of word choices with a negative implication that you chose to prove your point.

Again, no. You made a claim, I said it was false, then you agreed with me. I don't know why you're trying to read more into it than there is. That is another sign of emotional investment, btw.

You didn't though.
I told you I feel like I got trolled. You continue to inform me what I feel and what I actually meant, but you cannot accept my own plain explanation. This is not rational behavior, and it's certainly not a good-faith conversation. Twisting the other person's words into gotchas and inaccurately framing the history of the same conversation over and over ("You made a claim, I said it was false, then you agreed") is not a good-faith conversation.

Trying to convince me that I actually agreed with you and disagreed with myself is weird, and rather gas-lighty.

As a fan of psychology-across-the-internet, I'm sure you know what that kind of domineering behavior implies about your mental maturity and what it implies about every post you've made in this thread so far.

They should get a new family background, then.

Or get married.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
36,718
2,555
1,520
Best Coast
You continue to inform me what I feel
I'm not telling you what you feel at all. I'm just telling you what happened.

Trying to convince me that I actually agreed with you and disagreed with myself is weird, and rather gas-lighty.
Oh? So what was this, then?

Tying yourself into knots trying to tell me I can't conclude that welfare is not a major contributing factor is pointless. I've already come to that conclusion.
As a fan of psychology-across-the-internet, I'm sure you know what that kind of domineering behavior implies about your mental maturity and what it implies about every post you've made in this thread so far.
Yeah, you're overthinking this just a tad. Keep in mind that I did ask questions about your conclusions that you still have not answered. That could be considered me trying to have a conversation while you aren't.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
12,072
21,564
1,185
USA
dunpachi.com
I'm not telling you what you feel at all. I'm just telling you what happened.
You aren't an objective observer, but it's obvious that you consider yourself one. Interesting. I guess this shines even more light on our conversation thus far.

Oh? So what was this, then?

Tying yourself into knots trying to tell me I can't conclude that welfare is not a major contributing factor is pointless. I've already come to that conclusion.
You misunderstood what I said. While I have tried to point this out to you several times, you ignored me. You seemed more interested in fighting over semantics.

I should've written the sentence better because I can see why it caused confusion.

I concluded (and still conclude) welfare was not a major contributing factor to the success of these black men. Tying yourself into knots trying to tell me I cannot conclude that is pointless. I've already concluded it. You could convince me out of my conclusion by providing evidence that welfare is a major contributing factor -- heck, I won't even play the game of demanding that you prove it was these black men in particular who were helped by welfare to move the goalposts -- but you have not made any effort to do so. I am happy to learn, though.

Concerning the evidence that led me to this conclusion, I have repeated it several times already. Marriage, education, and work, all three of which operate on a sliding scale that is opposite to the USA's welfare provisions. Our laws are written in such a way that a measure of success in these three areas correlates to a comparable reduction (and even elimination) of any welfare entitlements associated with those statuses.

Yeah, you're overthinking this just a tad. Keep in mind that I did ask questions about your conclusions that you still have not answered. That could be considered me trying to have a conversation while you aren't.
You keep claiming that you are trying to have a conversation all along in spite of your behavior indicating the opposite, which seems like a really emotional reaction from you.

(just kidding. I hope you're just chilling out and not feeling any emotional distress at all. You don't mind me taking your conversation technique for a spin, do you?)

You asked for research indicating otherwise. I guess since you'd rather continue ignoring my advice to go digging, I'll do it for you:






How does a person who can't find a partner get married (bar the countries with arranged marriages)?
I dunno. I'm not a matchmaker or a dating expert.

Getting married appears to correlate strongly with financial stability, there's no question about it. It doesn't mean it's a silver bullet for every individual (we are talking about statistics and trends, after all), but it seems like a piece of valuable information if the goal is to help black men climb out of poverty into the middle class.

I guess my answer is "eliminate the factors within your control that reduce your chance of getting married and increase the factors within your control to increase your chance of getting married". Identifying those factors is another thing entirely, but we are not lacking for information there, either,
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
12,072
21,564
1,185
USA
dunpachi.com
I"m not challenging it.



Correlation: 0.855447
We use correlative tests to determine all kinds of things, like this:



Are you arguing against the use of correlation itself or simply for this particular study? I'm not CNN, so you'd have to examine why their methods showing the link between black men, marriage, and middle-class status was insufficient.

