Reply With Quote
1996: white kid (me) doesn't get picked for basketball at the Longs Creek basketball court and incidentally was the only white guy there. The picked the effin middle school kid over me. wtf.
THAT is the best comeback I've read in a long while lol. Props spursncowboys!
Oh and as for blacks being more racist, it really does depend on who you talk to. My parents are so open and tolerant it's ridiculous. My girlfriend (who's white) and I have never heard word one about racism from my folks. A couple of my uncle's, however, utter more racial slurs (not just the "n" word, either) in 15 minutes of conversation than I'll even think about in 2 years. Everyone's parents have different, yet closely held personal beliefs about race relations, and those beliefs, more often than not, filter down to the children in varying strains, regardless of race.
1996: white kid (me) doesn't get picked for basketball at the Longs Creek basketball court and incidentally was the only white guy there. The picked the effin middle school kid over me. wtf.
man up and play well so someone will pick you the next time..stop being a pussy
Ouch. I woulda picked you up, man--I love having non-blacks on my team, cuz the other brothas ALWAYS underestimate them and either get burned all game, or overcompensate on defense and give me TONS of room to operate (which I need since I can't jump lol--so much for that extra calf muscle helping my ups bull lol)
they never saw me play. when ppl see my game they pick me.
If you've been in Utah, you could be a pro right now...
or upper west side of manhattan
Tbh I was being sarcastic but it was still technically illegal for a black man to vote in Oregon until 1959, even though they had been doing so for decades.
uhhhhh....YEAH!
"In 1870, Oregon was one of many states that refused to ratify the fifteenth amendment, which granted equal voting rights to African-American men. The amendment was not ratified in Oregon until 1959."
http://www.salemhistory.net/people/a..._americans.htm
Last edited by Veterinarian; 07-05-2010 at 11:02 PM.
You can't pray in public?
Where do you live?
Now, now.....white man can't pray in public and never gets chosen to play basketball with the other reindeer...white man's plight...
Obvious factors being wealth passed down from older generations. I know a good deal of millionaires are "self-made" but not all of them. Heck, how many politicians sitting in Congress RIGHT NOW are sons or daughters of former representatives? Now multiply that out by every state and local law-making body.
Wealth is not necessary for educational opportunities, of course, but it sure does help. Check out the studies; children from wealthy homes tend to do much better on educational testing.
I seriously doubt the difference was the money in dad's bank account. Dare I say it might have had something to do with better parenting in general from responsible adults?
Of course not. But it is a factor. No more, no less.
Really CC? You're going to play this card? So being rich = responsible, is that what I'm hearing?
I seriously doubt the difference was the money in dad's bank account. Dare I say it might have had something to do with better parenting in general from responsible adults?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lif...cle3042864.ece
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~froomkin/texts/173.htmlThey say that the brightest children born into the poorest families in 2000 are, by now, being overtaken in test scores by the least academic children from rich backgrounds. And whereas almost half of 23-year-olds from the wealthiest households had acquired a degree in 2002 only 10 per cent of those with the poorest parents did so.
Statewide and countywide, one of the best predictors of test
scores remains socioeconomic status -- and Willard and La Paz are
two examples.
http://www.northjersey.com/news/0209...ard_shows.html
Note, this is a whole richer REGION showing higher scores on average, not just picking out the individual "responsible" families.North Jersey students in affluent suburban high schools consistently had dramatically higher SAT scores on average than those in poor urban areas, the New Jersey School Report Card released Tuesday shows.
There's more evidence if you're willing to look. Heck, even WC gave me this point without contention. Wealthier families tend to lead to more educated and more intelligent children. A great majority of studies back this up.
I agree. The question is WHY? It has to be environmental factors. The parents are clearly a big part of that.Wealthier families tend to lead to more educated and more intelligent children. A great majority of studies back this up.
So, in other words, unless you were actually part of the post yourself, you're disbelieving it. Hey, if you want to be a skeptic, go ahead. But you could apply the same logic to... oh I don't know, pretty much EVERY STATISTIC THAT EVER EXISTED.
It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the greater funding available for the schools that affluent children attend -- whether public or private -- or the higher quality of the teachers and programs that greater funding brings. Or the funds available to the affluent parents to hire tutors or enroll their children in extra-curricular educational programs meant to enhance the advantages of such increased funding on a gross level. Or the availability of the affluent parents to support their children in their educational pursuits instead of having to be away from home working a 2nd or 3rd job to pay the bills.
Well, we're makign progress. Originally, you said
Now you're willing to admit that environmental factors play a role. I can assume that you're including wealth as an environmental factor.I seriously doubt the difference was the money in dad's bank account.
So, to get this straight, you're saying that wealthy parents = responsible parents, for the most part? That would be the only way to explain the widespread prevalence without using wealth as a primary factor.
And, just to make sure I'm reading you right, you're discounting the fact that higher wealth can lead to increased opportunities for better schools/teachers/tutors?
You're also pretty much willing to throw out Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, I'm assuming?
I'm sure lots of rich families have good parents. But do a STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT amount of rich families have "good parents" more than poor families? I highly doubt it.
I would say that none of it has to do with school funding. For a very long time now, Oregon started funding schools equally by student counts. Not by the community tax base. Throwing more money at schools, if anything, has made things worse. It starts with the kids being willing to learn, and absorbing the information. Kids that don't have motivation them simply don't do well. Motivation has more to do with culture and family than money.
Can you say I'm wrong about the motivation part?
Can you tell me that many families who have poor performing children, are not guilty of telling these children that the whites will not let them move up, or continuing race issues withing them?
I think you misread him. He's saying the ability of a family to choose which schools they go to (ie. private) moreso than money thrown at schools.
Do you think that the children of rich parents have more motivation than children of non-rich parents?
The simple fact is that wealth seems to be a primary factor in determining whether a child will do well or not, on average. (Of course there are exceptions, but it's hard to test statistically for "motivation")
Who brought up anything about race WC?
Tell me WC, if it's all about motivation and bad parenting, why do wealthy children do better in schools? Are rich parents more responsible? Are they better at raising thier children than non-rich parents?
It has to do with instilling things like motivation and initiative in kids. Look at the statistics. It has more to do with the stability and outlook of the family than it does school funding. A middle class or rich family with both parents around simply show a better teaching by example than a single mother raising kids on the government dole.
I think everybody is right.
Woah woah woah, hold it right there. You don't get to shoehorn middle class in there. RICH children do better than both poor AND middle class children. And you don't get to throw "both parents around" in there either. That's a different factor, and doesn't play into this discussion. We're discussing wealth. Speaking of, wealth certainly increases the stability and outlook of families, doesn't it?
Again, we're not talking about school funding. We're talking about how much the FAMILY of the child makes. Let's not confuse the issues.
If you think that rich parents, on average, instill better values in their children than middle-class and poor parents, then at least own it. You willing to own up to that statement?
Note: For the purposes of this discussion, we're not talking about the super rich, sons of millionaires kid. Most studies seem to consider "rich" as making roughly $80,000 to $100,000 a year or more.
Didn't people learn to read, write, and calculate before calculators, PC's, and the Internet?
Wasn't there a time when all of this could was learned in a one-room schoolhouse, with nothing but a desk, chalk, and blackboard?
Man, we act like every freakin kid needs a laptop these days. When I was in elementary, a calculator was a very exotic piece of technology and I didn't see an a PC in a classroom until my senior year of high school (Apple IIc).
At some point, kids need to do their homework and parents need to make sure they do it.
I did trig, analyt, and calculus in high school/college without a calculator.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