I didn't see anything off with the conclusion since we have plenty of correlating (there's that word again) evidence to show that a stable marriage plays a role in economic status compared to single, divorced, and mixed-family situations.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
36,718
2,555
1,520
Best Coast
You aren't an objective observer, but it's obvious that you consider yourself one. Interesting. I guess this shines even more light on our conversation thus far.
Interesting indeed. For someone who decries what you think is my psychoanalysis of you, you sure do partake a lot yourself.

You misunderstood what I said.
Did I really?

While I have tried to point this out to you several times, you ignored me.
I didn't ignore you. I told you that you're wrong.

You seemed more interested in fighting over semantics.
Sounds like projection, but I'll lay off the psychoanalysis.

I should've written the sentence better because I can see why it caused confusion.
Confusion in you, perhaps.

I concluded (and still conclude) welfare was not a major contributing factor to the success of these black men.
Correction: you claimed the article concluded that welfare was not a major contributing factor.


Tying yourself into knots trying to tell me I cannot conclude that is pointless.
I can totally do that. Because I'm saying that there is no evidence to support your claim because the article doesn't talk about that at all.
I've already concluded it.
Of course you have. And you're wrong.

ou could convince me out of my conclusion by providing evidence that welfare is a major contributing factor
Nooo, that's not how this works. I'm not making a claim that welfare was a major contributing factor. In fact, my personal opinion is that it isn't. But that doesn't matter.

Read what I said again:

I'm not arguing that it did though.
I'm saying that both conclusions - "welfare was definitely a contributing factor" or "welfare was definitely not a contributing factor" are conclusions that are not supported by the article.

Here's how claims work: You made a claim that the article says that welfare was not a contributing factor. Did it? No. The article doesn't mention welfare at all.

Here's what happened: The article points out 4 things that are associated (key word) with the rising success of black men: education, work, marriage, and military service.

Tracking black men from young adulthood through their 50s using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979, we identified three factors that are associated with their success: education, work, and marriage.

Adding to the chances of black men achieving middle class and higher status is the US military. We found that serving in the military was associated with a 72% increase in the odds that black men made it into the middle class or higher as 50-something men.
Here's what you did: Assume without nuance that there is a completely inverse relationship between those factors and welfare, and then conclude yourself that the article somehow indicates that it is not responsible for this positive news. This is your conclusion, not the article's conclusion. The article listed correlations, and you dove right into the correlation/causation logical fallacy. Especially with marriage. There is nothing in the article that states that those positive indicators have anything to do with welfare. This is entirely your opinion.

Furthermore, there is an additional flaw in your reasoning there, but we can cross that bridge later after we pass this one.

You keep claiming that you are trying to have a conversation all along in spite of your behavior indicating the opposite
Asking relevant questions is trying to have a conversation. That is behavior in line with having a conversation.

You asked for research indicating otherwise.
lmao no I didn't. You asked yourself that :messenger_tears_of_joy:
 

merlinevo

Member
Apr 28, 2019
238
447
255
We use correlative tests to determine all kinds of things, like this:



Are you arguing against the use of correlation itself or simply for this particular study? I'm not CNN, so you'd have to examine why their methods showing the link between black men, marriage, and middle-class status was insufficient.

I didn't see anything off with the conclusion since we have plenty of correlating (there's that word again) evidence to show that a stable marriage plays a role in economic status compared to single, divorced, and mixed-family situations.
It doesn't take lengthy studies or peer review to know that, even on its face value, the act of marriage should increase financial stability. When two people are combining incomes and sharing the burden, it is logical for any financial constraint issues to be alleviated. You don't need a genius to tell you that.

He's probably into the whole idea of strong independent single woman who have children in their 40's.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
36,718
2,555
1,520
Best Coast
I didn't see anything off with the conclusion since we have plenty of correlating (there's that word again) evidence to show that a stable marriage plays a role in economic status compared to single, divorced, and mixed-family situations.
This is why you're committing the fallacy again. You're assuming that marriage incentivizes people becoming middle class. There's only a link, nothing more. Why wouldn't you just as easily say that being middle class incentivizes people to get married?
 

llien

Gold Member
Feb 1, 2017
5,396
2,503
680
So is CNN not fake news anymore?
Depends on news.
As with fox, if they report something not in favour of Dems (repsectively Reps) it's probably not fake news.

We use correlative tests to determine all kinds of things, like this:
Indeed.

Are you arguing against the use of correlation itself or simply for this particular study?
Correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation is universal, it doesn't matter what you apply it too.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: #Phonepunk#

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
12,072
21,564
1,185
USA
dunpachi.com
Interesting indeed. For someone who decries what you think is my psychoanalysis of you, you sure do partake a lot yourself.

Did I really?

I didn't ignore you. I told you that you're wrong.

Sounds like projection, but I'll lay off the psychoanalysis.

Confusion in you, perhaps.

Correction: you claimed the article concluded that welfare was not a major contributing factor.


I can totally do that. Because I'm saying that there is no evidence to support your claim because the article doesn't talk about that at all.

Of course you have. And you're wrong.

Nooo, that's not how this works. I'm not making a claim that welfare was a major contributing factor. In fact, my personal opinion is that it isn't. But that doesn't matter.

Read what I said again:

Here's how claims work: You made a claim that the article says that welfare was not a contributing factor. Did it? No. The article doesn't mention welfare at all.

Here's what happened: The article points out 4 things that are associated (key word) with the rising success of black men: education, work, marriage, and military service.

Here's what you did: Assume without nuance that there is a completely inverse relationship between those factors and welfare, and then conclude yourself that the article somehow indicates that it is not responsible for this positive news. This is your conclusion, not the article's conclusion. The article listed correlations, and you dove right into the correlation/causation logical fallacy. Especially with marriage. There is nothing in the article that states that those positive indicators have anything to do with welfare. This is entirely your opinion.

Furthermore, there is an additional flaw in your reasoning there, but we can cross that bridge later after we pass this one.

Asking relevant questions is trying to have a conversation. That is behavior in line with having a conversation.

lmao no I didn't. You asked yourself that :messenger_tears_of_joy:
Boring wall of text full of empty characterizations of my post. Like I said earlier, spiderman_pointing.jpg. This isn't a conversation. You are (unsuccessfully) trying to impose your view on the situation and I am merely one faceless person getting in your way. If you could respond to what I am saying instead of "No I didn't" and "no, this is what you did", maybe we could have a fruitful conversation on the topic.

This is why you're committing the fallacy again. You're assuming that marriage incentivizes people becoming middle class.
Am I?

There's only a link, nothing more. Why wouldn't you just as easily say that being middle class incentivizes people to get married?
It bothers you that I come to this conclusion, doesn't it? Your behavior sure seems emotional.

Depends on news.
As with fox, if they report something not in favour of Dems (repsectively Reps) it's probably not fake news.

Indeed.

Correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation is universal, it doesn't matter what you apply it too.

What is the purpose of poisoning the well against statistical methods while at the same time snarking about how CNN must be true because it's reporting something not in favor of Dems? This is your thread.

You said at the beginning: CNN also found out that married black men, are more likely to be part of middle+ class, but I"m afraid they are mistaking cause and outcome here.

However, that's where you ended it. Can you demonstrate why CNN is mistaking cause and outcome here? Seems like a clear connection to me.

I am already convinced that correlation can be used to falsely imply causation. You don't need to post yet another chart demonstrating that. What would be more valuable would be proving that CNN is mistaking cause and outcome here.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
36,718
2,555
1,520
Best Coast
Boring wall of text full of empty characterizations of my post. Like I said earlier, spiderman_pointing.jpg. This isn't a conversation. You are (unsuccessfully) trying to impose your view on the situation and I am merely one faceless person getting in your way. If you could respond to what I am saying instead of "No I didn't" and "no, this is what you did", maybe we could have a fruitful conversation on the topic.
Boring, eh? That's an easy way to admit you're wrong.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
12,072
21,564
1,185
USA
dunpachi.com
Boring, eh? That's an easy way to admit you're wrong.
Claim that's an easy way to admit you're wrong? That's an easy way to admit you're wrong.

spiderman_pointing.jpg yet again.

Wow! You do read my posts. Read the part again where you misunderstood what I said, then you ranted for several posts based on that misunderstanding, and then continued to doubled down when you said:

I can totally do that. Because I'm saying that there is no evidence to support your claim because the article doesn't talk about that at all.
Guess we're back at the beginning of the circle! Which one comes next: accusation of committing an unnamed fallacy, accusation that I have no evidence to support my claims, accusation of being defensive, or a completely empty question like "Does it?".

I can't wait to continue this "conversation" with you.
 

llien

Gold Member
Feb 1, 2017
5,396
2,503
680
What is the purpose of poisoning the well against statistical methods while at the same time snarking about how CNN must be true because it's reporting something not in favor of Dems? This is your thread.
Stats tell you WHAT happened.
E.g. X% of shot are black.
Y% of black americans are poor.

You said at the beginning: CNN also found out that married black men, are more likely to be part of middle+ class, but I"m afraid they are mistaking cause and outcome here.

However, that's where you ended it. Can you demonstrate why CNN is mistaking cause and outcome here? Seems like a clear connection to me.
The stats show correlation between marriage and being part of middle+ class.
They don't show what is causing what. (a fact)
We simply don't know what is causing what.
I SUSPECT there is a reverse dependency, and the reason I do is, because of results like "poor men twice as likely to be lonely".
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
36,718
2,555
1,520
Best Coast
Claim that's an easy way to admit you're wrong? That's an easy way to admit you're wrong.

spiderman_pointing.jpg yet again.
You sure like using that Spiderman pic even though you're the only one making unsubstantiated claims.

Wow! You do read my posts. Read the part again where you misunderstood what I said, then you ranted for several posts based on that misunderstanding, and then continued to doubled down when you said:

Guess we're back at the beginning of the circle! Which one comes next: accusation of committing an unnamed fallacy, accusation that I have no evidence to support my claims, accusation of being defensive, or a completely empty question like "Does it?".

I can't wait to continue this "conversation" with you.
Not really. You're not following. Let me try this again in a more simple manner.

You said:

You're right, we do have people in the thread claiming that the welfare system is responsible for the positive news, even though the article and other research indicates otherwise.
The article in the OP and the subsequent statistics and research-papers linked so far indicate that's the case.
So, if the article indicates that welfare is not responsible for the positive news, the article should say so very clearly. Please quote the part of the article where it makes that case. And no, citing those correlated positive trends like education, employment, marriage, or military service doesn't indicate causation, nor does the article make any case that welfare influences those factors either negatively or positively.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
12,072
21,564
1,185
USA
dunpachi.com
Stats tell you WHAT happened.
E.g. X% of shot are black.
Y% of black americans are poor.

The stats show correlation between marriage and being part of middle+ class.
They don't show what is causing what. (a fact)
We simply don't know what is causing what.
I SUSPECT there is a reverse dependency, and the reason I do is, because of results like "poor men twice as likely to be lonely".
If we could not draw insight from the study as to which behaviors contribute to the outcome, there would be no purpose in conducting the study, publishing the story, or discussing it.

Meeting the scientific stricture for "causation" on one particular point -- or failing to -- does not validate or invalidate an assertion. This is why If you are doubting the benefit of marriage in the article that you posted, then the same doubt must be applied to the correlation of work, education, and military service to the outcomes listed in the article.

However, instead of doing so, you put down on marriage in particular -- without qualifying why -- and fail to apply your same standard to the other factors listed in your article.

You said you wanted to avoid a fight breaking out in the thread, and you stated that you didn't think the article was controversial. Yet, in the same post, you take issue with one particular facet of what the article concludes and then you offer nothing else. When I disagree with this out-of-hand assumption made by the OP (you), you take the path of dismantling the efficacy of correlative studies.

I am confused.

You sure like using that Spiderman pic even though you're the only one making unsubstantiated claims.

Not really. You're not following. Let me try this again in a more simple manner.

You said:

So, if the article indicates that welfare is not responsible for the positive news, the article should say so very clearly. Please quote the part of the article where it makes that case. And no, citing those correlated positive trends like education, employment, marriage, or military service doesn't indicate causation, nor does the article make any case that welfare influences those factors either negatively or positively.
Running in circles it is. Here is the post where I already answered the question of how the article indicates welfare is not responsible for the positive news:


You don't know what "indicate" means, apparently:

in·di·cate
/ˈindəˌkāt/
verb
1.
point out; show.
2.
suggest as a desirable or necessary course of action.

The purpose of the article -- literally, the whole purpose, top to bottom -- is to indicate which behaviors are linked to black men entering the middle class at an increasing rate.

You misunderstood my sentence when I explained I've already come to a conclusion, assuming that I meant the complete opposite of what I actually said.

You misunderstood when I used the word "indicate", or you didn't know what it meant. I assume the former, but I included the meaning above in case it was the latter.

I'm going out on a limb and guessing that you also have a misunderstanding as to what I mean when I said "I conclude". Various times, you seem to confuse the statement "I conclude" with "the article concludes". I said:

I am going based on what the article says and drawing my own conclusions. I have stated my reasons for drawing those conclusions and I have linked my evidence

This is the opposite of claiming "the article concludes". I am admitting openly that I drew my own conclusions from the evidence in the article. Your ongoing requests for me to show how welfare was "definitely" not a factor and how the article "concludes" something is a sign that you have not read my posts and you have continued to lack understanding of the words I've typed.

A person concluding something means they've thought about a topic and reached a determination in their head.

If my conclusion was wrong, just point out how marriage is not a factor in black men entering the middle class like the article states. Trying to tear down how I came to my conclusion is not a conversation.
 

llien

Gold Member
Feb 1, 2017
5,396
2,503
680
@DunDunDunpachi
I wanted to avoid traditional dem supporters vs rep supporters.
When describing the article I've pointed out something, which in my humble opinion, data doesn't show: whether marriage is a cause or result.

So let me cite it verbatim (and anyone conclude whatever he/she pleases :)) the relevant (and minor) point from the article (bolded part is quite important, but I have overlooked it):

Black men who worked full-time, had some college education, or were married were much more likely to be members of the middle or upper class by the time they got to their 50s. We found, for instance, that the odds that black men make it to the middle or upper class are at least three times higher for those men who marry, compared to their peers who never married. Their financial well-being is higher partly because married black women contribute a higher share of income to the household than other married women.
 

ssolitare

Manbaby: The Member
Jan 12, 2009
17,012
1,943
1,180
@DunDunDunpachi
I wanted to avoid traditional dem supporters vs rep supporters.
When describing the article I've pointed out something, which in my humble opinion, data doesn't show: whether marriage is a cause or result.

So let me cite it verbatim (and anyone conclude whatever he/she pleases :)) the relevant (and minor) point from the article (bolded part is quite important, but I have overlooked it):

Black men who worked full-time, had some college education, or were married were much more likely to be members of the middle or upper class by the time they got to their 50s. We found, for instance, that the odds that black men make it to the middle or upper class are at least three times higher for those men who marry, compared to their peers who never married. Their financial well-being is higher partly because married black women contribute a higher share of income to the household than other married women.
It's basic logic that two incomes are more powerful than one especially if you don't have kids. It doesn't even matter if black women contribute a higher share (not median) than woman of other races towards the household.

This article is more about reducing stereotypes, than giving you a line-item outlook on what contibutes to black men making the middle class.
 
  • Like
Reactions: llien

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
12,072
21,564
1,185
USA
dunpachi.com
@DunDunDunpachi
I wanted to avoid traditional dem supporters vs rep supporters.
When describing the article I've pointed out something, which in my humble opinion, data doesn't show: whether marriage is a cause or result.

So let me cite it verbatim (and anyone conclude whatever he/she pleases :)) the relevant (and minor) point from the article (bolded part is quite important, but I have overlooked it):

Black men who worked full-time, had some college education, or were married were much more likely to be members of the middle or upper class by the time they got to their 50s. We found, for instance, that the odds that black men make it to the middle or upper class are at least three times higher for those men who marry, compared to their peers who never married. Their financial well-being is higher partly because married black women contribute a higher share of income to the household than other married women.
Marrying into a demographic that has higher-than-average income, followed by your own demographic improving its income average seems like a causal connection to me. It's not like we don't know where the increase in money came from.

Soooooo, bootstraps?
No, rich black women.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
36,718
2,555
1,520
Best Coast
Me: Please quote the part of the article where it makes that case.

You: Doesn't quote the part of the article where it makes that case.

Running in circles it is. Here is the post where I already answered the question of how the article indicates welfare is not responsible for the positive news:
Hey remember where I said that that post doesn't count because correlation doesn't prove causation, and you have additionally not proven even a causal link among those indicators that positively or negatively influences welfare, either? Also remember where the article doesn't indicate any of that either?

You don't know what "indicate" means, apparently:
And you don't know what "burden of proof" is, apparently.

Quoting the dictionary (lol) isn't going to help you find that burden of proof either. Yes, the article "indicates" what factors are linked to progress for black men. No, it does not "indicate" that this has anything to do with welfare or the lack thereof due to my previously stated reasons.

You misunderstood my sentence when I explained I've already come to a conclusion, assuming that I meant the complete opposite of what I actually said.

You misunderstood when I used the word "indicate", or you didn't know what it meant. I assume the former, but I included the meaning above in case it was the latter.

I'm going out on a limb and guessing that you also have a misunderstanding as to what I mean when I said "I conclude". Various times, you seem to confuse the statement "I conclude" with "the article concludes". I said:

I am going based on what the article says and drawing my own conclusions. I have stated my reasons for drawing those conclusions and I have linked my evidence
This is the opposite of claiming "the article concludes". I am admitting openly that I drew my own conclusions from the evidence in the article. Your ongoing requests for me to show how welfare was "definitely" not a factor and how the article "concludes" something is a sign that you have not read my posts and you have continued to lack understanding of the words I've typed.
And this is called "moving the goalposts" :messenger_tears_of_joy:

I already said that of course it's your conclusion and not the article's conclusion. But that's not the point I was asking you about. I was asking you about this one. This is the goalpost:


You tell me. The article in the OP and the subsequent statistics and research-papers linked so far indicate that's the case.
You're right, we do have people in the thread claiming that the welfare system is responsible for the positive news, even though the article and other research indicates otherwise. I would hardy call that "weaponized" though.
Saying that you believe these positive factors is related to welfare somehow is totally fine. Saying that this is something the article indicates is completely false.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
12,072
21,564
1,185
USA
dunpachi.com
Me: Please quote the part of the article where it makes that case.

You: Doesn't quote the part of the article where it makes that case.
I've done it several times. The only thing I failed to do is show where it says "definitely" or where the article "concludes", but this has already been explained to you. You merely have to scroll up to where I answered this question.

Propping this up as a gotcha when it isn't is silly. I know it's not the case. You know it's not the case. What's the point of trying to play the gotcha game with something so obvious?

For the nth time, please go back and read my posts to clear up your own misunderstandings.You aren't going to convince me that your incorrect interpretations of my statements is actually what I meant. The notion is absurd and I'll repeat myself: you seem like you're trying to salvage your image by gaslighting me in the process. I do not appreciate that, but that is your choice if you wish to have a "conversation" in this way. I am stuck at work anyway and I don't mind correcting someone when they misunderstand what I say.

Hey remember where I said that that post doesn't count because correlation doesn't prove causation, and you have additionally not proven even a causal link among those indicators that positively or negatively influences welfare, either? Also remember where the article doesn't indicate any of that either?

And you don't know what "burden of proof" is, apparently.

Quoting the dictionary (lol) isn't going to help you find that burden of proof either. Yes, the article "indicates" what factors are linked to progress for black men. No, it does not "indicate" that this has anything to do with welfare or the lack thereof due to my previously stated reasons.

And this is called "moving the goalposts" :messenger_tears_of_joy:
It is dishonest to insist that your interpretation of my words is correct and I have somehow misunderstood my own position. Remove all the times when you assume my meaning, assume what is going on in my head, assume what I do or don't know about and you will have said almost nothing in this conversation.

I take the time to explain myself to you and then it gets me labelled as "moving the goalposts". Incorrect. You misunderstood what I said and keep insisting that your understanding was correct. This is the behavior of a narcissist and a coward. It's also rather emotional, because it's not very difficult to admit that you misunderstood something (or three things) and then to move on to the meat of the conversation.

Insisting that you didn't misunderstand shows that you lack the faculties to debate. Your wikipedia list of expensive words sounds nice, but underneath you have no ability to have a conversation. I wonder if you even consider me a human being, or if your blood is boiling while you read this and type up an answer.

Make sure to litter your response with "lol" and emojis. It will present an illusion to the imaginary audience that you envision watching us talk that you are in control of the situation.

I already said that of course it's your conclusion and not the article's conclusion. But that's not the point I was asking you about. I was asking you about this one. This is the goalpost:

Saying that you believe these positive factors is related to welfare somehow is totally fine. Saying that this is something the article indicates is completely false.
Then you do not actually know what "indicates" means. I just explained this to you: when I say an article indicates something, I meant that it indicates something. It's disturbing that I can actually include a dictionary quote, you laugh at it, yet then you proceed to misunderstand the word I used again.

I can't wait for the next phase of the discard. Will you disparage my ability to read, my emotional status, or will "completely false" be used another dozen times to prove nothing at all?